Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts

24 – Teaching the Kids About Money

Kids_money_lemonadeI grew up watching my mother balancing the cheque book (manually) at the kitchen table. She worked as a bank teller before she had us kids and she’d regularly fret about being out by a penny or a few cents. I’ve written previously about some of the key financial nuggets my mom implanted in my mind—mainly the old line “every penny counts!” and the idea that you can call up and challenge the banks if they’re not being helpful.

My father was an economist working for the Canadian federal government and although he did not regale us with the highs and lows of economic social policy, he was an educated man with a lot of common sense. My dad was a newspaper subscriber and we had the Ottawa Citizen delivered daily, which of course contained a business section which I’d infrequently leaf through.

Every night over dinner we’d talk about school and friends and some news but we’d also talk about family. Specifically, both of my parents were open, in simple terms, with us about the family’s financial situation. Money was never a “dirty” subject within the confines of our immediate family and we always received an honest answer when we curiously put up the question “how much money do you make, dad?”

My sister and I both received a modest allowance and when we were older we were also paid to mow the lawn—a sweaty, two-hour job in the Canadian summer humidity and blackflies! We had piggy banks and bank accounts from an early age and would occasionally buy a few savings bonds. Our parents covered our basic needs in terms of clothing, shelter, and food but if we wanted something special, we were encouraged to save our money until we could afford it. We also had to buy our lunch at school one day a week and did so from a young age—I remember buying my lunch in second grade.

My first allowance was a quarter: 25c.

Beyond those basics, the financial education I received at home was minimal. Some of these core tenets I’ve noted today form the foundation of my financial sensibility but I plan to raise the benchmark considerably with my children.

Growing up, for example, I knew my dad earned a “salary” of x dollars and my parents had a mortgage on the family home. I knew my paternal grandmother gave my parents a chunk of money when she downsized and I knew our family home (land and house) was bought and built for $60k in the early 70’s. I was also vaguely aware the inheritance received following the death of my maternal grandmother allowed my parents to pay off the mortgage. I was told we were a middle class family and my mom returned to work when my sister and I were older because she wanted to not because she had to. Beyond that, I was not taught about the relationship between income (salary) and expenses (mortgage, cars, and other costs). I knew my parents were cautious and somewhat frugal—definitely not flashy in their spending—but I didn’t know why; I always assumed it was because we were balancing on the knife-edge of affordability.

With our kids—the newborn and a clever toddler—I’m starting them young. Both kids have their own bank account (high interest accounts at 5% interest currently with deposit/withdrawal limitations imposed by the bank). Interest is paid monthly and I make a point to take a moment on the first day of every month to show our eldest her bank account and note how much interest she’s earned “for doing nothing” (as I put it!).

I pay each child, despite being very young, a weekly allowance (currently paid monthly into each account and rounded up slightly to $25/month). Although I don’t want to train her that working is the only way to earn money, I remind her that she needs to her earn her allowance by helping me vacuum, for instance (with her toy vacuum). We also receive the occasional cheque from family in Canada for birthdays and Christmas and that money typically goes into accounts. My 3yo already has a fair chunk of money to her name and earns monthly interest of about $10 (which stays in the account to earn interest).

I’ll note here I typically wouldn’t recommend an adult save their money in a bank account or even a high interest savings account. Although the risk is theoretically low, the interest rates are typically low too and the interest earned is counted as taxable income. And then inflation quietly takes most of whatever gain is left. In the kid’s case, the interest rate at 5% is higher than our mortgage interest rate, for example, and there are no bank fees or income tax. At the end of the day, this is an accessible learning exercise for the kids; if they eventually have the savings to fund a house deposit (possibly as a team) I’d encourage them to go that route but they may opt to travel or study or start a business instead.

I also talk to our oldest child about money. My goal is to create in her a clever, shrewd consumer able to work the system to her advantage, rather than be taken advantage. I typically take her grocery shopping with me each week and I explain to her how I compare prices. I’ve taken her to the accountant in the past and she’s sat beside me when the mobile mortgage broker has come out to the house (she colours…). She comes with me to the bank to deposit cheques and when we opened her brother’s bank account. She can count to ten and I’m slowly teaching her to add.

The core message I’ll be teaching our children is money can set you free but you have to be prudent and sensible in your financial dealings. This may work for us—will it make us wealthy? I can’t say but my hope is it won’t leave us poor. In either case, I hope our children will learn from our successes and our mistakes and my intention is to be as generally transparent on the subject of money as I am other subjects. Instead being taught to be a worker/consumer, my intention is to teach my children to think and behave wisely about money.

I suppose a disclaimer is also worth posting: I'm just a guy, I'm not an accountant, lawyer, solicitor, tax agent, mortgage broker, banker, financial adviser, insurance agent, land developer, builder, government agent, or anything else so I disclaim your application of anything I write here is to be applied at your own risk. What I write may be incorrect and you are best to seek your own professional advice (tax, legal, financial, and otherwise) before entering into contracts or spending your money. Your situation is unique to you and what I write here reflects my experience only. This content is not professional advice and is not tailored to your situation. I'm learning too and expect to make many, many mistakes along the way.

Enjoy,

Michael

9 - Performance Measurement

My wife is my yardstick for measuring reality. I’m admittedly a bit of a dreamer at times (with the ability to get mired in the details, mind!) but my Dr. wife, being smarter than me, is always ready to offer the checks and balances I occasionally require to cool me off when I get carried away.

Part of that is because she hasn’t learned what I’ve learned so she asks a lot of tough questions which forces me to think hard about the answers. She’s also far more conservative than I am and could probably be labelled a reluctant partner in all of this—her preferred approach to investment is to save cash in the bank.

Related to all of this, Cam McLellan over at Open Wealth, with who we’re building our first investment property, did an early podcast on the subject of what he calls “Dream Crushers”. A Dream Crusher tells you what they think (i.e. which is usually a negative, subjective view about what you’re thinking about doing) without having the experience or objective education on the particular subject to support their comments. This commentary gets you down and ultimately prevents you from taking action. The wife is effectively my lead Dream Crusher—although she usually comes around, either because I babble at her so much she wants to shut me up or because what I’m saying makes sense to her and she comes to understand my intention.

Which leads me into the subject of today’s post.

The investment strategy I had yet to—until yesterday—articulate to my beloved wife was to complete construction of IP #1 by mid-year (ish) and look at identifying and securing finance for IP #2 (and possibly IP #3) through the end of Q3 and the start of Q4 2015. This would tie in well with the fact I’d be back at work full time by that point, which the banks would hopefully look at favourably in terms of debt serviceability.

Then my wife hit me with her strategy: evaluate the performance of IP #1 before rushing forward. To me that was the sound of the cord being pulled and the lights going out. Fizzle. Zap. “No more property investing for you, dear hubby!”

We didn’t speak more on the matter initially but her comments certainly got me thinking: what is the detailed set of criteria we might use to define performance?

I’ve honestly been a little bit stumped about how to measure performance for a while now.

The easy one, of course, is a doubling in value (capital increase of 100%) every 7-11 years for good metro properties. The market will generally do this for you unless you’re adding value somehow (i.e. through renovations or infrastructure projects coming online).

Gross—or better yet—net rental yield is a good starting point as it’s a metric that’s easy to calculate and track.

Perhaps more important is the transition from negative gearing to neutral or positive gearing within a timeframe you can afford. Let’s say 1 to 5 or 7 years. This might happen in a number of different ways. Rents increase. Debt might be reduced or retired (but I wouldn’t take this approach) and interest rates might move—down like we’re seeing these days. You earned income may increase as you progress in your career, allowing for more effective tax deductions.

The conclusion that I’ve come to is performance must be measured over specified time intervals: 1 year (or less initially); 3 years; 5 years; 10 years; 15 years; 20 years. My strategy is to hold for the very long term and hence I believe performance should therefore be measured over the long term too. Hopefully in that time our property would have become positively geared and seen reliable capital growth.

Simply looking at results year on year doesn’t work for me. A property might be sitting pretty one year but take a step backwards the next before recovering again in year three, for example. The contextual economics need to be factored in to your assessment at the very least and this will happen automatically by measuring performance over a multi-year period.

More importantly, deciding to invest or not invest in a second property, which will likely be in a different suburb if not a different market (i.e. a different capital city), based on the performance of the first property isn’t an equitable comparison.

There are also other factors that I’ll say are beyond your control, for lack of a better expression. Let’s say you buy a negatively geared property in the years before you retire.  Your income is hopefully at the highest level it ever has been and so your tax deductions go further and, were you to keep working, that negatively geared property might be able to generate a positive cash flow for you in a few years.

And then you retire, hopefully with structures in place that will minimise your tax burden. Realistically your income will likely decrease in retirement. But what about those deductions?! That negatively geared property might remain that way for longer than you anticipate if you’re not able to pay down debt. At worst, it might eat into your retirement income and put a hold on your big retirement plans. Moreover that property may have seen only insignificant capital growth in the short term, making any sale not worthwhile despite the potential CGT savings.

If you’re younger, as I am, what if you’re working full-time one year but not earning at all the next? This is my reality as a stay-at-home dad. Bring forward tax deductions, yes, but that muddies the waters somewhat across the financial year boundaries.

Tenant churn might be a problem. That is, you might struggle to retain tenants, leading to more vacancy periods than another investor might have with an elderly couple who’ve been in the rental for a decade—doing their own light maintenance no less! (I read an investor profile just like this one in API). If you’ve got a strong property manager now, what happens if he or she moves on and you’re left with an average manager?

What about bad tenants? Insurance claims? Construction defects if you’re building new?

Interest rates may (will) increase, reducing positive cash flow.

Special circumstances may also intervene. Let’s say you lose a tenant for a length of time greater than you planned for because a major industry pulls out of the local market and rental demand evaporates. Or a flood leads to a broad stagnation in the market in terms of capital growth (as per Brisbane). I can only imagine what impact the earthquakes in New Zealand had on rental property there.

If you’re holding long-term, these sorts of events that occur in one year, or even over a number of years, don’t necessarily mean you’ve bought a dud. It might, if you’re being forced to subsidise a negatively geared property you easily can’t afford—in which case you’ll probably want the situation to come good within a defined time period (i.e. five to ten years); you’ll also need to decide whether that subsidy is worth the cost to you—especially if it’s not a burden. The selling costs (agent’s fees, possibly CGT, timing, etc)—coupled with the costs to acquire a replacement property (stamp duty, possibly LMI, time lost in the market)—make selling off an “underperforming” asset problematic.

I’ve written previously that time heals all problems but the flip side to this statement, of course, is that time is not on our side! Even for me as a relatively young man I’ll only get two to three decades (two to three growth cycles) before we both retire and our earned income dries up. With a goal of holding 6-10 properties at minimum, and natural constraints around how quickly we can do that, time is most definitely not on our side!

I’ll keep working through this one but I wanted to share while the subject was front of mind.

I’ve been reading a lot of Robert Kiyosaki lately so I’ll close by highlighting a recurring theme in all of his Rich Dad books: don’t buy investments that will cost you money. Speaking to us Aussies, I’m pretty sure he’d say “buy positively geared properties, mate”. That doesn’t completely solve our performance question—a positively geared property could revert back—but it’s a sound idea where it’s possible to find and buy such an asset.

I suppose a disclaimer is also worth posting: I'm just a guy, I'm not an accountant, lawyer, solicitor, tax agent, mortgage broker, banker, financial adviser, insurance agent, land developer, builder, government agent, or anything else so I disclaim your application of anything I write here is to be applied at your own risk. What I write may be incorrect and you are best to seek your own professional advice (tax, legal, financial, and otherwise) before entering into contracts or spending your money. Your situation is unique to you and what I write here reflects my experience only. This content is not professional advice and is not tailored to your situation. I'm learning too and expect to make many, many mistakes along the way.

Enjoy,

Michael

6 – Think Rich

Immediately after writing my last post “How to Spend Money”—in which I advocate being frugal and not spending money unnecessarily, a library book I’d reserved came available: Robert Kyosaki’s Rich Dad’s Guide to Investing. The first section of this book is almost entirely dedicated to the concept of retraining and refocusing your mind to think like the rich do. In other words, instead of pinching pennies as part of a frame of reference where money is scare, change your mindset to one in which money is abundant and don’t be cheap.

This makes a lot of sense to me. I won’t make a full about-face in follow up to “How to Spend Money” but am inclined to adjust my thinking somewhat. The standard disclaimer I include with every blog post includes a note that I’m learning too, so here’s direct evidence of that! Most importantly, I’m learning and have a very open mind on financial matters as I’m not yet prejudiced by a lot of experience; I’m therefore willing to adapt and adjust my thinking on the fly and explore new ideas and concepts like this one.

A note: I realise this post isn’t directly related to property investment but—for me—property investment is simply a means (a “vehicle” in rich dad speak) to wealth.

Although I’ve not necessarily been cheap, I’ve definitely been frugal often and modesty always has been—and always will be—a pillar of what it means to be me.

Rich dad wisdom suggests being frugal is okay but there’s no sense in being rich but living poor. As an extension to that, it’s worth pointing out another Rich Dad pearl, which suggests having a low income and high expenses is superior to the traditional goal of having a high income and low expenses. In other words, use good expenses to reduce your taxable income (and to tie that back to our current discussion: don’t be cheap by trying to keep your expenses low). I’ll add this book is by far the best of the three Rich Dad, Poor Dad books I’ve read to date—it’s very conceptual but so worth the read—see the Amazon.com link above to check it out.

Frugality I would define as choosing to not be extravagant in your daily spending habits (for me this also relates directly to my greenie sensibilities: I choose not to be a consumer and pollute my environment with unnecessary packaging and products). I always prefer to buy quality and do not buy to throw away—this is and always will be a way of life for me. If I were cheap, I would buy poorly made, disposable things in quantity—at the very least.

To quote from Kiyoaski’s book: “My rich dad would say, ‘There are two ways to become rich. One way is to earn more. The other way is to desire less. The problem is that most people are not good with either way.’ […] this book [is] about how you can earn more so you can desire more.”

I’ve not been too bad on the desiring less front but I do look at people around me who seem content spending a lot of money and wish I could be less frugal, if not less cheap! I certainly want to be more generous and focus the money I must spend on the positive aspects of life.

Kiyosaki also cites another article on this subject which suggests the wealth you can build by living as though you were poor is finite (the article cited also discusses penny pinching in the context of becoming not just a “millionaire” but a “multimillionaire”).

The book doesn’t offer much in terms of definition between frugality and cheapness but the author does leave us with another rich dad quote: “‘If you want to be really rich, you need to know when to be frugal and when to be a spendthrift. The problem is that too many people know how to be cheap only.’” I think this point also extends beyond the black and white argument of frugality versus cheapness and into the broader educational context of the investor: do we understand the difference between good debt and bad debt, good expenses and bad expenses, assets versus liabilities, taxation laws, ownership structures, etc, etc? In other words, are we being constantly cheap or are we being selectively cheap? I mentioned in the previous post not spending money on a depreciating asset like a car; that’s not frugality but rather understanding how not to waste money quickly.

Notably, Kiyosaki goes on to write (later in the book) that rich dad focused on delayed gratification in the short term in favour of a long-term reward. I think this is key and really at the crux of what I was suggesting in my earlier post. Nonetheless, I do believe in the power of setting goals and ‘thinking yourself’ into the reality you desire. 

As a final thought, I’ll suggest not being cheap doesn’t mean splashing out at every opportunity. Meanwhile, keep thinking rich!

I suppose a disclaimer is also worth posting: I'm just a guy, I'm not an accountant, lawyer, solicitor, tax agent, mortgage broker, banker, financial adviser, insurance agent, land developer, builder, government agent, or anything else so I disclaim your application of anything I write here is to be applied at your own risk. What I write may be incorrect and you are best to seek your own professional advice (tax, legal, financial, and otherwise) before entering into contracts or spending your money. Your situation is unique to you and what I write here reflects my experience only. This content is not professional advice and is not tailored to your situation. I'm learning too and expect to make many, many mistakes along the way.

Enjoy,

Michael