Ask An Ex-Banker: 100% Equities Even In Retirement?

retirementHi Michael,

I enjoy and look forward to your advice every week. I am about to do as you (and a lot of other smart people) recommend and move our investments to several diversified equity index funds. My question: would you still suggest no index bond funds for someone in our age bracket? I am 71, and my wife is 65. We have a comfortable railroad pension and this year I started my Required Minimum Distribution (RMD.)  We have modest money to transfer ($145,000) from Morgan Stanley to I was thinking Vanguard.

–Bob in San Antonio

Thanks, Bob for your question, which refers to my recent exhortation that 95% of people should have 95% of their money invested 95% of the time in diversified 100% equity index funds, and never sell.

The quick answer to your question is yes.

I still would give you the same advice, although with a few caveats. The first caveat of course is that this advice is free, and you get what you pay for!

Also, I don’t know your full situation so I’ll make base-case scenario assumptions and you can fill in the details. The key to the choice to remain 100% in equities (instead of bonds or some other fixed income) is your time horizon. Above a 5-year time horizon (my minimum for ‘investing’) then people should be in diversified equities rather than ‘safe’ bonds or savings.

Now, you are 71 and your wife is 65, which puts your expected remaining lives (according to this Social Security actuarial table) at 13.4 and 20.2 years respectively. Given the way probabilities work, you should want to maximize your investment account for 20 years or longer, at least to support your wife (who is likely to outlive you). If you have heirs, your time horizon will be longer than even 20 years, and might really be measured in many decades.

required-minimum-distribution table
Divide retirement assets by the divisor to calculate RMD

I’m assuming all along that you will not have to sell the funds in your account, and you won’t be spooked by market volatility, which can and will be substantial over the next 20 years. At the worst moments, sometime in the next 20 years, risky assets like stocks could lose 40% of their value from their peak, the sky will look like its falling (it won’t be), and you have to know yourself well enough to know whether you could stomach that kind of volatility without selling.

Pensions & Social Security act like a bond anyway

Another factor specific to your situation that makes 100% equities even more acceptably prudent is that your railroad pension looks and smells and acts like a bond. Meaning, it probably pays the same amount every year without any volatility, or maybe it adjust slightly upward for cost of living changes. Social Security works the same way. The fact that a huge portion of your income is fixed income and bond-like and safe and snug should make you even more comfortable with the idea that you can remain exposed to volatile equities.

Without your pension & social security – If you had only your equity portfolio to cover your expenses – you might be forced to sell some equities to cover your costs at an inopportune time, and then 100% equities would be less of a slam dunk.

Adjust for RMD?

Speaking of selling, the RMD could change your decision (and my advice) slightly.

You know you’ll have to withdraw some required minimum distribution (RMD) each year, based on the IRS rules and your expected lifespan. A reasonable case could be made that you should keep at least one year’s RMD in cash, since you know your time horizon on that amount of money is very short. Many reasonable people might advocate a few years’ RMD in cash for the same reason.

I think its just as reasonable, however, to decide instead to keep the account fully invested in 100% equities, betting that equities will outperform bonds more years than not, and that your twenty year time horizon still justifies the decision.

asset_allocation
I totally disagree with this suggested asset allocation

The deciding factor between these reasonable scenarios, in my mind, is how ‘comfortable’ the ‘comfortable railroad pension’ really is. If your lifestyle costs are fully covered by the pension, and the retirement account subject to RMD rules is just extra money, then you can think of that investment account as intergenerational money. If you have heirs or a favorite philanthropy to pass money to, for example, then the time horizon for your account can be measured in decades, and you should undoubtedly stay 100% in equities. I’m confident that with a 20 year time horizon or greater, there will be more money in the end via equities than there would be if you invested in bonds.

With plenty of interim volatility, of course.

Good luck!

Michael

 

Please see related posts:

Hey Fiduciaries: Is It All Financially Unsustainable?

Stocks vs. Bonds – the probabilistic answer

 

 

 

Post read (1536) times.

How To Invest

Keep_it_simple_smartyRather than say, “this is how you should invest,” I prefer to say (and write about) “this is how you should NOT invest.”

I can think of at least three reasons for my preference.

First, I know many more terrible ways to invest than I know good ways.

Second, exotic bad ideas make for more interesting conversation (and reading) than boring good ideas.

Third, by focusing on the negative exhortation, I safely hide behind the critic’s shaming attack of “You didn’t do THAT did you?” rather than the advisor’s defensive apology, “I’m sorry I suggested you do THAT and it didn’t work out. But hey! The theory was solid!”

This is all a lead-in before I poke my head out of my turtle shell to give positive advice about how you should invest, before I quickly return to my more comfortable space of how not to invest.

How to Invest

Are you ready for the most important, boring, good idea on how to invest?

You should invest via dollar-cost averaging in no-load, low-cost, diversified, 100 percent equity index mutual funds, and never sell. Ninety-five percent of you should do that, 95 percent of the time, with 95 percent of your investible assets.

Phew, I said it. That paragraph right there is a trillion dollar financial advisory industry sliced, diced, chopped, shredded, sautéed, and reduced to two sentences, and served on a beautiful platter for you. If you don’t understand all the words, don’t worry, just print them out, bring them to your financial advisor and demand only that. Every time he tries to deviate from that plan, just point back to those two sentences and say, “I want only this.”

You’re welcome.

How Not To Invest

Ok, now let me retreat to my more comfortable critic’s shell and tell you how – given that central piece of advice – you should NOT invest.

  1. You should not invest your money for less than 5 years. When I say ‘invest,’ I don’t mean buy some investment product with a view to selling it the next day, the next month, or even next year. I think five years is kind of the minimum investment horizon I’d endorse. Also, when investing, the best time horizon for selling is ‘never.’
  2. You should not invest in ‘safe’ products, like money markets and bank CDs, annuities and bonds. Since this contradicts most of what the banking and financial industry advocates, perhaps I should clarify this point. Money markets and banks CDs work wonderfully for saving money – to buy a fancy new pantsuit or a personal robot, for example, or some other essential purchase. Unfortunately, saving money offers almost no return on your money, and often a negative real return after taking into account taxes and inflation. Saving money is not the same as investing money. Annuities and bonds offer a wonderful psychological feeling of comfort. But that comfortable feeling is also not the same thing as investing. Parking money – when you can’t afford to lose any principal – is different from investing money. Investing money always involves the possibility of loss. Incidentally, I know your investment account is currently allocated to 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds (because everybody’s is.) I’m not your investment advisor, you’re not paying me one way or the other, so I don’t really care, but I’ll just point out that 40 percent of your investment account is poorly allocated.
  1. You should not invest in funds without checking the cost of the fund. Most of us would not dream of buying an ice cream sandwich at the Dollar Store without verifying its price first. I mean, I’ll take it out of the freezer and bring it to the cashier without knowing the price (maybe!) but I’m not too ashamed to ask ‘Hey, by the way, how much is this thing?’ (Although admittedly there are some things I wouldn’t do for a Klondike bar.) Can we have a show of hands from mutual fund investors who know the cost of the funds they bought? In my anecdotal experience, not even one in three investors knows the management fees of their funds. People who have worked in the finance industry usually know enough to ask, but even there I don’t think even one in two bothers to check ahead of time. FYI, it’s costing you a lot more than the price of an ice cream sandwich.
  1. Speaking of upfront payments, there is absolutely no reason to pay upfront fees for a fund, known as the fund’s ‘sales load.’ No reason at all. Do not do this. Oh, you didn’t know how much you’re paying in ‘sales load?’ See rule number 3.
  2. Don’t time the market. If you have investible assets ready to go right now into the market, just put them in the market, and forget what I wrote above about dollar-cost averaging. If, instead, you invest based on your monthly surplus, just set up autopilot investing from your paycheck or bank account and never alter that based on ‘timing’ concerns. There’s never a good time or bad time to be in the market. I mean, obviously there is, but there’s absolutely no reliable way you’ll know it ahead of time.1 Every academic study ever done concludes the same way: Timing is a mug’s game. You can’t win that way.
  3. If you’re not a financial professional, try not to spend too much time, energy, or brain space on this investing task. Simplicity and modesty can actually put you way ahead of the pros trying to do fancy things with their investment portfolios. Most of the exotic products don’t work better than the simple products, but they do tend to cost more, and they tend to go wrong in unexpected ways, at the most inopportune times. Keep it simple, smarty.

 

So that’s about it. If that all doesn’t work out for you, I’m sorry. But hey! The theory was solid.

A version of this appeared in the San Antonio Express News

 

 

Post read (5797) times.

  1. Well, the best time to be in the market is always thirty years ago. But you can’t get there from here unless you start today.

The Citibank Settlement and Consumer Trickery

my_ficoI recently advocated buying one’s FICO score for about $20, but warned that the process of buying only that one thing – and not getting semi-swindled into some expensive monthly credit-monitoring program – is actually much harder than one should expect.

You start out trying to buy that one thing…but the websites of the credit bureaus Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion  plus MyFico.com are all designed to get you to buy a much more expensive recurring-cost thing (that you don’t really need). Or they offer it ‘free’ for the first 30 days, but you end up paying for years after that, for the originally free 30-day thing.

Anyway, this kind of consumer marketing strategy goes on pretty often 1

What goes on less often is the catching of the company in the act of being really skeevy with these practices.

Also, there’s aggressive marketing practices, and then there’s outright misrepresentation. Citibank agreed this week to refund $700 million to customers for doing exactly what I was describing about the Fico scoring/credit bureau companies.

citibank_trickeryCitibank charged $14.95/month to some customers for ‘credit-monitoring’ services that it wasn’t actually performing. In other cases they offered a ‘free trial’ for a month on identity fraud protection, but charged customers right away, skipping the free part they had promised.

I’m sure there’s a lesson or two there somewhere. Something about seemingly free things that actually cost a ton of money over time.

See related posts:

Buy your FICO score – Part I

But don’t buy too much FICO – Part II

 

 

Post read (846) times.

  1. If you squint your eyes a little bit you could argue that in some ways this is the basis for much of both retail banking and investment advisory. Like, here’s some ‘free’ portfolio construction advice that you don’t pay upfront for, and now I will charge you pretty hefty fees on a quarterly basis for doing very little follow-up work, over the next 30 years. I’m being a little unfair to investment advisors, but there’s a kernel of truth there.

As An Ex-Banker: Student Loan Repayment

Hello Professor!

This is your former student, one year post personal finance class, and I am in need of advice.

balancing_debt_savings_investments

Here’s the backstory. After spending one year in the IT Consulting world, making 70K and being equally stressed to the detriment of my health, I jumped ship (per the advice of my employer, they noticed I wasn’t sleeping). I left on good terms and with a fair severance pay. At this point of life re-evaluation I like the idea of taking however much time is necessary to ensure that misery is not a part of my daily routine at my next gig.

 

I have about 30K in student loans not paid off, interest rates ranging from 3.4% to 5%. The actual breakdown:

  • Loan A, minimum monthly payment $130/mo for 120 months: [12K @ 5%];
  • Loan B, total 18K, minimum monthly payment for all of Loan B $150/mo for 120 months [10K @ 3.4%, 5K @ 4%, and 3K @ 4.5%]).

My monthly expenses run between 1K to 1.5K and I have around 15K in savings (not including emergency funds, which is 3K and then 4K in a HSA account which can only be used for health expenses, I’m wanting to use all of that 15K towards paying off loans).

What advice do you have for planning my budget? I want to remove as much principal from my loans now to lower my interest payments. I may be able to defer paying monthly payments with no interest accruing for both my loans citing unemployment as the reason, another case might involve interest accruing as normal but monthly payment not required.

student_loan

Any and all advice would be appreciated, thank you! Let me know if any of this info needs clarifying.

Sincerely,

AF in Houston

——————

Dear AF,

Thanks for reaching out, I’m glad to hear you’re continuing to track a lot of the things we discussed in the Personal Finance course last year.

Congrats on building that cash cushion – that’s admirable and rare for anyone one year out of college. It sounds like unemployment is not as scary to you as being stressed out – so the cash cushion allows you to take some time to figure out the next step, which is really great.

The way I read your note, you mentioned three financial factors you’re trying to optimize, and then a few more unmentioned financial factors that I think you should include in the mix for decision-making.

Your mentioned factors:
1. Cash burn of $1,500 cost/month (aka unemployment)
2. $30K student loans
3. $15K savings

Your unmentioned factors:
1. Maxing out your Individual IRA when at you’re age 23
2. Finding work that covers your lifestyle costs and doesn’t leave you stressed out and unhealthy.

So…as far as important financial decisions in the next year, the most important is probably solving the issue of cash burn. You’ve got ten months, at your reported run rate, to solve that one (That’s $15K divided by 1.5K per month).
Ideally, you combine employment with the unmentioned factor #2, namely getting work that pays and keeps you healthy. Until you solve that one, I wouldn’t get aggressive about paying down your students loans.

Why do I say that?
If you decide to use your $15K cushion to pay down student loan debt, you shorten the time you have to get good, healthy work. Finding good work can take time. You don’t necessarily want to take another job that doesn’t suit you, and leaves you stressed out again, if you’re forced into the next job by the problem of running out of cash.
In addition, it’s very admirable to want to pay down your student loan debts with your savings, but in this particular situation I wouldn’t advocate that. Your student loan debt is low-interest debt, meaning it is compatible with good long-term financial decisions. (If you told me you had $30K in high-interest credit card debt, or any amount of credit card debt for that matter, I’d be strongly advocating paying that down as quickly as possible, as priority #1)
Then there’s another – in my opinion better – use for your savings if you’re trying to maximize your financial situation with your cash.

You didn’t mention contributing toward your $5,500 limit in an individual IRA. Hopefully you remember our discussion in class on the compounding effect of growing that money over the next 50 years. (Undoubtedly you can still do the math that shows your $5,500 becoming $101,311 fifty years from now at a reasonable 6% compound growth rate. Right? Please tell me yes.) Combine that with the 25% income tax relief you’d get on making a $5,500 contribution this year (so, up to $1,375 that you keep, not the federal government) and I think a strong case could be made for prioritizing your IRA contribution over student loan principal repayment.

nest_egg_ira

Obviously you have to stay current on your student loans, but I don’t think its a bad idea to pay the minimal required amount, at least until you figure our your employment situation.

An implied part of my calculation here is that, given your education and past earning power, you’re capable of getting a high-paying job in the next year. The trickier part – in the long run – is finding a high-paying job that doesn’t leave you stressed and unhealthy.

My summary thoughts would advocate either of the following to routes:
The cautious approach – Hoard your cash long enough to get a good job, pay the minimum on your student loans, but don’t pay down principal on that debt until you’ve figured out how much your new job pays.

The more aggressive wealth-building approach – contribute generously to your Individual IRA (up to $5,500) and keep the rest in cash. That leaves you more like only 6 months to solve the cash burn problem (aka unemployment), but hopefully that’s enough time for a smart guy like you.

Feel free to write back and ask for more clarifications or even to challenge my assumptions.
Best of luck and keep me informed!

Michael

student_loan_burden

Post read (1006) times.

Follow-up on Universal Inheritance Idea

Note: This is a follow up to my previous post on “universal inheritance.

inequality
Graphical display of inequality in America

I’m not a complete idiot, so I know that politics in the United States would not favor a universal inheritance at this time, for a variety of practical and ideological reasons.

Yet pursuing the thought experiment to the point of figuring out how this could ever pass is the least I could do for such an intriguing idea.

The universal inheritance, in Atkinson’s proposal, would be funded by proceeds of an estate tax. That’s never going to work.

While that funding source has a certain pro-equality appeal, it also conflates an idea that could stand on its own merits (universal inheritance) with a political landmine, the estate tax (aka Death Tax). While I’m pretty pro-Death Tax myself, at least in the United States (and I imagine in the Atkinson’s UK as well), one should pick one’s battles carefully.

The estate tax in the United States currently raises approximately $9 billion in revenue. Upping the rate or lowering the estate tax threshold so that it fully funds what I imagine to be a $35 billion cost could represent a challenge.

When I think about the political challenges of advocating for a transfer payment like ‘universal inheritance,’ I think of another transfer payment that actually got passed.

In 2015, we don’t (well, most of us don’t) have that grumbly feeling about retirees receiving Social Security. Those payments now seem somehow ‘fair,’ although a quick scan of history tells us Social Security appeared to some as competition- and business-destroying and when first introduced in 1935. So our notion of what’s fair can shift over the years.

So if I love the idea so much, how would I make this happen?

Here’s how to do it: We link the $8,100 universal inheritance for 18 year olds to Selective Service Registration, which is still a requirement for males, even without the military draft. We make selective service a requirement for women as well as men (obviously), making all eighteen year olds eligible for their universal inheritance.

If you really want to make this universal inheritance a reality, appealing to the broadest political spectrum in the US, then the $8,100 payment gets made contingent upon the completion of compulsory National Service. Compulsory service would be military in some cases, although we can imagine a wider variety of service employment for young people.

My sense is military folks are not eager for the re-introduction of a compulsory universal draft, so it probably suits the national good to have both military and non-military compulsory service.

Anyway, that’s my brief thought experiment on universal inheritance, and how to make it politically palatable.

 

See related posts on inequality:

Kooky and Good Idea: Universal Inheritance

WSJ on inequality

Washington Post interactive inequality map

Video on inequality

My pro estate tax view

 

 

Post read (588) times.

Kooky and Good Idea To Address Inequality

UK economist Anthony Atkinson published a book “Inequality: What Can Be Done?” in May of this year in which he proposes radical solutions to the most pressing financial problem of our time.

I thought I’d heard all the important arguments on the topic, and then this economist comes along with a totally bonkers idea that will never work.

“Hahaha, that Atkinson, what a goofy dreamer” I said to myself.

And then, over the next few days, I kept thinking about one of his totally bonkers ideas. It gnawed at me. And I realized that – practical and political objections be damned! – that is a pretty awesome idea.

That’s the way I feel about Atkinson’s ‘Universal Inheritance,’ which goes something like this.

Every eighteen year-old, upon gaining the right to vote, automatically receives an ‘inheritance’ from the federal government of some amount of money. Atkinson proposes a universal inheritance in the UK of 5,000 pounds, or about US$8,100 per kid.

Now, as a father I’ll be the first one to say, instinctually, kids shouldn’t inherit money. I mean, their brains have under-developed frontal lobes! They’re undeserving and can’t handle that kind of responsibility.

money_for_nothing

Also, as an American deeply immersed in the dominant financial paradigm that ‘Money for Nothing’ works as a Dire Straights anthem but not as social policy, my first grumbly thought about this idea was ‘those kids will probably just squander their $8,100!’

I can already picture the insidious marketing campaigns launched by Las Vegas casinos as soon my legislation for ‘universal inheritance’ for 18 year-olds passes Congress.

Because of curmudgeonly American fathers like me and similarly grumpy readers like you, clearly Atkinson’s universal inheritance has ZERO chance of happening anytime soon in the United States. Yet I’m intrigued by the thought experiment so let me tell you why I see this as an interesting, possibly awesome, idea.

And by the way, for those of you reading this, who picture a Red Socialist hammer and sickle above my head, I really don’t see this in bleeding-heart liberal terms. I see it as an affordable solution to a failure of the free market, the under-development of talent in an economy.

For the poor but ambitious, could a universal inheritance be the key to continuing their education?

For a huge number of 18 year-olds today, a lack of capital will prevent their enrollment in the next educational program beyond high school, whether that’s an apprenticeship/internship at a business, an associate’s degree, a state college, or an elite four-year private university.

Yes, scholarships exist in limited form to help some of those kids, and yes, some of the ambitious poor will manage to bootstrap their way to educational success. But even those lucky few will find financial roadblocks that scholarships don’t cover, like SAT prep courses, application fees, book fees, and transportation costs.

Clearly, with the cost of higher education these days, a $8,100 inheritance doesn’t get you very far along in a multi-year degree program. But it might be enough to make a start possible.

inequality_in_america
Who Owns What In America?

Why do I like the idea of a ‘universal inheritance’ rather than just further federal subsidies for student loans? I think because the universal inheritance is more flexible – it allows for more solutions than simply more ‘higher education.’

In my optimistic imagination the starter funds of a universal inheritance prevent the national tragedy of young people stuck in an economically-inefficient rut.

For a cohort of eighteen year-olds, a lack of capital may prevent their move from one employment backwater (a small town, a one-company suburb, a dying inner-city) to a more vibrant economy, in need of young workers.

In Queens, New York last month the young woman helping us at the car rental counter mentioned that “If I could just get $5,000 together somehow, someway, I could finally pursue my dream of moving down to Florida and becoming a designer. But until then, I’m stuck here.”

The way she described it, her $5,000 dream in life seemed like it might be years away. I’m picturing this universal inheritance as a one-time opportunity, if used wisely, to fulfill a dream otherwise impossible for children who come from poorer households.

I obviously don’t know what household situation the counter worker at Budget Rental comes from. I do know $5,000 doesn’t hold back other children, who drew a luckier lottery ticket by virtue of their birth family, from pursuing their life’s dream.

For the poor and entrepreneurially ambitious, could a universal inheritance be the key to starting a business?

The bus or the airplane ticket out of town. The first few months’ rent away from home. The new clothes for work, or for a job interview. The tools of a trade. The instruction manuals or training software and laptop. The initial inventory for a sales project. Partial tuition to a computer coding school.

codeup

With approximately 4.3 million 17 year-olds in the US, the annual cost of the universal inheritance program could be around 35 billion.

Clearly, the universal inheritance would make little difference to 18 year-olds from the top 10 percent of households, who control over 70 percent of the nation’s wealth, and even less difference to the top 1 percent of households who control close to 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. For them, this universal inheritance is just a lovely perk, a nice trip to Europe or an extra cushion for college expenses.

The bottom fifty percent of US households, by contrast, control 1% of the total wealth in the United States.

What that means, in practical terms, is that half of all teenagers become adults with no capital from their families at all to assist their next move in life, whether it’s work or further education.

In my optimistic imagination this one-time infusion of capital for everyone could create some opportunities.

 

See upcoming post:

The only feasible way ‘Universal Inheritance’ happens

 

See related posts on inequality

The WSJ video on inequality

Great video on inequality

Washington Post interactive map showing inequality

Post read (762) times.