Tag Archives: Saving

The Myth Of Saving Your Way To Retirement …

Posted on by
12

Quite a while ago, I published a post that took a look at the supposed ‘power’ of saving …

… if you didn’t read it then, now would be a good time to ask yourself if you really care that weekly contributions of $34 could potentially grow to over $76,000 in 20 years, as proudly proclaimed by Fidelity?

One reader, Concojones, thinks that I have underestimated the ‘power of savings’:

Let’s not dismiss too quickly the good old save-your-way-to-retirement advice. Saving $15k/year for 40 years yields an expected $2.5M in today’s dollars (for what it’s worth: $10+M in retirement dollars), assuming your investments go up 5-6% per year after inflation.

Let’s not dismiss it too quickly, indeed. Retiring with $10 million in your pocket (albeit, ‘only’ worth $2.5 million in today’s purchasing power) is none too shabby.

The only problem that I can see – actually, the only FOUR problems that I can see are:

1. You have to be happy (well, ‘happy’ is a relative term) to work for 40 years,

2. You have to save $15k per year – easy at the end of 40 years, very hard at the beginning … and, even harder in the middle when you might be earning ‘only’ $50k (before tax) and have to put away 15% to 30% of your salary “with four hungry children and a crop in the field” [AJC: if you’re old enough to remember that Kenny Rogers song]

3. You have to average 8% to 10% return on your type of investment – but it has to be one that lets you add $15k annual increments for 40 years (which ties you to ‘standard’ products like, CD’s, bonds, stocks, and mutual funds).

4. You MUST be disciplined enough to stick to this simple strategy for the entire 40 years WITHOUT WAVERING in up/down markets: the Dalbar Study [ http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/investors-behaving-badly/ ] says a firm NO to being able to achieve anything like this rate of return.

So, great on a spreadsheet, but I wouldn’t want to bet my life on it 😉

What price security?

Posted on by
20

How do you put a price on security?

Well, in this post I’m going to try and do exactly that but, first MoneyMonk asks the question that all people have at the back of their minds:

As a woman, I just want to say that “to each it’s own” Women love security.

If you are not a person that love investing, and you have the cash to pay off your mortgage (considering that you plan to live their forever)

Adrian- not everyone is business oriented. Some just don’t have the business acumen to run a business. Therefore, that group SHOULD pay off the mortgage

This is the dream of home ownership: own your home outright and you have nothing to worry about.

But, do you?

Let’s say that you own a $150,000 home today … what will it be worth in 30 year’s time?

About the same as a $150,000 home today, but in future dollars!

So, let me ask you; when your kids grow up, move out, and you retire, what are you going to move into?

Probably the same, or another $150,000 home … a smaller condo or newer townhouse that will probably not give you too much change, if any, from $150,000, a retirement home that (with fees) will cost you far more than $150,000.

Your home is not your financial security; your realizable net worth is. Put it another way: you can’t live off your home, but you can live off your cash and investments.

True security comes from knowing that you can pay your monthly bills for the rest of your life, without needing to work or get handouts from friends, relatives, or the government, through up markets and down (war, pestilence, and other Acts of God aside).

I hope that you see my point …

So, let’s look at two scenarios for a $150,000 house that you just bought and locked in a 30 year fixed rate loan at 6% (a bit higher than today’s actual rates, which are still between 5% and 5.5%):

1. You pay off your mortgage early

Note: We will assume that you are allowed to pay off as little / much as you like on your loan (not the case with some fixed rate loans in the USA, and certainly not the case with most fixed rate loans in most other countries!) because it makes the math simpler.

This is great, because you ‘earn’ 6% on your money [AJC: remember, a dollar saved – in interest – is the same as a dollar earned], better yet:

– The amount you ‘earn’ is guaranteed; every year that you are no longer paying that 6% loan, you are in effect earning 6% … simple and guaranteed!

– Unlike an investment that pays you 6%, there is no tax to be paid on the 6% mortgage that you save (although, there can be a negative benefit of losing the tax deduction on your home loan interest … but, I’m trying to keep this simple), so it’s more like earning 7.5% – 8.5% (depending on your tax rate) in any other investment.

– Let’s say that you plonk the entire $150k down in one hit, you save the entire $175k INTEREST (yes, a house that you buy for $150k in 2010 will have cost you $325k, just in principal and interest, by the time you have paid off the 30 year loan in 2040).

2. You do not pay off your mortgage early

Note: Paying the loan off slower will, naturally, save you something greater than $0 and less than $175,000 … but, is too hard to calculate, here, so we will continue to use the assumption that somehow, you were able to pay that entire $150k loan off in one hit.

Well, it’s a fairly simple calculation then, isn’t it: what can you invest $150,000 in that will return more than $175,000? Let’s run some numbers and see:

Business: If Michael Masterson is right, and we gain 50% (or more) from our own business, then after 30 years you would have earned $29 Billion on your $150k ‘seed capital’.

But, MoneyMonk is right: there is extreme risk and skill involved in being successful in business … just a shame the potential reward is so low 😉

[AJC: just a tad more than the $175k interest that you would have saved if you used the money to pay off your mortgage instead of starting a business]

Real-Estate and Stocks: Again, if Michael Masterson is right, and we gain 30% by investing in a mixture of buy/hold real-estate and stocks (naturally, continually reinvesting the rents and dividends), then after 30 years you would have $392 million …

… if that sounds a lot, remember that Warren Buffett built up a $40 Billion+ fortune over 40 years at not much more than 21% compounded.

Stocks: I agree with Michael Masterson, that if you buy stock in just a few good businesses when they are are going cheap (as the market does from time to time) and wait 30 years, you should have no trouble getting a 15% compounded (pre-tax) return so, after 30 years you would have nearly 10 million.

But, all of this has some risk / skill associated with it … so, maybe paying off the mortgage and snaffling that $175k is still the way to go for all of those risk averse people [AJC: Like me. True!] out there?

But, wait, what if we just do the ‘no brainer’ thing and plonk that entire $150k in a set-and-forget-low-cost-Index-Fund?

Here’s the good news: paying off your mortgage is a 30 year investment (you have forgone 30 years of being locked in to a loan and paying 6% interest year in, year out), so it’s only fair that we buy $150k of Index Fund units and don’t even look at our portfolio for 30 years, right?

Well, that’s an ideal strategy – THE ideal strategy – for Boglehead set-and-forget investors! So …

Index Funds: Over 30 years, the markets (hence the lowest cost Index Funds) have averaged something more than 12% – set and forget (!) – so, after 30 years you would still gain close to $3.5 million!

But, wait … we’re all about security here: you can’t live off averages, right? What happens if there’s another crash like 1929 and 2008 the day after I plonk my entire $150k into an Index Fund?

Well, you lose half your money immediately 🙁

But, we don’t care what happens immediately, this is a 30 year set-and-forget plan … and, there has been NO 30 year period where the stock market hasn’t returned AT LEAST 8%.

Now, isn’t 8% (since we have to pay tax on it) exactly the same as the equivalent after-tax 6% mortgage (give or take 0.5%)?

Yes!

The lowest possible return that we can get with any reasonable investment strategy that we can come up with is exactly the same as the best possible return that we can get by paying off our mortgage early.

Now, isn’t that interesting?

The fundamental rule of money?

Posted on by
6

Here’s the difference between conventional personal financial advice and 7m7y thinking in one slide; according to Brian Taylor the fundamental rule of money is to:

Either earn more than you spend or spend less than you earn.

Simple … and, much better than the alternative (spending more than you earn) …

… but, wrong!

There is only one fundamental rule of money:

Earn more than you spend

Can you see why? Your financial future depends upon it 🙂

Is he really a clever dude?

Posted on by
8

[Disclaimer: Artist’s rendering of AJC … any resemblance to other bloggers living or dead is purely coincidental]

Have you noticed that I don’t have a category for debt on this blog?

[AJC: you can click on any of the keyword/categories in the orange header-banner above to see a list of blog posts focusing on that subject]

It’s not because we don’t talk about debt, as we clearly do …

…. it’s because, to me, creating or paying off debt is just the same as investing (after adjusting for tax: a dollar saved in interest, is the same as a dollar earned in interest or investment income, right?).

That’s why I was genuinely interested in finding out what was going through fellow-blogger Clever Dude’s mind when he loudly proclaimed:

We’re Free of Consumer Debt!!!!!!

As of today, we have paid off all $113,000 of our student loans, auto loans and credit card debt.

We are debt free!!!

My fellow blogger is right to be proud of his achievement … but, does that make it the right investment choice?

Check it out:

He paid off $113k … now, this is no small achievement, some people don’t even save that in their entire lifetime! Still I couldn’t resist asking Clever Dude for some details:

The rate on the student loans was 6.25%. The 2nd mortgage is 7.875%. First was 5.25%.

I chose to pay off the student loan because it was more manageable and I could get it off the books faster than the 2nd mortgage. Mathematically, the 2nd mortgage makes more sense until you factor in the tax deduction which brings them down to about equal.

I also wanted to know a little about his current net worth (after the mammoth debt-payoff feat) – nosey, aren’t I?! Anyhow, Clever Dude was happy to share:

Don’t mind the math as I rounded:

Cash: 17%
Investments: 37%
Home Equity: 6%
Autos: 17%
Personal Property: 12% (if I could sell it all right now)
Whole Life Insurance: 5% (yep, I got it, it’s expensive, but I’m not giving it up!)

So, Clever Dude has ‘invested’:

-> $113k in loans returning (by avoiding having to pay) around 6.25% after tax

-> 17% of his net worth in cash returning (I’m guessing here) 2%?

-> 6% of his net worth in his home returning some unknowable amount in future (potential) capital gains

-> 5% of his net worth in insurance ‘investments’ of dubious value after (often) exorbitant fees

-> 29% in (presumably) depreciating ‘assets’ such as autos and personal property

Now that he is debt-free, what  will drive Clever Dude’s investment strategy from here on in? He says:

Investing and savings are next up in our planning. Honestly, we’ve spent so much time just thinking about debt, we haven’t spent much time on the future. Now is the time.

Now, I’m not here to pick holes in Clever Dude’s investment strategy as he had a strategy and moved mountains to achieve it – not to mention, that we know so little about Cleve Dude’s true financial situation that we are in no position to advise / criticize …

…. but, I do want to use this example to show why following a blind – and, in my mind totally arbitrary – investment goal such as “reducing debt” is not always the best idea:

Clever Dude has only 37% of his net worth in investments right now (OK, he is working on his Master’s Degree, so he has had other things on his mind) and has limited the bulk of his net worth’s returns to only 2% to 6% (or so) by almost-totally focusing on paying debt.

Why?

So, that he can start “investing and saving”!

Now, does that make sense to you?

So, who’s missed the point?

Posted on by
7

Philip Brewer, a freelance writer for Wisebread (I presume, amongst others) has had a couple of mentions here, lately; this one for a comment that he made on his review of the book: Your Money Or Your Life [AJC: snappy title]:

The book has a very simple investment program that many people have taken issue with. The authors want you to invest your surplus money (a growing amount, once you make some progress on maximizing income and minimizing expenses) in long-term treasury bonds. More than a few people have criticized the program on the grounds that a diversified stock portfolio would produce higher returns. These people have missed the point: The goal of the investment portfolio is to produce a very secure stream of income. Long-term treasurys are a perfect choice.

Since I haven’t yet read the book, I can only say that I disagree if the authors – hence Philip – were talking about investing for retirement; after retirement – Making Money 301 – I wholeheartedly agree that the “goal of the investment portfolio is to produce a very secure stream of income.”

I also agree that “Long-term treasurys [sic] are a perfect choice”, especially if they are inflation-protected (e.g. TIPS in the USA), and perhaps laddered in some way; alternatively, you could try:

– income producing real-estate purchased in whole or in large part for CASH,

– index funds (although, you open yourself up to a certain volatility),

– Covered calls, perhaps protected by PUTS (if the option pricing allows).

But, not when you are still trying to build up your nest-egg unless you have such a low required annual compound growth rate (which probably means that you came by the page accidentally and are about to click off, never to return) that bonds / treasuries will do the job.

Until you do get within a few years of retirement, the goal of your investment portfolio is simple: it should be to produce your Number 🙂

Pay yourself first or last?

Posted on by
12

Adam (a staff writer at Get Rich Slowly) wants you to “challenge yourself” by replacing the the standard ‘pay yourself first’ advice with:

Only pay yourself first if you deserve it.

Now, Adam isn’t suggesting that you stop saving that 10% to 15% of your gross income that the bulk of the personal finance blogosphere recommends …

… what Adam is really asking is:

Should You Stop Funding Retirement to Focus on Debt?

[This] is one of the most heavily debated dilemmas in personal finance. Unlike “spend less than you earn” or “track every penny you spend”, there’s no cookie-cutter answer to this question. Variables such as age, career, risk tolerance, and even personality type make each individual situation unique.

This is a good line of questioning – and I encourage you to read his article – but, unlike Adam, I think there is a “cookie-cutter answer to this question”:

You should always ‘pay yourself first’ …

… but, where you place that money depends on where you earn the greatest after-tax return.

Keeping in mind that a “dollar saved is a dollar earned”, it could be in:

– Your 401k, potentially earning 8% plus the value of any employer matches (in an earlier post, we calculated this as providing another % point or two to your long term return),

– Your debts, potentially saving 10% to 30% interest on high-interest car, credit card, and consumer loans,

– Your real-estate investment strategy, potentially earning 15% to 25% in long-term rental increases and capital appreciation,

– Your seed capital for your new business, potentially earning 50%+ in future profits and windfall gains on the sale of the business,

– etc.

But, is unlikely to be found in paying off low interest student loans (saving 0% to 5%) or mortgages (saving 4% to 6%) or in investing in low interest savings such as bank accounts, bonds, or CD’s (earning 1% – 5%).

Blindly plonking your money into your 401k, or paying off debt, or paying down your mortgage is not the way to get rich(er) quick(er) … 7m7y readers always look at their options in terms of greatest contribution to reaching their Number.

The pyschology of saving …

Posted on by
2

Thanks to Ill Liquidity for sharing this video – and, many others – on our sister site: Share Your Number … it’s interesting to see This Clever Guy talk about the psychology of Paying Yourself First, and the Envelope System.

What do you think of these Making Money 101 techniques? Do you have any others to share?

I am no longer a student …

Posted on by
1

I can’t offer advice for my younger readers as to what they should do with their lives (right now!) as I am no longer a student of anything (other than Life and Finance) 🙁 nor am I young 🙁 🙁

… but, I would recommend that you take this guy’s advice EVEN if it seems to come at the expense of your short-term personal finance goals.

So, let’s say that you do take 3 months off to volunteer abroad:

– It will probably cost you airfare and clothes, insurance, shots, etc .

– But, it may not cost you a lot in (spartan) food and (even more spartan) accommodation

And, you can probably Net Present Value the cost of these items PLUS the foregone income from your Summer Job.

But, I can simplify the cost as probably putting you one year behind in your financial life (of course, you can compound this out to a large number later) and the extra work that you will need to do next year to catch up with what you spent.

However, what about the Life Experience that you have earned? The Fresh Outlook that you have gained? The Favorable Karma that you have built up?

Priceless!

It’s not ALL about money, you know 😉

Be rich? Or, appear rich?

Posted on by
4

overspendingTrent at A Simple Dollar poses an equally simple question: Do You Want to Appear Rich? Or Do You Want to Be Rich?

Now, if this were a frugal-living blog, I think you know what my answer would be, but – like Trent – I have some personal experience of living beyond your means to keep up with appearances:  I grew up in a house where my family clearly lived beyond its means.

But, my father confided our true financial position to me – and, only to me – so, I became financially self-sufficient at a very young age. Others saw this as me having a strong sense of responsibility; however, if they knew my dark financial secret, they would see it as merely as the early manifestation of a strong survival instinct.

Whatever the fiscal lessons that I learned at a young age, they have clearly been to my long-term financial benefit …

Having said that, by nature, I like the good things in life … being rich suits me 🙂

However, even before I made $7 million in 7 years, I knew how to appear rich by being clever with the money that I had.

For example, when my friends were buying new Australian or Japanese cars (hence riding the depreciation roller-coaster to the tune of 15% to 30% per year), I bought a ten year old 911 Porsche.

Not only did I have a ton of fun racing it – and, rolling it on and off tow trucks whenever it had mechanical problems 😉 – I made money when I sold it.

Clearly, buying used is one way to appear rich (and, enjoying some of the fruits of your labor now) without actually holding yourself back from becoming rich by overspending.

Another way is to avoid the fiscal habits of either the Debt Wealthy or the Buy Wealthy: don’t buy or borrow-to-buy ‘stuff’ i.e. depreciating assets like cars, boats, and vacation homes.

If you must have some of these things, then take a leaf out of the book of the Rent Wealthy: rent whenever you can afford to, otherwise go without.

For example, it’s been said that you can charter a boat that is one size larger than you could afford to buy five times a year for about the cost of owning that smaller dinghy that you were about to buy. Similar logic applies to vacation homes, etc.

Use this rule of thumb (i.e. at least 5 weekends a year – every year – of use) to help you decide when you should buy or rent … assuming that you could afford to buy according to the 5% rule 😉