$100 Bill, Y’All

“Buzz, take off your helmet and let me see that big smile of yours!”

 

The third week of July 1969 remains one of the most significant in the history of the United States, with implications that continue to resonate decades later. It was then that a band of indefatigable young men, working for a government agency in deepest secrecy, without a reference manual and under strict orders from the President, took a bold step. A giant leap, if you will. The group’s work culminated in the passing of an iconic image of the United States into popular culture, an image today recognized around the world and forever identified with our nation’s dominance.

Conspiracy theories abounded at the time, as they continue to today. The belief goes that whatever the public was told was fiction, and that the truth lies hidden, with only the Illuminati privy to the details.

We’re talking, of course, about the daring and audacious decision to make the $100 bill the largest in circulation, by discontinuing the $500, $1,000, $5,000, and $10,000 bills. At the time, it was the biggest news story in the country. Understandably, it got pushed to the back page a few days later.

Is it practical that no bill larger than a Benjamin exists today? That you can’t pay cash for a $95 blender (including sales tax) without suffering the inconvenience of having to use two bills? Granted, the sarcasm runs deep and hard in that question, but having a small largest bill does make big transactions cumbersome. A bill is .0043” thick, so buying a $30,000 car with $100s instead of $500s means carrying a stack 2.58” thick in your wallet (assuming you fold the bills over), rather than .52”.

When the Treasury removed the $500+ bills from circulation, the Consumer Price Index was 36.8. (August 1983 is the baseline.) Today the CPI is 226.955, indicating not just inflation but a modern propensity to measure quantities to far too many decimal places. Bottom line, $100 then is worth $617 today.

Our parents (wait, that’s now two full generations. Our grandparents) could pay for what is today a $3,085 item with a single bill. Or a $61,700 item, for that matter.  Think about that. They actually minted a bill large enough to have bought the equivalent of a median priced condo in 2011 Las Vegas (the nation’s most battered housing market) and still include a 17% tip for the realtor.

Or you can look at it from the other angle. Imagine going up to Abbie Hoffman at Woodstock and telling him that 43 years in the future, the largest available bill will be the equivalent of a $16 bill today. He’d call you crazy, then tell you to get off that whole poisonous commerce trip, man.

The argument for retiring the large bills, a part of which might even be legitimate, is that credit cards made $500+ bills unnecessary. Never mind that there’s been a €500 note since the euro was invented 9 years ago, or that Canadian $1000 bills exist.* The Treasury cites money laundering, drug sales and tax evasion as its reasons for keeping $500+ bills far away from your and my grubby hands. If you’re ever at the Port of Miami, look for the guys wearing painter’s coveralls on 88º days. Those are your coke mules, who’d be looking less conspicuous in Cuban skinny jeans if only our Treasury produced larger bills.

So there’s a perceived positive correlation between two quantities – denomination size and drug availability. But no one perceives the correlation to be so positive that we could reduce drug use even more by eliminating the $50s and the $100s. Presumably, the United States is at an acceptable level of cocaine consumption under the current system.

The Treasury Department puts it authoritatively, as they do most of their pronouncements, leaving nothing open to question:

The purpose of the United States currency system is to serve the needs of the public and (today’s existing) denominations meet that goal. Neither the Department of the Treasury nor the Federal Reserve System has any plans to change the denominations in use today.

Among other things, that means Bill Simmons will have to wait a little longer to use a $24 bill with Danny Biasone’s face on it. No one seems to crave large denominations that badly, perhaps for fear of being suspected a drug dealer. Or maybe the cost of adding another compartment to every cash drawer in the nation would drag the economy to a halt.

It’s Standard Blog Operating Procedure to end each post with a question. We avoid that at Control Your Cash, but to do so this time seems organic. So, have you ever thought transactions would be more convenient if you could pay with (and receive) $500 bills? Or are we just crazy?

*Actually, it turns out they yanked them in 2000. Same rationale as the one for getting rid of the U.S.’s big denominations.

This article is featured in:

**Festival of Frugality #319: It’s Cold Outside Edition**

Our Financial Uproar Stock Picks

See cube, eat cube

 

One of the few personal finance bloggers who remains on speaking terms with us is Nelson Smith at Financial Uproar, who’s hosting a stock-picking contest. We were told to submit 4 stocks by December 30. We’ll regroup 359 days from now, assuming we can stave off nuclear war with Iran, and see who gained the most.

We had to pick stocks, as opposed to other investments, otherwise we’d have loaded up on “Mitt Romney will be elected” futures at InTrade. They currently pay 8-to-5.

Of course, entering a stock-picking contest is different than investing. As any poker player knows, the game changes drastically when there’s real money on the line. So knowing that finishing dead last will hurt nothing more than our egos, we were fairly aggressive. With a couple of caveats:

1. We’re not going to win this thing. 

Seriously, we won’t. Not that we don’t believe in ourselves, but intelligence and discretion will only take us so far here. Luck is a huge variable, both as a noun and an adjective. Again, if we could buy futures as part of this contest, we’d look long and hard at buying one called “The winner will have chosen 4 penny mining stocks on the TSX Venture Exchange”. 

But that depends on how many entrants Nelson gets. (12, including himself.) The more entrants, the greater the chance of luck being the biggest determining factor (and rendering our research worthless.) If the objective is to make money, then you don’t have to win this contest to win, if you catch our drift.

2. We’re not looking for long-term investments. We’re not even necessarily looking for stocks that we think will instantly skyrocket. The window is specific: 1 year. A stock whose acceleration will top out in 2 months, or 24 months, won’t do us much good. Heck, if we can get a 25% return out of this contest, we’ll consider ourselves winners. Nelson probably won’t, but we will.

That’s enough qualifying, don’t you think? On with our picks. Our strategy is the same as it is in our real lives: look for temporarily wounded value. A stock with good fundamentals but bad (in the short run) publicity is ideal. A low price-earnings ratio, and either negative or non-existent headlines.

NETFLIX

This fits our criteria almost perfectly. The company took a public relations hit this past summer when it told customers they were going to have to suffer through the barbaric ordeal of having to hold separate accounts for renting DVDs and for streaming videos online. Customers swore they’d never return, and a movement took hold.

We don’t patronize Netflix, never have and never will, but couldn’t understand why customers decried a company that seems to offer selection, speed, and value.

The stock traded at $304.79 in July and is now at $79.30. Cash flow is positive, and profit increases by 50% or so annually. That can’t last forever, but all the indicators are good. Netflix is one of those companies that does better the less it charges. In its early days, memberships cost 4 times what they do today. A company that succeeds on both high markups and low markups will get our attention every time, especially when it’s the undisputed market leader.

FORD

A strikingly low price/earnings ratio, barely over 6. A stock price at an 18-month nadir. And an implicit guarantee that the taxpayers will be there with billions to prop up the company if necessary. Which it won’t be, but investors like to keep these things in mind.

The industry itself is as close to a staple as we have in this society. Ford’s competitors remain in even worse shape than it.

Ford’s worst days are behind it. Yes, its liabilities are greater than its assets, but the numbers are going in the right direction. And the company is profitable. There’s no way we’d invest in Ford until its financials improve a little more, but to enter a stock-picking contest with no downside? Sure.

(NOTE: Not to hedge our bets, but the two of us had to flip a coin on this one. Ford vs. Toyota. If it turns out that a Toyota pick would have ended up winning the contest for us, blood will be shed.)

SEACUBE

This is one of those under-the-radar companies that you never heard of until 2 seconds ago, yet that impacts your life greatly. As the name implies, and as its NYSE ticker symbol (BOX) reinforces, SeaCube deals in shipping containers. The company is on every continent, and just about every freighter.

SeaCube doesn’t even make the containers. It only buys and leases them. Revenue is stable, with a couple of anomalous items distorting the 2009 numbers. Profit margins are enormous, 22%. The company paid out a dividend last month, with a dividend yield of 6.3%.

What gets us excited is its price/earnings ratio, currently under 8. Its peers average thrice that. Because a container lessor can’t expect gigantic growth year-over-year, the only remaining legitimate reason for SeaCube’s low P/E is simply that it’s undervalued. The price is low with regard to sales, with regard to book value…

So why isn’t it more expensive? It’s carrying a lot of debt, although that debt is relatively stable year-to-year. This is one we might buy in the real world, too.

TOYOTA

Alright, fine. We were going to go with GlaxoSmithKline but it’s trading at 40-something times earnings and pharmaceutical companies (or more specifically, reaction to and regulation of them) can be fickle.

Instead, the car manufacturer whose 2011 was as bad as anyone else’s in Japan. The Tōhoku earthquake and resultant tsunami didn’t just kill 20,000 people, they did a number on every manufacturer in the country. No hydroelectric and nuclear power meant no way to build cars, and a damaged seaport meant nowhere to send and receive shipments. Toyota’s sales numbers suffered, and the stock price tumbled accordingly. A positive, at least as far as stock-picking contests go.

Besides, Toyota already knows all about singular events hampering its stock price. In 2009 a series of Lexus owners testified on Capitol Hill that their vehicles were accelerating suddenly and without apparent impetus. What made that unusual was that it’s usually politicians lying through their teeth in D.C., not private citizens. The claims were unfounded: to keep it brief, these imbeciles all confused the brake pedal with the gas. Toyota stock sank to the point where the CEO flew over from Aichi headquarters to control the damage. The stock rebounded and then some, and Toyota maintained its healthy habits of keeping debt under control and buying back treasury stock. Which it continues to do today.

So those are our picks. We’ll keep you updated daily on what they’re doing.

No, of course we won’t. You shouldn’t look at your investments daily, either. We’ll check back on ours quarterly: enough time to see legitimate growth (or shrinkage) develop, without keeping us daily enslaved to a series of numbers beyond our control.

**This article is featured in the Baby Boomers Blog Carnival One Hundred Twenty-sixth Edition**

“控制现金”人造橙色鸡

Mama was a yellow hen, Daddy was a Rhode Island Red

 

You know who America’s greatest financial writer is? Adam Carolla. Interspersed with the penis jokes and complaints about the feminization of society, the esteemed author of In 50 Years, We’ll All Be Chicks explains the necessity of weighing time against money.

He cites an example most of us can relate to; losing your nail clippers. You used them, failed to put them in the usual place, and now know that they’re only somewhere in the house. But you’re too rushed to commit more than a few minutes to a hard search. So your nails grow and grow, and finally you break down and head to the drugstore for another pair. Sure enough, minutes after you return you find the original pair and get mad at yourself for buying something unnecessary.

Carolla’s solution isn’t just to suck it up and buy a pair of clippers. It’s to buy 8 pairs of clippers. Put one in your bathroom, one in a kitchen drawer, one in your car, maybe one in the garage, and you’ll never have to waste time looking for clippers (nor let your nails grow long) again.

A pair of clippers costs 69¢, which is peace of mind on the cheap.

Suba at Wealth Informatics submitted a post to the Carnival of Wealth a few weeks ago in which she mentions that frugality for its own sake (saving the 69¢ you’d pay for a redundant pair of clippers) is usually more trouble than it’s worth (spending an hour tearing the house upside-down looking for the clippers, frustrating yourself before ultimately conceding defeat.)

Suba thinks the people waiting in line at Costco for discounted members-only gas are nuts. And she occasionally, shamelessly eats professionally prepared food instead of being frugal. Restaurant markups notwithstanding, she argues that the math works out.

There’s at least one other financial blogger who loves to break down the recipes that he and his Midwestern family enjoy. His Alexa rank is tens of thousands of places better than ours, even though he writes like an 8-year-old who just mastered the rules of grammar, but he loves to brag about how little it costs to feed his family. (That he’s overweight is just a delicious bonus.) We’re here to argue that eating at a restaurant, in our example one a step below P.F. Chang’s “upscale casual” category, can be financially savvy.

Our guinea pig: Panda Express’s famously addictive orange chicken. Not only is it the greatest large-scale dish ever invented, an entire wing of the internet has been devoted to reverse-engineering its recipe. We’ve tried it ourselves, and the closest we’ve come has been the following. (We’re not going to write the recipe, just the ingredients and their prices. This isn’t RachaelRay.com.)

2 lbs. boneless, skinless chicken breasts$5.33
1 egg1.00*
1 1/2 teaspoons salt1.00 (26 oz.)
white pepper, undefined amount9.00
12 oz. cooking oil3.49
1 1/8 cup cornstarch1.40
1/4 cup flour1.70 (5 lbs.)
1 tablespoon gingerroot2.59 (4 oz.)
1 teaspoon minced garlic2.00 (4 oz.)
1/2 teaspoon crushed red hot chili pepper**3.00 (1.2 oz.)
1/4 cup green onion0.50
1 tablespoon rice wine4.28 (10 oz.)
1/4 cup water
1/2 teaspoon sesame oil7.43 (7 oz.)
1 1/2 tablespoons soy sauce1.88 (5 oz.)
5 tablespoons sugar1.00 (1 lb.)
5 tablespoons white vinegar       “
zest of 1 orange0.50
Raw TOTAL47.10
TOTAL (per recipe unit)10.90

This recipe is supposed to serve 6, so that’s $1.82 a serving if you go with the per-unit ingredient prices. The $47.10 sounds like a steep initial investment, but then again, what are you supposed to do with the unused rice wine, ginger, garlic and sesame oil if not eventually make more faux-orange chicken?

We’ve cooked this enough times to know that it makes an unholy mess in the kitchen. And it takes at least 2 hours to go from assembling the ingredients to putting the final mixing bowl in the dishwasher and pressing “Start”.

Panda Express sells individual servings of orange chicken on a bed of rice for $3.75 each. Plus theirs is actually orange, as opposed to the burnt ocher that our version usually ends up being. Furthermore, the original is perfectly crisp on the outside and tender within. Ours is more than edible, but any aspiring cook who presented it during an audition would be told to hand over the spatula and find another line of work.

Still, we can’t overlook the fabulous savings of CYC Faux-Orange Chicken over its corporate counterpart. A whole $1.93 a serving. Servings #3 through #6 of the original batch go in the fridge, and by the time we reheat the gelatinized sixth a few days later, it’s time to head to the store for more green onions and other perishables. Meanwhile, every serving Panda Express sells is as fresh and hot as its predecessor.

Don’t forget to add the 2 hours it takes to cook. Even if you account for that as 20 minutes per serving, at some point you realize you should be spending less time hovering over a calculator and more time eating.

Cook because it’s fun, not because you’re doing it in lieu of shopping for a home loan that’s a few basis points cheaper. Frugality should be a personality trait, not an overarching life philosophy.

*Of course no egg costs a dollar, unless it comes from a Giant ibis. We’re buying the smallest possible quantities of each item – in this case, a dozen eggs. You can’t buy a single egg, just like you can’t buy a quarter-cup of flour.

**We’re imagining Anthony Kiedis being thrown in a hydraulic press, and getting excited at the idea.

This article is featured in:

**The Totally Money Blog Carnival: Countdown to Christmas Edition**

**The Wealth Builder Carnival #57**

**Festival of Frugality #301-Festively Frugal**

**Carnival of Financial Independence**