May 2016 – I Live Off Dividends

Why Left vs Right is Dumb

One of the most absurd ideas in politics is that everything is either left or right. You are either a liberal or a conservative. The reason why this is absurd is because there are many different political systems that can be used and within a government there are many different policies that can be implemented. Politics is complex, and left versus right oversimplifies.

For example, I once spoke to someone and told him that one simple way that the government can raise more revenue is to increase taxes and then all of a sudden this person called me a “liberal” and then started criticizing me for supporting abortion. I make one comment about taxation and then suddenly my views on everything else is known. I am pro-abortion, for gay rights, etc.

This is very similar to racism. Racists will assume, for instance, that just because someone’s skin is black that he is a criminal when logically this is false. Not all black people are criminals. Likewise, just because someone wants to increases taxation, it doesn’t mean they are pro-abortion. In fact, what does taxation have to do with abortion?

This is what is wrong with left versus right. The views lumped together on the left have nothing to do with each other. Just because someone is pro-abortion, why would that mean he is pro-taxation? Just because someone is anti-taxation, why would that mean he is anti-military?

There is absolutely no logic to the political spectrum, but I suspect many people love it because it fulfills the human need to belong to groups.

Trump vs Clinton – News vs Betting Markets

There is a considerable amount of news showing polling results that suggest Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton currently.

However, betting markets still predict Hillary Clinton will win, so what is happening? I’m inclined to trust betting markets, so perhaps the media is trying to push momentum one way.

Isn’t Monarchism Dictatorship?

I’m on holiday now. I am not doing too much during this holiday, but I have been thinking about monarchism and dictatorship. You see, many people are monarchists, but I cannot understand why anyone could be a monarchist.

Dictionary.com defines monarchy as “a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.”

A monarchist is someone who advocates for rule by a particular monarch. What is a monarch? A monarch is just a person. Is there anything special about Queen Elizabeth? She is just a person. Hence monarchism is advocacy for rule by a particular person.

But wait? Isn’t this the definition of dictatorship?

Dictionary.com defines dictatorship as “a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.” It is also “absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.”

Dictatorship is rule by a dictator. Similar to a monarch, a dictator is just some person. Is there anything special about Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin? No, they are just people.

In other words, monarchy and dictatorship pretty much mean the same thing.

Why do I raise this up? What is the point? You see many people supporting monarchism but hardly anyone goes around supporting dictatorship.

Why is that?

Is it like cult versus religion where a cult is a belief you hate while a religion is a belief you like? Perhaps authoritarianism by someone you like is referred to as monarchism but authoritarianism by someone you hate is called dictatorship.

Aren’t developed countries like the UK and Australia well functioning monarchist countries?

These countries have what is called constitutional monarchism, and constitutional monarchism is effectively just democracy except the monarch has no power and simply has a ceremonial role. If that is the case then, in my opinion, monarchism is a waste of money. Why should taxpayers pay a monarch and her family to ride around in horses and live in castles?

The opposite of constitutional monarchism where royalty has no power is absolute monarchism where royalty has absolute power. Absolute monarchism exists in Saudi Arabia and Thailand.

Can monarchism or dictatorship be successful?

You can always give examples of dictatorships that succeeded. I’d argue Communist China is a somewhat successful dictatorship as judged by economic growth. Benevolent dictatorship is possible in theory but top-down control is usually hard and for every example of good dictatorship you can give there is always Hitler, Stalin, etc. If you were a monarchist leading a political rebelling to restore monarchy in America with the hope that you get a benevolent dictatorship, this is a risky strategy because you might end up with another Hitler or Stalin.

Democracy can be more inefficient that dictatorship but the spreading out of power under a democracy lowers the risk that comes with concentration of power.

How Money Printing Can Fail

The world economy came crashing in 2009 but was rescued through money printing. Standard economic theory would say that money printing would increase inflation, but we haven’t seen that.

If anything, the threat has been deflation (prices falling), and central banks lower interest rates or print money to cause inflation and fight deflation.

Lower interest rates encourage more people to borrow, and borrowing increases the money supply, so the effect is similar to money printing in that there is more money in the economy.

When people are confident, they tend to borrow money so that they can e.g. expand their business or buy more shares or real estate so that they can make even more money. However, when people are bearish, they don’t borrow because they may not be able to make enough money to pay off the loan, and so they tend to focus on paying off the debt. If going into debt increases money supply, paying off debt does the opposite, which is reduce the money supply. Paying off debt destroys money, which leads to deflation.

The game central banks seem to be playing is to wait for a dip in the market or a time when there is falling confidence and hence there is deflation. Then they lower interest rates or print money. People then expect the higher money supply will push up the prices of the property, shares, businesses, etc that they hold due to higher money supply increasing inflation, and then they borrow or leverage more, which pushes the market back up.

In theory, this can go on forever. As deflation occurs, just stimulate more.

There is one problem with this, which is what happens when money is printed but the recipients of printed money don’t do anything with it because they are concerned and want to “wait and see.” If interest rates are lowered, the expectation is that people will borrow more, but what if they don’t? Even if interest rates are zero, if returns on investments are negative, it’s not worth borrowing to invest. Likewise, if the recipients of printed money feel that all investments are poor and that the best use of money is to just leave it as cash, then this reduces the so-called velocity of money in the economy, which is deflationary.

In the past, assets produced great income. However, as money is bring printed in record quantities and interest rates are lowered, people are grabbing that easy money and investing it. If, say, a house in South America produced a rental yield of 10 percent, then as investors borrow money and buy the house, the prices go up, which lowers the rental yield. As the yield goes down, investors search for other assets. This is the so-called global hunt for yield.

As the global hunt for yield continues, investors need to search far and wide to find returns. Two ETFs have been released for the ASX that satisfy investor appetite for yield. There is an ETF that invests in junk bonds, i.e. lending money to bad companies (iShares Global High Yield Bond (AUD Hedged) ETF). There is also an ETF that lends money to emerging market governments (iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond (AUD Hedged) ETF).

As interest rates and money printing intensify, investors may reach the point where the global hunt for yield ends because all avenues will be exhausted. Investors then either don’t borrow at all or if money is printed and thrown at them, they do nothing with it. This bubble in yield pops.

This is when stimulus fails, and it looks like we are getting close to that day.

Why I Use ETFs

I am not the only dividend investor on the internet. It turns out there are plenty more. Through Twitter alone I have found many other bloggers who blog about dividend investing, which I think is great because it allows us all to learn from each other.

What I have noticed from reading the blogs of other dividend investors is that most of them seem to invest in individual stocks, and lots of them. They may hold shares in thousands of different companies.

Most of these bloggers give monthly updates where they break down how much they receive from each share. Most even go further and report on how much they spend. They divide their spending into categories such as groceries, mortgage payment, repairs on the house, gas bills, etc.

I thought for a second maybe I should do the same, but honestly I don’t really know how much I spend, and I don’t really know how I spend it.

I also personally don’t think it’s necessary to record everything you spend down to such a minute detail. It may be great to know that for one month you spent $500 on groceries but more important than knowing what you’re spending money on is knowing how much you’re spending overall.

I believe in keeping things simple, and for saving money I recommend the David Bach recommendation, which is “pay yourself first.”

In other words, talk to HR and have them send, say, 20% of your salary into your normal bank account and then set up another bank account where 80% of your salary goes. For the bank account that gets 80% of your salary, leave it alone. Let the cash accumulate. Meanwhile, try to simply live off the money in the bank account with 20% of your salary coming into it.

By doing this, you don’t need to worry about calculating whether you have spent $x on entertainment or $y on groceries. You just know that you’re spending 20% (or whatever percentage suits you). At the end of the day, it’s how much you spend that matters, not what you spend it on.

Every once in a while, access the money in the bank account where 80% of your salary is going and then use that money to buy ETFs.

Why ETFs? Why not research and buy stocks in companies that pay high dividends?

Personally, I believe it’s much easier to invest in ETFs. There are many ETFs in the market dedicated to paying high income. These are the ETFs I recommend for dividend investors. You could do your own work, but it’s much easier to let a fund manager do the work for you and let him or her take a small fee.

In Australia, there are actively managed ETFs that use options and futures to generate more income and to manage risk by lowering volatility.

Many people believe that low cost index funds are best, and I used to believe the same, but I have noticed over time that low cost passive index funds simply don’t produce much income.

It is certainly more risky to invest in an actively managed ETF because you are relying on the skills of the fund manager, but this problem is easily fixed by simply diversifying across different income-focused actively managed ETFs.

Most importantly, I believe in keeping things simple. We don’t need to make things complicated. Having your savings automated and then simply investing your savings in high-yield ETFs is a very simple plan that allow you to build passive income from dividends without much effort. All you need to do is stay employed and maintain your 80% savings rate.

This is exactly what I did. I aimed for an 80% savings rate. However, when I started working I invested in normal Vanguard low cost index funds but was disappointed in the sporadic and low income I got, so I slowly started to put money into funds that were more tailored for income investors.

Over time, I noticed that I had enough money coming in from my investments to cover my living costs, so I instructed HR to send 100% of my salary to the bank account earmarked for savings. All my investment income is send to my normal transaction account for spending. I am therefore literally living off dividends. Hence the name of this blog. All my salary is invested and all the income from investments is spent.

Why live like this? Simply, if you learn to live off dividends, you condition your mind to live a standard of living that can be maintained even of you lose your job. This means that regardless of whether you work or not, your standard of living is exactly the same. Your life is unaffected by work, which means you don’t need to worry too much about sucking up to the manager. This takes away a lot of stress.

Most people, if they start earning more, automatically start spending more. They’ll let the money get to their head, think they deserve to spend more because they earn more, and then they become addicted to the spending and must therefore keep working, even if their enthusiasm for the job wanes over time.

If you live off dividends, you have the freedom to quit or move jobs, or take time off work to pursue other opportunities, knowing that you are capable of simply living off your investments because that’s what you’ve even doing for many years.