ANNUAL INTEREST EARNED ON THIS FINANCIAL PLAN IS APPROXIMATELY, PER BILLION, 70 MILLION DOLLARS FOR DOING NOTHING PER YEAR FOR THE FIRST YEAR AND JUST SITTING ON THE BANK WITHOUT TOUCHING PRINCIPAL. OF THE NEW 70 MILLION IN INTEREST BANKING, I WOULD TAKE OUT 10 FOR ME FOR SPENDING FOR THE YEAR, OR 830K PER MONTH, AND AN ADDITIONAL 10 MILLION IN SPENDING FOR A FUTURE POTENTIAL WIFE. HER TEN MILLION WOULD ALSO SUPPORT KIDS. SO, IF THE PRINCIPAL WERE 3 BILLION, AND NOT 1 BILLION, I WOULD SIMPLY MULTIPLY ALL OF THOSE FIGURES BY THREE. WHICH WOULD MEAN 210 MILLION IN INTEREST EARNED PER YEAR WITH 30 MILLION FOR ME AND 30 MILLION FOR A WIFE AND KIDS TO SPEND.

FOR THE 700 MILLION DOLLAR AMOUNT IN THE INITIAL EXAMPLE (ON A ONE BILLION DOLLAR ACQUISITION), THE REMAINING 40 MILLION NOT SPENT OF THE 70 MILLION DOLLAR INTEREST EARNED WOULD GO BACK IN THE GROWTH FUNDS.  THAT MEANS THAT THE FOLLOWING YEAR, INSTEAD OF THE ANNUAL GROWTH OF THE PERCENTAGES OF THE 1 BILLION, THAT IN YEAR ONE WAS 700 MILLION, IT WILL BE 740 MILLION, DUE TO THE INCREASE IN THE PORTFOLIO FROM ADDING THE LEFT OVER UNSPENT INTEREST FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR. SO INSTEAD OF ME AND A POTENTIAL WIFE GETTING 10 MILLION EACH THE FOLLOWING YEAR IN "FUN SPENDING", IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE 13 MILLION EACH IN YEAR TWO  DUE TO THE INCREASE OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE THREE BROKERAGES. THE SPENDING AMOUNT WOULD GROW FROM THERE EACH YEAR.

WHAT IS VERY IMPORTANT, GOING FORWARD, IN REGARDS TO FINANCES WHEN I DO FINALLY MEET THE RIGHT WOMAN, IS THAT FOR MAJOR AMOUNTS OF MONEY INVESTED, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN DEBT LEVERAGING OR RUNNING UP CREDIT. FOR MY FAMILY GOING FORWARD, I BELIEVE IN WHAT IS CALLED, AS DESCRIBED IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH: FRACTIONAL SPENDING OF INTEREST ON PRINCIPAL. I DO NOT LIKE TO USE DEBT, PEOPLE CAN GET INTO TROUBLE THAT WAY. I WOULD NEVER TAKE OUT A MORTGAGE TO FUND A POTENTIAL VENTURE BASED ON PRE MARKET PROJECTIONS WITH THE HOPE OF FLIPPING THAT BUSINESS AGAINST THE PROPERTY MORTGAGE. BOTH OF MY VENTURES ARE VERY LOW COST WITH MAJOR POTENTIAL ROI AND VERY LOW LABOR EXCRUTIATION: E-COMMERCE THAT IS SELF STANDING. IF ANOTHER VENTURE WERE TO BE FORMED THAT REQUIRED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY IN STARTUP, I WOULD TRY TO BRING ON INVESTORS, NOT PULL OUT LOANS, OR DEBT LEVERAGING... TOO RISKY. OF PRINCIPAL INVESTED, I SPEND A "FRACTION" OF THE INTEREST EARNED. THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY CONSIDERED "TRICKLE DOWN", IT IS CONSIDERED CONSERVATIVE BANKING WITH A MASS AMOUNT OF PRINCIPAL TO HAVE ACCESS TO IN CASE OF EMERGENCIES. WITH BOTH PARENTS DECEASED, AND NOT A LOT OF FAMILY LEFT, IF THERE WERE AN UNEXPECTED FINANCIAL CRISIS (CAR REPAIRS, HOUSING REPAIRS, ETC), I WANT TO HAVE THE PROPER RESOURCES IN THE BANK THAT CAN PAY OFF THOSE FINANCES IN CASE OF EMERGENCY. THEREFORE, RUNNING UP DEBT IS NOT MY SPENDING STRATEGY. IN ONE OF MY FAVORITE MOVIES, “WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS”, GORDON GEKKO WHO WAS PLAYED BY MICHAEL DOUGLAS TALKS ABOUT DEBT LEVERAGING IN REGARDS TO THE “NINJA GENERATION”, NO INCOME, NO JOB, NO ASSETS. HE EXPLAINS THAT PEOPLE OF THAT GENERATION PULL OUT A SECOND MORTGAGE TO BUY MORE CARS, A SECOND HOUSE, AND ASSETS IN THE HOUSE… TVS, ETC. VERY RISKY. WHEN THE MARKET OR THE ECONOMY DIPS, THE HAVE TO DECLARE BANKRUPTCY OR GET INTO FURTHER DEBT TO PAY OFF EXISTING LOANS. BIG MISTAKE. ALSO, WHEN YOUR CAREER IS PROJECT BASED, SOMETIMES THERE IS A GAP BETWEEN PROJECTS OR PAY. BETTER TO BE SMART WITH SPENDING. WITH THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS MODEL, IF MAJOR PURCHASES ARE FINANCED, THEY ARE TYPICALLY BOUGHT WITH THE MINDSET THAT, IF NEEDBE, THE MAJORITY OF IT COULD BE PAID OFF BY WHAT IS IN THE BANK. .