(12-11-2012, 01:23 AM)Musicwhiz Wrote: [ -> ]He's more of a saver and slogger rather than a savvy investor.
What savings? Even he admitted he has not much left to save... Extracts,
Quote:Q: Are you a spender or saver?
I am not a spender, but I also don't save a lot. My monthly income is about $15,000 on average, and I have to set aside $7,000 for family expenses.
My son, who has autism, attends two private schools and one government-subsidised school, and spends about 55 hours a week at school. His school fees alone are more than $4,000 a month.
I pay about $1,500 in insurance premiums, and also have to pay for the upkeep of three cars, driven by me, my wife and my father.
Let's do a simple math,
Monthly Income = $15,000
Less :
Family Expenses = $7,000
Son's School Fees = $4,000
Insurance Premiums = $1,500
Upkeep of 3 cars = ???
Balance = $15,000 - $7,000 - $4,000 - $1,500 = $2,500 which still have to be used to pay for the upkeep of 3 cars....
In conclusion (my own), he's definitely not a SAVER. He looks more like a SPENDER to me... He's also obviously a very good salesman....
Sorry if I offend anyone here and seems cold and unsympathetic... I do sympathise with his kids' circumstances but here, I'm trying to read and analyse this article objectively, focussing mainly on the financial management part and not being side-tracked by any sob stories. It's after all supposed (I thought) to be giving us good role models of successful individuals in Financial Management... right? Ya, I dream on...
Perhaps the "family expenses" of $7,000 a month already includes his son's school fees?
Then again, I do agree he probably doesn't have much left over.
Still, the wife may be contributing quite a substantial sum depending on how good a financial planner she is, so perhaps we should not discount that.
All in all though, I do agree this column on the whole doesn't give much insight or advice as to how to get rich or manage our money better!
perhaps when financial planners say they earn 15k per month, they are telling you the income of one of the better months. It is important for them to sound prosperous when they appear on public articles, the more propsperous you sound, the more policies you sell in the future
(12-11-2012, 01:23 AM)Musicwhiz Wrote: [ -> ]General Question - Are we as a population tending to equate real estate investments with being financially free? 
That's interesting and I suspect you might be on to something but if most people sat down to think about it for a bit, I don't think they would draw that conclusion.
If I had to define financially free, I would use a simpler definition- income from a job is not a concern for the present or the remainder of my life. Another way of putting it is that I am working (self-employed or otherwise) because I want to, not because I have to.
As for property, I believe many people are using it as a heuristic or shortcut to view wealth. It's not that they don't know that the property is probably bought with a mortgage but they probably (just like a bank would for most loans) extrapolate and assume that the person will be able to eventually pay of the debt and own the house outright. And if he/she needs income or a lump sum of money, they can rent out or sell the property.
Even then, will this person who owns a property or two be considered financially free? Maybe, maybe not. I think my acid test seems more robust.
Looking at another angle, if you are not stock savvy, what other form of investment can you invest in?
Fixed Deposit?
Endowment Plans?
Gold?
Unit trusts?
If I am not into stock investment, I will probably dump my money into real estate too.
Real estate investment is simply the only choice for most people with idle cash.
So, in order to be financially free in the future, what other choice do they have besides investing in real estates?
(12-11-2012, 12:48 PM)kazukirai Wrote: [ -> ] (12-11-2012, 01:23 AM)Musicwhiz Wrote: [ -> ]General Question - Are we as a population tending to equate real estate investments with being financially free?
That's interesting and I suspect you might be on to something but if most people sat down to think about it for a bit, I don't think they would draw that conclusion.
If I had to define financially free, I would use a simpler definition- income from a job is not a concern for the present or the remainder of my life. Another way of putting it is that I am working (self-employed or otherwise) because I want to, not because I have to.
As for property, I believe many people are using it as a heuristic or shortcut to view wealth. It's not that they don't know that the property is probably bought with a mortgage but they probably (just like a bank would for most loans) extrapolate and assume that the person will be able to eventually pay of the debt and own the house outright. And if he/she needs income or a lump sum of money, they can rent out or sell the property.
Even then, will this person who owns a property or two be considered financially free? Maybe, maybe not. I think my acid test seems more robust.
Come on, we have already too many Kiyosaki around.
There is no such thing as being financially free. There are only financially busy people.
If you don't have money, you work/beg/steal/cheat for it. If you have a little money, you will be thinking of how to make more money. If you have a lot of money, you will have the rich problems.
How to be free? When you put down what you have and say, enough!
(12-11-2012, 01:11 PM)cif5000 Wrote: [ -> ]Come on, we have already too many Kiyosaki around.
There is no such thing as being financially free. There are only financially busy people.
If you don't have money, you work/beg/steal/cheat for it. If you have a little money, you will be thinking of how to make more money. If you have a lot of money, you will have the rich problems.
How to be free? When you put down what you have and say, enough!
The moment we have the freedom of choice to shout "enough" and put down all we have, that is the moment we are financially free
We want to earn more to be enough , not more and more.
To each his own. Everyone's enough and more than enough is different. But the more you want the more you have to slot for it. So you can say i am quite relax (no ambition if you like to think this way) not to slot & slot & slot. Which we all can if we want something desperately. IMO.
Quote:I have 12 insurance plans under my name and am insured for $1.8 million in death and disability coverage.
I have two hospital plans and I have recently bought an early critical illness plan to cover for more medical conditions relating to critical illnesses.
Each month, I pay about $1,500 in premiums.
Based on the cost of his policies, this financial planner is most likely not a fan of term insurance. At least, he is not one of those insurance agents who recommends expensive whole-life insurance to his clients while buying term insurance for himself. For that, he deserves our respect for eating his own cooking.
To avoid re-opening a discussion on term insurance, visit the thread below and search for d.o.g's postings. It is hard to find a better discussion.
http://www.valuebuddies.com/thread-389-page-2.html
For maximum protection with minimum cash outlay, there are much cheaper insurance plans to cover death insurance. Personally, I recently received a letter from Aviva that gives me the option to upgrade my death coverage(SAF Group insurance) to $1m at a cost of $128 per month. I took up the offer within minutes with little hesitation. This plan is usually cheaper than $128 per month because it gives back cash rebate regularly at the discretion of Aviva.
$1m may sound a lot but not really that much if you divide $1m across 6 or more people which includes parents, parents-in-laws, wife, children etc. This plan is the only policy that I know of that covers military mishaps.
If forummers don't mind, I recently wrote an article about it as this is my favorite insurance policy.
http://help-your-money.blogspot.sg/2012/...rance.html