Customer Reviews

Millionaire by Thirty: The Quickest Path to Early Financial Independence (Business Plus)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(19)

 

 

I shelled $[...]+ bucks on this book and now I regret. This book basically talks about 2 things:

1. Buy a house early, and separate the equity from the house by taking a big mortgage or refinancing often. Now invest the equity in some "side fund" which earns a bigger return than mortgage interest.

The priciple works, but it largely depends on the appreciation rate of the house. In boom time earlier this century, it was very feasible. That's probably why Doug's 2 sons (co-authors of this book) made a million. This advice is not universally applicable because real estate appreciation is very much location and time sensitive.

2. One investment vehicle exceeds all the others because contribution/accumulation/districution are all tax-free. Sounds attractive? Definitely! The first 7 chapters talk so much about this myterious "side fund" which is low risk and high return. I held my curiosity and discovered in the end that it's MFTA (max-funded, tax-advantaged) life insurance contract. "If it's properly structured", the authors say, you can be tax-free in all 3 phases mentioned above. I've found the description of this cash value universal life insurance (indexed or fixed) very confusing. Looks like it's not very straighforward to implement, and, we never know how future legislation will affect this strategy. For a common investor like me, I wouldn't try this strategy without a complete understanding of it.

Also, the book is not very well structured. Lots of repetition of the same stuff (guess there are 3 authors writing it). Sometimes it over simplifies financial matters by summarizing everything into 3 rules.

One plus is, you can access on-line resources for free: [...]. However, lots of links are still unavailable.

All in all, it doesn't contain solid financial advice that I was expecting and it largely hinges on past performance (e.g. real estate appreciation rate shoots through the roof) rather than focusing on future possibilities.

First off let me start by making a statement about the author. When I was searching for a website for his "financial services" firm, other than the "missed fortune" website that was set up specifically for his books, what I came across was the website "Bay Area Family Wealth Institute" which I assume is the business site for Mr. Andrews' firm. I wasn't able to find anything concrete on it that really said what services he actually offers, nor was I able to find anything that indicated what his credentials in personal financial advice are (save for a cryptic statement that he has "experience in business management, economics, accounting, financial and estate planning, and advanced business and tax planning"). The site says he's the president of "Paramount Financial Services" but the only Paramount Financial Services website I found, which is out of Arizona, claims to specialize in "a wide range of commercial equipment financing & leasing programs to meet the changing needs of our valued clients. Our competitive programs help established and start-up companies to acquire new and used equipment for their operations". If this is Mr. Andrews' company, which I doubt, it seems to be in a business that is of little relevance to the individual personal investor.
VERDICT: Unable to verify Mr. Andrews' actual credentials or experience, or in fact what services he actually provides or how he makes a living other than through the sale of his books. While this in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean that the advice in his books is wrong, it should be the first red flag that one should use extreme caution when considering his strategies.

Now for the actual content. Essentially Andrews' says that people should buy a house, and then when the house gains in value in just a couple of years they should then refinance the equity and the appreciation out of it and hold absolutely none of their equity in their home. Essentially using their home as an ATM. What should you do with that money you pull out? Andrews' keeps advocating investing it in a cryptic "side account" that is no risk high returns and tax free (I won't try to keep you in suspense like he tried, it's Universal Life insurance he wants you to buy). More on that in a moment. First I want to analyze the first part of this strategy.

If you've been following this strategy for the past few years, I guess you must owe a heck of a lot more on your house now than it's worth. In fact, you may be one of the individuals who cut their losses and walked away from their, let's face it, sub-prime mortgage. If not, you may find that you owe not only 10% or 20% more on your house than it's worth, have no equity in the house, and still are paying 6% or so on the mortgage rate. Whether or not your "side fund" is paying a "higher rate of return" or despite the fact that your mortgage interest is tax deductible (and I'll point out here it's just the interest that is tax deductible), you're at a point now where your property is a completely insolvent asset and that Universal life policy "side fund" probably carries a hefty surrender charge still so it will be hard and expensive to draw your funds out if needed. The money train has come to a complete halt.

And even if home prices weren't dropping, Andrews' conveniently forgets to mention anything about a little thing all home buyers know about called closing costs. When you refinance a mortgage, you pay a fee which can equal around 2% or so of the total amount refinanced. Therefore, if you have a $100,000 that you refinance every 2 years using this strategy, you're adding the equivalent of 1% annually in fees onto your mortgage expenses. Therefore, if after the tax deduction of your actual mortgage interest rate is 4.5%, with a refinance every couple of years it's actually an effective rate of 5.5%, or a savings of half a percent with your deduction. That tax deduction doesn't seem so significant now, does it?

But wait, Andrews' tells us that the Universal life policy will net us around 9% annually. Yes, but even if that were true that's a realized gain of 3.5%, which is close to what I can get in a high yield savings account from a number of reputable online banks. True the bank gains are taxed, however I'll argue that the average return from the Universal Life policy is probably NOT a guaranteed 9%. From what I've read of Univeral Life policies, you pay a hefty up-front commission to set up the policy (your insurance agent might pocket an immediate 6% of your money, so that's a 6% loss to you right out of the gate) and the administration charge on the policy might equal around 2% annually of the value of the policy. Plus, you have to regularly pay your premium so that it won't lapse. So essentially even at a 9% gain, it would take a few years before the insurance agent's commissions were paid for and you would break even, and once you actually started gaining it would likely be around 1 to 1 1/2 % annually. So now, you're paying your mortgage that's worth more than the house, you're paying the premium to maintain your "side fund", and you've just paid your insurance agent a fat commission. Wow, you're well on your way to becoming a millionaire. If I'm just putting my extra money into a high yield bank savings account I'm getting the same financial benefits without all the hassle of this scheme or the very real danger of jeopardizing the whole scheme because finances are tight one month and I might not be able to pay the insurance premium.

Next, I'll just say ignore any information that Andrews' gives in this book about IRAs, 401(k)s or 403(b)s. I didn't catch him actually lying, but I did several times catch him only half explaining some of the rules and intricacies of these types of accounts. For example, he explains a traditional IRA pretty accurately, that you get a tax deduction on contributions but when you withdraw funds at retirement you pay taxes on those contributions plus the earnings. Then he "explains" a Roth IRA stating correctly that you pay taxes on contributions to a Roth. What he fails to make clear is that when you reach retirement age and withdraw funds, your withdraws of both principle and gains are tax free. Because of a wonderful little phenomena that anyone with a little financial saavy knows about and loves called compounding, over a 30 year investment horizon the largest portion of a tax deferred or tax free account will be the gains with the principal equaling a small part (ie. you may over the period of your working life contribute $100,000 to an IRA, but your account is worth $1 million). This is a significant advantage to the Roth, and a significant tax savings for a retirement investor, and to pretty much not explain this fact is what I'd call a lie of omission. Through his poor explanation of the Roth he gives the impression to the reader that Roths are taxed on both ends, contributions and distributions. That's simply false.

Finally, one other point I want to address is his fuzzy accounting logic. In one point of the book he explains how if you own a $100,000 home free and clear, you have a $100,000 asset. However, if you mortgage that home for the full amount, you have now $200,000 in assets. This is absolutely correct from an accounting standpoint, but it's extremely misleading to a layman and here's why. Asset value is determined by an equation called the accounting equation. It's simplified version is:

assets = Liabilities + Equity

In our example we begin with:

$100,000 home (asset) = $0 mortgage (liability) + $100,000 (home equity)

If we mortgage the home, our equation becomes:

$200,000 home & mortgage funds (assets) = $100,000 mortgage (liability) + $100,000 mortgage money (equity)

So you see, while it's true as Andrews' says that borrowing your home's equity will double your ASSETS, ASSETS are just the things of value under your command that are either owned by you or borrowed by you. It is your EQUITY that measures your actual wealth, the worth of what you own. Let's look at the accounting equation again and restate it:

IF assets = liabilities + equity, THEN assets - liabilities = equity AND assets - equity = liabilities

So my final recommendation is, don't follow the advice of this book. It's just bad advice, it's a Ponzi scheme that relies on you getting paid from the money that other insurance company customers are paying for their insurance policies. For someone to have to "earn" all that money so "easily", someone else has to be suckered out of it. One of the first rules of wise investing is "if it sounds too good to be true, it is". Don't believe anyone who tells you that they can get you tax free high returns without any risk (unless they also admit that it would be from breaking the law).

Just a couple other quick words for fellow reviewers: If you gave this book a high rating and start your review with "I don't know anything about investing, but..." then I recommend you do some research on traditional finance so you understand just how unsound this advice is based on actual knowledge of the financial products that Andrews' talks about, despite how good he makes it sound. May I suggest "The Road to Wealth" by Suze Orman. Whether or not you agree with Suze's advice, this particular text goes into pretty good detail explaining various aspects of finance and how certain financial products and accounts work. Now, for those of you reviewers that gave this book 5 stars and defend it vehemently, but you only have one review attached to your user name...well gee, when I write a book I think I'll make up a bunch of false accounts on Amazon and defend my own book against criticism too. Taking out all of the ratings so far here on Amazon for this book that come from 1 review users (both the good scores and the bad scores, for fairness' sake) I calculated this book to have really gotten about 2 stars. It's just really, really, really, bad advice.

The main idea is to own multiple real estate properties all of which are financed at 100% at low interest rates while the excess value of the homes is invested in higher yielding (after tax) investments.

The assumptions about home appreciation rates, interest rates (borrowed and invested) and income tax rates are not realistic in today's environment in my opinion. I don't see how 18-29 year old individuals could apply these principles.

There are a few interesting ideas here and if you can get them to work, please let us know your methods.

The only millionaires by 30 are those like Mr. Andrew and his sons who sell Universal Life policies to unwitting consumers.

I bought a UL policy 16 years ago from Mr. Andrew. He showed me the unrealistic returns one could make based on a 12% annual return to get me to buy.

His book talks about returns of 6, 7, and 8%. I've never made those types of returns. More like 3%.

Also, the original policy he sold me was with Kentucky Central Life which promptly went bankrupt two years later. Jefferson Pilot took it over and then they got bought out by Lincoln National.

Mr. Andrew sold himself as a financial planner and said he contacted his clients once a year. Unfortunately, I've never heard from him again. He was too busy making his millions to bother.

This book is nothing but a sales pitch for Indexed Universal Life Insurance, which is conveniently offered by the author's company. And, by the way, if you buy one of these programs, their agents make a hefty fee. So not only are you spending money on this book, you will put more money into their pockets by buying this insurance program. Do some research on Universal Life Insurance (specifically the one mentioned in the book) and you'll uncover all the facts about it.

I will say the book had some ok ideas about investing in general, but save your money on this book and buy a "Rich Dad" book series instead.

If you have a great business model no problem being a millionaire by 30. Buying houses with maximum leverage and investing the difference in a max funded life insurance policy may do it by 50. That for most, especially the young is a big maybe.

You only need to read the paper or watch the news to see the result of people who borrowed too much to buy a house or three. Most problably had the income to pay the loan at the time it was originated. Then the unthinkable happened, job loss, illness, divorce, or life. Leverage is a double edge sword, and if you don't have a good cash surplus it can wipe you out.

The second glaring problem is the rationale on why other investments are poor compared to Indexed UL. The author glosses over the fact that many insurance contracts are kept for only a few years. The same way people jump in the stock market when it is hot and pull money out when it is cold. Again, view articles on people taking money from 401k plans to pay bills.

Then the pitch for Indexed UL is worse than having an agent sitting in your kitchen. I have two Variable ULs myself, so I am not completly opposed as part of a balanced portfolio for long term cash. But everything, no way and here's why. The expenses are the highest of almost any investment product on the market. Even in the best scenario Indexed UL will have 1% per year cost for insurance and the same or more for the investment fees. You can buy an Index of stocks and pay less than 1/4 of 1% in fees each year. Pay the lower capital gains tax rate when you sell, and cash out at any time. Sure you can borrow from your UL and pay no taxes, but you still pay interest on the loan. So if the interst rate is 1%, after 15 years you would have paid the full capial gains rate of 15%. You keep paying interest as long as the policy is in force. If it lapses, you are hit with a tax bill on the gains. It is taxed at the higher ordinary income tax rate, not the lower capital gains tax rate.

So to park some long term cash, protect your family, or leave some money to charity UL is great. But balance it with a full portfolio including cash. Better to borrow a reasonable amount on a home and fund several investments on the side if you want to get and stay rich.

This book is a sales pitch that keeps repeating the same thing (some times the exact same sentence) every few pages. In addition to the poor editing, the financial advice proposed in this book is very unrealistic:
- expects house values to increase at least 8% year over year FOREVER
- assumes an investment strategy that consistently returns 10+% per year with no risk

Besides the unrealistic expectations of return on investment, the strategy completely disregards the risk factor. It relies on a eternally rising real estate market at 8% or more, not accounting for market fluctuations, in which case the homeowners would be underwater and very likely to default. It also assumes rental properties as easy and fixed income, without accounting for late rents, or periods without renters, which would again cause the homeowner to not have funding to pay the mortgage.

This book advocates several of the very risky financial strategies that led to the recent real estate meltdown, and I wouldn't recommend anyone to follow it.

I listened to this book on tape over the weekend, listening to several sections more than once. My advice about this book, DON'T do it. It contains some basics for understaning financials in general, but do NOT try this personal pyramid scheme on yourself. I am glad to see that other reviewers have already explained the flaws.

The entire premise of wealth-building as presented in this book is a house of cards with no real wealth supporting it. The "wealth" is the equity in a home, or homes, regularly re-mortgaged to keep all the equity extracted. The extracted equity is then used to purchase universal life insurance contracts. A few years later, you then borrow against the accumilated value of the insurance contracts, tax free it is said. That's it!! The risks and costs of this scheme are presented as being virtually none. What a flimsy scheme to perpetrate on young adults.

This book would have been relevant if the following were to hold true forever:
a) the real estate market will always appreciate
b) portfolio of universal/whole life will always outperform the market

Had I bought this book in 2007 and invested as per its principles then - I would have lost a lot of my net worth.
The book also claims whole life/universal life is much better than term but does not outline impact of investment fees and performance of assets within the whole/universal life portfolio. This read was a waste of time (although it did make me research into whole/universal life)...this is not for me. Better advise was in the WSJ guide for new parents that outlines pros and cons of term vs universal/whole life. The advise in the WSJ book is much more realistic and practical.

We must examine our fundamental assumptions carefully before investing our money (or faith) to ensure we aren't building on sand. This book assumes you can easily find conservative investments with 8% yield, that real estate always grows in value and that market bubbles/crashes don't exist. As many other reviewers point out, the sub prime mortgage crisis and stock market crash would likely have decimated the finances of many following the advice in this book.

The jacket says the writers are from Salt Lake City Utah, which is the capital of mormonism. Inside the two sons are mentioned as having gone on a 2 year mission-which is pretty much a mormon requirement. If one were to investigate Joseph Smith-the founder of mormonism we could look at his life and claims to discern his great interest in getting rich. This might help shed some light on these followers processes too. This book is packaged well and makes a big claim, but once you spend some time with it, you see the chaos, contradictions and self deception inside the confident shell.

There are some obligatory good ideas though, you can read the best ones in other books: Pay yourself first, There are more valuable things in life than money (family,health-I'd add truth. See the Rich dad/Poor Dad series.) Don't use high interest credit cards to buy toys you can't afford. Use envelopes to track your expenses in cash (like in the show "till debt do us part.") The other stuff is confusing, risky, badly written, may not work outside the US and seems based on outdated assumptions. Even if you see this in your library like I did, don't bother.