What are the markers of wealth these days?

ambro25

bluewolf wrote: »

They got rid of rewards on ulster bank ones. Are there actually cards here giving any?

Eta: i see kbc are at least... Interesting

With credit cards, a "0% on purchases for x months" deal is its own reward, when offered: whilst the bank is lending you its money at its own cost to buy <whatever>, you keep your capital untouched, which continues to make its own babies.

All being well (if the capital is large enough and the interest high enough, relative to the purchase cost of the <whatever>), the babies alone cover the purchase at the loan term (or before) = <whatever> bought with interests, not capital.

We've bought loads over the years at 0%, even though we could perfectly afford to pay cash there and then. I don't know if that qualifies as a marker of wealth, rather than financial/prudential sense.

For the rest of it, as my Dad has always said: "to live happy, live hidden" (i.e. don't flash, nor try to keep up with the Joneses)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dardania

bluewolf wrote: »

Beasty wrote: »

If you pay off in full you keep your cash for up to 2 months and you probably get a ton of reward points on the card. It's probably the best way to pay if you have the credit limit.

They got rid of rewards on ulster bank ones. Are there actually cards here giving any?

Eta: i see kbc are at least... Interesting

Just noticed that Avantcard seem to have some reward associated with hotels.com - must remember that in future

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

evolving_doors

Dank memes

Beasty

Picked up £140 in Amazon vouchers a few weeks ago. It was a UK card though (HSBC)

The consumer protection is also valuable - you don't get that with PayPal. Nowadays they cannot charge a premium for paying by credit card either - not in the EU anyway

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

Absolute rubbish, Harry. A triumph of slick marketing and regular special offers. Useless suction and extremely unreliable. Invest in a Nilfisk or Henry instead, and spent the considerable savings on porter.

Apparently the Bosch one is the best. They Dyson cordless came something like 8th in a Which magazine survey.

Dardania

I'm just wondering about all these people harping about manually operated hoovers - it's either the maid's problem, or go for the roomba if you don't want the headache of a maid?! 

JupiterKid

A set of big gates at the entrance to your driveway.

dr.fuzzenstein

JupiterKid wrote: »

A set of big gates at the entrance to your driveway.

A monogrammed pool

valoren

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The reason being that the little guy tends to see the stock market as a casino, buying and selling and not actually as the place where you can buy part ownership of a business. At today's valuations there aren't many bargains. The likes of the little guy see's a market crash as a disaster whereas the reality is that it's just the market going on sale with some quality companies becoming available at cheaper prices.

A typical example is the little guy buying a momentum growth stock that is being speculated on, the price being driven to new highs everyday despite having no actual earnings at all, they buy in near or at the top then they sell out when the price eventually collapses, and they'll curse the stock market as being too risky and a joke. That will always happen and there will always be greater fools.

I found that book to have a major focus on business ownership with most millionaires actually being business owners, be it their own business (usually small businesses) or via part business ownership via common stocks. Yes, there was a bull market from 82 through to 00 but there was also a major bear market since the early 70's. The kind of people profiled in the book, written in 1996, were the extremely frugal types who bought common stock of boring companies at then relatively cheap valuations (probably unbeknownst to them) and who saw their prices rise in the subsequent bull market. The shrewd ones saw it as being business owners and got their dividends because of that yet the key thing is they were so frugal they realised that due to the subsequent capital gain if they wanted to sell up and live in Maui they knew they'd have a wallop of tax to pay Uncle Sam on the gain and they presumably just decided to hold and not sell and simply collect the increasing dividend payments. They never touched the principal. They then inadvertently or not allowed the magic of compounding and time to make them millionaires while they got on with their lives and were still cutting coupons benefiting from a bull market in stocks. These millionaires weren't the pop cultural depiction of millionaires that the little guy imagines.

Imagine Jack and Jill, married in the mid 70's, and they both had $2,000 each to invest. In June 1975, They happened to choose Walmart and Eastman Kodak. $1,000 in each. Jack happened to be buying film for his camera and Jill noted that the Walmart they went to seemed to be busy. They decided they would go with those companies. People will always need to shop somewhere and they'll always need camera film right?

Jack quadruples his money and sells out for a profit of $8,000 (after reluctantly paying capital gain tax) towards the end of the decade. Walmart did very well but he actually lost a little money of Eastman. Still, no complaint, he 'buys' a brand new cadillac with the proceeds, or rather with some of it plus a car loan, and now looks a million dollars driving around town and with it sitting gleaming in the drive at home their neighbours all think they must be doing very well for themselves.

He treated his 'investment' as a gamble, he was speculating trying to turn $1 into $2. He turned a dollar into $10 and sold thinking he was a god damn genius. Jill, on the other hand held on, she saw it as her having a part interest in these businesses, saw herself as the owner and delighted in seeing her share count increase over the years as the dividends kept on coming and were rising too. When she initially got her direct registration statement, she sent it back with instructions to reinvest the dividends. She kept her stock certs in a bank safety deposit box just in case.

Today, Jack's cadillac has long been smashed to pieces and the parts recycled into a tug boat somewhere in China.

Jill got a statement saying her $1,000 in Kodak is worth $318. Overall a pretty crap investment. Her Walmart investment is worth $3,934,630. It went through some sharp price corrections, but she still got her dividend cheques. With her now 36,910 (thanks to nine 2 for 1 stock splits), this year she will be getting $18,824. In April, in June, in September and in December. $75,296 a year. And rising. Who cares what the share price is doing she thinks. Walmart could have dropped to $0 at any point but Jill would have just lost the $1,000 she used to but WMT with. Jack by selling his ownership of that business lost almost four million dollars because he had his eye on a new car. Jack and Jill don't have any children but when they pass away Jill is to donate her stock to the local library to use the dividends to run it's operations. Not that anyone there has a clue yet that Jill is a multi-millionaire, she's just the nice lady who keeps herself to herself.

That's what the book was getting at for me when reading it. The likes of Jill, everyday people, who bought the likes of compounding machines like Coke, P&G, Johnson & Johnson, Colgate and then never sold are everywhere. We just don't notice them as they are just being themselves. The author is suggesting that like Jill and Walmart, there must surely be others who bought say Berkshire Hathaway in the 70's, Home Depot in the early 80's, Apple in the mid 80's etc that still hold onto them today and look exactly like just about everybody else.

Philip Fisher gives an analogy of this kind of thinking in the below.
http://theirrelevantinvestor.com/2015/11/01/when-is-the-right-time-to-sell-big-winners/

suicide_circus

Possessions are shackles

Beanybabog

When I see someone with a brand new Merc / BMW etc I assume they're wealthy. I know people buy cars with credit but it always strikes me as a marker of wealth, because I assume (probably incorrectly) they have the spare cash. We have a good income but I would never buy a car like that unless I was mortgage free and had buckets of money. We waste money on coffees and lunches and general crap but I suppose we dont buy designer clothes and can afford to pay triple our mortgage payment each month. I'd classify us as comfortable but we have a fairly big mortgage so we're keen to protect ourselves from the next downturn by focussing all our money into getting rid of that, and sharing an old skoda in the meantime!

Widdershins

cycle4fun wrote: »

Not always. There are cases of multi-millionaires driving quite ordinary cars.

Yes. Most of the gentry families I know drive older, very ordinary cars. They'd prefer if people did not know how wealthy they actually are. Their houses are more shabby than chic.

Widdershins

Greentopia wrote: »

What nonsense. Lots of people drive expensive cars who are not wealthy-pcp or the banks own it. They just want to give the impression they're wealthy. As for them being markers of taste and discernment I'd say the more flash the car the less taste they have in my experience. They're just trying to prove something and they think owning a flash car will impress others. Reeks of insecurity actually.

Personally I'd be more impressed by a guy who cycles a lovely bicycle than any car.

I mostly agree but you know, some people really like and appreciate nice cars that give you an enjoyable drive, and don't care what anyone thinks any more than the ones who drive the 80's cars do. If I was very wealthy, a car is probably one thing I would spend a lot of money on because I love certain cars and I really enjoy driving. As it is I'm not wealthy and don't care whether people 'respect' me based on that or not. Why would I start considering their opinions if I had the funds to buy a Maserati or a Morgan Aero 8.

Greentopia

Widdershins wrote: »

I mostly agree but you know, some people really like and appreciate nice cars that give you an enjoyable drive, and don't care what anyone thinks any more than the ones who drive the 80's cars do. If I was very wealthy, a car is probably one thing I would spend a lot of money on because I love certain cars and I really enjoy driving.

Fair point. I can understand the attraction of a nice car from that point of view, even if it's not my thing. I dislike cars for various reasons but I can appreciate the aesthetic appeal of say a beautiful vintage E-Type Jaguar. Everyone has something they would spend money on if they have it to spare. Travel is mine

Widdershins wrote: »

As it is I'm not wealthy and don't care whether people 'respect' me based on that or not. Why would I start considering their opinions if I had the funds to buy a Maserati or a Morgan Aero 8.

Nor do I and I'm not wealthy either. People who only respect you if you're loaded are not the type of people whose respect I desire or value. I hate such superficiality and materialistic mindset and avoid people like that in any case.