As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: ben-stein

The following is a guest post from Neal Frankle, a Certified Financial Planner in Los Angeles who owns the financial blog Wealth Pilgrim. Neal has been a financial planner for the past twenty-seven years and is writing this article on Consumerism Commentary to share what he has learned from his experiences with clients over these three decades.

Even if you’ve been pursuing in your career for only a couple of years, you’ve already learned a great deal about your profession and people in general. I’ve had the same experience. Twenty-seven years ago, one of the small business ideas I had was to become a financial planner. And over that period, I’ve learned quite a few lessons about Wall Street, my clients, and myself.

What I’ve learned about Wall Street

Everything you hear about Wall Street isn’t true –- but most of it is. I’ve found that the higher up you go in management, the more detached and greedy “the machine” becomes. In fact, I’m astounded by the depths to which some firms go to enrich themselves at the expense of investors. Having said that, I must say that I’m not sure this attitude is any different from other industries.

Since I spent very little time working in corporate America I don’t know this for sure, but my guess is that all large corporations encourage political jockeying and self-serving behavior. Wall Street is no different. Take the index annuity product as an example.

When these babies were first introduced, they were some of the best investments I’d ever seen. They allowed investors to participate in growth when the market was good and protected investors from declining markets. But over time, the fat cats got wise. They realized that they could play with the way those indexes were calculated and thereby keep more profit for themselves at the expense of investors. Now, index annuities are terrible investments. This is just one of many examples.

I’ve also learned that competition sometimes works, and the mutual fund industry is a great example of this. Mutual fund fees and expenses have been dropping relentlessly over time as competition increases from Exchange Traded Funds. In short, in the debate between exchange-traded funds and mutual funds, ETFs and index funds are wining hands down.

Last, I learned that the fee structure an advisor uses says a lot about the relationship clients are going to have with the advisor. This may be self-serving because I’m a fee-only advisor. Fee-only advisors are compensated if and only if they serve clients over time. That doesn’t mean they’re going to do it, and it doesn’t mean they know how to do a good job or that fee-only advisors are qualified. Anyone can become a financial planner.

Over the long-haul, advisors generally don’t stay in business if they don’t deliver. That’s not the case with salespeople earning commissions. They get paid up front, and there is a disincentive to serve clients. Not every commission-based advisor is a shyster of course. But when someone is compensated to sell rather than advise, that’s what they’re going to do.

My experience is that commissions put advisors and clients on opposite sides of the table. Generally, the reverse is true when it comes to fee-based planners. Again, this is a generalization and there are many exceptions on both sides of the equation, but for the most part, I’ve experienced this to be true.

What I’ve learned about clients

I’ve learned that people dislike losing money more than they enjoy making money. This aversion to losing money is unfortunately and paradoxically the very reason why many investors get wiped out. If someone has no ability to absorb investment losses, they’ll do one of two things. One potential response is to stick all the money in the bank for protection. Over time, this is a losing proposition.

The other response is to invest emotionally. When the market feels good, this investor becomes aggressive. When the market feels scary, this person goes into cash. This is a perfect recipe for disaster, of course. It’s called buying high and selling low, the opposite of how someone succeeds with investing.

I don’t believe in the buy and hold strategy. There are other strategies that are more market-sensitive, and these can help investors mitigate losses and take advantage of good opportunities. That’s how I manage money, but the method I believe in is far from perfect. It is a system and not an emotional reaction. This, like any other investment methodology, has its flaws.

Some people will tell you me that they want to be aggressive investors. That may be true — until the market turns against them. Just as I need constant education in areas I know little about, some people really need to be reminded frequently about the trade-off between risk and reward. Client understanding and education is not a one-time event.

Few clients have a financial plan and even those who do rarely execute it. They aren’t clear on their objectives and they don’t know how much they’ll need to reach their goals. (Do you know how much money you need to retire?) This is a real shame. I’ve seen people with very low salaries living their dream life because they formulated a plan and executed it, and I know multi-millionaires who are absolutely miserable and live in fear. That’s because they don’t understand the basics of financial planning and refuse to learn it.

What I’ve learned about myself

I’ve learned a great deal about myself over the last quarter century as a financial planner. The most important lesson I’ve learned is that I can’t do better than my best. I used to be harder on myself than any of my clients were. In fact, during the 2008 market melt-down, clients called because they were worried about me, not their money. While my clients’ investments happened to be performing better than the market that year, we still lost money. I didn’t like that and I felt as though I had let my clients down. I was mistaken to feel this way, but I felt that way nonetheless.

I’ve learned that if I did my best, that was good enough. If it wasn’t good enough for a client, that was the client’s problem, not mine. I’ve learned that most people are good, honest and responsible. Let me tell you, when you deal with a person’s money you really get to know them. As the years pass, I’m more and more impressed by the inherent good I see in others.

I have no plans to retire. I enjoy what I do too much. I believe that the future has a great deal of opportunities ahead, and its share of challenges, as well. The most important thing I’ve learned is that I have no idea what’s coming down the pike. That’s what makes being a financial planner so fascinating.

What have you learned about yourself, others and your profession over the last several years? Were you surprised?

{ 6 comments }

To someone with debt, receiving an inheritance can feel like winning the lottery. Occasionally, an heir doesn’t realize money will be coming her way and hasn’t planned for the windfall or thought about her options. Even those who do plan often realize that contemplating options for managing a potential windfall is quite different from making decisions once that money is in hand. There is a tendency to have a riskier approach to managing money until the windfall arrives in the bank account. Often, preservation instincts kick in and prevent people from taking action.

Whether to use extra money to invest or pay off a mortgage is a common concern. Economists look at the numbers. If, after taxes, you can earn more in interest or appreciation by investing the funds than the amount of interest you’ll save by paying off a mortgage early, it is a better financial decision to invest rather than accelerate debt repayment. In its most simple approach, this ignores that the savings from paying off a mortgage early are guaranteed, and finding a rate that would beat the mortgage for investments could be very risky.

A Consumerism Commentary reader offered the following question:

I am a single 53-year-old female with a 13-year-old daughter still at home. My mother passed away recently and I inherited a little over one hundred thousand dollars. My mortgage payoff is $41,000 and I have a second that is $14,000. My Lutheran Brotherhood rep tells me to invest all of it and to not pay off my mortgage since I only have seven more years on the loan at 5% interest. My gut tells me that I should pay off my mortgages to be totally debt free. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Nothing beats finding and working with a trusted financial planner when handling these questions. Being debt free is obviously important to this reader. Paying off debt is a burden. Every month, the work you do generates income already designated for someone else. Debt may not be slavery, but you will never fully own your income and the work you do to create that income until you are free to do what you want with all of your (after-tax) income.

The representative may have positioned 5% as being a low interest rate. It’s not a terrible mortgage interest rate, and you might even be benefiting from the home mortgage interest tax deduction. With only seven more years left in the loan, however, the biggest tax benefit is behind you because the majority of each mortgage payment goes to the principal of the loan rather than interest.

Can you beat 5% by investing the $100,000? It’s possible, but not guaranteed. A Lutheran representative should be aware of the risks; recently, Thrivent Financial for Lutherans was one of a select number of organizations that lost almost all of its investments due to a risky and possibly fraudulent investment scheme at J.P. Morgan. A proper mix of simple stock and bond index funds could beat 5% in the long run, but performance over shorter periods of time, like a decade, could be worse than the 5% you’d achieve by paying off the mortgage.

Even if you use $100,000 to pay off the remaining mortgage balances, you’ll still have $45,000 left, so it’s not an all-or-nothing question. Going further, if you strongly feel that investing is a better way to secure your financial future but you also feel strongly about reducing debt, you might be more comfortable using the windfall to pay off half of your remaining mortgage balance, leaving a larger remainder to invest. This would give you the benefit of exposure to stocks for the long-term while greatly reducing your monthly mortgage obligations or allowing yourself to finish paying off the mortgage a few years earlier than expected. If your daughter is 13 now, she may move out in five years. That could be a good time to downsize your living arrangement to save money, and when that happens, you may feel more comfortable if your house were to be completely paid off by then.

One other thing to consider is whether the representative you spoke to is also representing an organization like Thrivent Financial for Lutherans. This is a non-profit organization designed to help the community of Lutherans succeed financially through prudent investing. Due to his affiliation, he would suggest investing. Not only is it an acceptable choice and probably not a terrible decision, but his affiliation with the organization would certainly sway his advice towards the benefits he can provide. If you walk to a car dealership an ask a salesperson, “Should I buy a car or pay off my mortgage?” you can expect the car salesperson to suggest buying a car — from him.

This question is open to anyone who would like to comment. Should this reader use a $100,000 inheritance to pay off the remaining $55,000 balance on the 5% mortgages or invest the entire windfall?

{ 35 comments }

On the surface, it seems like it would make sense to enroll in a biweekly mortgage payment plan. In theory, these biweekly mortgage programs offered by lending servicing companies work by allowing you to send half of your monthly mortgage amount every two weeks. As a result, you make two “extra” biweekly payments each year, reducing the total number of months it takes to pay off the mortgage.

There are some misconceptions or disadvantages, though, so it pays to read the fine print before you sign up for one of these plans.

  • You may not save on interest. While it sounds like sending a payment earlier in the month will reduce the amount of interest you need to pay, that is not necessarily the case. Furthermore, even if you send a partial payment early, your loan servicing company may just hold onto your funds in their own account before sending one monthly payment to the lender.
  • You might pay more. Loan servicing companies often charge extra fees for biweekly payment plans. You may need to pay an up-front fee of over $400. If not, the company will likely charge a transaction fee for each payment you make or a monthly fee for remaining within the program.

If your loan agreement allows it, you would most likely be better off creating your own accelerated payment plan.

  • Check with your lender to make sure you will be allowed to send a payments early.
  • If you are allowed, ask whether you will be charged a fee for prepaying your mortgage. This fee punishes consumers who want to be more responsible about their mortgage payments.
  • Next, ensure that the lender will credit the funds to your loan right away rather than waiting until the end of the month.
  • Furthermore, you must indicate that any payment above the amount you owe each month should be applied to reducing your principal, not interest, to reduce the total amount of interest you pay over the course of the loan.

If the lender responds with favorable answers, pay extra each month, ensuring to note on your payment coupon that the extra funds should be designated towards the loan principal.

Don’t forget to consider investing rather than accelerating your mortgage repayment. Depending on your goals, your time horizon, and your plans for leaving your current house, prepaying your mortgage may not be the best financial decision.

{ 3 comments }

Earlier this week, I reviewed common financial rules of thumb and offered a quick evaluation of how each rule would likely perform if accepted by an individual as the final word. One of these was the rule that convinces retirees they will be financially secure if they withdraw 4% of their nest egg for income one year and continue withdrawing the same amount adjusted for inflation each year.

Walter Updegrave has a much more detailed strategy for retirees who would like to make their money last from age 65 to 95 and beyond. He offers three alternatives that one can follow depending on their assets and their needs in retirement.

Three strategies for retirees

The first strategy is for retirees who have enough income from Social Security and pensions to cover basic expenses and who are confident in their ability to manage their portfolio.

For those in this situation the 4% withdrawal rule has a chance of succeeding — having your money last 30 years — 77% of the time. If you need more income than 4% would provide, you’re risking not having enough to last that long. For example, someone retiring today with a $1 million nest egg could withdraw $40,000 that first year. But if you’re 33 years old like me, you better plan on having much more than $1 million when you retire; thanks to inflation, an income of $40,000 thirty years from now will probably not be sufficient.

In order to maintain a 4% withdrawal rate, according to the article, is to maintain a portfolio of 50% stocks and 50% bonds. And by the way, a bad year in the stock market could wipe you out.

The second strategy offered by Walter Updegrave is for retirees who need more income for basic expenses than is provided by Social Security and pensions or who do not want to subject their portfolio to as much risk as required in the first strategy.

Take part of your nest egg and purchase a lifetime immediate annuity. This will provide you with steady paychecks for the rest of your life. According to the article, recent annuities pay out 8%, so you would only need $500,000 to make that $40,000 income mentioned earlier. These are most beneficial for people who live longer because money is pooled with other investors. Those who die earlier help fund the incomes of those who survive in retirement longer. The problem with annuities is your money is often locked inside them, and you can’t get it if you need it without paying steep penalties.

Walter Updegrave also offers a third strategy for retirees who need more income than Social Security and pensions provide but want access to more of their money. In addition to a portfolio of stocks and bonds, and an immediate lifetime annuity, add a variable annuity with a guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit to the mix.

Variable annuities are flexible but they are also expensive. Rather than 8% like the lifetime immediate annuity above, a 65 year old is likely to receive a 5% return. It is not rare for these accounts to charge a fee of 3% of your account balance each year. The author suggests that the optimal mix between these products and investments would be 25% of your portfolio in variable annuities, 25% in immediate annuities, and the remaining 50% in the diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds.

The problem with annuities

The sale of annuities, particularly variables annuities, is riddled with problems. These are very popular products for salespeople because they make a lot of money for the companies that sell them. It’s not rare for salespeople to misrepresent the product. Often customers are not given the full information regarding withdrawal penalties.

Here’s an example of an 86-year-old man who was pressured into buying a product he did not understand and would never benefit from. Dateline investigated annuities salespeople and found more deception in the industry. Ben Stein, however, credits variable annuities for making his parents rich, though it might be important to note that a Ben Stein’s long-time working partner is Phil DeMuth, a registered investment adviser (salesperson) who benefits financially when more people are convinced that annuities are good products.

How to make your money last, Walter Updegrave, Money Magazine, September 23, 2009

{ 10 comments }

Paying Off a 30-Year Fixed-Rate Mortgage in 15 Years

by Laura

This is a guest article by Laura, a twenty-something woman working to improve her finances and reduce debt. She writes about personal finance for college students and grads at Green Panda Treehouse. We’re buying a town house and it has a been a huge learning process. We have been running the numbers and making sure ... Continue reading this article…

27 comments Read the full article →

One-Third of Home Loans are Under Water

by Flexo

A few years ago, a coworker formed an investment partnership in speculative real estate. He promised investors a 10 percent annual return and was using the capital to invest in Florida real estate, earning 15 to 20 percent overall. As most of the real estate had not even been inhabited or built yet, the investments ... Continue reading this article…

12 comments Read the full article →

Lies Annuity Salesmen Tell: A Dateline Undercover Investigation

by Flexo

Last year, a reader wrote into Consumerism Commentary with a story about how her elderly father was convinced to buy a variable annuity, locking away his money until after his likely passing. He had wanted to talk to a financial adviser, but found his way to Banc of America Investment Services. Recently, Dateline took a ... Continue reading this article…

4 comments Read the full article →

The Cost of Buying a Home, Low Cost of Living, and Fed Cover-Up

by Flexo

Has anyone been watching the HBO miniseries, John Adams? Although colonial America is not my favorite period of history, I’ve been enjoying the first episodes that have aired. However, during the slower sections of the program, you may want to take the time reading articles from Consumerism Commentary’s history. From the first half of March ... Continue reading this article…

2 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 3123