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

Search: ceos


A new survey takes a look at the critical state of today’s recent college graduates. The survey questioned a nationally-representative sample of 444 recent college graduates between the ages of 22 and 29, about their employment situation and experiences. The questions also lightly touched upon these graduates’ financial condition. I’ve included a link to the full survey at the bottom of this article.

The necessity of choosing a major in college can put quite a bit of pressure on any student, particularly those who have either a wide variety of interests and talents as well as those who may not feel themselves pulled in any particular direction. There’s always the hope or the expectation that the bachelor’s degree will define a career path for the rest of one’s life, and that career path will follow a straight line or an exponential curve.

GraduationAn economist’s opinion is that students, who often go into debt to obtain their degrees, should simply look at the expected rate of return. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard or read that students should choose majors like engineering, physics, computer science, or applied mathematics to guarantee high salaries and easy job placement. Not everyone is interested or talented in these areas, and the pure financial approach says that those who aren’t shouldn’t bother spending money for a college education. The return on investment for an education is about more than just money, but that opinion doesn’t exactly make me popular in certain communities.

The financial reality is dire according to this survey. And as much as a college education has value beyond the expected return in the form of salary, no one can ignore the money-related part of the equation. Many decades ago, a college degree was a sign of differentiation, and gave holders the ability to market themselves well and qualify for the best jobs. At the same time, culture put such an emphasis on higher education that as it became available to more people — through grants and loans, not through lowered costs — it’s become less of a distinction. Colleges are basically unchecked in their tuition increases because they know that students will keep coming and the government will continue providing opportunities.

In good economic times, that can be ignored. With a low level of unemployment among graduates, former students can receive jobs, healthy incomes, and can pay down their student loan debt. In difficult times — when Baby Boomers aren’t retiring and there aren’t opportunities for younger workers, for example — the buy-now-pay-later model of education begins to fail. And it always fails for those with degrees in fields that take longer to recover their costs, like the arts and humanities.

Mark Cuban offered an apt analogy. College education is similar to the practice of flipping real estate. In the heyday of oversized, abnormal growth in the real estate market, any fool could make
money by buying a house relying heavily on debt, selling it to a bigger fool, and using the proceeds to repeat the process. There was a promise of success, and it worked well for a while — until the real estate market meltdown, followed by the Great Recession and credit crunch. A similar experience is happening today with the investment in a college education. Cuban argues that it used to be able to “flip” a college degree for a good starting salary and a solid opening to a life-long career, but the investment no longer performs so well.

With the run-up in real estate prices, it became very easy to access credit. Banks would give loans to as many customers as possible, with the knowledge the banks could repackage and sell those loans to reduce their apparent risk. The credit crunch required banks to tighten up their lending standards to the point where credit wasn’t available anywhere. Cuban believes this is where we are heading with student loans.

Years ago, policies were designed to ensure that everyone who wanted to become a homeowner could afford to do so. Taxpayers subsidized a great expansion in homeownership, and the real estate industry thrived. Education for all has been just as much a part of the American Dream, and taxpayers are subsidizing college educations for those who can’t afford it on their own. When it’s so easy to get an education for little money down, and everyone is taking advantage of free-flowing credit, we should have expected that making a return on that investment has become more difficult.

There is more student loan debt in aggregate in the United States than credit card debt, and Mark’s conclusion is that the economy won’t improve until this student loan bubble bursts. He promotes non-traditional universities — though not diploma mills, as he later warns — as the answer, because they can provide a better deal.

While colleges and universities are building new buildings for the English, social sciences and business schools, new high end, un-accredited, branded schools are popping up that will offer better educations for far, far less and create better job opportunities. As an employer I want the best prepared and qualified employees. I could care less if the source of their education was accredited by a bunch of old men and women who think they know what is best for the world. I want people who can do the job. I want the best and brightest. Not a piece of paper.

The competition from new forms of education is starting to appear… You would think traditional university educators would take notice. Beyond allowing some of their classes to be offered online, they haven’t. They won’t. Its the ultimate Innovators Dilemma. They don’t believe they should change and they won’t. Until its too late. Just as CEOs push for that one more penny per share in EPS, University Presidents care about nothing but getting their endowments and revenues up. If it means saddling an entire generation with obscene amounts of school debt, they could care less. This is how they get their long term contracts and raises.

It’s just a matter o[f] time until we see the same meltdown in traditional college education. Like the real estate industry, prices will rise until the market revolts. Then it will be too late. Students will stop taking out the loans traditional Universities expect them to. And when they do tuition will come down. And when prices come down universities will have to cut costs beyond what they are able to. They will have so many legacy costs, from tenured professors to construction projects to research they will be saddled with legacy costs and debt in much the same way the newspaper industry was. Which will all lead to a de-levering and a de-stabilization of the university system as we know it.

Just over half of recent college graduates have jobs. Many of those who do have jobs settled for a position for which their four-year degree was not necessary. 40 percent of recent graduates haven’t even begun paying off their student loan debt. Most recent graduates, while happy with their time in college, would have chosen a major after more consideration, taken different courses, or sought out more working or internship opportunities.

Photo: NazarethCollege
Blog Maverick, John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development

{ 13 comments }

Taking a Salary Cut

This article was written by in Career and Work. 10 comments.

In the midst of the recession, more than a few corporate executives made the difficult choice to cut their employees’ salaries. Companies whose profits depended on the health of the economy might have been at risk for bankruptcy if unable to cut costs. Reluctant to lay off employees, many troubled companies convinced the employees that the cuts were the best way to share responsibility for allowing the companies to survive the economic downturn as unscathed as possible. Company loyalty and faith was the new cult, the new nationalism. Stick by your company in difficult times.

And with unemployment levels so high, many employees couldn’t leave, even if they wanted to. A salary cut may be bad, but it’s better than being unemployed.

I’ve heard stories of a non-profit organization where, even in times of overall economic exuberance, the company’s cash flow was in such a sorry state that employees didn’t get paid. There was no cash for the payroll, and no bank would extend credit. The problems came back with the recession, and salary cuts were necessary. The CEO looked towards the example of Howard W. Lutnick, the much maligned CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald.

Twin Towers, World Trade CenterAfter the September 11, 2001 disaster, the financial firm Cantor Fitzgerald was left with only a small fraction of its employees. Rather than allowing the company to disappear, Lutnick aggressively worked to rebuild his organization. Part of his plan was to immediately stop salaries for the families of those who perished in the terrorist attacks. Lutnick became one of the most hated men on Wall Street, according to the New York Times.

The difference between Lutnick and the non-profit CEO who wants to cut salaries is that on Wall Street, the salaries were replaced with a promise of a 25% profit distribution to families each year for the following five years. The families didn’t have faith that the company would survive, but in hindsight it was a good bet to take. In total, the families received more than they would have received if they continued to receive salaries. The key here is that Lutnick offered something in replace of the salaries, even if it was a risky bet.

While Lutnick is viewed as a genius by CEOs who want to lower salaries in hard times, these CEOs aren’t offering much in the way of a replacement other than the continuation of employment — and even that is not guaranteed. This is even worse with smaller organizations, particularly non-profits, that have nothing to promise.

Non-profit organizations often count on employees believing in the mission rather than being motivated by money. Salaries are generally lower than they are for equivalent jobs in the private sector, so working in non-profit requires some acceptance that income opportunities are somewhat limited. From my experience in non-profit work, I could see I was in the minority. Many co-workers came from families where money was not a consideration; there was enough of it such that a salary at a non-profit job wasn’t even worth negotiating. Some married a rich spouse, some had family money, and others just lived with their parents. When the bulk of an organization’s employees are not concerned about salaries, the executives are not concerned, either.

If no one in the organization is motivated by financial compensation, it creates a culture where executives can get away with anything. For those in the minority who need to earn money to pay rent, buy food, and transport themselves without use of a company-owned vehicle, the question is whether the company’s mission is worth the possibility of being financially destitute.

This is much different than Cantor Fitzgerald’s Lutnick asking his community to make a financial sacrifice in return for a potential financial reward.

Have you every taken a salary cut for the same job — or for an increase in responsibilities? How did it work out?

Photo: Yutaka Tsutano
New York Times

{ 10 comments }

One of the most important metrics for tracking financial progress is net worth. I write about my net worth, or a modified form of it, every month when I report my balances. I’ve been in the practice of publishing my net worth updates for eight years. By watching my net worth change over time — usually increasing from month to month but occasionally decreasing — I can get a fairly decent picture of my financial health.

What is net worth?

Net worth is the financial value of all your assets, everything you own, subtracted by the financial value of all your liabilities, everything you owe. Finance gurus are familiar with this formula:

Net Worth = Assets – Liabilities

The equation works as well for individuals as it does for businesses. There should be no question of what is included in the net worth calculation. It starts out simple. Your bank accounts are assets and your credit card accounts are liabilities. These are easy to include in your net worth calculation because the values of these accounts are expressed in dollars and cents at any moment. You could at any point check your accounts online to get an up-to-the-minute balance.

Investments are assets as well. Generally, investments are held in shares, so a calculation may be necessary to convert your shares to a dollar amount that you can include in your net worth calculation, based on the value of those shares. If your investment is a stock traded frequently, you can generally place a value easily. If your investment is something more complicated like a business partnership, then there might be some wiggle room when coming up with a value for your net worth calculation.

Your house is an asset. Its anticipated sale value, even if you don’t plan on selling, should be included as an asset on your balance sheet, while the value of your mortgage if you have one should be included as a liability. Your net worth includes all assets and all liabilities, so if you own a home, you must include your house and its mortgage to get a complete picture of your financial condition.

Here’s how to calculate your net worth, with more discussion about the specifics of the calculation.

How is net worth useful?

CalculatorYou might find that a true net worth calculation doesn’t provide you with useful information all of the time. For example, a net worth calculation in its truest form includes the value of everything you own. That includes your television, furniture, car, coin collection, and light bulbs. Since I use my net worth to track my financial progress over time, I’m not concerned about the value of most of the things I own. Including the liquidation value of my electronic equipment would skew my net worth slightly and in such a way that it would reduce the practical usefulness of my net worth.

I include the value of my car in my net worth, not because I plan on selling it but because it was once associated with a loan. The value of the loan is considered a liability, and it was important to me to reduce that liability as quickly as possible. By including the loan in my net worth, I could track my progress as I eliminated that debt and the effect of the remaining balance on my total financial picture. To include the automobile loan, it made sense for me to include the value of the car (which I check once in a while using the private sale price listed on edmunds.com). After paying off the loan, I left the car in my net worth calculation for the sake of continuity.

It’s this personal continuity that is important. As long as you maintain the same formula from month to month and year to year, it doesn’t matter what you include in your net worth calculation as long as it makes sense to you.

Net worth is an internal metric

Net worth is best used as a tool to compare your progress over time, particularly if you insure it is calculated the same way every month. While some aspects of your net worth you may view as beyond your control, like the performance of the stock market, there is enough information in the numbers to give you a good picture of the results of your everyday financial decisions. There is something interesting about the idea of being able to compare your net worth with those of other people, but there are a few reasons why it’s best to keep your net worth an internal metric.

A quick online search can provide broader statistics so you can compare your net worth with a large population of people in your income range or age range. These comparisons are meaningless, however. Age groups can include a variety of education levels, particularly at the lower end of the spectrum. At the other end, you may be grouping retirees in with CEOs. If you’re comparing your net worth with people with similar incomes, you don’t know whether this income is a full year’s salary, pension, or dividends from investments.

Different people are faced with different situations. If you’re 22, making $40,000 in your first year as a teacher, dealing with student loans, single, and living at home with your parents, what benefit is there in comparing your net worth with another 22-year-old, making $40,000 in his fourth year in a factory, married with one child, owning a home and dealing with a mortgage?

That’s why technologies like NetworthIQ are popular. You can compare yourself with a sample using variables that place you in a category with similar people. This way, you can see where you stand among your peers. NetworthIQ does a good job of encouraging people to calculate net worth in a similar manner and groups members among different dimensions to ensure meaningful comparisons. This gets you closer to being able to compare your net worth with others, but there is still no guarantee that people are providing true information.

As I was one of the first people to blog about my personal net worth and track my finances online in blog form, I think it’s great that tools like NetworthIQ exist now.

I prefer not to worry myself about other people and focus on my own progress. My goal is to keep my finances moving forward, which usually means showing an increase in net worth each month, and other people’s finances have absolutely no bearing on my progress. By publishing my financial reports each month, I keep myself accountable to the public, and this inspires me to make decent financial decisions. Depending on your psychological tendencies, comparing yourself with others could provide you with motivation to improve your financial condition or it could leave you frustrated with your own situation.

This motivation can be helpful, but don’t look for too much meaning in person-to-person or person-to-average comparisons.

{ 9 comments }

HBO’s Too Big to Fail

This article was written by in Economy. 6 comments.

Last night, HBO premiered Too Big to Fail, a movie based on Andrew Ross Sorkin’s book, Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System — and Themselves, based on the events of the financial meltdown of 2008 starring Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, AIG, The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Department of the Treasury. The dramatization focused on the events surrounding just a few days; the aftermath of the decisions by the men leading these companies — all men, by the way — and the “Main Street” side of the collapse comprise the real story, and this was reduced to off-handed remarks and the film’s text-based epilogue prior to the closing credits.

The film portrayed Hank Paulson, then Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, then head of the New York Federal Reserve, and Ben Bernanke, Fed Chairman, as the mostly-good guys, trying desperately save the world from financial collapse, and the CEOs of the major financial corporations as the somewhat-bad guys, holding off on saving the world, but ultimately giving in. The film showed the chief of the Securities Exchange Commission, ordered by the government to step in to force the hand of the corporations, uncomfortable with the role the government was playing in forcing — or strongly encouraging — deals and moves.

If you’ve been a bit confused about how the world came to the brisk of total financial collapse at this time, the characters in the movie do a good job of succinctly explaining the series of events that brought the financial system to this point. When Paulson is asked why no regulation prevented these problems, he exhibits the only appearance of greed in the movie by offering the excuse that they were making too much money.

Almost every line of the movie touches on financial terms, so this might not be a film that holds the interest of the typical audience. There is drama and tension, so it works, but having some understanding of finance helps get through the plot. Like Titanic, the audience knows the ending, and it is the set of events that bring the film to its eventual conclusion that makes it interesting.

Catch Too Big to Fail on HBO. It may not provide new major insights into the financial collapse, but the actors’ performances make this film work. If you have seen the film, share your thoughts.

{ 6 comments }

Podcast 94: The Ten Commandments of Money, Liz Weston

by Flexo

Today’s guest on the Consumerism Commentary Podcast is Liz Weston, author of The 10 Commandments of Money: Survive and Thrive in the New Economy, and the most-read personal finance columnist on the Internet. Liz, Flexo and Bryan discuss each of the ten commandments in the book. The 10 Commandments of Money is available in the ... Continue reading this article…

4 comments Read the full article →

Make More Money By Sleeping More

by Flexo

Although I’ve always been a proponent of the value of getting a full night’s sleep for health, this is something that I haven’t been able to do for myself for many years. The people I know who are most committed to their careers and those for whom anything other than success is unacceptable have had ... Continue reading this article…

20 comments Read the full article →

What It Takes To Really Succeed

by Flexo

While half-watching the Primetime Emmy Awards last night, I considered what it must take to be the best in an industry. From what I could glean from the broadcast, and from what I’ve seen in my own life, winners share intense focus, hard work including sleepless nights, strong talent, moral support, and no tolerance of ... Continue reading this article…

11 comments Read the full article →

The Quest For a Balanced Life

by Flexo

A person feels most at peace with his or herself when the major aspects of life are balanced. We look at workaholics and overachievers and wonder about all the interesting or wonderful parts of life they may be missing. My first boss was a workaholic and overachiever, and he had trouble understanding that not everyone ... Continue reading this article…

10 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 512345