The Software Millionaire Next Door

Posted by David N. Welton Fri, 04 Jan 2013 22:32:00 GMT

I've been reading "The Millionaire Next Door" and have so far found it to be a pleasant book with a good message: don't waste your money on silly things and appearance (fancy suits, fancy cars, expensive boats, etc...), save what you do earn consistently and constantly, invest wisely, and so on.   Wikipedia has a good summary:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door

One of the things I like about it is that it focuses on "ordinary" wealthy people, those with a million or more in the bank, but not the Warren Buffets or Bill Gates types that are extreme statistical outliers.  There are plenty of people in the US who have done well by themselves by slowly but surely putting together enough money to be financially independent, without, however, being in the spotlight.   As the book says, these are the kind of people who maybe own a local chain of businesses doing something fairly ordinary, but doing it well enough to succeed.  They may very well not live in a fancy house, nor drive an expensive car, or otherwise outwardly draw much attention to themselves.

The world of software does not revolve around "dressing for success" (you noticed?), but we do tend to focus on the "big winners".  Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg, Larry & Sergey, Larry Ellison, and so on are the stars of the show.  Of course, the economics of software being what they are, instances of winner-take-all markets with one big fish and a lot of also-rans are not uncommon.   However, that is not the only story, and I think it'd be interesting to know more about those in our industry who have accumulated significant wealth, yet are not the guys with more money than they could possibly ever spend on things that aren't, say, country-sized chunks of real-estate.

I'm guessing they'd fall into these categories:

  • Highly paid workers who have consistently saved over the years.  There are examples in the aforementioned book about people with relatively low salaries who happened to be very frugal and invest well (and have had some luck in their investments too).  These people would probably tend to be older, as it takes a while to save up that kind of money, and since this industry is so young with so much turnover, I would not think there would be a lot of people out there like this, but who knows, maybe there are a bunch of IBMers with this kind of story.
  • Those who got in on the right IPO, like Google or Facebook or something like that.  These events not only generate billions for those at the top of the heap, but for the right person at the right place at the right time, can mean significant wealth even without being in the upper echelons of the company.  My suspicion is that this kind of IPO, where everyone cashes out, is not common enough to have a lot of people in this category, but who knows, maybe it adds up over the years.
  • Those who own or started software firms that do something that's not very visible, but nonetheless dominates some particular niche.  This is where I'd guess most of them would be, but I certainly have no data or even anecdotes to back this up.

It'd be very interesting to gather some actual data on this, although I'm not in a position to do so myself - I wouldn't even really know where to start. 

As I age, I think the third category has begun to seem appealing in many ways - I'm simply not cut out for the Big Company life, and I'm not interested in living in Silicon Valley and going "all in" on the latest startup - I already did that, and while it was fun and I don't regret it, it's not the kind of thing I'd want to do now that I'm married and have kids.   Incidentally, this more relaxed, under the radar approach is exactly what is expoused in one of my favorite books of the past few years, Start Small, Stay Small.

Edit : I finished reading the book and reviewed it here: http://davids-book-reviews.blogspot.com/

9 comments |

Trackbacks

Use the following link to trackback from your own site:
http://journal.dedasys.com/trackbacks?article_id=2260

  1. emmanuel lecharny
    about {{count}} hours later:

    Next read : Fooled by Randomness (Taleb), as mentionned at the end of the wikipedia article...

    There are ost certainly a lot of cat. 2 people : those who were lucky enough to be at the right place at the right time, even if hey weren't the right persons...

    For instance, those who were working for M$ early enough to have been able to cash in the stock options they get before 2000. Even the low level employees became millionaires.

  2. David N. Welton
    about {{count}} hours later:

    Emmanuel, I read The Black Swan, and while it's interesting, I find this one to be a bit more practical in terms of what might work to accumulate wealth.

    Microsoft is an outlier of a company, like Google and Facebook. They're examples that easily come to mind, but what I'm wondering is, for every one of those, how many people quietly save up, and how many start smallish businesses (like, say, Balsamiq) that do well over the years.

  3. Lee Bailey
    about {{count}} hours later:

    Each of the ones you mentioned as being programmer success outliers are really just business success outliers who happened to know how to program. Zuckerberg recently stated that he has done almost 0 programming since 2006. Like it or not, programming is now a vocation with millions of people of approximately equal skill. The winners are not the best programmers, but the luckiest businessmen who cash in on the right idea at the right time with perfect execution.

    Larry & Sergey didn't even know how to build a full web app when they started Google, but their algorithm caught the attention of some Angels so that they got the money to pay people who could program better then they could. Their algorithm isn't complicated either, it just came at the right place at the right time. Don't get me wrong, they are smart guys, but no smarter and definitely not better programmers than the 5,000 engineers at Google. They'd probably rank somewhere in the middle.

  4. Criação
    about {{count}} hours later:

    Thanks for the great tip about "Start Small, Stay Small". I have just bought it.

  5. fnord
    about {{count}} hours later:

    Of course, the economics of software being what they are, instances of winner-take-all markets with one big fish and a lot of also-rans are not uncommon

    If you think of archetypical SV crap like Instagram or Facebook as software then you're right.

    If you on the other hand look at real software markets (the ones where people tend to build profitable businesses instead of burning VC money) you are pretty wrong. Those markets are big enough to have more than one big fish in them.

  6. DevSpace9
    about {{count}} hours later:

    about {{count}} hours later:

    Your variables are showing.

  7. David N. Welton
    about {{count}} hours later:

    @fnord it all depends on the specific business, but there are plenty of money-making enterprises where global competition and network effects mean that there is, indeed, a "winner" in the market.

    • Windows/office
    • IBM, back in the day
    • eBay and Paypal
    • Intel

    The monopolies are not necessarily absolute, nor permanent, but they do exist in many fields.

  8. Vi
    1 day later:

    Thanks for this post ,considering to buy the book.Is it only american millionaires that book talks about or is it in general ?

  9. Carlo Pecchia
    {{count}} days later:

    @Vi the book consider only data on American householders. Despite that, it's really interesting and definitely worth reading.