Fri 8 Jun 2007
The other day I had some time to kill at the bookstore. I picked up the recent copy of Smartmoney and perused it. One article caught my eye. It was a strategy guide to becoming a Pentamillionaire. I don’t subscribe to Smartmoney as I only have the budget for one personal finance magazine and as a result didn’t get a chance to finish the article which is excerpted on the website. Kiplinger’s as an FYI is the one magazine I subscribe to based to my own informal review personal finance magazines.
The article raised two solid points. The first is implied by the title. A Million dollars is not what it used to be. 5 million is the new Million. The 2nd and main point was that becoming a Pentamillionaire is not as “easy” and straightforward as becoming the “Millionaire Next Door.” It’s one thing to save money for comfortable life and a carefree retirement, it’s another to make it big. The article in Smartmoney is about making it BIG! 5 million is really at the bottom of that scale.
I like many of other people who write about personal finances preach the slow and steady approach to propserity. J.D. does not write a blog called getrichquick, it’s getrichslowly. We are disciples of the Millionaire Next Door rather than Tom Vu’s late night television ads. As assuredly as living below your means, and putting it steadily into the equity market is proven way to prosperity, it’s decidely not the only way. The fact is if you want to be REALLY rich, you have to take risk.
Most Pentamillionaires as the Smartmoney article reports are entrepreneurs, or other folk who got in early with someone entrepreneurial. Starting your own business is risky even if the market is ripe and your skills perfect. There are some who would argue that being employed these days is as risky. Lifetime employment is a thing of the past. I agree to a degree, but the risks startup of any kind faces in terms acquiring and retaining clients is significant. Without clients no business can survive. Even if the risk for small business is overstated, psychologically for most individuals it’s a level risk that is hard to surmount. Setting off on your own is difficult course to embark on. According to one study, a startup that has employees has a 9% chance of surviving ten years. Those are slim odds.
I imagine those 9% who do survive often find success to be quite profitable. The question for most people who want to start a business is do they believe they will be in that lucky 9%. Obviously if you don’t believe that then it wouldn’t make sense to try to start business. Of course that 81% that fail obviously didn’t think they would fail but they did. So what does it take? One problem with the Smartmoney article is that it doesn’t really study people who failed. It says successful people have a “swell attitude”, “friendly”, and “eager for new experiences.” While I personally believe these are actual ingredients for business success, I wonder do people who fail in their business ventures also have these attitudes? It’s a question not asked by the article as it’s skewed to profiling success rather than failure.
So let me pose this question. If you knew for certain that you could work slow and steady to an accumulated wealth of $3 million in 20 years, or you could take some chances and either have a 10% probability of having 20 million, and 90% chance only having 1.1 million in 20 years, what course would you chart? From a risk neutral perspecive, the expected value is the same $3 million.
If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe to the RSS feed
June 8th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
[...] wonders what you’d rather have: 10% Chance for $20 million or 100% Chance for $3 million. Since $3M is enough for me, I will take the guaranteed [...]
June 14th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Cal me what you want, I would rather take the risk for the bigger reward. Only the average “play it safe”. I don’t define myself as average. Sure, $3M is enough for most, but I’d take a chance to secure not only my future but those of my children.
June 15th, 2007 at 8:57 am
I too would probably choose the great reward for similar reasons. Even if I know the odds are somehow stacked against me, I have faith in succeeding.
How about if phrased the question as such:
At the end of 20 years, would you bet 2 million on something that pays 10 to 1?
August 1st, 2007 at 3:49 am
Not to be mean, but a few points:
(1) If you “only have the budget for one personal finance magazine”
then you’ve either got the wrong magazine or you’re not paying to the advice within. The $30 or whatever you save on that extra subscription is peanuts and being penny wise but pound foolish.
(2)”I imagine those 9% who do survive … Of course that 81% that fail…”
If only 9% survive, then 91% fail, not 81.
August 1st, 2007 at 5:31 am
Kris,
Oops a bit of typo on subtraction of 100-9 = 91. Should’ve checked that.
As for point 1, I probably should’ve phrased if you only “have time for one.” You’re right it’s not really a budget issue but rather a question of time. Personal finance magazines can be pretty repetitive as is - I don’t see much of need to subscribe to Money, SmartMoney, and Kiplinger’s. Though I’ll skim across different magazines at the bookstand, gym, library or other people’s homes.