By Bert Whitehead, M.B.A, J.D. © 2011
Some of the most important lessons I have learned didn’t come from classrooms or continuing education sessions, but rather from observing real life experiences of my clients. One such lesson I learned 35 years ago was from Tony. It was very impactful for me, and so I have decided to share it.
Tony was a 30ish manager who worked for a large Detroit corporation. He was raised in the ghetto, but managed to struggle through college and earned an M.B.A. He was recognized as a rising star in his company, and in our relationship he was what we term ‘a compliant client’ – which is an understated high praise. He regularly saved 10-12% of his earnings and invested prudently.
At one of our appointments, which he had been forced to reschedule, he explained that his father had died the month before. He was the beneficiary of a life insurance policy for $25,000. This was a tidy sum in the early 1970’s, equivalent to about $100,000 today. He wanted advice on how best to invest it, since it basically doubled his investment portfolio.
His father lived in Seattle. While he didn’t know him as a child, they became close later in life. He was somewhat embarrassed to admit that he had already spent $5,000 on a first class ticket to go to his father’s funeral (this was before airline rates were deregulated). I was startled by this, and mentioned that spending that much money on a plane ticket was quite a splurge.
Tony felt it was important to explain himself. He confided that he didn’t see his dad much while he was growing up, but he and his father had grown very close since he graduated from high school. His dad, who never graduated from high school, would always brag of his achievements.
His dad was so proud of him that he flew back to Detroit to attend both of his college graduations. The last time he saw his dad, his dad had told him that when he was boarding his last flight, walking through the first class cabin, the thought came to him that someday his son would be able to fly first class.
So that was why Tony decided to fly first class to his dad’s funeral.
Interestingly, less than a year later, Tony came home from work exhausted and laid down on his bed and died. He was 33. The cause was something related to a congenital heart problem he didn’t even know he had.
A few days after his death, I had vivid memories of going to his funeral and seeing him laid out. As I sat through the ceremony, it occurred to me that I was really glad that Tony had decided to buy that first class ticket.
That’s when I learned that how clients decide how to use their money is ultimately a very personal decision that reflects their deepest values. It is not my job to set their priorities on how they spend their wealth. As long as a client is saving 10% of what they earn, come what may, it will accumulate and compound through the years to assure they can maintain their lifestyle after they retire.
Through life, I have seen the importance that clients use their surplus however they deem appropriate. Some do save it. Others use it for their kids’ educations. Or perhaps they take their family on trips and invest in memories. The point is that as we live our lives, financial planning isn’t a process of sheer deprivation.
Sometimes it is important to splurge on a first class ticket.
I appreciate the editorial review contributed by Chip Simon, CFP®, an ACA colleague in Poughkeepsie, NY.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The New Normal
By Bert Whitehead, M.B.A., J.D.
A number of clients have expressed alarm at the recent clamor of commentators who have been predicting a cataclysmic economic change worldwide. These pundits claim that we are facing an economic “New Normal” and express concern that the ‘old’ economic rules on which we rely no longer operate.
Their conclusions? Drastic changes are needed in our lives and investments to accommodate the “New Normal!”
Usually they question the viability of the U.S. dollar and offer the possibility that China, or perhaps a block of other nations, are somehow positioned to ‘take over’ the U.S. because they hold so many U.S. bonds. Another variation of this calamity centers on the recent collapse of the real estate market, the precipitous drop in the stock market, and extraordinarily low interest rates. Taken together, these developments presage the end of American prosperity for our children and ourselves.
Of course these apocalyptic pronouncements are more effective if they are tied to some political viewpoint, the more extreme the better. More often than not, far right political viewpoints proclaim that doomsday is the certain result of left-wing politics. Leftist views generally emphasize the inevitable revolution that suppression of the masses will cause.
(Note to “Investment Advice” file: Never let your politics drive your investments!)
It’s time to confront these ridiculous assertions. Yes, it is true that the investment and economic travails of the past decade have been severe and have impacted many people worldwide. Some of these changes have not occurred before during many of our lifetimes. It is enticing to point the finger of blame and shame at our financial, economic, investment and political leadership. But that is not the whole story.
The power of momentum in democratic economies is easily underestimated. Although dramatic from time to time, the impact of severe financial shifts must be kept in proportion and viewed within a broader historical perspective. We need to recognize that most extreme economic shifts are self-correcting.
Even with unemployment at over 9%, over 90% of our citizens are employed. Real estate crashes, weather-related disasters, stock market crashes, low interest rates, etc. have all happened before. Indeed the damage done by seismic economic shifts during the Great Depression, the severe stagflation in the 1970’s, and the collapse of S. & L.’s in the 1980’s were all worse than we have seen today…and all of these are relatively minor when compared to the disruption of the financial markets in the 19th century. And whatever happened to the “New Economy” theory that gave rise to the ‘dot-com’ frenzy of the 1990’s?
It is folly to fret about how much of our debt is owned by the China (interestingly, Japan owns nearly as much U.S. debt as China, even though that fact is not usually noted). What can the Chinese do with our debt? They can’t dump it on the White House lawn and demand to be paid off with gold. They can’t go on the world markets and exchange dollars for Euros or Yen, or even buy gold. Any of these moves would be self-defeating because dumping huge amounts of money in any market would decrease the value of their remaining dollars. Actually, their only realistic option is to spend it in the U.S.!
There is a concern that the U.S. dollar is at a “tipping point” and will soon lose its status as the world’s reserve currency. But no other currency is in a position to take its place. The Euro’s stability is much too questionable. The Yuan doesn’t have a long enough history to be relied upon, especially when a dictatorial government can arbitrarily determine its value. Neither these nor other ‘respectable’ currencies such as the Yen, the British Pound, the Swiss Franc, etc. have enough depth to support a global economy.
Those who espouse extreme economic outcomes are invariably selling something. Usually it is their newsletter or book, or some strategy to beat the market, or gold itself. The most eminent economists in the world have never been able to predict any economic cycle with a meaningful consensus. Why should you believe the extreme voices of charlatans who use their advanced marketing techniques to dupe the fearful?
What can you do? I suggest that you sit back and follow sensible advice. The Functional Asset Allocation model, which is used by nearly 200 fee-only members of ACA (Alliance of Cambridge Advisors), focuses on the basics.
Consider this…there are only three possible economic scenarios: we can have inflation, deflation, or prosperity. It is a waste of time to try to determine which is coming next. The prudent approach is to be prepared for all three possibilities. As the ancient wisdom of the Torah exhorts: “Invest a third in land, a third in business, and a third in reserves!”
Today, that translates into a balanced portfolio of real estate, equities (i.e. stocks in companies), and cash and bond reserves. Trying to market-time and pick the next ‘hot investment’ is foolhardy. If you allow the vagaries of global economics, i.e. exogenous factors, to be the focus of your attention, you risk making decisions based on emotion rather than rational thought. In truth, it is the ‘endogenous factors’ in your life that determine your financial future.
As Pogo once said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us!” Instead of dithering about what will happen in the Mideast, or where interest rates are headed, or when will real estate level off, look at the things in your life that make a difference. Are you saving at least 10% of your gross income? Are you living within your means? Do you have enough liquidity to ride out a financial setback? Do you have a long-term fixed rate mortgage to protect you from inflation? Do you have government bonds to weather another bout of deflation?
Obsessing about the various complexities and possible outcomes in today’s global economy inevitably leads to rash and unwise leaps. Keep an eye on the issues within your reach! It is the key to a confident journey and a serene financial future.
I appreciate the editorial review contributed by Chip Simon, CFP®, an ACA colleague in Poughkeepsie, NY.
A number of clients have expressed alarm at the recent clamor of commentators who have been predicting a cataclysmic economic change worldwide. These pundits claim that we are facing an economic “New Normal” and express concern that the ‘old’ economic rules on which we rely no longer operate.
Their conclusions? Drastic changes are needed in our lives and investments to accommodate the “New Normal!”
Usually they question the viability of the U.S. dollar and offer the possibility that China, or perhaps a block of other nations, are somehow positioned to ‘take over’ the U.S. because they hold so many U.S. bonds. Another variation of this calamity centers on the recent collapse of the real estate market, the precipitous drop in the stock market, and extraordinarily low interest rates. Taken together, these developments presage the end of American prosperity for our children and ourselves.
Of course these apocalyptic pronouncements are more effective if they are tied to some political viewpoint, the more extreme the better. More often than not, far right political viewpoints proclaim that doomsday is the certain result of left-wing politics. Leftist views generally emphasize the inevitable revolution that suppression of the masses will cause.
(Note to “Investment Advice” file: Never let your politics drive your investments!)
It’s time to confront these ridiculous assertions. Yes, it is true that the investment and economic travails of the past decade have been severe and have impacted many people worldwide. Some of these changes have not occurred before during many of our lifetimes. It is enticing to point the finger of blame and shame at our financial, economic, investment and political leadership. But that is not the whole story.
The power of momentum in democratic economies is easily underestimated. Although dramatic from time to time, the impact of severe financial shifts must be kept in proportion and viewed within a broader historical perspective. We need to recognize that most extreme economic shifts are self-correcting.
Even with unemployment at over 9%, over 90% of our citizens are employed. Real estate crashes, weather-related disasters, stock market crashes, low interest rates, etc. have all happened before. Indeed the damage done by seismic economic shifts during the Great Depression, the severe stagflation in the 1970’s, and the collapse of S. & L.’s in the 1980’s were all worse than we have seen today…and all of these are relatively minor when compared to the disruption of the financial markets in the 19th century. And whatever happened to the “New Economy” theory that gave rise to the ‘dot-com’ frenzy of the 1990’s?
It is folly to fret about how much of our debt is owned by the China (interestingly, Japan owns nearly as much U.S. debt as China, even though that fact is not usually noted). What can the Chinese do with our debt? They can’t dump it on the White House lawn and demand to be paid off with gold. They can’t go on the world markets and exchange dollars for Euros or Yen, or even buy gold. Any of these moves would be self-defeating because dumping huge amounts of money in any market would decrease the value of their remaining dollars. Actually, their only realistic option is to spend it in the U.S.!
There is a concern that the U.S. dollar is at a “tipping point” and will soon lose its status as the world’s reserve currency. But no other currency is in a position to take its place. The Euro’s stability is much too questionable. The Yuan doesn’t have a long enough history to be relied upon, especially when a dictatorial government can arbitrarily determine its value. Neither these nor other ‘respectable’ currencies such as the Yen, the British Pound, the Swiss Franc, etc. have enough depth to support a global economy.
Those who espouse extreme economic outcomes are invariably selling something. Usually it is their newsletter or book, or some strategy to beat the market, or gold itself. The most eminent economists in the world have never been able to predict any economic cycle with a meaningful consensus. Why should you believe the extreme voices of charlatans who use their advanced marketing techniques to dupe the fearful?
What can you do? I suggest that you sit back and follow sensible advice. The Functional Asset Allocation model, which is used by nearly 200 fee-only members of ACA (Alliance of Cambridge Advisors), focuses on the basics.
Consider this…there are only three possible economic scenarios: we can have inflation, deflation, or prosperity. It is a waste of time to try to determine which is coming next. The prudent approach is to be prepared for all three possibilities. As the ancient wisdom of the Torah exhorts: “Invest a third in land, a third in business, and a third in reserves!”
Today, that translates into a balanced portfolio of real estate, equities (i.e. stocks in companies), and cash and bond reserves. Trying to market-time and pick the next ‘hot investment’ is foolhardy. If you allow the vagaries of global economics, i.e. exogenous factors, to be the focus of your attention, you risk making decisions based on emotion rather than rational thought. In truth, it is the ‘endogenous factors’ in your life that determine your financial future.
As Pogo once said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us!” Instead of dithering about what will happen in the Mideast, or where interest rates are headed, or when will real estate level off, look at the things in your life that make a difference. Are you saving at least 10% of your gross income? Are you living within your means? Do you have enough liquidity to ride out a financial setback? Do you have a long-term fixed rate mortgage to protect you from inflation? Do you have government bonds to weather another bout of deflation?
Obsessing about the various complexities and possible outcomes in today’s global economy inevitably leads to rash and unwise leaps. Keep an eye on the issues within your reach! It is the key to a confident journey and a serene financial future.
I appreciate the editorial review contributed by Chip Simon, CFP®, an ACA colleague in Poughkeepsie, NY.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Cut Your Losses!
BY: Bert Whitehead, M.B.A., J.D.
When should you sell an investment if the value drops?
Investors agonize over this and often let themselves be guided by the old adage: “Buy low, sell high.” Based on this logic, they decide they will hold any investment they buy until they can at least break even. Once a client adopts this mantra, it is difficult to convince them to sell their holding at a loss, even when it keeps dropping in price.
There is a strategy of ‘averaging down’ when an investment drops in price. For example, suppose that you buy a mutual fund or stock when it is $20 a share and then it drops to $15 a share. If you had decided it was a good buy at $20 then, logically, you should buy more because it is even a better buy at $15. And if it drops to $10, then buy even more.
This is an aggressive strategy, and requires undaunting confidence in the investment. It can work out, but it often doesn’t. When it doesn’t, the results can be catastrophic. Employees who buy their company stock are particularly prone to make this mistake. I have seen situations where clients have stubbornly held on to Pan Am, GM, Chrysler, Enron, etc. and continued adding to their holdings only to end up losing it all. On the other hand, Ford shareholders have done well using this strategy over the past few years.
A more sound investment approach is to decide that, when you buy an investment, you will reevaluate it if it drops. You evaluate the losing investment with other investments, and then make a “keep or sell” decision. For example, let’s go back to your $20 per share stock. Rather than wait until it drops to $15 you could have decided that, if it drops 10% or 15% (i.e. to $18 or $17), you will reconsider the investment. If there are other investment options with better upside potential, sell your loser and reinvest in something with better prospects. This prevents you from blindly holding on to the shares hoping they will go back to $20.
For many people, selling a loser means they made a mistake, and they are adamant about not losing money on their investments. The blatant truth is that holding on to the stock means you still have a loss, you just haven’t ‘realized’ it yet.
One technique I have used with some success is to explain to clients that by selling the stock, they are ‘harvesting’ their losses for tax purposes. The tax loss will save them tax dollars by offsetting other gains, thereby reducing the capital gains tax. It often gives them an additional $3,000 deduction against other ordinary income, which can save them about $1,000 in taxes at the 33% tax bracket.
The beauty of this is that the client can buy the stock back after 31 days. If bought back sooner, the ‘wash sale rule’ precludes them from taking the tax loss. It’s interesting to note that, no matter how resistant the client was to selling the stock at a loss initially, once they sell it they never buy it back!
Of course we do not recommend ‘market timing.’ When managing clients’ portfolios we take into consideration other factors such as the overall balance of the portfolio, the amount of the single investment relative to the total portfolio, as well as tax issues and clients’ long term goals.
For example, we don’t sell stripped Treasuries in a client’s ladder just because the market value drops. The function of this investment is to assure that the maturity value provides the cash flow necessary for spending goals (usually in retirement), without fail. We know and expect that the market value will fluctuate in the meantime, but the ending value is government guaranteed.
On the other hand we don’t hesitate to sell a mutual fund that has underperformed its peers significantly for two or more quarters in a row. We also take losses in the Cambridge Index Portfolio when we can capture them as short-term, which are the most tax advantaged.
Cutting losses isn’t limited to securities like stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. A huge concern of many clients today is whether they should ‘dump’ their real estate in this depressed market or wait until they can ‘get their money back out.’ This issue is more complex, but here are some guidelines I consider.
If the home is your personal residence, and you like it and can afford the payments, keep the house unless you have to move (e.g. new job, changing neighborhood). If it is a vacant house or vacant property, it is generally better to sell (even at a loss) because the carrying costs of keeping vacant property and running the risk that the value will continue to drop generally makes this type of real estate a bad investment at this time. You may want to review my previous blog of April 29, 2010 titled “What To Do When Your House Is Underwater.”
The issue of when to “cut your losses” is also perplexing when applied to employment and other relationships, but my expertise in these areas is limited (though I have done a lot of research…). The best approach usually is to get a therapist!
In any situation, cutting your losses sooner rather than later is usually the better course of action. Not only does it minimize financial losses, but it also reduces stress. Continually dealing with these kinds of decisions is emotionally toxic.
So make a New Year’s resolution to cut your losses in three areas that have been plaguing you. Get the monkeys off your back, and get on with a rich fulfilling new year!
I appreciate the editorial review contributed by Chip Simon, CFP®, an ACA colleague in Poughkeepsie, NY.
When should you sell an investment if the value drops?
Investors agonize over this and often let themselves be guided by the old adage: “Buy low, sell high.” Based on this logic, they decide they will hold any investment they buy until they can at least break even. Once a client adopts this mantra, it is difficult to convince them to sell their holding at a loss, even when it keeps dropping in price.
There is a strategy of ‘averaging down’ when an investment drops in price. For example, suppose that you buy a mutual fund or stock when it is $20 a share and then it drops to $15 a share. If you had decided it was a good buy at $20 then, logically, you should buy more because it is even a better buy at $15. And if it drops to $10, then buy even more.
This is an aggressive strategy, and requires undaunting confidence in the investment. It can work out, but it often doesn’t. When it doesn’t, the results can be catastrophic. Employees who buy their company stock are particularly prone to make this mistake. I have seen situations where clients have stubbornly held on to Pan Am, GM, Chrysler, Enron, etc. and continued adding to their holdings only to end up losing it all. On the other hand, Ford shareholders have done well using this strategy over the past few years.
A more sound investment approach is to decide that, when you buy an investment, you will reevaluate it if it drops. You evaluate the losing investment with other investments, and then make a “keep or sell” decision. For example, let’s go back to your $20 per share stock. Rather than wait until it drops to $15 you could have decided that, if it drops 10% or 15% (i.e. to $18 or $17), you will reconsider the investment. If there are other investment options with better upside potential, sell your loser and reinvest in something with better prospects. This prevents you from blindly holding on to the shares hoping they will go back to $20.
For many people, selling a loser means they made a mistake, and they are adamant about not losing money on their investments. The blatant truth is that holding on to the stock means you still have a loss, you just haven’t ‘realized’ it yet.
One technique I have used with some success is to explain to clients that by selling the stock, they are ‘harvesting’ their losses for tax purposes. The tax loss will save them tax dollars by offsetting other gains, thereby reducing the capital gains tax. It often gives them an additional $3,000 deduction against other ordinary income, which can save them about $1,000 in taxes at the 33% tax bracket.
The beauty of this is that the client can buy the stock back after 31 days. If bought back sooner, the ‘wash sale rule’ precludes them from taking the tax loss. It’s interesting to note that, no matter how resistant the client was to selling the stock at a loss initially, once they sell it they never buy it back!
Of course we do not recommend ‘market timing.’ When managing clients’ portfolios we take into consideration other factors such as the overall balance of the portfolio, the amount of the single investment relative to the total portfolio, as well as tax issues and clients’ long term goals.
For example, we don’t sell stripped Treasuries in a client’s ladder just because the market value drops. The function of this investment is to assure that the maturity value provides the cash flow necessary for spending goals (usually in retirement), without fail. We know and expect that the market value will fluctuate in the meantime, but the ending value is government guaranteed.
On the other hand we don’t hesitate to sell a mutual fund that has underperformed its peers significantly for two or more quarters in a row. We also take losses in the Cambridge Index Portfolio when we can capture them as short-term, which are the most tax advantaged.
Cutting losses isn’t limited to securities like stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. A huge concern of many clients today is whether they should ‘dump’ their real estate in this depressed market or wait until they can ‘get their money back out.’ This issue is more complex, but here are some guidelines I consider.
If the home is your personal residence, and you like it and can afford the payments, keep the house unless you have to move (e.g. new job, changing neighborhood). If it is a vacant house or vacant property, it is generally better to sell (even at a loss) because the carrying costs of keeping vacant property and running the risk that the value will continue to drop generally makes this type of real estate a bad investment at this time. You may want to review my previous blog of April 29, 2010 titled “What To Do When Your House Is Underwater.”
The issue of when to “cut your losses” is also perplexing when applied to employment and other relationships, but my expertise in these areas is limited (though I have done a lot of research…). The best approach usually is to get a therapist!
In any situation, cutting your losses sooner rather than later is usually the better course of action. Not only does it minimize financial losses, but it also reduces stress. Continually dealing with these kinds of decisions is emotionally toxic.
So make a New Year’s resolution to cut your losses in three areas that have been plaguing you. Get the monkeys off your back, and get on with a rich fulfilling new year!
I appreciate the editorial review contributed by Chip Simon, CFP®, an ACA colleague in Poughkeepsie, NY.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Five Awful Investments to Avoid in 2011*
Bert Whitehead, M.B.A., J.D.
1.Timeshares. This preposterous “investment” is based on the doubtful proposition that a $117,000 condo is really worth $585,000 because 50 chumps can be convinced to rent it one week a year for the rest of their natural lives, and pay most of the rent (totaling $11,700) in advance and the rest annually disguised as maintenance fees. These are always sold by very friendly people, usually named Joe, who cannot begin a sentence without grasping your forearms and saying, “Let me be honest with you.” In addition to a very fuzzy explanation of the investment potential, you will find out how you could get AIDS from hotel sheets (presumably not a danger at Vacation Ownership Resorts because they don’t have maid service).
a.A hint: If after reading this, you still can’t help yourself and simply must buy a timeshare, buy it on a the secondary market (i.e., look in the classified ads and buy one from some dummy who spent his kid’s college money for it last year and now is trying to dump it at half price). This is still twice what it is worth.
b.A better hint: Put your $11,700 in a well-balanced investment portfolio. Each year use the accrued earnings to rent a timeshare anywhere in the world. Then go job hunting while you’re there and write it off!
2.Lottery Tickets. Lotteries were designed by scheming Republicans as a patriotic way to entice poor people into voluntarily returning their welfare checks to the state coffers. They sort of work like variations of the old 50/50 church raffle except the church doesn’t tax your 50 percent and then pay you over 20 years. Assuming a tax bracket of 33 percent, and an annual present value of money at 8 percent instead of a return of 50 cents for every dollar bet, you actually “win” slightly less than 17 cents. This is not attractive, even compared to roulette tables in Las Vegas where they pay 95 cents for each dollar bet. Plus you get free drinks.
a.Hint: If you could borrow $7.7 million at 8 percent over 20 years and buy every single number on the Michigan lottery, you would be a sure winner if the jackpot was $22 million or more. (If you don’t have to split the pot with some bloke on the dole.)
3.Life Insurance Investments. These quaint arrangements were popular and considered by some to be relatively competitive in the Fabulous ‘50s. Then your only alternatives were U.S. Savings Bonds (which your elders still called “war bonds”), paying 4 percent, and savings accounts which aggressively paid 4.5 percent. Pseudo-tycoons had Christmas Club accounts, a scam whereby you gave money to the bank every week and then they gave it back to you at the end of the year. No interest, but no service charge either. Now, bank savings accounts pay virtually no interest which is dwarfed by service charges if you don’t have very much money and just let it sit there. The service charge compensates the tellers who take your money out for a walk every month until it all evaporates. But we digress: back to life investments. They are variously called whole life, variable life, universal life, permanent life, etc. They sport many supposed advantages none of which are exclusive to this investment vehicle. Despite reams of projections and lengthy enthusiastic explanations, these investments are bereft of S.E.C. scrutiny, and the investor thus usually is at the mercy of inscrutable policy language as explained by a hyperkinetic salesperson with a snappy patter but no prospectus to evaluate risk or disclose the sales commission. Moreover, these are inevitably touted as “Long-term Investments”. Long Term Investments in financial lingo refers to generally inferior investments that are impossible to fully understand on which salespeople earn very large commissions.
a.Hint: Continue to ask your insurance person A) exactly how much commission is paid for selling this to you and B) exactly how much of your money you get back if you bail out after two years. If you can get a straight answer, you will be amazed that the amount of money you will lose under B is uncannily close to the amount disclosed under A. If still in doubt, we will demonstrate how much better you will be buying term insurance and investing the difference in the S&P 500 Index mutual fund. NOTE: This does not mean you should cancel or cash-in existing policies.
4.Any Investment Sold Over the Phone. Legitimate investments are never sold over the phone. Period. If their investment was as good as they say it is, and then they wouldn’t be spending their time talking to strangers like you on the telephone. Actually we encourage clients to never buy anything over the phone because of the increased exposure to fraud. And also because it only encourages even more unsolicited telephone intrusions.
5.Any Investment Someone Comes to your House to Sell You. If you think it through: anytime someone comes out to see you , at your convenience, in the comfort of your own home, and you are under no obligation, you are going to get a very high pressure sales pitch for something you probably never before considered buying, at an outrageous price. The sales commission on these arrangements is usually 25-50 percent of your investment. This makes shopping at home very expensive.
* This article was originally written 20 years ago. Interest rates have changed, but the scams remain the same…
1.Timeshares. This preposterous “investment” is based on the doubtful proposition that a $117,000 condo is really worth $585,000 because 50 chumps can be convinced to rent it one week a year for the rest of their natural lives, and pay most of the rent (totaling $11,700) in advance and the rest annually disguised as maintenance fees. These are always sold by very friendly people, usually named Joe, who cannot begin a sentence without grasping your forearms and saying, “Let me be honest with you.” In addition to a very fuzzy explanation of the investment potential, you will find out how you could get AIDS from hotel sheets (presumably not a danger at Vacation Ownership Resorts because they don’t have maid service).
a.A hint: If after reading this, you still can’t help yourself and simply must buy a timeshare, buy it on a the secondary market (i.e., look in the classified ads and buy one from some dummy who spent his kid’s college money for it last year and now is trying to dump it at half price). This is still twice what it is worth.
b.A better hint: Put your $11,700 in a well-balanced investment portfolio. Each year use the accrued earnings to rent a timeshare anywhere in the world. Then go job hunting while you’re there and write it off!
2.Lottery Tickets. Lotteries were designed by scheming Republicans as a patriotic way to entice poor people into voluntarily returning their welfare checks to the state coffers. They sort of work like variations of the old 50/50 church raffle except the church doesn’t tax your 50 percent and then pay you over 20 years. Assuming a tax bracket of 33 percent, and an annual present value of money at 8 percent instead of a return of 50 cents for every dollar bet, you actually “win” slightly less than 17 cents. This is not attractive, even compared to roulette tables in Las Vegas where they pay 95 cents for each dollar bet. Plus you get free drinks.
a.Hint: If you could borrow $7.7 million at 8 percent over 20 years and buy every single number on the Michigan lottery, you would be a sure winner if the jackpot was $22 million or more. (If you don’t have to split the pot with some bloke on the dole.)
3.Life Insurance Investments. These quaint arrangements were popular and considered by some to be relatively competitive in the Fabulous ‘50s. Then your only alternatives were U.S. Savings Bonds (which your elders still called “war bonds”), paying 4 percent, and savings accounts which aggressively paid 4.5 percent. Pseudo-tycoons had Christmas Club accounts, a scam whereby you gave money to the bank every week and then they gave it back to you at the end of the year. No interest, but no service charge either. Now, bank savings accounts pay virtually no interest which is dwarfed by service charges if you don’t have very much money and just let it sit there. The service charge compensates the tellers who take your money out for a walk every month until it all evaporates. But we digress: back to life investments. They are variously called whole life, variable life, universal life, permanent life, etc. They sport many supposed advantages none of which are exclusive to this investment vehicle. Despite reams of projections and lengthy enthusiastic explanations, these investments are bereft of S.E.C. scrutiny, and the investor thus usually is at the mercy of inscrutable policy language as explained by a hyperkinetic salesperson with a snappy patter but no prospectus to evaluate risk or disclose the sales commission. Moreover, these are inevitably touted as “Long-term Investments”. Long Term Investments in financial lingo refers to generally inferior investments that are impossible to fully understand on which salespeople earn very large commissions.
a.Hint: Continue to ask your insurance person A) exactly how much commission is paid for selling this to you and B) exactly how much of your money you get back if you bail out after two years. If you can get a straight answer, you will be amazed that the amount of money you will lose under B is uncannily close to the amount disclosed under A. If still in doubt, we will demonstrate how much better you will be buying term insurance and investing the difference in the S&P 500 Index mutual fund. NOTE: This does not mean you should cancel or cash-in existing policies.
4.Any Investment Sold Over the Phone. Legitimate investments are never sold over the phone. Period. If their investment was as good as they say it is, and then they wouldn’t be spending their time talking to strangers like you on the telephone. Actually we encourage clients to never buy anything over the phone because of the increased exposure to fraud. And also because it only encourages even more unsolicited telephone intrusions.
5.Any Investment Someone Comes to your House to Sell You. If you think it through: anytime someone comes out to see you , at your convenience, in the comfort of your own home, and you are under no obligation, you are going to get a very high pressure sales pitch for something you probably never before considered buying, at an outrageous price. The sales commission on these arrangements is usually 25-50 percent of your investment. This makes shopping at home very expensive.
* This article was originally written 20 years ago. Interest rates have changed, but the scams remain the same…
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Bert’s Blog, by Pamela Landy 2010 Year-end Tax Tips
I have turned this blog over to my esteemed colleague Pamela Landy as she is better versed on many of these pointers than I am. These next three months will be a terrific opportunity for tax-smart citizens!
2010: A Challenging Year for Tax Planning
At Cambridge Connection we pride ourselves on our proactive approach to tax planning. In our spring meetings, we normally estimate the current year’s taxes and suggest tax saving opportunities. In our fall meetings, we again review your situation and make sure that the appropriate tax reduction strategies are being implemented.
This year there is an unusual degree of uncertainty about the ground rules for the 2010 tax planning. After a decade of predictable tax rates, 2010 and 2011 will bring a multitude of changes which could impact you in unpredictable ways.
There is a good chance that income tax rates will increase next year for a majority of our clients as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) of 2001 expires. Over the past decade, tax rates have steadily declined under this law. Absent Congressional action, certain tax cuts, credits, and other tax provisions referred to as the “Bush Tax Cuts” will become history.
The following are just a few examples of the complexities that impact this year's tax planning decisions.
Should you accelerate income to 2010?
As tax rates decreased over the past 10 years, conventional wisdom was to defer income to the next year whenever possible. This may not be true this year. Ordinary income tax rates for 2011 may increase by 3% to 5% over the 2010 tax rates especially for clients who are currently in the 33% to 35% brackets.
A taxpayer who can control the timing of income may be able to pay lower taxes in 2010 than in 2011. In prior years, forcing a large amount of income into one year did not always make sense because the higher income would trigger a phase out of exemptions and itemized deductions. But in 2010 there are no phase outs regardless of the amount of adjusted gross income. In 2011, however, these phase outs come back and revert to amounts which were in effect in 2000. This can make moving income into 2010 make even more sense.
Will Alternative Minimum Tax Add To Your Tax Bill?
Many people do not realize that there are two separate tax computations used to determine the amount of income tax that individuals must pay. The first tax calculation is the one that is widely known. The second method of calculating tax is referred to as the “Alternative Minimum Tax” or AMT. The AMT is calculated using different rules than the regular Income Tax; these do not permit deductions for state and local income taxes, property taxes, miscellaneous itemized deductions subject to 2% of Adjusted Gross Income, as well as some other less common items. The tax is calculated using different rates and if the AMT Tax is higher than the regular tax, then you have to pay the higher amount.
As the AMT began to affect more taxpayers; on a year by year basis, Congress has approved a “patch” that increased the amount of the AMT exemption. To date, for 2010, no patch has been approved; and the exemption amounts will revert to 1986 levels. It is important to determine whether you may be affected by the AMT, because if you are, different tax planning strategies apply. We will be following year end legislative developments to determine whether another “patch” will be approved for 2010. This fall, we will be projecting your tax due with and without the AMT to demonstrate the amount of tax that you would have to pay under alternative tax planning scenarios.
Should You Defer Deductions to 2011?
Over the past decade, conventional wisdom has suggested that due to declining tax rates, it makes sense to accelerate deductions into the current year. Logically then, you would think that when rates are increasing you should defer deductions into the following year when the rates go up. While this may be true in many cases, it should be remembered that when the phaseouts return in 2011, some of these deductions may be lost. Certain deductions are also lost when you are subject to AMT.
What About Capital Gains?
Accelerating capital gains into 2010 makes sense for most taxpayers. The 15% long term capital gains rate is scheduled to increase to 20%, and the short term rate will increase with the ordinary income tax rates. The 0% capital gains tax rate for those in lower tax brackets is also disappearing. In addition, the favorable 15% tax rate for qualified dividend income is also being eliminated, so that the dividends will be taxed at your highest marginal tax bracket.
Is a Roth Conversion Strategy Right For You?
Over the next several months, be prepared to be bombarded with a media blitz about Roth Conversion opportunities. The Roth Conversion decision involves paying taxes up front to move assets from a retirement plan that contains pre-tax dollars to a Roth Conversion account that holds after-tax dollars. While the pre-tax dollars will be taxed when they are withdrawn; the after-tax dollars grow and are distributed tax-free.
This year, 2010, is the first year that taxpayers with incomes over $100,000 are permitted to take advantage of the Roth Conversion. It is difficult to come up with any standard recommendation as to whether or not you should convert, how much should be converted, and in what year income should be recognized. While the Roth Conversion strategy is not right for everyone, it is important to examine the opportunity in the context of you financial goals and resources.
The previous examples illustrate why there are no “one size fits all” recommendations. This year, your personalized tax projections, which consider the impact of both scheduled and potential tax law changes, will be particularly beneficial.
We look forward to assisting you in making smart tax planning decisions this fall.
Pamela Landy, MBA, JD, CFP®, CSA®
Senior Advisor
Cambridge Connection, Inc.
Franklin, Michigan Office
2010: A Challenging Year for Tax Planning
At Cambridge Connection we pride ourselves on our proactive approach to tax planning. In our spring meetings, we normally estimate the current year’s taxes and suggest tax saving opportunities. In our fall meetings, we again review your situation and make sure that the appropriate tax reduction strategies are being implemented.
This year there is an unusual degree of uncertainty about the ground rules for the 2010 tax planning. After a decade of predictable tax rates, 2010 and 2011 will bring a multitude of changes which could impact you in unpredictable ways.
There is a good chance that income tax rates will increase next year for a majority of our clients as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) of 2001 expires. Over the past decade, tax rates have steadily declined under this law. Absent Congressional action, certain tax cuts, credits, and other tax provisions referred to as the “Bush Tax Cuts” will become history.
The following are just a few examples of the complexities that impact this year's tax planning decisions.
Should you accelerate income to 2010?
As tax rates decreased over the past 10 years, conventional wisdom was to defer income to the next year whenever possible. This may not be true this year. Ordinary income tax rates for 2011 may increase by 3% to 5% over the 2010 tax rates especially for clients who are currently in the 33% to 35% brackets.
A taxpayer who can control the timing of income may be able to pay lower taxes in 2010 than in 2011. In prior years, forcing a large amount of income into one year did not always make sense because the higher income would trigger a phase out of exemptions and itemized deductions. But in 2010 there are no phase outs regardless of the amount of adjusted gross income. In 2011, however, these phase outs come back and revert to amounts which were in effect in 2000. This can make moving income into 2010 make even more sense.
Will Alternative Minimum Tax Add To Your Tax Bill?
Many people do not realize that there are two separate tax computations used to determine the amount of income tax that individuals must pay. The first tax calculation is the one that is widely known. The second method of calculating tax is referred to as the “Alternative Minimum Tax” or AMT. The AMT is calculated using different rules than the regular Income Tax; these do not permit deductions for state and local income taxes, property taxes, miscellaneous itemized deductions subject to 2% of Adjusted Gross Income, as well as some other less common items. The tax is calculated using different rates and if the AMT Tax is higher than the regular tax, then you have to pay the higher amount.
As the AMT began to affect more taxpayers; on a year by year basis, Congress has approved a “patch” that increased the amount of the AMT exemption. To date, for 2010, no patch has been approved; and the exemption amounts will revert to 1986 levels. It is important to determine whether you may be affected by the AMT, because if you are, different tax planning strategies apply. We will be following year end legislative developments to determine whether another “patch” will be approved for 2010. This fall, we will be projecting your tax due with and without the AMT to demonstrate the amount of tax that you would have to pay under alternative tax planning scenarios.
Should You Defer Deductions to 2011?
Over the past decade, conventional wisdom has suggested that due to declining tax rates, it makes sense to accelerate deductions into the current year. Logically then, you would think that when rates are increasing you should defer deductions into the following year when the rates go up. While this may be true in many cases, it should be remembered that when the phaseouts return in 2011, some of these deductions may be lost. Certain deductions are also lost when you are subject to AMT.
What About Capital Gains?
Accelerating capital gains into 2010 makes sense for most taxpayers. The 15% long term capital gains rate is scheduled to increase to 20%, and the short term rate will increase with the ordinary income tax rates. The 0% capital gains tax rate for those in lower tax brackets is also disappearing. In addition, the favorable 15% tax rate for qualified dividend income is also being eliminated, so that the dividends will be taxed at your highest marginal tax bracket.
Is a Roth Conversion Strategy Right For You?
Over the next several months, be prepared to be bombarded with a media blitz about Roth Conversion opportunities. The Roth Conversion decision involves paying taxes up front to move assets from a retirement plan that contains pre-tax dollars to a Roth Conversion account that holds after-tax dollars. While the pre-tax dollars will be taxed when they are withdrawn; the after-tax dollars grow and are distributed tax-free.
This year, 2010, is the first year that taxpayers with incomes over $100,000 are permitted to take advantage of the Roth Conversion. It is difficult to come up with any standard recommendation as to whether or not you should convert, how much should be converted, and in what year income should be recognized. While the Roth Conversion strategy is not right for everyone, it is important to examine the opportunity in the context of you financial goals and resources.
The previous examples illustrate why there are no “one size fits all” recommendations. This year, your personalized tax projections, which consider the impact of both scheduled and potential tax law changes, will be particularly beneficial.
We look forward to assisting you in making smart tax planning decisions this fall.
Pamela Landy, MBA, JD, CFP®, CSA®
Senior Advisor
Cambridge Connection, Inc.
Franklin, Michigan Office
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Affordable College: Don’t Pay Retail!
Bert Whitehead, M.B.A., J.D.
Is college now only for the wealthy? The College Board announced that tuition and fees increased over 14% for public universities and 6% for private colleges in
2009. The posted prices for higher education have more than doubled over the last decade, a rate averaging over 7% a year, which far outpaces the general rate of inflation for that time period. Have we reached the point that only the wealthy can afford to send their children to college?
The New York Times reports that families earning $100,000 a year would have to save about $1,000 a month for 18 years in a 529 plan to send 2 children to a public college such as the University of Michigan ($51,000/year/per child for four years). That’s more than the parents are likely to be saving for their own retirement! Looking at the numbers can be disheartening, but the information I have outlined below for you will show how college can be within the reach of average American families.
It is interesting to speculate why tuition has risen so much so quickly. Critics point out that the answer may lie in the perceived importance of a college degree and the corresponding public and social policy of expecting, or even insisting, that children to go to college. As a result, colleges have increased their non-tuition sources of revenue from federal and state governments and from alumni contributions so that those sources now account for over 70% of college funding. The big secret is that over half of non-tuition funding is used to subsidize tuition expenses for students with more moxie than money.
You may conclude that colleges simply spend more as their funding increases. Having tenured faculty, building more buildings, and offering more courses are all huge status symbols in higher education. These involve costs that never do down, only up. So our culture's emphasis on the importance of college leads to open-ended support for higher education, which in turn ratchets up college costs.
It is important to keep college costs in perspective. More than half of the four-year colleges in this country cost less than $9,000 per year. This includes tuition and fees, but not the other components of college costs: room and board, personal spending, books, and transportation. Is a college degree worth it? There is no question that college graduates earn much more than their cohorts (it is estimated $1million more over a lifetime) who are high school graduates and don't go to college. College graduates are also half as likely to become unemployed as those with only a high school degree.
But there is increasing doubt whether ‘Ivy League’ schools are worth the price. Do Ivy League graduates earn that much more than graduates of other schools to justify shelling out $200,000 for a B.A. degree? The value of better schools is not just their faculty and facilities, but the other students. High-end colleges provide much stiffer competition, and that continuing challenge is ingrained in the experience, deepening student scholastic relationships. This results in very strong ties to the highest achievers in society; networking that can shape opportunities in later life.
Many parents ignore college options for their children because they look at only the ‘sticker price.’ In fact, the only parents who pay the full sticker price are the more affluent. There are huge amounts of grants, scholarships, loans, and other subsidies available to most students. The more modest the means of the parents, the more aid is available. Many of the most highly regarded colleges (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.) have programs to pay 100% of a gifted student’s costs if their parents don’t have the means. Many schools have acceptance policies that are "need blind," meaning that the student's acceptance is not based on whether he or she can afford to pay the full tuition. (It's a good idea to ask the admissions office of a prospective school whether or not their acceptance policies are "need blind.")
With this in mind, I recommend that my clients consider the “1/3, 1/3, 1/3 College Strategy.” I am using this strategy to fund my seven grandchildren's education, and my clients have used it successfully in one form or another for the past 20 years. I call it the “1/3, 1/3, 1/3” plan because the funding comes from three sources:
1. The student must come up with one-third of the total college costs. This may be from savings, working, scholarships, grants, gifts, — it is the student’s obligation to chip in this part.
2. Student loans, not cosigned by the parent, should make up another one-third of the costs and it’s up to the student to research the options and get a good deal.
3. Finally, the parents chip in one-third. And, if/when the student graduates, the parents commit to making the payments on the student loans. Upon the parents’ death, the students can use their inheritance to pay off the loans, if any still remain unpaid.
The advantage of the “1/3, 1/3, 1/3” plan is that the students have ‘skin in the game’. They can go to whichever school they choose, but they have to come up with their third of the correspondingly higher cost. And if they drop out without finishing college, they are on the hook to pay off their own student loans.
The bottom line of this strategy is that the student will find out very quickly that the ‘sticker price’ of college is much less when educational aid is subtracted. Most of the other things needed (textbooks, room and board, transportation, etc.) are either discretionary or are available inexpensively, if researched. For example, used text books, and now electronic books, cut the cost of books dramatically.
So even if you can’t pay the full freight for college at retail prices, if your student wants it enough to learn to find the grants, scholarships, loans, and other subsidies, any college is available. The plus is that finding out how not to have to pay retail will be a life-long financial lesson he or she will have mastered!
I appreciate the editorial review contributed by Chip Simon, CFP®, an ACA colleague in Poughkeepsie, NY
Is college now only for the wealthy? The College Board announced that tuition and fees increased over 14% for public universities and 6% for private colleges in
2009. The posted prices for higher education have more than doubled over the last decade, a rate averaging over 7% a year, which far outpaces the general rate of inflation for that time period. Have we reached the point that only the wealthy can afford to send their children to college?
The New York Times reports that families earning $100,000 a year would have to save about $1,000 a month for 18 years in a 529 plan to send 2 children to a public college such as the University of Michigan ($51,000/year/per child for four years). That’s more than the parents are likely to be saving for their own retirement! Looking at the numbers can be disheartening, but the information I have outlined below for you will show how college can be within the reach of average American families.
It is interesting to speculate why tuition has risen so much so quickly. Critics point out that the answer may lie in the perceived importance of a college degree and the corresponding public and social policy of expecting, or even insisting, that children to go to college. As a result, colleges have increased their non-tuition sources of revenue from federal and state governments and from alumni contributions so that those sources now account for over 70% of college funding. The big secret is that over half of non-tuition funding is used to subsidize tuition expenses for students with more moxie than money.
You may conclude that colleges simply spend more as their funding increases. Having tenured faculty, building more buildings, and offering more courses are all huge status symbols in higher education. These involve costs that never do down, only up. So our culture's emphasis on the importance of college leads to open-ended support for higher education, which in turn ratchets up college costs.
It is important to keep college costs in perspective. More than half of the four-year colleges in this country cost less than $9,000 per year. This includes tuition and fees, but not the other components of college costs: room and board, personal spending, books, and transportation. Is a college degree worth it? There is no question that college graduates earn much more than their cohorts (it is estimated $1million more over a lifetime) who are high school graduates and don't go to college. College graduates are also half as likely to become unemployed as those with only a high school degree.
But there is increasing doubt whether ‘Ivy League’ schools are worth the price. Do Ivy League graduates earn that much more than graduates of other schools to justify shelling out $200,000 for a B.A. degree? The value of better schools is not just their faculty and facilities, but the other students. High-end colleges provide much stiffer competition, and that continuing challenge is ingrained in the experience, deepening student scholastic relationships. This results in very strong ties to the highest achievers in society; networking that can shape opportunities in later life.
Many parents ignore college options for their children because they look at only the ‘sticker price.’ In fact, the only parents who pay the full sticker price are the more affluent. There are huge amounts of grants, scholarships, loans, and other subsidies available to most students. The more modest the means of the parents, the more aid is available. Many of the most highly regarded colleges (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.) have programs to pay 100% of a gifted student’s costs if their parents don’t have the means. Many schools have acceptance policies that are "need blind," meaning that the student's acceptance is not based on whether he or she can afford to pay the full tuition. (It's a good idea to ask the admissions office of a prospective school whether or not their acceptance policies are "need blind.")
With this in mind, I recommend that my clients consider the “1/3, 1/3, 1/3 College Strategy.” I am using this strategy to fund my seven grandchildren's education, and my clients have used it successfully in one form or another for the past 20 years. I call it the “1/3, 1/3, 1/3” plan because the funding comes from three sources:
1. The student must come up with one-third of the total college costs. This may be from savings, working, scholarships, grants, gifts, — it is the student’s obligation to chip in this part.
2. Student loans, not cosigned by the parent, should make up another one-third of the costs and it’s up to the student to research the options and get a good deal.
3. Finally, the parents chip in one-third. And, if/when the student graduates, the parents commit to making the payments on the student loans. Upon the parents’ death, the students can use their inheritance to pay off the loans, if any still remain unpaid.
The advantage of the “1/3, 1/3, 1/3” plan is that the students have ‘skin in the game’. They can go to whichever school they choose, but they have to come up with their third of the correspondingly higher cost. And if they drop out without finishing college, they are on the hook to pay off their own student loans.
The bottom line of this strategy is that the student will find out very quickly that the ‘sticker price’ of college is much less when educational aid is subtracted. Most of the other things needed (textbooks, room and board, transportation, etc.) are either discretionary or are available inexpensively, if researched. For example, used text books, and now electronic books, cut the cost of books dramatically.
So even if you can’t pay the full freight for college at retail prices, if your student wants it enough to learn to find the grants, scholarships, loans, and other subsidies, any college is available. The plus is that finding out how not to have to pay retail will be a life-long financial lesson he or she will have mastered!
I appreciate the editorial review contributed by Chip Simon, CFP®, an ACA colleague in Poughkeepsie, NY
Friday, July 23, 2010
How Long Will My Money Last?
By Bert Whitehead, MBA, JD
Dear Bert: I have read in various publications that the safe withdrawal rate from an investment portfolio during retirement is around 4% if you want your money to last. Could you please comment?
=====================================================================================
While I recognize that the 4% withdrawal rate has become the standard wisdom in financial planning, I respectfully disagree. Keep in mind that most financial planners are actually investment managers, and so minimizing the withdrawal rate keeps more assets under management for them, and correspondingly higher fees.
It seems to me that a withdrawal rate must take into account the after-tax return to the client. This is highly individualized, so I don't think you can know this unless you are intimately knowledgeable about the client's tax situation. It also focuses attention on the actual tax efficiency of the portfolio. Because Functional Asset Allocation is very tax efficient, I am able to keep almost all my clients with under $3 million in their investment portfolio in a 15% marginal tax bracket. This obviously impacts their appropriate withdrawal rate.
Most financial planners figure that a balanced portfolio in retirement with 60% interest earning and 40% equities will earn ~7% over a 15-20 year period. This is historically true, and is the number I use. But then they assume an 'inflation rate' of 3% and in one way or another come to the 4% withdrawal number.
I disagree that the inflation rate is the driver in retirement. While inflation may occur in general, the overall rate has little relevance to the actual rate an individual client experiences. The CPI (Consumer Price Index) is heavily weighted by education, housing, and medical costs -- none of which are significant to most retired people (especially with health insurance which most of my clients have, even absent 'universal coverage'). CPI may be meaningful to individuals who live at a subsistence level, but most people who have a financial advisor are affluent to some degree. Just ask yourself: "When gas went to $4.00 a gallon, did that affect my living standard?"
The driver for most clients is not cost-of-living, but their "standard-of-living." During accumulation stages a client's standard-of-living generally increases at a higher rate than inflation, usually in tandem with increases in their earned income. So using CPI through the accumulation period grossly underestimates the amount a client actually spends. Upon retirement many financial planners say that clients only need 80% of their pre-retirement spending. I find that, at the beginning of retirement, clients need 100% of their pre-retirement spending.
Retirement spending normally remains flat for the first 10-20 years of retirement, as the standard-of-living stabilizes. It is critical that planners monitor client spending during the first few years of retirement. If standard-of-living increases at the same rate as when they were working, they will certainly end up living beyond their means. However, there is a selection bias I've noted with financial planning clients. They tend to be savers rather than spenders. Most often I find that a client needs permission to spend because they are so accustomed to being frugal and are afraid that they will run out of money during retirement.
Interestingly, the actual expenses needed to support a client’s standard of living starts dropping around their late 70's and early 80's. They have 'been there, done that, have the T-shirt.' They don't need to buy new cars, or to keep up with fashion demands. If we exclude gifts to charities and children, the amount they need decreases year by year, regardless of what the CPI does or how their portfolio performs. Recent studies published in the Journal of Financial Planning have corroborated this phenomenon.
Two other points about estimating withdrawal rates…
Many financial planners use software that depicts an inflated future as a single estimated percentage increase of past expenses. As you well know, I consider financial planning to be a process, not an event. Clients are generally very capable at adjusting their behavior. If there is a lean year in the stock market, they put off an expense until times get better. The software projections don’t show how smart clients can be!
Another point is that investment managers define their value as “return on investment.” However, clients tend to view supporting their lifestyle in terms of liquidity, or simply “will I have the money?”
As you know, our approach (Functional Asset Allocation) uses 15 year bond ladders with US Treasuries to assure that a client's pension, social security, and cash flow from the bond ladder is sufficient to meet their living expenses, including income taxes. This approach requires that we manage a client’s living expenses, preferably for 5+ years before they retire so we can determine the amount needed from the bond ladder. Note that Treasuries are not included in a portfolio to generate yield, but rather to provide guaranteed cash flow. "Safety Trumps Yield" is our mantra for this portion of the portfolio. We stress liquidity, not performance.
The 15-year span enables the stock market to fully cycle, so that the bond ladder can be replenished during prosperous years. It gives clients assurance that they will not have to change their life style for 15 years, so they don't fret over stock market down cycles and resist capitulating during severe market drops. Even over the past 'lost decade' we were able to rebuild client's bond ladders during the up years of the market cycle, e.g. 2003-2004 and 2009.
Finally, we also factor in savings of 10% of a client's income each year, which is reinvested in their portfolio. Obviously if clients save 10% each year (which they are accustomed to during their working years), they will by definition continue living within their means. This eliminates the need to estimate their life expectancy and makes Monte Carlo theory, which calculates the probability of future investment returns, largely irrelevant because they will never run out of money.
In summary, 'withdrawal rates' that are based on combating inflation are much too simplistic to determine a client's real annual cash flow requirements. The driver for income in retirement is not a ‘withdrawal rate‘ that depends on the Consumer Price Index, but rather changes in expenses needed to support their personal standard-of-living.
Dear Bert: I have read in various publications that the safe withdrawal rate from an investment portfolio during retirement is around 4% if you want your money to last. Could you please comment?
=====================================================================================
While I recognize that the 4% withdrawal rate has become the standard wisdom in financial planning, I respectfully disagree. Keep in mind that most financial planners are actually investment managers, and so minimizing the withdrawal rate keeps more assets under management for them, and correspondingly higher fees.
It seems to me that a withdrawal rate must take into account the after-tax return to the client. This is highly individualized, so I don't think you can know this unless you are intimately knowledgeable about the client's tax situation. It also focuses attention on the actual tax efficiency of the portfolio. Because Functional Asset Allocation is very tax efficient, I am able to keep almost all my clients with under $3 million in their investment portfolio in a 15% marginal tax bracket. This obviously impacts their appropriate withdrawal rate.
Most financial planners figure that a balanced portfolio in retirement with 60% interest earning and 40% equities will earn ~7% over a 15-20 year period. This is historically true, and is the number I use. But then they assume an 'inflation rate' of 3% and in one way or another come to the 4% withdrawal number.
I disagree that the inflation rate is the driver in retirement. While inflation may occur in general, the overall rate has little relevance to the actual rate an individual client experiences. The CPI (Consumer Price Index) is heavily weighted by education, housing, and medical costs -- none of which are significant to most retired people (especially with health insurance which most of my clients have, even absent 'universal coverage'). CPI may be meaningful to individuals who live at a subsistence level, but most people who have a financial advisor are affluent to some degree. Just ask yourself: "When gas went to $4.00 a gallon, did that affect my living standard?"
The driver for most clients is not cost-of-living, but their "standard-of-living." During accumulation stages a client's standard-of-living generally increases at a higher rate than inflation, usually in tandem with increases in their earned income. So using CPI through the accumulation period grossly underestimates the amount a client actually spends. Upon retirement many financial planners say that clients only need 80% of their pre-retirement spending. I find that, at the beginning of retirement, clients need 100% of their pre-retirement spending.
Retirement spending normally remains flat for the first 10-20 years of retirement, as the standard-of-living stabilizes. It is critical that planners monitor client spending during the first few years of retirement. If standard-of-living increases at the same rate as when they were working, they will certainly end up living beyond their means. However, there is a selection bias I've noted with financial planning clients. They tend to be savers rather than spenders. Most often I find that a client needs permission to spend because they are so accustomed to being frugal and are afraid that they will run out of money during retirement.
Interestingly, the actual expenses needed to support a client’s standard of living starts dropping around their late 70's and early 80's. They have 'been there, done that, have the T-shirt.' They don't need to buy new cars, or to keep up with fashion demands. If we exclude gifts to charities and children, the amount they need decreases year by year, regardless of what the CPI does or how their portfolio performs. Recent studies published in the Journal of Financial Planning have corroborated this phenomenon.
Two other points about estimating withdrawal rates…
Many financial planners use software that depicts an inflated future as a single estimated percentage increase of past expenses. As you well know, I consider financial planning to be a process, not an event. Clients are generally very capable at adjusting their behavior. If there is a lean year in the stock market, they put off an expense until times get better. The software projections don’t show how smart clients can be!
Another point is that investment managers define their value as “return on investment.” However, clients tend to view supporting their lifestyle in terms of liquidity, or simply “will I have the money?”
As you know, our approach (Functional Asset Allocation) uses 15 year bond ladders with US Treasuries to assure that a client's pension, social security, and cash flow from the bond ladder is sufficient to meet their living expenses, including income taxes. This approach requires that we manage a client’s living expenses, preferably for 5+ years before they retire so we can determine the amount needed from the bond ladder. Note that Treasuries are not included in a portfolio to generate yield, but rather to provide guaranteed cash flow. "Safety Trumps Yield" is our mantra for this portion of the portfolio. We stress liquidity, not performance.
The 15-year span enables the stock market to fully cycle, so that the bond ladder can be replenished during prosperous years. It gives clients assurance that they will not have to change their life style for 15 years, so they don't fret over stock market down cycles and resist capitulating during severe market drops. Even over the past 'lost decade' we were able to rebuild client's bond ladders during the up years of the market cycle, e.g. 2003-2004 and 2009.
Finally, we also factor in savings of 10% of a client's income each year, which is reinvested in their portfolio. Obviously if clients save 10% each year (which they are accustomed to during their working years), they will by definition continue living within their means. This eliminates the need to estimate their life expectancy and makes Monte Carlo theory, which calculates the probability of future investment returns, largely irrelevant because they will never run out of money.
In summary, 'withdrawal rates' that are based on combating inflation are much too simplistic to determine a client's real annual cash flow requirements. The driver for income in retirement is not a ‘withdrawal rate‘ that depends on the Consumer Price Index, but rather changes in expenses needed to support their personal standard-of-living.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)