Tag Archives: finance

Do This Before Retiring

Posted on by
2

I don’t care that my personal finance posts never resonate, I will continue to write about it when the spirit moves me. Deal with it.

Nick Maggiulli could teach me a lot about how to write about personal finance. His first book, Just Keep Buying, sold 400,000 copies. And his brand new book, The Wealth Ladder, is getting tons of attention on several of the pods I listen to.

The inspiration for this post is a friend, let’s call him, IE. IE is planning to retire in the spring of 2027. He appears to have his personal finance shit together. Good paying job. Lots of passive income. And he’s been riding equities up.

On the downside, he’s showing signs of irrational exuberance. He seems to think the stock market, near all-time highs, will continue its run. Or maybe he’s just trolling us in the group text?

His target retirement date was carefully determined based upon his normal “spend rate” combined with lots of planned post-retirement traveling.

I’m guessing he hasn’t modeled exactly what a market worst case scenario might do to his plan. Before retiring, model exactly what a market worst case scenario might do to your total net worth. Put differently, don’t tip-toe around “sequence of returns” risk, dive head-first into it.

How to do that? Calculate your net worth, excluding your residence(s)* because as the saying goes, you have to live somewhere. Adding in any home equity only makes sense if you plan to seriously downsize upon retiring.

Next, take the total amount of money you have invested in equities and divide it by two as if there was a 50% correction. So, in IE’s case, let’s make a wild ass guess and say he has a net worth of $3m, $2m in equities, $800k in fixed income, and $200k in cash.

IE would create a second spreadsheet showing his adjusted net worth after a 50% correction in the stock market. He’s “post-market correction” net worth would be $2m or one-third less than today. Print the “Bear Market spreadsheet” and let it sink in.

Only then can can IE determine 1) whether his asset allocation makes sense and 2) whether the spring 2027 timeline still makes sense.

Because he’s a friend, I will not be charging him for this advice. Some, no doubt will say, my advice is worth what I’m charging for it.

*plural if your DDTTM and have an extensive real estate portfolio

Two Economies

Posted on by
Reply

In the (dis)United States, despite a bevy of positive economic indicators, the President’s approval rating hovers around 38%. I thought it was all about the economy, but what do I know.

Inflation has moderated, but the cost of housing—whether buying a home or renting an apartment or home—is still too damn high. Positive economic data isn’t making people feel any better about their economic prospects.

In fact, there are two economies. One consisting of the “new aristocracy”, or top 10%, who have only grown more wealthy in recent years. And the other, the 90% doing everything they can to tread water. In actuality, a rising tide doesn’t lift all boats, just ten percent of them.

I can’t pontificate on economic matters in any more detail than that, because as a part of the new aristocracy, I’m out of touch with most people.

It would be unbecoming to be any more specific about my economic status, but suffice to say, as this picture illustrates so convincingly, the Biden economy has been very good to me.

Trenchant Research on How Birth Order Affects the Way You Spend Money

Posted on by
2

Thanks to Brown and Grable by way of Horkey for this description of how birth order affects the way we spend money.

Was blind, but now I see. By “trenchant” I mean amazingly facile.

First born. My oldest brother. The best editor I’ve ever had:

The oldest child in the family tends to be mature, confident and, more often than not, a perfectionist. As a result of the responsibilities and expectations placed on them by parents at an early age, older siblings are well organized and generally in control of their lives.

‘Firstborns handle money differently. I see a pattern in a lot of people that I know. They are viciously protective of making sure bills are paid on time and living within their means, which includes building savings and investments.’

Middle child(ren). My sissy and older brother. The best middle siblings I’ve ever had:

“While the oldest child is often given the lion’s share of attention from parents, and the youngest can typically do no wrong, the middle child might feel lost in the shuffle.

Middle children are resigned to the fact that someone is always both ahead of and behind them in terms of familial structure. As a result, they are often found to be naturally gifted problem solvers with excellent negotiation skills. And when it comes to financial habits, the middle child is a born saver, with nearly 65 percent of the group contributing money to their savings accounts each month.'”

The youngest. Myself. Such a perfect, little, Idaho potato that my parents immediately decided to procreate no more:

“More often than not, this person is. . . the life of the party.

While the youngest children might seem charming and fun to be around, they also tend to demonstrate bad spending habits and are typically the least financially responsible of their siblings. It doesn’t help that parents have often become more lenient about discipline by the time the second or third child is born.

Parents have a habit of overindulging and spoiling the youngest children in families. Ultimately, this desire to protect the baby of the family can backfire, causing the individual to spend rather than save for a rainy day.”

Thanks to these poignant insights, I’m going to start trying to save more money. All while remaining true to my life of the party, charming, fun to be around self.

 

Why I Ignore Stock Market Doomsayers

Posted on by
4

Doomsayer—a person who predicts impending misfortune or disaster. Mike, a good friend and running partner, is a stock market doomsayer. Routinely, like this morning, he tells me to sell. The doomsayers are certain that the mother of all corrections is right around the corner.

What Mike and his ilk get wrong is that when it comes to personal finance, the value of the Dow, the S&P, and the Nasdaq aren’t nearly as important as one’s income, investment income, expenses, and “historical risk return”.

If you asked me to help you with your personal finances, I’d want to know four things. 1) What’s your take home pay? 2) If any, what’s your annual passive income? 3) On average, how much do you spend each month? 4) If any, how much of any stock market-based investments can you accept losing in the next few days?

1) Annual income. This is straight forward. In the new economy, nearly everyone’s challenge is increasing it without working inhumane hours. That’s why people continue their education, work hard for promotions, and sometimes decide to work long hours.

2) Passive income. This is the money your savings generate. Nearly everyone’s challenge is increasing it in our zero interest rate world. Historically, cash has generated 3-5%. Today money markets and certificate of deposits earn pennies, so when adjusted for inflation, they’re slowly losing value. That’s why people invest in stocks, bonds, and real estate. Passive income includes stock and bond dividends, capital gains, and rental income. I also consider company matches a type of passive income. And social security for the 67+ set.

3) Average monthly expenses. Few people know this. Start keeping track of every dollar you spend using MINT or something similar and then read this recent blog post from Mr. Money Mustache, The Principle of Constant Optimization, for a great tutorial on managing spending. In particular, I second this suggestion:

Make a list of your ten biggest monthly expenses and tape it to your fridge, just so you know they are all there, constantly using up your money, so they had darned well be worth the resources they are consuming. If they are worth the expense, continue to enjoy them. If they are not, optimize them away. Look at your daily routine from an outsider’s perspective, and figure out if you are really getting the most value from each one of your hours.

4) Historical risk return. Where I invest, I can see my entire portfolio online. And with one link I can see a detailed analysis of my holdings including the all important “historical risk return (1926-2012)”. Right now it says the worst year an investor with my assest allocation has experienced is -17.2% in 1931. Ironically, it also says investors with my asset allocation have experienced losses in 15 of those 87 years or 17.2% of the time. So if I round up, on average, I have to expect to lose money every fifth year. Also, if I have $100,000 invested, I have to be prepared for that to turn into $82,800 overnight. That’s the price of admission to a historic stock market run up.

Here’s what the stock market doomsayers won’t acknowledge. As of May 15, 2013, the S&P 500 is up 141.5% since March 5, 2009. While they’ve been crying wolf, someone that had $100,000 invested in the S&P 500 on March 5, 2009 now has $241,500. Here’s what you won’t hear the doomsayers say, “We missed a historic rally because we we’re too afraid of the downside.”

Nor will you hear them say this truism, they’re not smart enough to time the market. Despite Mike’s dire warnings, I’m going to stay partially invested in stocks because I can accept a 17.2% historical risk return in exchange for what my portfolio analysis reveals to be my 87 year average rate of return, 7.6%.

Tune out the doomsayers and forget trying to time the market. Instead, control what you can. Most importantly, whether your earned income and passive income regularly exceed your expenses.