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

Search: investment


The concept of the Latte Factor is one of the most divisive issues in personal finance. Money gurus get so worked up over whether the Latte Factor is a valuable lesson in money management that one might think the issue were as important as war, the national debt, or capital punishment. Most of the time, passionate responses pertaining the the Latte Factor is based more on book sales and pageviews than any rational consideration of the issue.

The Latte Factor, a term coined and trademarked by financial author and guru David Bach, posits that small, repeated savings, of which people can make habits, can aid the growth of wealth over time. The math bears this out to be true: Assume you spend five dollars every weekday on a fancy coffee-related drink on the way to your office. If you cut out the coffee or replace it with a $1.50 less-fancy drink, you save at least $20 a week or maybe a $1,000 a year. Put that money in a bank or invest it, and assume you can earn a return from interest, dividends, or investment gains, and over the next ten years you’ll have $11,000 to $16,000 more to your name than you would have, had you continued buying your daily gourmet drink.

Latte Factor CoffeeThis concept isn’t limited to expensive coffee-related drinks. Any habits that result in spending money that could be deemed unnecessary can qualify for elimination due to the Latte Factor. Cook your own food rather than dine out once a week, and you could save just as much money or more over the same period.

Most people, however, don’t bridge the gulf between reducing spending in one area and increasing savings with the difference. Unless there’s a concerted, conscious effort to transfer money from a checking account to a savings account or an investment, the money formerly spent on lattes or other repeatable expense will just be spent on something else.

Furthermore, families that have already reduced their spending due to tough economic conditions that have become personally relevant may not have much room left to scrape the barrel to find additional savings.

Yet another criticism of the Latte Factor is that it minimizes the importance of reducing large expenses. If a family gets into the habit of saving money ordinarily spent on lattes and uses that attitude to justify buying a more expensive car, all the work will have been for nothing.

Well — the work would have been for a more expensive car. All spending is a choice. It’s easy to remember this when a friend refuses to spend time with you, citing the expense of the activity, while they continue to purchase unnecessary electronics equipment, for example. You can identify someone’s priorities by looking at how they choose to spend the money they have and the time they have available. If you look at your own priorities, your budget should match.

Whether you realize it or not, you’re broadcasting your priorities to the world, but mostly to yourself, by spending money and time in one area of your life at the expense of another area. If there’s incongruence between the priorities you think you should have and how you spend your time and money, consider changing something or accepting the idea that your priorities may not be what you expect. Your real priorities are evidenced by how you spend your limited resources.

If the pick-me-up and self-esteem you receive by drinking a latte in the morning is important to you, and you realize your habit results in a hypothetical “loss” of $10,000 or more over the course of ten years, spend the money. Buying a practical car that requires little care, uses fuel efficiently, and will last a long time can save money over the course of several decades, but if buying a less practical car makes you feel happy and won’t be a financial hardship, even if it means leasing a new car every three years, then go ahead. Your spending reflects your priorities.

I see this in my own spending. I still drive my old Honda Civic. In one respect, I haven’t purchased a new car because I see it as an unnecessary expense and I’m comfortable with keeping the money I would need to buy a new car in my savings account. Meanwhile, I spend money on things other people would see as frivolous, such as photography classes and equipment, hiring a maid service for my apartment on a bi-weekly schedule, coin collecting (though not much recently), and travel.

Is the Latte Factor relevant to your personal finance experience? What does your spending say about your priorities? Relevant responses to this article are worth twice as many points as usual. If you are a registered Consumerism Commentary visitor, you can earn points by participating in discussions to redeem for Amazon.com gift cards.

Photo: RaeAllen

{ 8 comments }

Passive income is the Holy Grail of financial independence. Although modern Western society and capitalism relies on the Puritan work ethic, the idea that labor is a value to society and hard work is the path to a spiritual and successful life, most people would prefer not to trade their time and effort for an opportunity to survive financially.

There are good reasons. The work ethic is designed to benefit employers, not employees. Even though the labor movement worked hard to ensure humane conditions for employees, in the business world, the idea of spending countless hours at the office is rewarded in some working environments. Employees are made to feel guilty about desiring work/life balance, as excellence in an organization is a goal that requires a measure of imbalance. Unwavering dedication to the job above all other priorities is rewarded.

MoneyThis approach might make sense if a job is also a passion, but for the vast majority of people, passions exist outside the office. Families, hobbies, and personal missions all have higher importance on the scale of values, but they often don’t have the ability to provide the financial incentive necessary to make life easier for families, hobbies, and personal missions. When eight or more hours of the day are lacking passion, the results are the tired memes of the ordinary workplace:

  • Is it Friday yet?
  • I can’t wait to get out of here.
  • She’s retiring this year; she’s lucky.
  • My coworkers are so annoying.
  • The boss expects too much and then raises the bar when I exceed expectations.
  • I can’t get anywhere in this job.

The list goes on.

It’s no wonder at all people view the idea of passive income as salvation. Rather than trading in effort and time for a paycheck, your assets generate income while you sit back and relax, spend time with your family, and pursue your less lucrative passions.

Passive income exists, at least from a tax standpoint. Income from a rental property or from a partnership where you aren’t actively involved is considered passive income. The IRS treats this type of passive income differently than other income, even if that income comes in the form of dividends from an investment portfolio, what some might also call “passive income.” The truth is that all income requires active involvement, but perhaps it’s a matter of degree.

The IRS considers income from real estate investments passive income, but managing real estate can be a full-time job. Don’t expect to sit back and your investments to thrive, even if you have a management company handling the day-to-day work. In fact, unless you’re able to amass a significant volume of real estate, or if you do most of the work yourself, it’s unlikely the time and effort you spend will be as profitable as you expect.

Expect the same disappointment if you’re looking to dividend income as your path to wealth. If you calculate that you would like to replace $50,000 of your toil-based income, you would need to have $1 million invested in investments paying a 5 percent dividend. (I’m ignoring the difference in income tax just to keep the example simple.) $1 million is a large bank balance, but it is achievable. You can’t, however, just put $1 million in an investment paying a 5 percent dividend and forget about it.

Any investment requires active involvement, starting from the beginning. You need to choose the right investments to start, and you need to monitor your investments over time. Sure, you’re not toiling in the field or wiping sweat off your brow at a construction site, but you are spending time researching your investments. You also need to pay attention to ensure your investments continue to perform. Companies decide to cancel their dividends without so much of a warning, so you should follow the company’s financials to be aware of any signs of trouble before the executives decide to reinvest profits, if any, rather than continue the distribution to shareholders.

When it comes to letting your money earn your income, nothing beats bonds. Suze Orman and financial planners offer advice to the general public, extolling the virtues of investing in a portfolio made almost entirely of stocks, but if you look at Suze’s own portfolio, which is designed not to increase value over time in exchange for risk but to generate income year after year, she invests primarily in bonds. (Her investment was in bonds as of a few years ago according to her own admission in a news story. I don’t know whether this is still the case, but it’s likely.)

Taking a step back, while Suze — and many other investors, but she is a good example — invests her portfolio for passive income, she’s not sitting back and relaxing with her life. While she may have money managers who handle her investments for her, she still trades her time and effort for an income.

Are you seeking the Holy Grail of passive income?

Photo: Raido Kaldma
Wealthy Turtle

{ 10 comments }

Occasionally, Consumerism Commentary readers send in questions about handling their finances. I am not a financial planner, so I have no certification claiming I’m qualified to give financial advice. I am not an investment adviser, so I certainly won’t be recommending stocks. I like the opportunity to address financial questions that other readers may be concerned about, and if I have an opinion or two on the matter, I’d be happy to share.

Readers may disagree with my opinion, or they may agree. Addressing these questions is also an opportunity to instigate discussions. As with any advice you may receive, it’s always good to check with a professional beforehand, particularly if the decision could have significant effects on your financial condition.

Here is a question I received from Steve:

I’m 24 years old and I haven’t started any retirement savings, but I know I need to start. My company offers a 401k benefit but does not offer any match. I was wondering, would this 401k’s tax benefits still be worth taking advantage of over other retirement investment vehicles? Would a Roth IRA be wiser? Or something else?

There are two primary tax benefits to investing in a 401(k) plan. You contributions and earnings grow tax-free until you retire, and your contributions can be deducted from your income for tax purposes if your income is low enough. I describe and explain the 401(k) contribution limits here.

Taxes are a distant second next to the best benefit of most 401(k) plans: matching contributions from your employer. Employers can structure the matching contributions in a variety of forms. One of the most common is for your employer to match 100% of your contribution up to a certain percent of your salary. For every dollar you take out of your paycheck to invest in your 401(k), your employer might also contribute a dollar of its own money. This is an immediate 100% return, much better than what you can expect from any of your investments. If your employer matches your contributions, find a way — any way — to contribute to your 401(k) at least enough to take advantage of the maximum matching benefit. Don’t turn down free money.

The choice to invest in a 401(k) gets more difficult when there is no matching contribution from your employer. At that point, your 401(k) becomes just another tax-advantaged investment account. Unless your 401(k) gives you access to low-cost investments, this account should no longer be a priority. Most 401(k) plans include fund choices that are not as inexpensive as choices you can find elsewhere, like at Vanguard or Fidelity. Low costs correlate to better investment results over long periods of time, and at age 24, this particular reader could be waiting many decades before accessing this money.

You can compare costs by reading the prospectuses for the investment choices in your 401(k) and comparing the expense ratios and other fees with similar funds managed by Vanguard.

Without an employer match, consider maximizing your IRA before contributing to your 401(k). A traditional IRA offers the same tax benefits as a 401(k), and a Roth IRA forgoes the tax deduction for your contributions today for a tax deduction in retirement. That’s a good choice if you expect that you’re in a lower tax bracket today than you will be in retirement. Considering the economy today, it’s probably a good bet that all taxes will be higher in thirty or forty years as the country struggles to pay its expenses, but you never know without a crystal ball.

While your investment choices in your 401(k) are limited, you can invest in almost anything in your IRA, depending on how you open the account. Your investments in IRAs are subject to an annual limit. If you have a strong enough cash flow to schedule your IRA investments throughout the year to the maximum and still have free cash flow, then you should consider investing what you can in a 401(k) without an employer’s matching contribution if your income isn’t above the maximum for taking advantage of the tax deduction. Otherwise, just invest using a taxable (regular, non-retirement) brokerage account. You can name the account “For Retirement” and leave it alone for forty years.

I wish I had been thinking like Steve when I was 24. I’m not sure I knew about the existence of 401(k) plans when I was that age. My employer didn’t offer a 403(b) plan — the non-profit version of the 401(k) — until the following year or two, and my cash flow was so tight, there was no matching contribution, and the investments were so expensive I just laughed. My only investment was in the form of a recently-converted UTMA or UGMA invested with what was probably savings bonds I received as gifts as a kid.

In reality, just making any choice for investing is better than making no choice. Whether you invest in a 401(k), IRA, or taxable account, just the act of putting money aside for retirement puts you ahead of half of all Americans in taking steps to ensure you have a stronger future.

Do you agree or disagree with the strategy outlined above? Share your thoughts on what you might do if your employer were not to offer a matching contribution on your 401(k).

{ 8 comments }

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 }

Half of All Americans Are Not Saving for Retirement

by Flexo
Wall Street

In April, LIMRA, a think-tank for the financial industry, completed a survey intended to focus on the savings and investment preferences of those living and working in the United States. After receiving responses from 2,697 Americans, a representative sample of the country, LIMRA was able to determine that 49 percent of the country is not ... Continue reading this article…

18 comments Read the full article →

Facebook IPO Approaching: Will You Buy Shares?

by Flexo
Facebook

A few weeks ago, a Consumerism Commentary reader asked me on Facebook whether it would be a good idea to purchase shares of Facebook at $48 a piece. I do not give stock buying advice, but I mentioned that shares had recently been sold for $44.10 on the secondary market, so if someone were to ... Continue reading this article…

14 comments Read the full article →

Art Is Not a Good Investment

by Flexo
The Scream - Edvard Munch

A few months ago, art and money were connected in the news when Andreas Gursky’s “Rhein II,” a photograph depicting a still river and walkway, became the highest-valued photograph sold at auction. The buyer paid $4 million to walk away with the larger-than-life print. Art is in the news again today, with one of Edvard ... Continue reading this article…

10 comments Read the full article →

Government-Reported Inflation

by Flexo
Helium balloon inflation

Over the twelve months ending with March 2012, the increase in the consumer price index (CPI-U) as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, often referred to as the inflation rate, is 2.7 percent (2.3 percent if you exclude food and energy). While these numbers are below the historically-cited norm for inflation, 3 percent, the ... Continue reading this article…

8 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 12112345···50100···Last »