Showing posts with label finance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label finance. Show all posts

08 December 2021

Using Forced Savings to Prevent Self-Rationalisation

One of the arguments for getting a mortgage on a property is that it provides forced savings. The mortgage forces you to pay monthly.

Many financial experts recommend "pay yourself first" where money is automatically invested, which reduces the temptation to spend.

It seems we humans have a tendency to rationalise reasons to spend e.g. many say that you should only spend on experiences rather than "stuff" and others say that you should spend on things you actually use which seems like a nicer way to say you should buy stuff rather than experiences. Or people will focus on saving $3 per day on the daily cup of coffee but then ignore large expenses such as buying a luxury car.

Basically it is very easy for the human mind to justify spending a lot, and so some degree of forced savings seems necessary, and also a quantitative focus on savings rather than qualitative one is more important as well to prevent self-rationalisation. If you have a quantitative goal like save 70% of your gross income and then implement it using forced savings then this is much more effective than some qualitative rule such as "spend on necessities rather then wants" or "spend on experiences rather than stuff" or "buy expensive stuff that lasts long rather than cheap stuff than doesn't last long" and so forth.

06 June 2021

Renting and Buying Crypto is Better than Buying Real Estate


Many people say that they are investing in crypto in order to be able to afford a deposit or downpayment (usually 20%) on a property. However, based on my analysis, it would be better to keep renting and investing in crypto rather than buy a house or apartment.

Historic prices
Most people use historic or past prices as a guide to future returns, so e.g. in America or Australia house prices double approximately every 10 years. See https://www.brickx.com/properties/BRW01/returns to get an idea of typical house price growth.

If you check out the global crypto market cap chart, you'll see that it multiplies by 10 approximately every 4 years. See https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/ to get an idea of crypto price growth. This means that in ten years crypto should multiply by 500.

So the assumption here is that real estate doubles every ten years but crypto 500xs every ten years.

Analysis

So let's say you have two people, a crypto investor and a property investor, and they want to live in a house that costs $1 million. In order to meet the downpayment or deposit requirements they would need to save up 20% or $200k.

So the property investors, after saving $200k, buys the house and now has $800k in debt and pays a mortgage. Assume this investor gets a 30 years loan. After 30 years, the debt is fully paid off. The house doubles every ten years, so that means after 30 years the house multiplies by 8 which means the property investor, after 30 years, has a net worth of $8 million.

However, the crypto investor, after saving $200k, rather than buy a house, continues to rent and puts the $200k into crypto. The crypto then 500xs every ten years, which means that after 10 years, the renter has $100 million net worth. After 20 years, the renter has $50 billion. After 30 years, the wealth is too much for my calculator to handle.

What this demonstrates is that it is better to rent and invest in crypto rather than buy a house.

Is it right to use historical futures to predict future returns?

Some may argue that you cannot take historic crypto prices and extrapolate them to the future, but this applies to property as well. If we cannot use historic prices as a guide for future returns then we cannot make any decision on renting vs buying. We need to make a decision, so imperfect information leading to a decision is better than no information leading to no decision.

Is property less risky than crypto?

Some argue that crypto is risky and volatile whereas property is not, but this is not true. With crypto, you can diversify easily. The $200k downpayment can be diversified across multiple coins, including stablecoins and gold-backed coins to reduce volatility. Furthermore, there is an option of dollar cost averaging that the renter has. The property investor has no such option. The property investor is all in one property in one location and is leveraged. There is also no option for dollar cost averaging. Furthermore, the price stability of property is not real. Crypto prices update every minute, which creates perceived volatility. However, if there is an auction on your property every single day, you will see price volatility. Only having an auction when you buy or sell a house and seeing only two price points and drawing a straight line between these two points is equivalalent to buying crypto ten years ago, never looking at the price, and then ten years later looking at the price.

I personally would feel safer owning BTC than real estate. You can own BTC with a seed phrase. However, when you own property, your name is on a register maintained by the government, and who knows what could happen to this register or your name on it. Furthermore, property is hard to divide. You can buy 0.0005 BTC but not 0.0005 of a house. This limits your ability to diversify or dollar cost average.

Of course, I do agree with you that crypto prices are volatile and more volatile than property. As I mentioned, crypto is expected to 500x in a decade whereas property is expected to 2x. This clearly has more volatility. However, volatility is the reason why you'd invest in property vs holding cash. Crypto is volatile, but property is also very volatile. It can double in ten years or it can halve in ten years. If you wanted no volatility, you wouldn't invest in crypto or property but rather keep your money in USD or whatever your local fiat currency is. The fact that crypto is highly divisible means you can diversify more easily and scale how much volatility you want. For example, just putting 1% of your net worth into bitcoin and the rest in cash would have outperformed the S&P500. You can scale your BTC or crypto exposure to achieve a level of volatility that suits how much risk or volatility you can stomach.

Could crypto prices go to zero?

I think if you diversify across many crypto, especially the larger cryptos (e.g. BTC, ETH, ADA, BNB, etc), it's highly unlikely it will go to zero. Diversifying across the top cryptos is a good strategy, in my opinion.

Property can go to zero. Your ownership of property comes from your name in a government register. The government could collapse or there may be a change of government, with malicious politicians coming in and seizing your property. There are many example of property disputes that resulted in people losing their home.

You can insure your house but you cannot insure cypto

Property insurance e.g. floor insurance or fire insurance, are pretty much contracts taht allow you to take a short position on property. So when there is a flood or a fire, the value of your property goes down, and the insurance company pays you to compensate. Basically, the insurance company pays you if the price goes down. The crypto equivalant is shorting the crypto or simply selling a portion of it. This reduces the degree to which you are long the asset.

Crypto as "online property"

Furthermore, crypto and property are somewhat similar. In my view, crypto is a type of "online property." You are buying online real estate when you buy crypto. The argument many give that crypto is speculation can apply to property as well. If you look for a good property that is in a good location close to a train station, etc then that is no differnet to if you look for a good crypto that has good developers, etc. It is all speculation, so you may as well make informed speculation.

Is real estate better because it is tangible?

Something being tangible doesn't make it safer or better.

A good example is if you compare property to USD. Property is tangible but USD is not, but property is a more volatile asset compared to USD.

One reason why I don't like tangible assets is because of the risk of theft. If you own a house or e.g. physical gold, someone could come and destroy your house, steal the title deed, or steal your gold. Properly stored crypto cannot be stolen. Mathematical law in cryptography ensures e.g. bitcoin cannot be stolen. However, the laws of physics enable physical gold or the title deed to property to be stolen.

Why I am bullish on crypto

When interest rates go down very low and bank interest rates go down to almost nothing (or negative) then why wouldn't someone go into crypto and earn higher interest via staking or defi? This should increase demand for crypto and increase prices.

I admit this is speculation, but this sort of speculation on supply and demand is no differnet to the speculation required when you buy property e.g. you predict how much demand there will be for the property based on its location, pedestrian traffic, etc.

The information contained on this website and from any communication related to this website is for information purposes only. The investment or health products mentioned on this website may not be suitable for you. If you have any doubts you should contact an independent financial advisor or a physician. The material on this website does not constitute advice and you should not rely on any material in this website to make (or refrain from making) any decision or take (or refrain from making) any action. Norakism does not make recommendations for buying or selling any securities or options. The site makes financial suggestions and it is up to visitors to make their own decisions, or to consult with a registered investment advisor.

12 January 2020

Living with Parents to Save Money and Accelerate Financial Independence

I was watching the video below from the Techlead where he explains why he is moving back in with his parents. Most people think that poor losers live with their parents, but this guy is a millionaire, and he seems to be providing very logical reason why you should live with your parents. 


This video reminds me of me. I personally live in my mother basement even though I am in my thirties and earn a six figure salary. I continue to live in my mother's basement because I couldn't justify any reason to move out even though I can afford to move out. I currently own an investment property, and if I moved into this property, I will not be able to collect rent from the tenant, which will cost me more than if I rent. Rent costs about $1700 per month. Spending this much on rent seems like such a waste. My mother even wants me to live with her and I help out with paying the bills. 

I also don't believe that moving out increases independence. Rather, moving out decreases independence because it reduces your wealth. A reduction in wealth reduces financial independence. 

Nevertheless, I will admit that living in your mother's basement is terrible if you want people to respect you. People look down on me and no one wants to date me. Recently I was dumped by a woman, and although she didn't give me a reason for dumping me, I have a bunch that me living in my mother's basement strongly  influenced her decision. 

However, if I move out because I want others to like me or I want to get a date, I feel like this is no different to buying a Ferrari for the exact reasons. My logical brain tells me that moving out in order to gain respect and love is pure consumerism.

So I have a dilemma in that I would like to be loved,  but at the same time I don't want to be a conformist, I don't want to be a victim of consumerism, and I want to be authentic and true to myself and my values. It feel like such a disappointment that the price of love is conformity.

21 August 2016

FU Money is Important

If you don't know what FU money is, watch the YouTube video below. Otherwise, skip the video.



FU money is absolutely integral to happiness, in my opinion. For me, I have calculated FU money to be $1000 per month, which requires about $300k in investments.

There are three necessities: (1) shelter, (2) food, and (3) wifi.

Shelter is $500 per month based on the rent on a one bedroom house way out in the country. Food is $400 per month based on the cost of Soylent (or Joylent/Huel/Aussielent depending on where you live). WiFi is $60 per month. Round it up to $1000 per month.

If anything goes wrong, I can just retreat into the country, sip on my Soylent, and slowly work on eCommere.

Right now, of course, I am in the matrix and I am working, but because I have FU money I don't feel the need to be ambitious or to make myself uncomfortable. I am just cruising so that I can grow my passive/investment income so I can earn more than $1000 per month. That being said, I am sort of passive and betaish at work. I am a junior worker so I follow orders from the manager, but it's not too stressful. If things get really bad, I can always try to transfer to a different area, but otherwise I can just leave and live in the country building up or bootstrapping online businesses.

25 June 2016

Bollinger Bands on the S&P 500

Notice how well Bollinger Bands can predict market booms and busts. Buy when the index hits the top band and sell when the index hits the bottom band.

17 October 2015

Nine-to-Five Workers Are Free-Range Slaves

Man, I hate my job. It really is painful. The main problem is that I am just bored. I also hate the idea of being tied down to something for the rest of my life. I feel like my whole life is being taken away from me. I thought at first maybe I need to get a new job. Maybe I need to do extra study and start applying for another job, but the more I think about it the more I realize that doing this will only push me deeper into the nine-to-five world that I hate. I need to escape. I know for sure now that my dream is to become a digital nomad. I am happy to work but I want to work from my laptop, and I want to be able to work from anywhere where there is internet connection.

The pain I’ve been suffering at work seems to be ramping up. I seem to be getting more work, but for some reason I just feel really unmotivated. People I work with are also just plain annoying, and the fact that I’m stuck with them makes my life even more difficult.



At work today I was thinking about financial ratios. For example, there is the price-earnings ratio, which is the price of, say, a business divide by its earnings. If someone wants to buy this business, they can quickly assess whether the price it is selling for is worth it.

Another ratio or index I thought about was what I call the “freedom index,” which is the ratio of passive or semi-passive income to "active income." I'm not too sure if "active income" is a real term, but it is the opposite of "passive income," that is, you have to work for active income whereas passive income is income you don't have to work for e.g. a savings account pays you interest without you doing any work.

Suppose currently I earn about $10,000 per year in passive income and I earn $75,000 per year from my job. This means the ratio of passive income to active income is 13% The higher the number, the freer you are. The lower the number, the more you are subject to wage slavery.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that we are not free. At least, most of us are not. Many slaves in the past were confined and exploited like today's cows, chicken, and pigs in CAFOs. However, slaves revolted. As a result of this slave rebellion, most of us think we are free when in fact we are merely free-range slaves. We think we are free, but with the mortgage, car payments, and other debt, we have little room to move.

I need to replace my active income with passive income or at least semi-passive income that can be earned on a laptop so that I can become location independent.

I don't know exactly how I will become a digital nomad, but I know I will need to move gradually. I don't think I can just quit my job tomorrow. I am currently doing further study, but I am thinking of just quitting. I have an exam soon. I'll finish that off and rethink. I feel now that studying is really just a waste of time, so after this exam I might just put further study on hold. I will continue to save up and invest, but I will focus on build up my knowledge of ecommerce. I will slowly transition so that I move away from my nine-to-five and towards a location independent lifestyle.



28 September 2014

The Comfort of Deferring to Expertise

When people come to me seeking my advice because they think I'm an expert in my field, I try my hardest not to let them down, and I give the best advice I can give. When people seem satisfied, I start to wonder whether it was wise of them to trust me because nobody knows my own imperfections as well as I do, but whether it is because of trust or image, there is a myth commonly held of the expert. This is why physicians are held in high regard and are respected. They are seen as experts in health. I am not the only one who feels this insecurity, and indeed there is a term for it: impostor syndrome.

When I start to doubt the veracity of my own advice and expertise, naturally I start to question the veracity of other people's advice and expertise, and certainly being sceptical of expertise can save us, e.g. the Commonwealth Bank financial planning scandal.

But at the same time, I understand the comfort of deferring to expertise. Before I went to the gym, every second person I met gave me advice on health and fitness. They'd tell me to buy a bike and then go into detail about different types of bikes, materials used for the types of bikes, and so forth, and yet others say different things, e.g. I should be playing soccer or tennis or badminton. Of course, deep down I knew that these people simply tried to sway me one way or another based on their own personal interests. If they were passionate about cycling, they'd naturally want to steer me towards cycling with them.

After I joined the gym and received advice from one fitness consultant, my friends stopped giving me amateur advice. When people asked me what I did for health and fitness and I told them that I was now a gym member and that my fitness consultant or personal trainer prescribed me this and that, that weight of expertise seemed to intimidate other people from giving me their half-baked views, and suddenly I feel calm and at peace because I don't need to listen to diverse viewpoints, evaluate, decide for myself, and feel ashamed if I made the wrong choice. I can just obey the expert, and typically no one dares to question the expert.

If I knew more about health, maybe I'd do my own research, but health is not my area of expertise, nor is it an area I am passionate about, so I am satisfied with deferring to the experts in this area. But in other areas, e.g. personal finance, I am quite passionate about finance and prefer to do things myself rather than rely on a financial advisor or financial planner, and given the bad reputation financial planners have had recently, I am glad I've taken this route.

There is probably no best way to handle uncertainty. In some areas you want to do it yourself and in some areas you want to outsource to an expert.

19 January 2014

Five Rules of Wealth Accumulation

Is there more to life than money? Of course there is, but money is still important. For society, money (or currency) provides a medium for exchange that eliminates the need for barter and therefore avoids the inefficiencies of barter. For the individual, money gives you the means to buy essentials for life, that is, food, clothing, and shelter. Of course, if you have enough money to provide you with food, clothing, and shelter for the rest of your life, money is a luxury rather than a necessity. Regardless, below are important rules for accumulating wealth. Although some of these rules may be repeated in other posts, I think if an idea is important, it needs to be repeated.

1. Pay yourself first, automatically

I was made aware of this piece of advice from the book The Automatic Millionaire. The basic idea is that, rather than spending your income and investing what remains, it is better to invest a fixed amount as soon as you receive your pay and then spending whatever remains.

There are two ways to achieve this. One involves simply talking to someone in HR to put a specific amount from your pay into a separate savings account or fund. If you are a salaried worker who received a fixed amount every fortnight, another way to pay yourself first involves having two different bank accounts. You set your bank accounts up so that your pay goes into one bank account and then automatically, a few days after, a fixed amount goes into another bank account. You carry around a card for access to only the bank account you use for spending.

Regardless of the details on how you achieve this, you are fundamentally trying to make saving automatic. Life throws things at you. You don't want to have to think too much or bother with transferring money here and there in order to reach your savings goals. By making savings automatic, you don't have to do anything other than keeping yourself employed.

How much do you save? That is going to be different for different people, but I suggest that you start with an amount that is challenging and sticking to it. When I started working full-time out of university, I was only earning $40,000 a year before tax ($1538 a fortnight), and I automatically saved $1000 per fortnight simply because it was a nice-looking number. After a few years, I increased this to $1300 per fortnight.


2. Diversify

"Divide your investments among many places, for you do not know what risks might lie ahead."
~Ecclesiastes 11:2 NLT
It's one thing to automatically save your money but it's another thing entirely to make sure your money is safe. Personal finance experts often tell people to minimise risk by researching and doing your due diligence, but investments can be incredibly complex. Warren Buffet, the world's greatest investor, advises people to only invest in what you know. However, I believe that even if you think you know an investment, you may not. For example, if you buy shares in a company, you may know the business model, the products being sold, and so forth, but will you know every decision the managers make or what strategies they have to make the company profitable. You cannot possibly know all the conversations that go on behind closed door among the directors and executives. The problem of asymmetric information that exists between investors and managers is to an extent fixed with financial reporting and accountancy but there are limits to the accuracy and usefulness of this information.

In my opinion, when choosing investments, it is wise to research your investments but don't be afraid to go with your gut and, most importantly, regardless of what your gut says, you must diversify. In other words, do not keep your money in one place. Spread it across different types of investments in different financial institutions.

Diversification is hard work. It's not easy opening multiple funds or accounts in multiple financial institutions. The paperwork can get overwhelming and during tax time it can be difficult to account for the different tax treatments that different investments require (if this is the case be sure to use a qualified accounting at tax time). However, diversification is important, and if you have any doubts about this, do some research into Bernard Madoff. No matter what your research tells you, no matter what your gut tells you, and no matter what the financial statements say, all investments have risk, and the only way to mitigate risk is to diversify.



3. Invest for income


Whenever I invest, I like to invest in assets that produce income. The main appeal of these investments come from the idea that I can have money automatically dropped into my bank account without me doing any work at all. We all have expenses. We need to eat, buy clothes, and put a roof over our heads. If the income from your investments can cover the cost of these necessities, you do not need to work ever in your life and you may find that you enjoy your work a lot more because the pressure is off. You can take risks and be yourself rather than kowtowing to your manager. If your employer won't pay you, your investments will.

Positive cashflow is freedom and negative cashflow is slavery. It's as simple as that.

Of course, when investing for income, don't forget to diversify because high-income investments are risky. The higher the yield from an investment, the riskier it is. Some companies have high yields because their prices are going down because investors foresee future problems. Sometimes dividends are paid not from earning but from borrowings, which puts into question the sustainability of these dividends. You should invest for income but also remember to diversify.



4. Avoid debt, obligations, or commitment as much as possible

"The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender."

~Proverbs 22:7
Debt is slavery. Try to stay out of debt as much as possible. Debt occurs when you borrow money from someone and have an obligation to pay back at a later date. The problem lies in the uncertainty of the future. Can you know for sure that you will earn the money to pay the money back?

But I will go so far as to say that it is not just debt you should avoid but all future obligations or commitment. This means, for example, avoiding phone plans that obligate you to pay a fixed amount (say $60 per month for 24 months) and getting a cheap but good phone and using a pre-paid SIM card.

Don't get a car loan. Save up money and pay cash for a second-hand car. Some people think a new car must be more reliable and that, when you buy a second-hand car, you are buying someone else's problems. Before you buy a second-hand car, you can easily get it independently checked for defects. Buying second-hand means you avoid the massive depreciation associated with new cars. When you drive a new $30,000 car from the dealer, automatically about $5,000 in value is wiped away. If you buy a $7,000 second-hand car, there will still be depreciation, but not as much.

You should also be extremely careful with intimate relationships with others as this creates commitment or obligation. One of the weirdest observations I have made is how society labels men who are cautious with commitment as "commitment phobes" who need to "man up" quickly. They talk about commitment phobia as if it were negative. If anyone tries to manshame me by labelling me a "commitment phobe" I will simply tell them that yes I am cautious about signing up to something that would bind me and that I am proud of it. If a car salesman tried to sell you a Ferrari and wanted you to go on a car loan and you hesitate, that is commitment phobia. You're expressing reluctance to commit to a long-term arrangement. It is a prudent thing to look before you leap. 

If you sign a marriage contract, you are entering into a serious commitment of your time and cash and there are extreme risks associated. Everyone needs intimacy but too many people rush into securing themselves what they believe is an infinite supply of intimacy without fully considering cost and risk. As a man, how I handle this issue involves treating female intimacy as a product that you buy. You pay a female money in the form of gifts, dinner, lunch, and events and in return she provides you with the intimacy, and you can alter how much you spend on her depending on the quantity and quality of the intimacy she supplies. Do not have the mindset that your girlfriend is the monopoly supplier of female intimacy because otherwise she will charge monopoly prices. Always have the attitude that whatever your girlfriend is supplying, you can get it somewhere else, and this will keep prices competitive.

Of course, there are some obligations you cannot avoid, for example, you need to eat, so you are obligated to spend money to buy food to eat in order to keep yourself alive (unless you grow your own food, but then you are obligated to harvest that food). There are also those necessities that you just must have that only come in contracts that involve future payments, e.g. broadband internet, private health insurance, utility bills, rent, and so forth.



5. Play the pauper


Once I have a fixed amount of my pay automatically invested in multiple investments, I don't keep track of how much money I have saved up. Many people track their net worth every month and proudly boast about it to the world. I don't because I know that I already have enough money saved up to fly off to Asia and retire if I need to. If I save up more than what I need to save up, why do I need to bother keeping track of how much I have? Being ignorant of my wealth helps because, if someone asks me how much money I have, I can, with all honesty, tell them I have no idea. It is genuine and plausible ignorance.

Why is it important to be ignorant of your wealth and be very vague about how much money you have? One word: theft. If other people think you're a pauper, they will leave you alone. If other people think you are rich, you have a target on your back. People will come up with all sorts of manipulations and cons to get to your money. This is especially true of people who are close to you, for example, relatives, parents, children, and spouses.

I would even go so far as to say that you should both conceal your wealth and also play the pauper. In other words, pretend to be poor. This goes against human instinct. Normally people purchase status symbols in order to show off wealth, but I do the opposite because the pride I would get from showing off wealth is nothing compared to the fear and anxiety I get from thinking about theft. This means you should dress modestly (but nearly, not like a bum) and avoid prestigious brand-name products. Constantly talking about how little money you have because of rising costs and try to convince others that you don't earn much money.

By playing the ignorant pauper, you avoid yourself a lot of heartache. Gone are the begging relatives or friends who want to borrow money off you or get you to invest in their coffee shop venture. People will leave you alone and theft risk is greatly reduced.

One potential problem with looking poor is that people who think they are richer than you may put you down. Class warfare is as old as human history. It will never go away, and if someone thinks he or she is richer than you then it is likely they will ridicule you. You can fix this problem by not looking too poor. You can also fix this problem by trying to ignore the bully. If that is not possible, my strategy is to act like a psycho mobster. When someone ridicules you, simply shout back at them and make vague allusions to your connections with organized crime. Constantly read true crime fiction and constantly talk about death and killing and murder. Your friends should become wary and scared of you over time and will be fearful of provoking you. You need to be careful that you act psycho only and that you don't actually kill someone or even threaten to kill someone, as these acts are likely illegal. I only go crazy this when it is clear that someone is a snob and continues to ridicule me and I cannot ignore them or distance myself from them easily.

29 March 2013

Don't Get a 30-Year Mortgage

How to loosen the mortgage noose

This article from the AFR talks about most people underestimate how much interest they end up paying when they sign up for a 30 or even 25 year mortgage.

I will not get a mortgage, not even a small one. I would rather invest in bank shares and rake in massive dividends.

The main reason why I am anti-mortgage is because I believe the modern long-term mortgage is simply a more evolved form of slavery. When you take out a mortgage, you will sign a contract so long and convoluted that you will not read it, and the terms of the contract will be in the bank's favour. If nothing goes wrong, you slave away at your job for the next three decades, living in fear of being fired and sucking up to the boss. If things go wrong, you lose your job and the bank will quickly sell your home, which can result in massive capital losses for you. Unlike in America, Australian banks can pursue you for your debts no matter what. You cannot walk away from your debts.

My recommendation is, while you are young, to live with your parents or rent and share with many people to divide the costs. Then save aggressively and buy two cheap homes in the country, one that you leave empty and the other that you rent out to produce rental income. If things go wrong in your life, you have the security of knowing you can drive into the country, live in a house, and have another house producing income to feed you.

19 January 2013

The Importance of Global Diversification

"Invest in seven ventures, yes, in eight; you do not know what disaster may come upon the land."
Ecclesiastes 11:2 (TNIV)
I have great respect of John Bogle, the founder of the Vanguard Group. I believe that if you are unsure how to invest your money, just do what John Bogle says. That being said, there are few issues I have with him. The first relates to his aversion to foreign (i.e. non-American) investments. According to John Bogle, if you invest in a mutual index fund that replicates the S&P500 index, given that most S&P500 companies are multinationals with operations all around the world, you are getting foreign diversification anyway.

This is wrong.

What Bogle completely ignores is the fact that, by investing in only American equities, you are limited to companies that list on a small and undiversified number of stock exchanges. Every stock exchange around the world has different listing requirements. Some stock exchanges have very strict listing requirements, demanding that companies meet demanding disclosure requirements. Other stock exchanges may have lax disclosure requirements. Furthermore, some governments or stock exchanges (or both) may be more corrupt than others. You simply don't know, and it is for these reasons that you need to diversify across stock exchanges and countries. It is not enough to invest in an index fund that replicates the S&P500. You need to invest in European shares, Asian shares, Australian shares, and so forth. And that is only looking at shares. You should invest in other asset classes as well, such as REITs, bonds, and commodities.

One good argument against diversification if it's just too difficult. For example, in my opinion it makes sense to invest in commodities like gold for the sake of diversification, but investing in gold is not simple. You can't walk into a bank and just ask for gold, and storage of the gold becomes another difficulty. However, diversifying your equity investments across different countries is easy. There are many mutual funds out there that automatically diversify across multiple countries.


Hide and Diversify Your Wealth

If I could give two pieces of advice on investing, it would be the following: 
  1. hide your wealth
  2. diversify your wealth.

The first piece of advice is due to safety. If you save up money and go around telling people how great you are at saving money, the risk of theft only increases. I don't even recommend you tell family or friends about money you're saving. If you spouse knows, the payoffs from divorce are so much higher, which would tempt him or her. Just keep it to yourself and, better yet, pretend that you are poor. If snobs don't want to be friends with you because they don't want to associate with poor people, it's probably better that you didn't know them anyway.

The second rule of investment is you must diversify. In fact, when I think about it, the first and second rule are similar in that they exist due to lack of trust. If you hide your wealth, it is because you cannot trust people who will tempted to steal. If you diversify your wealth, it is because you cannot trust those people who hold your money to destroy your wealth either due to corruption or incompetence.

The two rules above help protect your wealth.

08 January 2013

Cheap Houses (~$50,000) in South-East Asia



The Christmas and New Years holiday is coming to an end. I had some minor surgery yesterday and so had permission from the doctor to take today off to recover, but tomorrow I will need to go back to work. I am dissatisfied with my job at the moment. I'll try to fix this problem by finding a new job. I haven't been applying for job for about a year, so getting back into it is difficult, but I am motivated by the desire to leave my old life behind and try something new.

Most people think they need $1 million before they can retire. They base it on the assumption that they would need to earn about $50,000 a year to have a reasonable retirement. In order to generate $50,000 per year from an investment that provides 5% per year, you'd need $1 million. But saving $1 million could take decades. Assuming you earn the average $50,000 per year, and then assuming that after deducting taxes and living costs you can save $30,000, then it will take you 33 years to save up $1 million (assuming, for simplicity, your savings produces no interest). In other words, you need to slave away for 33 years! I have gone through only four years of full-time work and I'm ready to throw in the towel!

There needs to be a better way.

One solution is to retire in South-East Asia. A normal two-story house with three bedrooms in an east-coast city in Australia will cost about $500,000. With aggressive saving, this will take about 15 years to pay. With a mortgage that adds interest charges and other fees, it may take longer, say, 20 to 30 years to pay off your mortgage.

However, according to the YouTube video above, a normal two-story house with three bedrooms near Chiang Mai, Thailand costs around $30,000 to $50,000. That is ten times less! Therefore, instead of working 20 to 30 years before you can afford retirement, you can afford retirement after two or three years of aggressive saving!

According to JC, there may be laws in Thailand or other Asian countries that prevent foreigners from owning real estate. Another option may be, instead of using your savings to buy a house, to put it inside a savings account in Australia (or the US or Europe) and then transfer the interest income to Asia to pay for the rent. This will often work because interest income on savings accounts tend to more or less be the same as as rental yields. Renting may be a safer option because, if you live in Chiang Mai for a while and don't like it, renting provides you with flexibility to move away whereas buying real estate normally comes with massive moving costs. If you have equity in your home, you can convert that into an income stream by renting the house out. This rental income stream, in addition to stream of income from interest on savings, can be combined to fund living costs in Chiang Mai.

What this means is that, for me, I could retire right now, even though I am still in my late twenties. For those who don't have any money, all it takes it two or three years of aggressive savings before you can afford to retire in Asia. There is hope.


23 September 2012

Betashares Offers Commodity ETFs for Australians


Link: BetaShares

Most people invest in shares, bonds, and real estate. Shares and real estate tend to perform well during an economic boom. Government bonds are seen as safe investments since they are backed by government, and many people hold government bonds or government bond funds in addition to growth assets such as shares and real estate in order to diversify. But what about commodities?

The word "commodity" is not perfectly clear, but investing in commodities involves investing in such things as gold, oil, soybeans, wheat, and livestock. It is an investment in hard assets that are more often than not necessary for humankind. Investment in commodities are perfect not really for periods of economic booms or economic recessions. Rather, commodities are excellent to hold during times of stagflation, that is, a combination of stagnant economic growth and inflation.

One way of combating massive inflation is to adopt The Alpha Strategy, that is, hoarding essentials such as rice and toilet paper in your home. The less extreme option is to buy a commodity ETF.

For Australians, a firm called Betashares provides a diverse range of ETFs, including an ETF that invests in crude oil futures. I am thinking of using my margin loan to purchase a good chunk of commodity ETFs via Betashares but I am unsure if I should. Perhaps shares in resource companies already provide sufficient commodity exposure. The fact the Australian dollar is a commodity currency also provides some exposure. Then there is the worry about the safety of synthetic ETFs (read Quant Congress USA: Avoid synthetic ETFs, says Avellaneda - Risk.net) with some saying they are fine for short-term trading but not appropriate for long-term investing due to counterparty risk.

If anyone has any deep knowledge on this issue, please comment.

08 September 2012

Love and Sex Stimulate the Economy

In order to prevent mental pollution, I now watch YouTube videos on my television. This means I am in control of what I watch rather than being subject to the whims of whatever is on television. I have been doing this for a while now, and I have noticed that when watching YouTube videos I tend to watch documentaries.

Every now and then I go back to mainstream TV and catch a glimpse of the programs that are on television. I also have a subscription to Quickflix and have about two DVDs sent to me via mail every month. What I have noticed when I watch mainstream TV and films on DVD is that there is a lot of film, TV shows, and advertising that glamorises not just the "immoral" sexual desires but also a lot of media that glamorises "moral" sexual desires, that is, romantic love, e.g. dating, courtship, and marriage.

I am not popular with females. I am 28 now and have only been on short dates with two females. I am currently able to live on about $400 per fortnight, but when I was dating I noticed that my rate of spending doubled to about $800 per fortnight. There is a lot that you must pay for when you are dating. If you take things further, you may end up with a huge mortgage, wedding expenses, and then children.  The bottom line is that romantic love is expensive. Even sinful love, e.g. visiting prostitutes, is expensive and potentially dangerous.

My point is that the desires of love and sex create significant consumer demand in an economy, so much so that it would make sense for all the businesses that benefit from increase in consumer demand for love and sex, e.g. wedding organisers, brothels, flower shops, condom producers, and so forth, to pool their money into an organisation that gives grants to films and TV shows that promote or further glamorise love and sex.

Escaping Full-Time Work

Sick and tired of watching advertisements on TV, I now resort to making good use of the broadband plan that I have with my ISP and watching mainly YouTube videos on my television. There are ads on YouTube, but they don't seem to be as offensive as the ads on mainstream Australian TV (e.g. those annoying X-Factor ads where someone sings wells, there is a standing ovation, people start crying, etc).

One of the people on YouTube I watch is George Hemminger. Here is a video of him talking about how he doesn't work full-time because he is unable to.

 

I have a full time job now but always wonder whether I can do it for the rest of my life. I am almost 30 now, and most people retire at about 60, so it's another 30 years of full-time work. I've been reflecting on this topic for a while now and I don't think I have the energy to do it. Luckily for me, I don't have wife, children, mortgage, or even a girlfriend. I barely even have any friends. It's not something I deliberately set out to achieve, but just a by-product of being introverted or shy.

I have no plans to get a big mortgage or a wife or children, and I still work full-time, even though I question whether I want to do it. I suppose it's the fear of no longer earning an income that keeps me working.

My hatred of being a full-time employee relates to lack of freedom. When you are an employee, you have to go to work and do what the boss tells you to do, and it's that constant subordination that wears me out. I think one of these days I should start my own business, but I'll need to save up some money first.

Many people think that in order to start your own business you must have a really good idea. Even though I have no experience in running my own business, I doubt this is true. What is wrong with taking an existing tried-and-tested business model, e.g. starting a milk bar, and doing that? Some people will say that if you don't invent anything, you will compete with many others. For example, if you invent a cure of AIDS, you will have exclusive monopoly rights granted by patent law and you can make huge profits, but if you start a milk bar, you will compete with all the other milk bars out there and make almost nothing. While I agree that monopolization can be highly profitable, I don't agree that just because you start a mainstream business (e.g. a cafe or a milk bar) that you cannot make any money. You will just not make as much money. If there is no money to be made from e.g. opening a cafe or a milk bar, why do cafes and milk bars exist? There must be some profit. Furthermore, even if you are an employee, you are not inventing anything. You go to university just like millions of other people out there and when you leave and apply for jobs or apply for promotions within an organisation, you are competing. You are competing on basic things like communication skills, writing skills, stakeholder management skills, and so forth.

02 September 2012

Carbon Tax Compensation Present Opportunity to Salary Sacrifice into Superannuation

To compensate for the impact of Julia Gillard's carbon tax on the cost of living, income tax cuts will compensate anyone who earns less than $80,000. For further details about the tax cuts, see the following: Individual Income Tax Rates (ATO website)

Basically, the tax free threshold will increase from around $6000 to about $18000 and instead of being taxed 15% after that, you will be taxed 19%. For each dollar you earn above $37,000, instead of being taxed 30%, that marginal tax rate will increase to 32.5% and then eventually to 33%.

What this means is that, for those who earn between $37,000 and $80,000, you can cut your income tax by 33% (rather than just 30%) if you salary sacrifice. One option is to salary sacrifice into your superannuation fund. Money that goes into superannuation is taxed, of course, but it is only at 15%.

Be careful when you salary sacrifice into your superannuation fund as there is a limit. For younger people, there is a concessional contribution limit of $25,000 per year. It is best that you speak to a financial advisor if you are concerned about exceeded this limit.

Personally, I have taken this as an opportunity to salary sacrifice more into my superannuation fund. All it involved was sending an email to HR requesting it. I now salary sacrifice $600 per fortnight into my superannuation fund.

My reasons for salary sacrificing into my superannuation fund are not just monetary. There are also some personal reasons why I am doing what I am doing. I find that having too much money around doesn't help and actually makes me worried or anxious, so putting money aside (so that it is out of sight and out of mind) actually calms me considerably. Instead of doing something stupid with the money and losing it, it is now safely stored away in my superannuation fund, and I don't have to worry about it until I'm very old.

Some people argue that putting money into superannuation when you're young is a waste of money. They argue that superannuation funds invest money in the stock market, which underperforms residential real estate. They would prefer to be hit with the higher tax and then put the money into residential real estate (by paying off their mortgages). The problem with this argument is that is assumed two things: the first thing it assumes is that superannuation funds invest only in the stock market and not real estate. This is wrong. Superannuation funds typically offer investors with the choice of a range of investments, but typically industry super funds tend to offer shares, bonds, listed property, and cash. These investments, in my opinion, are fine. But if you are absolutely desperate to invest in residential real estate, you can set up a self-managed super fund (SMSF) and invest in residential real estate. The benefit of salary sacrificing into your superannuation fund is that you can save on tax, but it is wrong to assume that superannuation funds only invest in the stock market. The second assumption is that residential real estate outperforms the stock market. This is not true. Residential real estate is very hard to measure but most studies done on this topic find that a broad Australian stock index is roughly the same in growth as residential real estate over the last few decades. Of course, you can always cherry pick some story about some guy who purchased some home for x amount and then sold a few years later for ten times the amount. Likewise, you can pick and choose select stocks like Westfield and Fortescue Metals and launch the same story in favour of the stock market, but what this teaches you is that past returns mean nothing. Just because something has performed well in the past, it doesn't mean it will perform well in the future, and in the world of finance it tends to be the opposite: i.e. those assets that go up in price rapidly in the recent past tend to be overvalued, and a correction in the form of rapidly decreasing prices usually proceeds.

In other words, there is no solid evidence that residential real estate will outperform the stock market in the long run. The best we can do is to diversify across many types of investments, from the stock market, to cash, to bonds, and even listed property and maybe some residential real estate as well. Ecclesiastes 11:2 states the following: "Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth."


05 August 2012

The Myth of Good Debt and Bad Debt

A friend once told me the following:
If you borrow money to buy an asset that depreciates, this is bad debt, and you should avoid it. If you borrow money to buy an asset that appreciates, this is good debt.
This is crap. One reason is because it's very difficult to actually know whether an asset will appreciate or depreciate. For example, most investors who purchased subprime securities before the GFC wrongly assumed house prices only went up. As a result, borrowing money to buy an asset really only magnifies risk because, if the asset goes down, you lose more.

Another reason why this rule is crap is because it completely ignores the cost of borrowing, the cost of holding the asset, as well as whether the asset generates any income.

For example, suppose you borrow money from a loan shark at 20% in order to buy a house and assume that this house appreciates at 5% per year. You will actually be worse off than if you took out a car loan at 8% and purchased a car that depreciates at only 1% per year. In other words, if the cost of borrowing is so high, it doesn't really matter if the asset appreciates or not.

Some assets may appreciate over time but have extremely high costs. For example, suppose you purchased a run-down apartment that needs constant maintenance. As the landlord you need to fix the showers, clean the walls, replace the tiles, put more concrete on the driveway, and so forth. You may purchase an apartment that appreciates at a mere, say, 1% per year but if it costs you $1,000,000 per year to maintain this apartment, what is the point? These holding costs aren't necessarily in the form of fixing showers and tiles but may include council rates, land taxes, and other taxes or fees.

Another factor ignored when focusing only on asset price changes is the income-producing potential of the asset. If you take out a margin loan with your bank and borrow money at 8% to invest in shares of a company whose stock price depreciates at 1% per annum but it has a dividend yield of 10% then you are better off than someone who takes out a mortgage and borrows at 6% to invest in a house that appreciates at 3% per year and pays rental yield of only 3%.

In summary, if you borrow money to buy an asset, you need to look at a lot more than asset price changes. You need to look at everything that influences on costs and benefits. The idea that borrowing money to invest is a good idea simply because you expect the price of the asset to rise is thoroughly refuted in the examples above. Other things to consider include holding costs, costs of borrowing, and how much income the asset produces.

24 July 2012

Holidaying Cheaper than Staying at Home?

I have started taking two weeks off from work. In a bid to save money, I have decided not to go on holidays. Rather, I will just stay at home. However, I am quickly finding that staying in Australia can be quite expensive and that perhaps a trip to Asia might have been cheaper.

I have only just started my two-week holiday, but already I have been invited by other people to eat out and watch movies. Watching a movie in Australia sets you back about $20. Eating out can vary between $15 to $30. I remember during one day I ate out during lunch and dinner and then watched a movie afterwards. I spent $70 that day.

Return tickets for flights from Australia to a country like Thailand or Cambodia can be purchased for around $500 to $800. The cost of living e.g. in Cambodia is significantly lower. Meals are only around $5 and you can sleep at a guest house for $10 a night. Of course, it all depends on what you do. I am starting to think that if I go to Asia, rent a cheap hotel, and then do what I normally do during a holiday (i.e. surf the Internet) then it might be cheaper to go to Asia.

Another benefit of going to Asia is that I can detach myself from my family and friends at home. When you take a holiday, you are looking not only for a change in scenery but also to get away from your annoying friends and family for a few weeks. I really ought to consider this next time.

30 March 2012

Next Eleven Frontier Market Countries

Back in 2001, Jim O'Neill from Goldman Sachs coined the term BRIC to denote four countries with very large populations that he predicted would dominate the world economy in the future. His predictions turned out to be correct. Today the BRIC countries dominate the world economy and even challenge the G8 in world politics.

Goldman Sachs has now moved on from the BRICs and have developed the Next Eleven ("N-11"), a group of eleven frontier market countries. The firm has created the Goldman Sachs N-11 Equity Fund for investors who believe the N-11 countries will experience significant growth.




07 August 2011

GFC2's Impact on Australia

GFC2 is here. The US and Europe are piling on more and more debt and many investors are skeptical about whether they can pay it off. Here in Australia, many seems to be optimistic. In The Melbourne Age, this piece Forget US Woes, China Keeps Our Economy Strong claims that the Australian economy does not rely on the US economy anymore and that the Chinese demand for our resources will keep our economy strong. According to the article, "40 per cent of China's exports went to the US in 2001. Now that figure is down about 20 per cent and falling..." This means that even if US consumers were to become too poor to afford Chinese imports, China has other countries it can export to.

But one area that bothers me is how much US debt China holds: US$1.2 trillion worth (source: NPR, China Blasts US over Credit Rating Downgrade). If the US is unable to pay off this massive debt and defaults, the US$5 trillion Chinese economy will have a substantial amount of its wealth wiped out. This would have an enormous impact on the demand for Australian resources and hence the Australian economy. Even if the US were to avoid default by printing money, the outcome would be similar. The Americans would print money and hand these dollars to the Chinese. The printing of money will cause massive inflation thereby causing the American dollar to drop in value. Even though the Chinese hold US$1.2 trillion worth of US debt, if the US dollar is worthless then that will drop demand for Australian resources.

Many newspaper economists are going on about how China is now Australia's master and not the US. Be that as it may, these newspaper economists do not seem to give much description of the linkages between the US economy and the Chinese economy.