Post: #1

Like most advice given to us by our schools, churches, governments, and even well-meaning parents the financial advice we have been given has led us wrong. We’ve been told outdated maxims and advice that just won’t cut in today’s world and may even work against us. Just like at one time getting married may have been good advice, things have changed dramatically over the past sixty years.

For starters let’s get something straight. Corporations are not pro-masculine. Many people like to believe that somehow the business world has not been affected by the past sixty years of indoctrination but nothing could be further from the truth. While those familiar with the manosphere are well aware of this, others who are not as “enlightened” still cling to this fantasy. This isn’t the 80’s. The alpha take charge attitude is more likely to get you fired than promoted in today’s corporate culture. Despite being better for profits and productivity.

That’s another thing. For most businesses today profits and productivity take a distant second and third to political correctness. Over the long run these companies will be destroyed by others who actually do the things that work. However until then this is the corporate culture that men will find themselves in. And it’s not pretty.

Because of this many men want to strike out on their own. whether that means living a minimalist lifestyle working odd jobs here and there or creating their own entrepreneurial ventures. Whatever the case, falling for these three lies will hamper you from accomplishing your goals. So let’s get started.

Lie #1 – Your House is an Asset

http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/...s-back.jpg 450w" sizes="(max-width: 500px) 100vw, 500px" />

Put simply an asset is something that makes you money. Something that adds to your bank, not takes away. Does this sound like your house? Now I’m not talking about owning real estate—that’s different. What I am talking about is using your hard earned money paying for the suburb house with the white picket fence.

A house is like an ungrateful kid. You constantly feed and nurture it and it gives you crap in return. Between volatile markets, being tied down, and the interest payments on your mortgage buying a house can ruin your life at worst and at best maybe you can sell it for a little more after so many years. A huge downside and a little upside. Not a good deal.

There may have been a time when buying a house was a good idea. When you could find stable work that paid you well. When you could find a stable woman and raise a stable family with her. None of that happens anymore. America is anything but stable. This isn’t the 1950’s and believing in what worked then will get you screwed now.

I would suggest you rent. Now before there was a negative association with someone who rented. However this stigma has largely faded as more and more people are forced to rent. Look at it like this. Renting is like sleeping with a beautiful woman while another guy deals with all her crap, whereas buying a house is like getting married and having to deal with all the woman’s crap because she is now your woman. The largest benefit of renting is the freedom it gives you.

Lie #2 – Corporations Reward Hard Work

http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/...62x150.jpg 262w, http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/...of-tie.jpg 484w" sizes="(max-width: 500px) 100vw, 500px" />

This was addressed a little in the introduction but we’ll go into more depth here. First off corporations, especially large ones, do not have profit or productivity on their mind. They have maintaining the status quo, placating SJWs, and staying “relevant” as their main goals. Again this will ultimately be their downfall, but until then those of us working in the corporate environment are forced to deal with it.

Most likely if you work in modern corporate America your boss is sadistic. This isn’t name calling but a fact. And no that’s not an exaggeration as the dictionary defines sadism as “the condition in which sexual gratification depends on causing pain or degradation to others” or even better “any enjoyment in being cruel.” Sound familiar?

Again, at one time being loyal meant something. Loyalty was something to be rewarded and admired. Now being loyal is a liability. Be loyal to a company and watch as anyone in a protected class is promoted over you and expunged from any wrongdoing. Yet at the same time bosses still need a scapegoat so guess who that will be? (Hint it’s you).

Like Aaron Clarey suggests, use corporations and don’t be used by them. This means you should use a job to get an income that will help you further you own goals. Don’t expect your loyalty to be rewarded and don’t ever feel bad for leaving a company. They will use you as a workhorse and then spit you out when you no longer are useful to them. They will use and abuse you as much as any sadistic woman would. Use the income to build something of your own, then drop them as soon as you can.

Lie #3 – All Debt Is Bad

http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/...68x558.jpg 768w, http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/...37x608.jpg 837w, http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/...67x485.jpg 667w, http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/...74x417.jpg 574w, http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/...-plant.jpg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 500px) 100vw, 500px" />

Alright, first a disclaimer. Most debt is bad. Debt for a house, car, “education,” or any other trinket is bad. However, not all debt is bad. There is such a thing as good debt. And it all depends on what that debt is for.

We’ve all been told to avoid debt at the expense of just about anything else. Doesn’t mean people listened but nevertheless everyone knows that debt is bad. And when everyone knows something it’s pretty much a guarantee that what everyone “knows” is wrong.

There are two parts as to why debt is not your problem.

First off, debt used to fund a business, deal, or in other words when used as an asset, can be good. Not all of us have enough money for a startup and borrowing can speed up growth. You’re much better off borrowing some money to start an intelligent business than you are sitting back and waiting a couple years to save up the income. Remember time is your most valuable asset, not money. So in this case debt works for you and not against you.

Now while I am an advocate of minimalism I am an advocate of minimalism with one caveat. And that caveat is: you should live below your means while working on expanding your means. Meaning you should live below your income level while at the same time seeking to expand your income level.

Most people’s problem is not that they have debt but that they don’t have enough income. Pinching pennies will never make you rich or even comfortable. Obviously some people are reckless with their debt and need to get their spending under control to start. But for others debt can be leveraged to become an asset in the long term.

Wrap-up

This is really just the very tip of the iceberg we’re discussing here. The lies run long and deep about finances just like they do in regards to what turns women on and what it means to be a man. There is a red pill and blue fill for finances as well. And just like taking the blue pill in other aspects of your life, taking the blue pill in finances can lead to your life being ruined.

The truth will set you free but first you must be exposed to it.

Read More: 4 More Lies All Men Are Told Their Entire Lives

Posted on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 17:00:51 +0000 at http://www.returnofkings.com/84087/3-fin...hole-lives
Comments: http://www.returnofkings.com/84087/3-fin...es#respond

Post: #2

I disagree with number 1 quite a bit. Renting is only a good option if you only plan on being there less than 5 years. Rents will continue to rise at very high rates all across the country. I'm not saying buy a brand new house, or a house at an inflated price, but if you can find a below market value property in a good location it's a good idea buy rather than rent. Just don't be foolish and buy something at 350K if that's the highest you qualify for, mortgage companies are in it to lend you the most money they can. Buy something at most 4 times your annual salary, and lower if possible.

Avoid FHA loans or anything with less than 20% down. Mortgage insurance will eat you alive over the long haul, and it's not automatically removed anymore, it requires a refinance which is very risky in the future with uncertainty regarding interest rates.

30 year mortgages are better than 15 year mortgages because of the flexibility of having a lower payment. Just pay more per month towards the premium and it can be paid off in the same 15 years, but the safety of having a lower payment can come in handy if you lose your job or end up having cash flow troubles later on.

Cash is king, you'll always get a better deal with cash if you have it. And you'll end up saving yourself hundreds of thousands of dollars on interest.

Post: #3

A house is an asset - it isn't necessarily a good one. I also disagree with captain_shane to the extent that renting vs. owning isn't a question of time of ownership as much as cap rates.

In markets where houses are expensive relative to rent, you should rent and invest the savings elsewhere, such as a stock index fund. In markets where rent is expensive relative to the house, you should buy almost regardless of how long you intend to stay.

To calculate, figure out how much it would cost you to rent vs. month vs. own. If the mortgage is significantly cheaper than renting the same pad, you should buy. For example, where I live now, it'd cost about $50k to buy. I can rent for $250/month. Given that I can't get a mortgage in Mexico, I'd have to pay cash. My $50k invested at the 9% or so return I generally earn with my money is worth $4,500/year to me. Rent is $250*12 = 3,000/year. So ownership would cost me $1,500/year more or less, plus transaction costs. Bad deal.

My mom's house is worth about $200k. She owns it outright. To rent a full house on her street costs about $1,600/month. $1,600*12 = $19,200. For her to own outright, she's forgoing $200k at 6% in investment returns (she is more conservative than me) + $1k in property tax. So she gives up $13k in opportunity cost but saves $19,200 in rent. For her to sell her house would be ass stupid. And that's not counting the fact that's she has $40k of capital gain on the house over a 10 year span, which adds nicely to the return on her capital.

Post: #4

(04-04-2016 11:46 AM)the biggest cheetah Wrote:  A house is an asset - it isn't necessarily a good one. I also disagree with captain_shane to the extent that renting vs. owning isn't a question of time of ownership as much as cap rates.

In markets where houses are expensive relative to rent, you should rent and invest the savings elsewhere, such as a stock index fund. In markets where rent is expensive relative to the house, you should buy almost regardless of how long you intend to stay.

To calculate, figure out how much it would cost you to rent vs. month vs. own. If the mortgage is significantly cheaper than renting the same pad, you should buy. For example, where I live now, it'd cost about $50k to buy. I can rent for $250/month. Given that I can't get a mortgage in Mexico, I'd have to pay cash. My $50k invested at the 9% or so return I generally earn with my money is worth $4,500/year to me. Rent is $250*12 = 3,000/year. So ownership would cost me $1,500/year more or less, plus transaction costs. Bad deal.

My mom's house is worth about $200k. She owns it outright. To rent a full house on her street costs about $1,600/month. $1,600*12 = $19,200. For her to own outright, she's forgoing $200k at 6% in investment returns (she is more conservative than me) + $1k in property tax. So she gives up $13k in opportunity cost but saves $19,200 in rent. For her to sell her house would be ass stupid. And that's not counting the fact that's she has $40k of capital gain on the house over a 10 year span, which adds nicely to the return on her capital.

This where I agree with both the article and the above. I agree with Cheetah's math around opportunity costs. However, there is a factor that is involved in the article and opportunity costs which is a soft number, that is economic confidence.

I'm taking confidence that the mechanisms in a market will stay the same into the future. Currently my confidence in market systems is very low, that means I don't trust rigged, electronic stock markets, I don't trust housing or economic stability into the future either. How does that play out on the above article points?

1. Owning a house, especially one with property: If you rent and america adopts a european system of free housing for radical 'refugees' you are more likely to become their neighbor if you rent, you are also more likely to be evicted to be replaced with them as a tennant than you are of being foreclosed on in a home. The same thing in dire economic times...its faster to evict you from an apartment than it is from a home that you have defaulted on. There are people living in foreclosed homes for over a year and still have not been kicked out. Last, will a landlord let you fortify your apartment, or install security systems? probably not. Renting provides low housing security...ownership provides high housing security, especially if you own it outright (no its not impossible, I have no debt on my home)

2. Corporations reward hard work. Totally correct to be suspicious, in times of low system confidence invest loyalty in people/small business not a corporation with faceless ownership.

3. Debt is bad. Debt is definitely bad in times of low system confidence. If debt collapses everyone starts calling loans and collateral. If you have a business debt which is personally guaranteed (they all are in 2016) and your lender suddenly calls it in you are screwed. Debt is totally fine if your confidence in your lender's ability to live without the capital is high.

Points #1 and #3 in the original article rely on high system confidence, while #2 assumes low system confidence. They are inconsistent in their views. If, in america we were high system confidence across the board it would be. #1, rent, it keeps you mobile #2, stick with a corporation, stay loyal and you can grow with the company #3 accumulate debt because economic opportunity abounds.

If america were in low system confidence it would be #1-secure your housing and basic needs so that they cannot be taken from you in a system breakdown #2 dont' trust corporations, their growth comes from margins on labor and cost cutting because innovation and market growth is stagnant #3 Don't accrue debt, it makes you vulnerable in collapse.

Post: #5

If you rent, you'll never build equity.

Post: #6

Lie #2 was on display recently, courtesy of CNN and Kevin O'Leary.

I thought he was pulling an April Fool's joke at first, but a quick internet search shot down that assumption....

Post: #7

(04-04-2016 09:18 PM)BlueOcean Wrote:  If you rent, you'll never build equity.

Equity in what? I rent, and use the saved money to invest in stocks. Literal equity. Much more liquid too.

But again, as I explained above, depends on whether renting or buying is cheaper. Being dogmatic in either direction doesn't make a lot of sense.

Post: #8

Quote:Points #1 and #3 in the original article rely on high system confidence, while #2 assumes low system confidence. They are inconsistent in their views. If, in america we were high system confidence across the board it would be. #1, rent, it keeps you mobile #2, stick with a corporation, stay loyal and you can grow with the company #3 accumulate debt because economic opportunity abounds.

If america were in low system confidence it would be #1-secure your housing and basic needs so that they cannot be taken from you in a system breakdown #2 dont' trust corporations, their growth comes from margins on labor and cost cutting because innovation and market growth is stagnant #3 Don't accrue debt, it makes you vulnerable in collapse.

I think you should rent instead of buy in a low system confidence environment. Mobility is more important in potentially bad times as it allows you to be flexible. If you're tied down to a house, you're trapped and at the whim of the government. For example, if property taxes skyrocket, property owners get screwed. Renters can adios.