Nov 182019
 

Time + Ownership = Financial Freedom

When financial writer David Bach was just 7 years old his grandma took him to McDonald’s and explained to him that there were 3 types of people in the world: The minimum wage employees working there, the consumers who pay money and eat there, and the owners who aren’t there but can still make money from the restaurant. David’s grandma helped him buy 1 share of McDonald’s, and taught him how to read and follow MCD’s stock chart.

The next time they went to a McDonald’s restaurant she told him, “now you are not just a consumer here, you are also an owner. Every time you eat here you are paying yourself.” It’s a brilliantly simple concept; easy enough for a child to understand. Yet it’s an inspiring and powerful idea. David became hooked on investing. He bought other stocks over time to eventually become a millionaire. 🙂 From the time he bought his first stock to today in 2019, MCD shares have increased in value by over 250 times! But it didn’t happen overnight. It took decades.

McDonald’s menu in 1973 when David Bach was a kid.

Fortunately anyone can become an owner by investing in established companies like McDonald’s. And the best part is you get to earn all your money while you sleep. 🙂

It all comes down to saving a percentage of your income, and investing it on a consistent basis. And then simply wait. The longer you wait the more your money will have time to compound and grow exponentially. Although you can schedule to invest every month, or every quarter, studies suggest you should invest as soon as possible to maximize potential returns.

People who try to get rich quick stay broke long.” ~ David Bach

If we understand that financial success requires patience, then investing will appear to be easier and less risky. For example, imagine if 2 investors held 2 different views about buying a house.

Investor 1) I’m afraid prices might drop in the next year or so. 🙁 And it’s a rather large investment so I question if now is a good time to be buying.

This mindset makes it difficult to pull the trigger when a good opportunity comes. We act based on what we believe. If we believe prices may fall then of course we will experience more hesitation and concern when buying a house. But let’s look at the second mindset where patience is paramount.

Investor 2) I have the patience to hold this property for at least 7+ years. So after the year 2026, based on macro trends, house prices will probably be much higher than it is now. Most likely rent in the city will be higher as well. Therefore buying a house now and locking in a mortgage balance is probably better than buying a house later and risk taking on an even larger mortgage.

The first person is thinking about the short term, while the other is thinking only long term. The second investor has a better chance of putting his intent into action because his long term perspective provides him with more investment certainty. That’s because it’s hard to know what the market will do next year. But due to inflation and urban densification, it wouldn’t be hard to predict that Vancouver’s home prices will trend upwards over the long run.

Continue reading »

Jul 112016
 

Real Estate Incentives

Financial advisors sometimes get a bad reputation for not having their client’s best interest in mind. Many continue to earn commissions even if their client’s portfolio is losing money. But what about real estate agents? Their compensation structure is also heavily based on commissions. They often earn a percentage from the final sale of a home. For a homeowner looking to sell, the ideal situation is to sell his house for the highest price possible. So at first glance it would appear that both a homeowner and a real estate agent would have the same financial incentive; to get the best possible deal for the seller. 🙂

mics-house

But further investigation reveals that maybe that’s not really true. Let’s say a homeowner sells his house for $500,000 with the help of a real estate agent on a fixed 2% commission. This means the realtor earns $10,000 and the homeowner keeps the remaining $490,000. To keep it simple we’ll ignore taxes and other costs.

But maybe with some additional advertising, negotiations, and patience, the house could actually be sold for $510,000. But this is when the incentive structures begin to diverge. As the homeowner selling the house, an extra $10,000 from the sale price means adding $9,800 more to the bank. 😀 Most sellers would like to see that money, even if it means waiting an extra couple of weeks to find the right buyer. But a realtor would only make $200 off the extra $10,000. For most real estate agents, putting in the extra time and effort (and sometimes even money for ads) isn’t worth the extra commission. So if the homeowner stands to gain $9,800 while the agent would only receive $200, then clearly their incentives do not align very well anymore.

Continue reading »

Jul 162015
 

Earlier this year a Vancouver house with a $5 million assessed value was put on the market for $6 million. Guess how much it ended up selling for? Hint, it’s in the upscale Shaughnessy neighbourhood. 🙂

15-07-8-million-vancouver-home-rate-cut

After 12 days and multiple bids from 10 prospective buyers the 78 year old home was sold for $8 million, lol. Welcome to Vancouver. You’re welcome to buy a house here, as long as you’re willing to pay $2 million over the asking price. 😛

Our hot real estate market is about to get even more extreme because yesterday morning the Bank of Canada announced another 0.25% rate cut. Holy pumpernickel! Now it will be even harder to raise rates in the future without pricking the bubble. 📌

The Effects of the Rate Cut ✂

The overnight lending rate was lowered to 0.5% in an attempt to boost capital expenditure and drive companies to spend more on hiring and manufacturing. However this will also unintentionally persuade already heavily indebted consumers to take on even more debt.

The problem with monetary policy is that it affects the entire country even though places like Vancouver really don’t need any further easing of credit. A better solution would have been to address the faltering economy in some parts of Canada, like Alberta, using targeted fiscal policy instead of a blanket rate cut. But that’s just my personal opinion.

Continue reading »