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

Search: science


We expect much from people we see on television. And it’s worse when we perceive someone to be smart and talented, even if they’re speaking beyond their area of expertise.

We think someone who is a great community leader or someone who is a great business leader will make a great President of the United States. We see the similarities in roles and responsibilities and believe that intelligence and talent in one area leads to success in another. The same bias happens in ourselves. Why else would Donald Trump, a successful business person who doesn’t appear to have interpersonal communication skills based on his public statements and television appearances (I don’t know him personally) believe that he could be a successful politician?

And success that takes the form of money often empowers one’s belief that their ideas on any topic are worthy of attention. It’s easy to fall into this trap, because there are many people who idolize financial success and seek out these people for leadership. It’s a self-feeding cycle. The more we seek out “advice” from people who have lots of money, the more individuals feel they have something important to say, the more they put themselves out there, and the media are happy to oblige.

So when Mark Cuban, a billionaire who built and sold a major online property, diversified his wealth, owners a basketball team, participates in a popular prime-time television program, and can easily afford a four-year education at any of this country’s top universities, feels like speaking about a topic, the news media is right there to give him an even more prominent place from which to address the country than his own blog. One topic on which Cuban spoke recently is the practice of allowing taxpayers in the United States to subsidize the higher education of its citizens — student loans.

Student loans represent an important piece of a system that allows expanded access to education. Having a highly educated citizen base allows the United States to stay competitive. There are a number of initiatives in place to improve education in this country, and the media loves the soundbites that compare citizens of the United States with the progress of other countries in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The general impression is that the United States is failing to keep up with the progress of other countries, and that has inspired governmental action in all levels. It may not be successful, but at least it brings the issue of education to the fore, inspiring spirited discussions about how we can ensure we are providing the best education to as many of our citizens as possible.

But at the same time, an anti-education movement looks critically at the state of the university system, and identifies some problems. While access to education is a key factor in eliminating poverty and allowing breakthroughs into the middle class, those who start off in the middle class may not be getting all that they once were able to receive from a four-year college education. It certainly feels that way when so many college graduates are still out of work in this recovering economy. (Keep in mind today’s college graduates are still much better off economically than those who did not graduate college.) Another criticism points to the outliers who are able to build significant companies and effect the economy in powerful ways without completing a college education, but those are clearly not the norm.

Combine a tough job economy with growing student loans and you have a hot button issue that is perfect for attention from someone like Mark Cuban, who because of his success in business believes he might have some insight on public education and economic policy. His approach to higher education is to boil all the complicated variables into one concept: easy money.

As the government made it easier for all citizens to attend a college by backing student loans — loans that can’t be eliminated through bankruptcy like most other loans — it gave colleges guaranteed income. Because the money was coming in so freely, colleges could raise tuition without the increase affecting enrollment numbers. They could increase salaries for administrators (while adjunct faculty salaries remain an affront to education) without any damage to the budget.

Students take student loans so easily, but then have such a difficult time dealing with them once they need to start repayment. I went to school with student loans, and despite the initial orientation and exit interviews, my low salary in the nonprofit sector didn’t give me much of an opportunity to both pay off student loans and save for the future. I did neither, at least not well, for many years. And I had the benefit of at least being employed.

Cuban argues, perhaps correctly, that if students did not have such a financial burden upon graduation, they might be using their income to contribute to the economy (which probably means buying tickets to Maverick games or buying houses). If we could cap student loans to $10,000, the burden would be less, and with less free-flowing money, colleges would have to lower tuition to maintain enrollment.

None of this will work. It’s a very short-sighted approach. College graduates earn so much more than those without a degree, even in a difficult job economy. The best thing for the economy in the long term is to make sure as many people as possible, those who have the capacity to develop lucrative skills, get those college degrees. Reducing access to college will send this country’s competitive stance and overall level of production down, inside and outside of the United States.

Furthermore, in today’s economy, having students graduate with less debt is no guarantee they’ll still be generating income to spend boosting the economy. Low-income or no-income graduates can take advantage of deferment or income-based repayment plans. These program lower the immediate financial burden, so if there was to be any boost by limiting student loans to $10,000, we would already be seeing that today. The bigger problem is that graduates are still unemployed or underemployed (though less so than non-graduates).

Colleges are not going to lower tuition just because the government might not be backing as much in loans. If government loans were limited to $10,000, the most likely scenario is that private lenders take up the slack. And even if they didn’t, the best that could happen is that the rate of tuition increases slows down. That’s a good thing, but not nearly a strong enough reaction that would allow the same access to education, all other things being equal.

Germany took the opposite approach recently, announcing that all public colleges universities would eliminate tuition entirely for all domestic and international students. Almost 95 percent of colleges in Germany are public colleges and universities. In the 2000s, German states wrestled with the German federal government to win back control of education, and in doing so, the federal government needed something to do with the money it had been setting aside for education priorities while the German states began funding loans and grants to students.

Because of higher education’s positive effect on the economy, and because a higher-educated populace is culturally and socially important, universal access is a worthwhile goal, and that is why there is a tax system in the United States. There are certain things that are good for the country — and the world — as a whole. There’s no denying there needs to be improvement. Institutes of higher education are businesses, though, despite their charters. They need to operate on a budget. They need to generate profits to pay employees.

There should be institutional reform to make sure these businesses are running efficiently, and those reforms could open the opportunity for using available funds in ways that directly help students and increase the value of a college degree. Limiting government-backed student loans to $10,000 is the wrong approach.

Am I wrong? Is Mark Cuban right? Do you believe colleges (which are still businesses) will lower tuition if student loans were to be capped at $10,000?

{ 3 comments }

I’ve written extensively about taking control of one’s own finances. My life changed for me when I realized I had more control over my personal situation than I previously believed. Every human has the power to make every decision based on a future benefit.

One can choose to use a pay raise to pay off an overdue credit card or to justify the unnecessary purchase of a new car. One can choose to go to work early every day and otherwise impress the executives to earn a raise, or to do nothing beyond the scope of a job description and stagnate in one position in a career for a decade or more. One can choose to work hard in school and excel to prepare for a fruitful career, or to enroll in easy classes, not take education seriously, and not develop the critical thinking skills necessary to be successful later in life.

It sounds easy: just think about what you want for yourself in the future, and make day-to-day choices that bring you closer to that goal.

Unfortunately, it’s more complicated than that. The ability to make good decisions is itself complicated, but the entire philosophy rests on the idea that all people are starting from the same position and have the same opportunities.

Decision-making is complicated because humans are not logical. Some people may strive to make good decisions by keeping emotions as far away from the decision-making process as possible, but the truth is that’s impossible. Every decision we make, as human beings, is an emotional decision. Decisions are also not always binary options. In reality, dealing with a raise is not a choice between one very good option (paying off an overdue credit card) and one very bad option (justifying the unnecessary purchase of a new car).

Further complicating the decision-making process is that lives are full of issues with different levels of priority. When you are faced with urgent matters — everything that needs to be handled immediately — you aren’t able to focus on more important matters, or decisions whose effects may not be felt for years. You can’t save for retirement if your cash flow only covers the bare necessities of your shelter and sustenance. (And “getting a better job” or “downsizing your living space,” even if possible otherwise, still requires an upfront investment of time and money you do not have.)

But hard work is supposed to be the solution that overcomes all obstacles. Malcolm Gladwell synthesized a few research studies when he wrote about the “10,000 hour rule.” Following the 10,000 hour rule, anyone can become an expert with through deliberate practice with the intent of improving, as long as he or she puts the time in. More research disagrees with this premise.

A recent article in Slate addresses the research that disproves Malcolm Gladwell’s 10,000 hour rule.

Deliberate practice left more of the variation in skill unexplained than it explained. For example, deliberate practice explained 26 percent of the variation for games such as chess, 21 percent for music, and 18 percent for sports. So, deliberate practice did not explain all, nearly all, or even most of the performance variation in these fields. In concrete terms, what this evidence means is that racking up a lot of deliberate practice is no guarantee that you’ll become an expert. Other factors matter.

It turns out that genetics plays a role, too, on an individual basis. That may be true for some skills, like musical or athletic ability. It may be just an anecdote, but I can see how the genetic proclivity for musical talent has been transferred from generation to generation in my own family, going back at least four generations on my mother’s side.

While musical ability and aptitude for expertise may develop in part due to genetics, it remains to be proved whether the same factor is as strong for success in business. It’s clear that some business allow executive roles to stay within the family from one generation to the next, but that’s not genetics, just family favoritism.

Outside of genetics and deliberate practice, starting a skill early in age is another important factor in success.

In their study, Gobet and Campitelli found that chess players who started playing early reached higher levels of skill as adults than players who started later, even after taking into account the fact that the early starters had accumulated more deliberate practice than the later starters. There may be a critical window during childhood for acquiring certain complex skills, just as there seems to be for language.

Success with complex cognitive tasks like playing chess or learning may not be associated directly with success in running a business, achieving financial independence, or making the social connections necessary for becoming an executive at a corporation, but the idea that a child who focuses on skill during certain stages of development is better prepared to excel with that skill throughout life.

While some of the reasons involve chemical changes in the brain, being involved with activities during childhood could also help someone develop a passion for those activities. And that passion could keep a developing adult interested in excelling by become a desire to excel.

As the article in Slate points out, not all of us are starting from the same position. There is no “blank slate.” The idea that anyone could become Wolfgang Mozart or Pablo Picasso or Steve Jobs if she just puts in the required 10,000 hours of practice is wrong.

With this knowledge, should we change our approach to life? If you tend to listen to self-improvement gurus, the answer is probably yes. It’s too late to do anything about our genetics; we can’t choose the genes we inherit. We can’t go back in time and start developing skills as children. But we can make choices based on realities that science has proven.

1. Don’t expect to be a professional athlete, the next President of the United States, or the next generation’s Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.

If you haven’t shown an amazing aptitude in sports by age fourteen, getting to the major leagues in any sport probably isn’t going to happen. There are some exceptions. Golf comes to mind as one sport where someone can learn to excel later in life.

It’s great to encourage children by saying they can be whatever they want to be when they grow up, even parents who say this know the chances of giving birth to the next president is unlikely. But where this is much more obvious for adults is where people believe that they can overcome nature by practicing hard for many years.

2. Look for the intrinsic value in the work you do rather than validation by outward success.

I may never be a best-selling author, particularly if I never publish a book. But even if I’m not, does it mean that all the writing I’ve done over more than the past decade was a waste of time? Absolutely not. I’ve affected a lot of people’s lives for the better. And more personally, I’ve mostly enjoyed the time I’ve spent writing. That’s important as well.

It would probably be too much to say that I would have done everything the same had I not been able to turn writing into a business.

3. Use the time you have wisely.

Along those same lines, if I was in search of business success, I would want to cut losses as early as possible in order to prevent myself from going down a path that probably won’t result in that success. I wasn’t trying to form a business when I created this site, but I was working on many different projects at the time.

When it became clear that developing Consumerism Commentary would be more fruitful as a community — people were interested in what I was writing about and people were starting to follow as I progressed along my financial journey — I put other projects on hold to focus my time and energy where it was doing the most good.

If you do want to spend 10,000 hours perfecting some skill, make it something that you enjoy doing, something with which you have already proven your excellence, or something with which you may be genetically predisposed to succeed. That way, you’re at least more likely to activate all factors in success, but even if you don’t, at least you spent those 10,000 hours doing something you enjoy.

{ 3 comments }

Since 2008, Sallie Mae has been producing a report about paying for college on an annual basis. Each year, the report surveys Americans across the country to determine their attitudes and actions surrounding funding for college tuition and expenses. This year’s report is extensive. It contains everything from a categorization of personas based on attitudes towards higher education to a breakdown of expenses paid. Like other good surveys, Sallie Mae’s report identifies stark differences between consumers’ attitudes about money and behavior with money.

Buried within the 58-page PDF summary of the report is something very actionable for today’s American consumer. Researchers asked the participants of the survey what actions their families had taken to make college more affordable. Other interesting data in the report include how families assign responsibility for paying for college in theory, and how those families actually divide the payment responsibility in actuality.

Graduation

This is all very interesting, and the report is a great read for someone who has the time. But by focusing on the specific ways families have made college more affordable in the last year, I can share tips for people wrestling with the cost of college today, and these tie into the recent Naked With Cash topic of the month.

Many families adopted more than one of these strategies, so don’t limit yourself to just one. Also, not every strategy is right for every family or every student.

1. Choose an in-state school for lower tuition fees.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 69%. Colleges typically offer reduced tuition rates for in-state residents. One reason public colleges and univertsities (state schools) offer reduced tuition for in-state residents is that household property taxes already paid often go to support these institutions. Colleges with state government funding have a charter that requires the school to offer many public services in return for that taxpayer support, and reduced tuition rates for in-state residents is generally one of those benefits.

It’s a long time ago now, but I’m surprised my parents didn’t require me to find a college to attend in my home state. I suppose they didn’t want me to feel any limitations; but they and I would have saved a lot of money had I attended a public university in New Jersey.

2. Cut back on the student’s entertainment spending.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 66%, up from 60%. The classic frugal approach to saving money requires reducing expenses in one area to pay for something else, either savings or a different expense. In this case, saving money by reducing entertainment expenses can help handle the expenses of attending college. Fewer nights out at the movies, fewer bad restaurant meals, fewer rock concerts — all of these reductions can add up and help make more funds available for tuition.

Dollar for dollar, earning more money can be more effective than saving money from one expense category to better handle another. The student can get a job. But reducing expenses is still a popular strategy and can be employed to afford college.

3. Choose a school closer to home.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 61%, up from 59%. The difficulty with attending a distant school is the cost of traveling between home and college. Attending a school with significant distance from home helps a young adult handle more life responsibility without falling back on parental assistance, but that comes at a price. One benefit of attending a school close to home is the reduced cost of transportation, though that benefit could be negated by more frequent trips to and from school.

With parents close-by, they are able to assist in other life matters, with a potential result of reducing living expenses for the student while at college.

4. Live at home.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 54%, down from 57%. Perhaps as a sign of an economic recovery, fewer families reported students living at home rather than on campus. Living at home can be one of the biggest money-saving tactics for some students. While dorm living has the potential of forcing a frugal existence, it doesn’t always work out that way. Most of the time, staying at home not only reduces expenses through shared household costs, but living with parents reduces the student temptation to spend money at campus and off-campus social events.

Now, I think living on campus adds to the academic experience, and being part of a social group on campus has an importance for personal growth and, in some cases, a potential for lifelong interpersonal networking, but when the goal is to save money, sometimes it’s a smart decision to make those sacrifices.

5. Parents reduce spending.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 45%, down from 48%. It’s not just the student who can reduce spending to better pay for college. Parents can reduce spending as well.

6. Students work more.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 48%, up from 47%. As mentioned above, given the choice to earn more or spend less, earning more can be much more fruitful. You can only reduce expenses down to the basic necessities, but the potential for earning income is unlimited. I realize this is a very optimistic view, ignoring some of the realities of life. And one of those realities is that many families rightly feel that when a young adult is in college, their primary job should be their education. Work distracts from a student’s ability to gain as much as possible out of the experience of attending a university.

But again, it’s a matter of priorities. If finances are a concern, and they should be more often than they are, students taking on more work for more income can offset the cost of attending the school. The best jobs find a balance between maintaining one’s focus on education and producing income. My job at the university’s music library as an undergraduate wasn’t very lucrative, though it did help pay for tuition, but being a web consultant for professors was a little more rewarding.

7. Tax credits/deductables.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 42%, up from 41%. If you qualify for tax deductions or credits for paying college tuition (or later, student loan interest), you must take advantage of these! The American Opportunity Tax Credit was a reorganization of tax credits for education that have existed previously, like the Hope Credit. The Lifetime Learning Credit is included in the same tax form as the American Opportunity Tax Credit, and that credit assists adult scholars looking to further their education.

8. Add a roommate.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 41%, up from 35%. When living out of his family’s home, whether on campus or off campus, having a roommate greatly reduces the cost of living. In terms of rental costs, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a situation where the cost of a two-bedroom apartment was more than twice the price of the associated one-bedroom apartment. So having a roommate saves money on rent. And then you have shared utilities, shared groceries (if you get along well enough), and other shared living expenses.

9. Accelerate.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 28%, up from 27%. My girlfriend in college was proud of her ability to graduate a semester early. I know that finances were a concern for her family, and to this day I feel bad for trying hard to convince her to stay at the university rather than opting to move back home and attend college in her own home state of Pennsylvania. She also paid for a semester of tuition by selling Beanie Babies, which were in a consumer frenzy at the time. Getting through an undergraduate degree in as little time as possible, taking as few credits as possible, will always be a money saver compared to the alternative.

10. Early loan payments.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 23%, up from 22%. If you can pay off the loans before interest is capitalized, you can save lots of money. Once you are being charged interest on your interest, you start dealing with compounding interest. Thankfully, federal student loans have a grace period during which time interest is not capitalized. But you’re not required to send minimum payments to those student loans while they’re deferred. If you do anyway, you can reduce your liability later on.

Private loans are easier to understand — the faster you pay them off, the less you’ll pay, always.

11. Parents work more.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 19%, down from 20%. Often called the ultimate sacrifice, parents taking extra jobs or working overtime for the benefit of their children’s education could be considered by many as going above and beyond the call of parental duty. Maybe that’s why only 19% of American families admit to this tactic. But for some families, particularly those whose kids are in that family’s first generation of potential college students, making that sacrifice so that the students have a better chance of living of financially secure life makes a lot of sense. It requires a long-term view, focusing on survival of the family in the long-term.

12. Change majors.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 19%, steady. How does changing a major result in saving money? Some courses of study can be more expensive. If you’re studying international relations, you may be expected to travel overseas. If you are in a specialized scientific major, you may have exorbitant lab fees that someone studying another science may not need. And there is the perennial view that students should enroll in majors that provide a long-term monetary return, like engineering or finance. That may not save money in the short-term, but a higher starting salary certainly makes repaying college loans easier.

13. Attend school part time.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 17%, up from 15%. It can take longer to earn a degree, but the cost per year can be significantly reduced by taking fewer classes each semester. This opens up the student’s schedule to work a full-time job without sacrificing attention spent on education. It’s much more realistic to get through school completely debt free by taking a part-time approach, but it does come at a cost. Many students who take this approach never finish their undergraduate degree. As they continue at their job, they find themselves receiving more and more responsibility and are more likely to think that college degrees are unnecessary.

14. Transfer to a less expensive school.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 12%, up from 9%. There was a significant increase in American students opting to transfer to a less expensive school. Maybe this is due to a recognition of the importance of financial security and a stronger avoidance of unmanageable debt. It may be more reasonable to manage college expenses my starting a student’s college career in a less expensive school, as one might if they start at a community college for two years and later transfer to a four-year college to complete a degree.

15. Use the military.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 3%, down from 4%. In the early days of the GI Bill, joining the military was a good way to ensure you’d be able to afford college. The latest “Post-9/11″ GI Bill covers the full cost of in-state tuition at public colleges and up to almost $20,000 a year at private schools. The financial benefits don’t end with the tuition assistance. Since the beginning the GI Bill, this has been one of the most effective policies in the history of the United States for bridging low-income families into the middle class. And it’s still there for students willing to put their lives on the line to defend the United States and to be a part of the military establishment.

Every family has a plethora of options for saving money for college, and the best results come from taking the strategies that apply to your particular family in combination. How do you plan to save for college?

Read the full report from Sallie Mae here.

{ 8 comments }

Neil Irwin at the New York Times points out that all asset classes around the world are expensive compared to their historical prices. If that’s the case, is there any investment class available that has the potential to provide great returns over the long-term?

Stocks and bonds; emerging markets and advanced economies; urban office towers and Iowa farmland; you name it, and it is trading at prices that are high by historical standards relative to fundamentals. The inverse of that is relatively low returns for investors…

But frustrating as the situation can be for investors hoping for better returns, the bigger question for the global economy is what happens next. How long will this low-return environment last?

The personal finance world operates on the assumption that the last century or so, minus the last decade, is a good reference for stock market expectations going forward. And depending on who you ask, that’s a return of 10 percent, 8 percent, or 6 percent. Regardless of the number, you’d have to go far outside of the mainstream to hear advice for the average investor that is something other than, “Invest mostly in a broad stock market index fund and don’t touch it for the best chance at getting historical returns.”

And this is the same assumption I’m living with. It’s why my investments are mostly in stock market index funds, though I’ve added some bond funds because it made sense to temper the risk of stocks and take advantage of tax advantages. But if my investments don’t end up appreciating over the next several decades, where will I be? Not so much better off than I am today, and if inflation erodes the value of my money (stored in these assets) faster than the values appreciate, then I’ll be worse off.

But what are the alternatives? Not investing my portfolio, keeping my money in cash form, there’s no doubt inflation will erode the value. At least invested, I have a fighting chance.

While the average investor is said to be better off investing in broad index funds, professional investment managers dealing with corporate cash look for undervalued opportunities. Not only are they not finding anything undervalued, but everything is overvalued. A company wants to reinvest in itself by building factories or property, for example, but it won’t if everything is overpriced, and they expect the company won’t get a good return on that investment.

If these professional investors with millions or billions of dollars to invest can’t come up with any good options, how is the average investor supposed to succeed?

Change your expectations.

There’s nothing magical about the 8 percent long-term annual return on the stock market. Most investors don’t see that return, anyway, because their behavior gets in the way. Even if the next hundred years was as promising for corporate performance as the last hundred years — the century in which the United States became a global economic power, the winner of the second World War, and the standard-bearer for the world (in its own mind, anyway), most Americans wouldn’t see the same kind of personal performance that financial planners advertise.

The kind of growth the United States saw in the twentieth century just doesn’t seem sustainable. Thinking globally, there still seems to be a lot of potential. But the economy in the United States has just become too expensive for the growth to happen here. I think that’s well understood, and people are looking internationally for growth opportunities, but this seems to be the point — it’s too expensive everywhere.

So maybe we just have to assume that long-term growth will be around 4 percent annually over the long term. No one wants to take this assumption because it causes problems with just about every financial planning model out there. Your “safe withdrawal rate” of 4 percent will fail, and inflation is a bigger risk.

The good news is that just doing something has to be better than doing nothing. If you invest 10 percent of your income into a stock market index fund for the long term over the next couple decades, it may only return an annual 2 percent, 4 percent, or maybe 6 percent. Well, there’s still the possibility of returns being higher. But even if they’re not, you’ll still be better off than those who have done nothing at all.

Start really thinking about the future.

The most promising way to make a future is to make it yourself. What are the biggest problems human existence will be facing in the next century? How can these problems be addressed? Apparently, there are enough people who believe that the availability of potable water is one of the problems humanity will face in the future. Scientists, including kids taking on middle school science experiments, are coming up with more efficient methods for cleaning water. It currently takes a lot of energy to turn ocean water into drinking water, and in areas of the world that don’t receive much rain, potable water is needed. This could lead to the growth of an industry in the next hundred years.

As the will for government spending continues to disappear, people will have to look to corporations to lead the way without government support. We may not get much from NASA in the next era, but private companies led by people who see some potential will pave the way for technological investment. The Internet is a product of twentieth century government funding, but that’s something that would never exist if the impetus was under today’s political climate. The next Internet, and by that I mean a world-changing technology, is going to be an opportunity that comes about only if the market deems it potentially profitable. And to take this further, the best opportunities will not be available to everyday investors; venture capitalists stand to gain from much of the potential economic growth of the next century.

We hear about the latest billion-dollar sale of technology companies, but most of these are backed — and therefore owned — by venture capitalists. So the smart kid who dropped out of college because he had a germ of an idea but pitched his business to venture capitalists will certainly see some financial benefit when he eventually exists the business, but it’s those who provided the capital who stand to win the bulk of the financial rewards.

So as much as I dislike the idea that average investors can now participate in angel investing through syndicates (because this is generally risky and sophisticated, and most investors don’t have enough wealth to manage risk and aren’t very sophisticated), this type of investing may be the only opportunity to see growth in the next decade. Angel investors take on risks, and usually they mitigate risk by diversifying across a large number of start-up businesses. These start-up companies may never see a time in which their stock is offered to the general public — or if they do, it will be after the initial investors take advantage of the early, most profitable period of growth.

Thinking about the needs of the future could give you insight not so much into where to invest, but where to spend your time. Or your life’s work. This may be more personally profitable than trying to invest 10% of your income into a certain industry or asset class.

Unfortunately, we have no way of predicting the future. Even the best minds have trouble coming up with what an industry will look like ten years from now. The automobile has lasted a hundred years. It’s probably a good bet that automobiles will be around for at least a few more decades. But after that, what will they look like? How will they be operated?

Google is betting on driverless cars. Tesla thinks the future is in purely electric vehicles. The traditional manufacturers and companies involved with the oil industry are the slowest to move. Will cars fly, like in Back to the Future? Probably not in 2015, but what about 2080? Someone is going to be right, and lots of people are going to be wrong. Those who are right will be the investors who experience the growth that is remembered — those who are wrong will be forgotten about and not included in historical accounts of a market. (That’s survivorship bias.)

Of course, there’s always a chance that no amount of planning will make a difference. Doomsday scenarios exist, even if they’re unlikely. Nature may change our ways of life in ways that we haven’t sufficiently planned for. But you can’t assume things that seem impossible. The best we can do is plan with the only understanding we have of the world today.

This may not solve the problem. Chances are good that people have already thought about what you see for the future, and that’s why professional investors can’t find any good, potentially profitable opportunities today. But if you take your ideas and start building something of your own, you’re creating your own value. Even if you don’t give birth to a new industry (kudos if you do!) you’ll be building value for yourself over the long-term, probably far better than an investment in any particular asset class will do for you.

{ 2 comments }

5 Tips for Paying for Health Care During Early Retirement

by Luke Landes
Nurse and Patient via Flickr

The issue of healthcare is one that keeps people in jobs far longer than they’d like. I’ve seen up close how someone with chronic health issues must deal with these choices, and in certain situations, the choices can be difficult. Medicare coverage doesn’t begin until age 65, so where does that leave someone who stops ... Continue reading this article…

7 comments Read the full article →

Growing My Dough: The Latest Look at My Portfolio

by Luke Landes
Grow Your Dough May

CNN is sounding the alarm bells. The “Fear and Greed Index,” which is a strange measure of market sentiment, has passed the threshold into the “extreme greed” level.CNN is sounding the alarm bells. The “Fear and Greed Index,” which is a strange measure of market sentiment, has passed the threshold into the “extreme greed” level. ... Continue reading this article…

4 comments Read the full article →

Want to Fail? Ignore Survivorship Bias.

by Luke Landes
0000974d1

Whether you’re making a decision that has apparent, immediate consequences that could affect the rest of your life, like deciding to quit your job and open a business, or making a purchasing decision big or small, it is worthwhile to gather information and think about the future. When you gather information, you have to be ... Continue reading this article…

2 comments Read the full article →

Welcome to Naked With Cash 2014

by Luke Landes

It’s time to get naked! (Again!) Last year, we started Naked With Cash, a series and feature at Consumerism Commentary. Last year’s introduction can provide you with the in-depth look at the purpose of the series. This year, I’m joined by Miranda Marquit to help organize the series. She, I, and the financial experts you’ll ... Continue reading this article…

12 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 1212345···Last »