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

Search: family


Over the last year, a friend of mine has been trying to convince me to move my financial assets.

I currently have a taxable investment account at Vanguard, and my portfolio consists of a mix that includes a domestic stock index fund, an international stock index fund, and tax-advantaged municipal bond funds. This friend believes that I should be approaching my investments somewhat differently.

He is a real estate broker, so he likes to think in terms of leverage. My asset level qualifies me for so-called “private banking” at most retail banks, and one of the things banks like to do for wealthier clients is hold onto their assets while offering special terms like reduced banking fees and great interest rates on a substantial line of credit.

I’ve had no need for such things thus far, but there may come a time where I want to use leverage to invest in a business, so I’ve been exploring the idea.

So far, I’ve talked to two firms. The first was the one recommended by my friend, as he manages the assets of his wife, who is a member of a prominent family that has seen success through generations in New Jersey. That’s Merrill Lynch. The other is a branch of my local retail bank, Wells Fargo Advisors.

I spoke to both separately, and they both put together proposals. Wells Fargo presented me with a team of people ready to take over my banking, while the Merrill Lynch adviser initially thought my plan was solid. Both parties drew up a proposal for me, and the two were very different. I had a much longer initial discussion with Wells Fargo, so their proposal took into account my preference for low-cost index funds, at least partly.

Neither of these teams of advisers are financial planners. They are salespeople, or stockbrokers, or financial advisers, or investment advisers, and they have products to offer. People in these roles can go by any variety of names and can be misleading to customers.

The price I pay for these products, in addition to the fees baked into investments that eat into net investment results, is generally a 1% fee for assets they manage. There are certain times when paying 1% of a portfolio’s balance every year — whether the portfolio gains or loses money — could be like paying someone’s salary. It’s far higher than the expense ratios embedded into my mutual funds.

In theory, even salespeople, whether they earn money from commissions, from kickbacks from fund managers, or from a combination of the two, should want to offer what’s in the best interest of the client. If they don’t, the client would leave, theoretically, and find a better salesperson. But I’m not so sure this theory works out in practice. Given two roughly similar investments, wouldn’t a salesperson want to offer the one that provides him with a little more income?

Legally, advisers must only sell investments that are appropriate for the investor based on the customer’s time horizon and risk tolerance. A financial planner, particularly one who is certified, is held to a different standard. A financial planner must give advice always with the customer’s interest in mind. That’s the fiduciary standard, and it would be the difference between a planner recommending a low-cost portfolio of index funds and an adviser or salesperson making decisions based on what’s more lucrative for the firm.

President Obama wants to change the regulations so all financial advisers, everyone who works for a bank and offers advice on investment decisions, are held to this fiduciary standard. This probably has more of an effect on what happens when you call up your employer’s 401(k) plan sponsor to ask for investment advice.

It’s clear why banks have no interest in adhering to a fiduciary standard. If stockbrokers were unable to sell all but the lowest-cost investments, it would change the entire nature of Wall Street. In order to stay in business, managers of active mutual funds would need to find a new way to sell their products. Banks would have to make up the income previously generated through incentives or kickbacks in other ways.

This is why the industry has reacted to the fiduciary standard proposal by claiming that the requested regulation would make it more difficult for the middle class to get financial advice. I don’t necessarily think that’s true. It might make investment sales at a bank less accessible to those without sufficient assets for the 1% fee to generate worthwhile revenue.

But that’s not the financial advice most people should be seeking — and I found that out when I attempted it myself. The middle class, whoever that may be — the not wealthy, who may be dealing with a growing retirement investment account, a house, and maybe some additional taxable investments — needs little in the way of investment sales and more in the way of basic financial planning advice. Maybe financial coaching.

Maybe there’s a different solution. More retail banks could offer financial planning or coaching, where the employees abide by the fiduciary standard, much like independent Certified Financial Planners. The model must work because Vanguard offers this service to its customers; there’s no reason why retail banks can’t figure out how to make sure the same type of service would be profitable.

If customers really believe the best place to go for financial advice is their local retail banks, those institutions can do a better job of meeting those needs rather than just putting them in front of salespeople. If financial planners can stay in business independently, banks should be able to find a way to incorporate that type of service into their offerings.

Employers may want to follow this example, as well. When I worked for a financial company, a company whose own subsidiary managed employee’s 401(k) accounts, employees were encouraged to talk to a company-provided financial expert. It was never clear — especially to me, thirteen years ago, before I knew about fiduciary standards and financial planners — who I was talking to or how they determined their recommendations and advice.

When you walk into a car dealership, you know you’re talking to a salesperson, and you know the goal of the salesperson is to sell you something. You also know that the salesperson has incentives to sell you cars, related products, and services that generate the most profit for the dealership.

For most customers, this isn’t as clear when you enter a retail bank. For some reason, customers believe that bank employees want to help and are financial experts who offer advice. The proposal of new fiduciary standard regulations could make sure that customers can walk into a bank and get the real advice they’re seeking.

The fiduciary standard isn’t a guarantee. As Walter Updegrave pointed out in a recent article for Money, an adviser and a client can never have completely aligned motivations. A financial planner would need to give advice that is in the best interest of his or her client, but must also be concerned about earning future business from each client, winning new clients, and staying in business.

No one, not even a fiduciary, can look out for yourself better than you.

And I understand that the general reaction to that fact is that we need to educate everyone more about managing their own finances, so they know to avoid brokers who try to sell customers what’s in the company’s best interest instead of what’s best for the clients. But this is a message that doesn’t get through completely, and especially not to the people who need to message the most.

Financial planners and coaches can keep trying to make it clear that they’re better resources for most people and we can continue pushing useless and harmful money management and financial literacy classes in high school, or we can make some industry changes to ensure that the professionals people are most likely to encounter when they need help are the right type of financial planners.

I’m going to go back to the bank. I may eventually move my assets to the bank to take advantage of access to credit, but only if I can do so on my own terms, investing how I want to invest, with no additional fees.

Do you think all brokers and financial advisers should be held to a fiduciary standard?

{ 3 comments }

A week ago today I was in Phoenix. I had been there for a few days, and I had been planning to spend a month with my girlfriend away from the cold New Jersey weather. It wasn’t a vacation. We each needed to continue working, but figured we might as well do so where the weather was nice.

Early in the morning, I got a frantic call from my apartment complex’s superintendent. “Where are you?”

Groggily, I stated I was out of town and asked what was going on. “We have a major problem.” The sprinkler line in my apartment building froze and burst, dumping cold water, ceiling debris, and insulation into my kitchen. The unit below me was in worse condition, and their basement’s ceiling collapsed.

I ensured the super was aware that I recognized the seriousness, and with some trouble (a different story), I got on a flight back to New Jersey that got me to the apartment later that night. After hanging up with the super, I did two things.

First, I called my insurance company to let them know about the situation. Second, because I knew I probably wouldn’t be able to see the apartment myself until late in the evening, I asked a friend to stop by and assess the damage, taking some photographs. Thankfully, he was available and able to help out.

The insurance company requested that the apartment maintenance staff not remove anything, and I relayed that message to the super, but I didn’t expect them to comply as safety was their primary concern.

By the time I landed and a car dropped me off at my apartment, it was twelve hours after the initial call. The damage in the kitchen was very bad. The carpets throughout my unit were soaked. All in all, however, much of my personal property was fine. The neighbors downstairs were not as lucky.

The landlord determined the best way to deal with the mess would be for me to move all of my belongings out of my apartment so they could begin the repairs immediately. I asked for and received recommendations for moving companies and by the end of the week had a storage facility located, a moving company booked, and the insurance company agreeing to pick up the bills.

The pack-out and move-out lasted several hours yesterday as the temperature plummeted from thirty degrees to zero. But now I’m still waiting for communication with the landlord to determine when the work will start, how long it will take, and how they intend on discounting my rent for the period of time during which my apartment building is uninhabitable.

The damage to my items is generally isolated in the kitchen and the dining room, and my dining room is relatively empty because I converted it to a photography studio.

Liberty Mutual, the insurance company that covers my automobile insurance, renter’s insurance, and umbrella insurance, offered me two options. I could receive a check to cover the depreciated value of my damaged items, with a later reimbursement once I replace those items, or I could use Liberty Mutual’s service for replacing those items, where a company that partners with the insurer seeks out replacements for each of the items and sends it directly to any location I want, thereby avoiding issuing a check to me.

I chose option number one, as my current living situation might not require immediate replacement of everything and I plan spending time away from my apartment.

The insurance company also offered to pay for a hotel, but one of my friends offered up some space in his home. Liberty Mutual will also pay for living expenses, like food, that are above and beyond what I would be spending normally, while I’m out of my apartment.

Communication with Liberty Mutual has been a little difficult, but part of the problem is that the similar problems have occurred in homes across the Northeast region of the United States, and insurance companies are busy dealing with a large number of claims. In my apartment complex alone, a day or two after my incident, there was another burst pipe that flooded a different building. There is obviously insufficient protection during cold weather.

My landlord also hasn’t been very communicative. The super has been nice, but all I know about the repairs is that they expect it to take a week. I think the repairs, including fixing any water damage, replacing the carpets and wood floors, ceilings, walls, and kitchen appliances might need more like a month.

Renter’s insurance is inexpensive, but I’m thankful to have it. I would really love for this incident to be over so I can get back to Phoenix — and get back to life, to work, and to warm weather. After last year’s winter in New Jersey, my plan was to avoid as much of it as possible. And on one of the coldest days, I was brought back, and I’ve been too busy taking care of the emergency to be able to write some articles for Consumerism Commentary.

I can’t complain too much. As I’ve mentioned, with friends, insurance, money available for emergencies, and perhaps some luck, this incident hasn’t been nearly as bad as it could have been. I do feel bad for my neighbors who experienced much more damage and disruption in their lives.

One observation this event has allowed me to make pertains to my accumulation of stuff. Over the past decade, I’ve lived in just two apartments. Prior to that, in the six years after graduating college with a bachelor’s degree, I lived in at least seven different places. While moving around, there was never a big opportunity to settle in and accumulate stuff. That has changed over the past decade.

There’s a lot of items I could get rid of, things I don’t necessarily need in order to live a happy life. But I don’t subscribe completely to the idea of minimalism. Just because all I need to live are a few items, that doesn’t mean that I should limit my life to the bare necessities.

Keep in mind that my living needs are different than many readers. I am an unmarried individual without children. I have no family to support. Thankfully, no one is affected by the flooding in my apartment other than me (and my neighbor downstairs). If my family were displaced by an event like this, the situation would be very different.

With good insurance coverage and a landlord that doesn’t try to weasel out of responsibilities (at least so far), I can be confident that I can return to a great place to live.

{ 2 comments }

Any self-help guru would agree that how you think about money shapes your behavior with money. If you want to improve your financial situation, whether to get out of debt or to reach financial independence, your relationship with money is the first thing that must change.

If you believe you will never be able to climb out of poverty, it’s going to be much more difficult to achieve that goal. Of course, there is much more than goes into reaching your financial goals than just thinking about money differently. One can’t wish oneself out of debt, even by wishing intensely. The proper mindset is just the first step, but offers no guarantee of success.

Additionally, changing a mindset that’s been around for decades — or generations, even — doesn’t just change overnight. It’s a lot simpler to consider a changed mindset the key to achieving financial goals than it is to actually believe that everything you’ve been taught about money is wrong.

My current financial situation bears little resemblance to my life ten, fifteen, and twenty years ago. I’ve progressed through five different phases of my life — so far — as delineated by my approach to money. Each time I changed my mindset, my life improved and my financial situation became more stable, but it’s unclear which came first.

As I look back, I can identify these five phases.

Money mindset phase one: ignorance. As a kid and young adult, money played almost no role in my life decisions. I decided to study music education because I was passionate about teaching music, and I decided to go into nonprofit because I wanted to help even more young people in the arts. I never met any resistance from my parents, but I also didn’t think about whether a career in nonprofit was something I could handle without making incredible sacrifices.

Before long, living on my own after college, my finances were in shambles. But I ignored all my problems, including speeding tickets I couldn’t afford to pay. My life snowballed out of control, and even though I had started to realize I was in serious financial trouble with an increasing load of debt, my life culminated in losing my apartment, my job, my car, and my girlfriend all within the span of about a month.

Money mindset phase two: saving money and getting out of debt are worthy goals. This rock bottom led to my first major mindset change. Moving back in with my dad for a few months, I needed to get myself going in the right direction.

  • I left the world of education and nonprofit and found myself a temp job at a financial firm, accessible by public transportation, and began earning more money than in the nonprofit.
  • I began reading more about living below your means on the Motley Fool discussion boards.
  • I created a basic outline for a budget and started tracking my finances every day.
  • I started Consumerism Commentary to anonymous publish my financial progress and to keep myself accountable for my financial decisions.

I was finally saving for my future, investing for retirement, and focusing on better goals for myself. The mindset during this period was about making smart financial decisions and figuring out how to slowly build wealth over the long-term.

During this time, I also started focusing more on finding other ways to earn money. With a long history on the internet and having learned how to design and publish websites in 1994, I found ways to supplement my day-job income.

This would have been fine. Had I stayed in this position and mindset, I probably would be able to live comfortably, even if I would never have a sizable nest-egg, and even if I would never be able to live off my investments alone.

Money mindset phase three: I can build something of value. When I started Consumerism Commentary, I had all ready been blogging and operating websites for years. I had never considered the idea that websites could make money or be viable businesses on their own. The thought of being a “full-time blogger” would have seemed ridiculous at the time.

Before long, it became clear that there was a possibility of building a business out of all the time I was spending writing. Advertisers were interested in reaching the audience I had built, and these companies willing to pay for the privilege. Slowly, I started dabbling with advertising, while always maintaining some kind of ethical guidelines, so I wouldn’t feel too dirty at a time when very few people were earning money.

As the business progressed, I could see that there was a possibility that I wouldn’t have to rely on working forever in order to afford my living expenses. The business kept growing, and not only did I have cash flow, almost all of which was saved in bank and investing accounts, but I was building an asset that might have value to someone else, as well.

At no time throughout my life has money actually been a driving force behind how I live my life. I didn’t start writing online because I wanted to get rich. I didn’t want to sell my business (which I did in 2011) because I had dollar signs in my eyes. Being wealthy has never been a goal for me — but I’ve always liked the idea of never having to worry about whether I can afford something that I’d like to do.

Money mindset phase four: hold onto your assets. I’ve had a few bad experiences as a result of success. And part of this fourth phase still sticks with me today. During this period, as my cash flow from business revenue grew and I sold the business, I was concerned my assets could either disappear suddenly or they could dry up over time.

I did very little to change my lifestyle, and I was during this phase still trying to save as much as possible for the future. While I could have afforded it, I had no interest in buying fancy things or traveling the world. This is a scarcity mindset, but at this point in my life, I should have been past this.

I’m still not fully beyond money mindset phase four.

Money mindset phase five: abundancy. Through a combination of luck and hard work for over a decade, I’m currently in a financial situation that I never thought would apply to me. Until this year, I’ve been reluctant to touch my investments, and at times I still think I’d rather work for a paycheck than dip into my nest egg to pay for my living expenses.

At some point, I just have to start enjoying my success rather than worrying about whether I’ve written enough articles for Consumerism Commentary each month. But this is hard for me. There is more I want to do, both here and with new projects. I want to keep working. I want to build another company. I’m not ready to retire, so I need to keep going in some form.

A friend of mine who married an heir of at least part of a significant family fortune in New Jersey, someone I’d known since starting at that temp job after I lost my nonprofit job, has been trying to get me to live fully in this fifth phase, but I’m just not there yet.

And perhaps one of the reasons I can’t do this is that I am still concerned about cash flow. Invested mostly in stock market index funds and bond index funds, my cash flow is much less significant than it was while I was building my business, even if it is much less risky.

I need to think about how I can set something up to create a stronger cash flow from my investments — and that’s the type of thinking that often leads people to real estate investments. I doubt I could ever create another website that generated as much revenue as this one did.

So real estate is something I’ll be keeping in mind, but I don’t know if I have the right mindset for it.

{ 4 comments }

Over the years, I haven’t been too kind to the best-selling author, Robert Kiyosaki. He’s certainly built a successful empire, and a large community people respect him for his business acumen, his willingness to try or to appear to try to help others, and his advice. However, I’ve always found his advice thin at best and dangerous at worst. I received his latest book, Second Chance: For Your Money, Your Life, and Our World, and before opening the book to the first page, I decided to give Kiyosaki his own second chance — and read the book with an open mind. His publisher probably didn’t read my previous commentary before offering to send me a copy for review.

I read the entire book on a flight from Phoenix to Philadelphia, and my second chance paid off — I thought this book was an improvement over Kiyosaki’s earlier works(I’ve only read a few), yet not without its frustrations.

Kiyosaki uses several devices in his latest book to tell his story. The first is an all-out admiration of Buckminster Fuller, starting with the book’s dedication and infiltrating every chapter. This makes some sense, as Kiyosaki has always used some of Fuller’s literary techniques, which I’ll get into a little further down this page. Fuller was a futurist, and more than any of Kiyosaki’s other books, Second Chance also takes a look at the future and the decisions one can make therein as a way of dealing with the economic struggles of today’s post-recession world.

It was Kiyosaki’s so-called “poor dad” who first admired Fuller, and this early glorification set the wheels in motion for an approach to life that would favor the lessons of the author’s “rich dad.” (I’m ignoring the debate about whether “poor dad” and “rich dad” exist or are part of an allegory. The use in the book of Fuller as a driver instead of “rich dad” eliminates the need for debate, so readers and critics can focus on the words.)

Fuller, or “Bucky,” appears throughout the book as an inspiration to Kiyosaki through words of advice in Fuller’s own published words and in private conversations with the author. This explains much of who Kiyosaki is today. Fuller made up words or changed their meanings to encourage people to see the world differently, or as he saw the world, and Kiyosaki takes the same approach. It works. People who aren’t accountants or have a financial education — most people — would first read Kiyosaki’s books without a solid understanding of the terms “asset” and “liability” in a financial context.

Kiyosaki, years ago, saw the opportunity to make those words mean something else. And those who accepted Kiyosaki’s version of an “asset” became life members of a secret club. They “get it.” And if you disagree, you don’t “get it,” and you’ll never succeed in the way Kiyosaki wants you to succeed. For Kiyosaki and his followers, a house is a liability, not an asset. And if you don’t want to accept this version of reality, the author’s books, lessons, and seminars won’t do you any good because you don’t believe.

These redefinitions and others appear throughout Second Chance, but it seems to be Fuller’s pamphlet Grunch of Giants that had the most profound effect on Kiyosaki’s life. The bankers control the world, the government is out to get us, and the military-industrial complex something something. Grunch of Giants is an interesting read, but it’s just a little paranoid.

The second trope is familiar to Kiyosaki readers: the angst for traditional education and the glory for real-estate seminars. This appears so frequently throughout the book that it’s impossible to ignore. Kiyosaki’s companies produce real-estate seminars, so it’s no surprise he’s writing about the idea of getting a real education through this method as often as possible. I don’t recall him specifically selling his own seminars throughout the book, but it certainly plants a strong idea in the readers’ mind. If a reader comes away from the book thinking college is useless and the money for college is better spent attending a real-estate seminar each month, the first place that reader would go is to Kiyosaki’s own educational products.

Again, just like invented language, this concept exists as a filter. If you don’t feel the same way as Kiyosaki about traditional education, you’re not going to read his books and attend his seminars. If you did, you’d probably think they were wastes of time. He doesn’t want you. He wants people who are frustrated or unable to succeed in a college setting. They will make good customers. People without a college education are more likely to fall prey to people taking advantage of them.

The third recurring theme of the book is an idolization of wealth. Readers who buy this book are more likely to have goals to be wealthy than to have goals that go a little deeper — for instance, to use wealth to do good things for others. It’s not the simple get-rich-quick crowd of the 1980s, but it’s a more complex, grown-up version of that audience. The way the author uses the idolization is through frequent “question-and-answer” sessions, where it is implied that the reader is asking simple questions which Kiyosaki “answers.” The questioner in these exchanges is characterized as envious, curious, and a little slow; the answerer is characterized as rich, sophisticated, and absolute.

The book describes an exchange between Kiyosaki and a few construction workers. Kiyosaki drives up in a Ferrari, and the workers are envious, thinking they could never afford such a fancy car. Kiyosaki, in this story, proceeds to tell them they can, and that it’s just a matter of owning properties that put off positive cash flow, and that can be done without the education that the construction workers obviously do not possess. And here in this story, we see Kiyosaki positioning himself as the wealthy but down-to-earth, friendly guy who’s happy to teach unfortunate souls about something they will probably never be able to do. It’s the whole premise of the book — and Kiyosaki’s career. The readers are the construction workers, and Kiyosaki’s got the Ferrari the readers want. Please tell us your secret!

In Second Chance, Kiyosaki goes on record again with a prediction: There will be a market crash by 2016, which is the same prognostication he offered in an earlier book. The author believes that the recession of 2008-09 was partial fulfillment of that earlier prophecy. Oh, but he later demurs, and says that if the 2016 crash doesn’t happen, it would be due to artificial propping-up by the powers that be; thus, Kiyosaki stands to consider himself correct whether a crash (to which the latest recession when compared would just be a minor event) occurs by 2016 or not.

The book contains a number of misleading charts. In some cases, the data being represented in these chats doesn’t really prove the point that they author is trying to make, and in other cases, the data is represented in such a way that it is misleading. There is one such chart that supposedly shows that unemployment is rising for workers with at least some college education. The chart makes it appear that unemployment is decreasing for workers with just a high school education or less, and that’s simple a misleading graphical representation of data. Kiyosaki is careful in the text not to make an inaccurate claim about what the data show, but the visual representation allows readers to walk away with the wrong idea.

What Kioysaki might be getting right.

These annoying tropes aside, and the fact that the book contains no index and makes writing this article very difficult, there are many interesting ideas within the book that are worth discussing. Here’s what I liked reading about.

Three types of wealth. Kiyosaki borrowed the concept from another author, but discusses it in detail. “Primary wealth is resource wealth.” If you own oil — actual oil, not oil funds or ETFs or shares in companies that are involved in the oil industry — you have a protection that those with only tertiary wealth do not have. It’s not just oil — it’s fertile land, trees, and other natural resources, and Kiyosaki includes gold and silver in this category.

“Secondary wealth is production wealth.” Those who work directly (and own businesses that) produce food or other products, dealing with the resources owned by those with primary wealth, you have secondary wealth.

“Tertiary wealth is paper wealth.” This identifies the majority of Consumerism Commentary readers and myself. Savers, those with money in the bank or invested in stock market, fall into this category. This is the “affluent investor class,” and those who will be hurt hardest by the next (or any) market crash.

It’s true that shareholders and savers have the most to lose, but that doesn’t mean that those with secondary or primary wealth are fully protected. Businesses can fail, resources can dry up, and there’s always going to be an entity that more powerful than you — and I don’t mean God. Companies getting rich with oil in North Dakota are now finding that their lives can be upended in a matter of weeks when OPEC decides the price of oil needs to be lower.

The Cashflow Quadrant. From Kiyosaki’s other books, the “Cashflow Quadrant” makes an appearance here. The quadrants describe the type of work one might do and how the income from that work can be classified. I’ve been in all four quadrants: employee, self-employed, business owner, and investor. The quadrants are determined by tax law. If you’re self-employed, you pay the highest taxes — but what’s different between being self-employed and being a business owner? Well, even when self-employed, your working to get paid; a business owner is looking more at the value of an asset — the business — she is creating.

Basic principles in psychology. The author addresses a number of aspects of psychology that should be familiar to any student who has taken an introductory-level course: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and a variety of intelligences.

I’ve written at length about Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs here at Consumerism Commentary.

The latter looks beyond classical measures of intelligence like IQ, and beyond the two types that he feels receive the most attention in traditional education, verbal-lingustic and logical-mathematical. Skilled dancers and athletes have strong body-kinesthetic intelligence; artists have strong visual-spatial intelligence; musicians have musical intelligence; strong communicators and socializers rate highly for interpersonal intelligence; and self-motivators have strong intrapersonal intelligence. Kiyosaki adds a spiritual intelligence to this list.

Generalists and specialists. Kiyosaki points out that specialists are not suited to being entrepreneurs. They may be fantastic at one particular skill, but operating a company requires a lot of knowledge of many different aspects of a business or industry.

I lean on the side of agreeing with Kiyosaki here. Career advice tends to sit on the opposite side, often explaining that being as good as possible in one specific area is enough to get a great job and build a good career. The versatility that comes with being a generalist has allowed people who are more adaptable to survive better through the recession, and these generalists have the capacity to to succeed in any situation.

Overall, em>Second Chance: For Your Money, Your Life, and Our World points out the value in owning real-estate property and resources, but like all books, doesn’t offer too many hard details and doesn’t address risk. To go deep, the author assumes that the reader will attend seminars, and the prediction of a 2016 crash creates some urgency for the reader.

Honestly, when I closed the book after reading it cover-to-cover on a flight from the West Coast to the East Coast, I did feel motivated. I’m in a position now where working doesn’t add much to my net worth, and I need to start focusing more on cash flow. I am aware of this and I’m actively looking into ways to make that work, from buying web-based businesses that all ready produce an income (Kiyosaki does promote this idea in the book) to multi-family or corporate real estate.

The work I do today is mainly for cash flow, but it’s been more of a trickle than a gush. I have no interest in earning Ferraris or living some kind of lifestyle Kiyosaki believes motivates his readers, and I’m technically free to do whatever I like with my life from a wealth perspective. I’d much rather live off cash flow than assets, and the book has encouraged me to think about this more.

For more on Robert Kiyosaki, see Rich Dad Academy and Is Your Home an Asset or Liability?

{ 0 comments }

New 529A Plans Help Disabled People Save Tax-Free

by Luke Landes
Wheelchair

Now that the government backed down on its proposed changes to 529 plans for future education expenses, we can expect the same tax benefits present for education to be applied to families and individuals who face expenses caring for disabled people. Families will be able to deposit funds into special savings accounts, called 529As, and ... Continue reading this article…

0 comments Read the full article →

5 Questions Before Applying for a New Credit Card

by Luke Landes

Since the credit crunch in the midst of the latest recession, credit card solicitations have seen a significant increase. Unless you’ve opted out, and good luck with that, you’re probably getting junk mail from credit card issuers with invitations to apply for the latest credit card offers. Don’t get too excited, especially if you have ... Continue reading this article…

0 comments Read the full article →

Raise Money-Smart Kids: The Opposite of Spoiled, by Ron Lieber

by Luke Landes
ron-lieber1[1]

In Ron Lieber’s The Opposite of Spoiled, the author offers suggestions for raising money-smart kids based on the stories of hundreds of parents.

0 comments Read the full article →

Who Benefits From 529 Plans, the Middle Class or the Wealthy?

by Luke Landes
Child in college

When I first began reading that President Obama was considering reducing the tax benefits for savers who make use of 529 plans and other education savings accounts to reduce the cost of education-related expenses, I was surprised. It has been my understanding that 529 plans, all though I do not have one, are intended to ... Continue reading this article…

6 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 10312345···50100···Last »