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

Search: vehicles


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 }

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 saving for retirement. Additionally, more than half of Americans between the ages of 18 and 34, at 56 percent, are not saving for retirement.

Saving for retirement — and receiving the associated tax benefits through typical investment types like 401(k) plans and IRAs — requires a public trust in the financial industry. On one side, financial planners, investment salespeople and brokers, columnists, and bloggers are encouraging the use of financial products that, through both apparent and hidden fees, enriches the industry, while on the other side, investment firms are the beneficiaries of massive taxpayer bailouts and frequently in the news for using taxpayer money for paying their executives bonuses that defy the laws of gravity.

Wall StreetIt may be true that the reason many Americans do not save for retirement is ignorance. There are typical excuses for not saving for retirement, such as the lack of good, seemingly trustworthy information about the options that are available, the lack of knowledge about the benefits of investing in 401(k) plans and IRAs, or the belief that during tight personal economic times, not a cent is available to save for the future. After the recession, however, many people just see the financial industry as unworthy of trust. Organizations like LIMRA, working for the industry and promoting financial products, are unlikely to bring this attitude to the public attention.

The industry is more interested in shaming people unwilling to get on the boats rather than analyzing the leadership capabilities and trustworthiness of the boats’ captains.

I’m saving for retirement with 401(k) plans and IRAs. When possible, I choose plans that have low fees, but the choice is not always up to me. Employees may be able to choose from a selection of investments inside their 401(k) plan, employees can’t choose their company’s 401(k) administrator and broker without a coordinated effort among a large portion of employees. That would be nearly impossible in a large company. Unions are intended to solve some of these issues, but it can often reach the point where being a member of a large union is much like working for a large employer. The power of any individual is limited.

The 401(k) is ingenious for the financial industry, particularly now that it’s automatic. In a perfect world, every single employee is enrolled in a 401(k) plan on their first day on their first job. The investments may not perform well over time, but that’s not particularly relevant for the financial industry. As long as every American is investing a portion of their paycheck every week, two weeks, month, or other period, 401(k) administrators and brokers will continue to thrive. The employee probably benefits when retirement approaches, but that is by no means guaranteed. All you need to do is look at the portion of Americans who planned to retire in recent years but saw their nest eggs trampled on during the recession.

Investors bear the responsibility for changing their risk profile as they near their planned retirement, but there is a mixed message. The financial industry says you need to stay invested in stocks (highly volatile, highly risky) as you approach retirement because most people need their funds to last several decades throughout retirement while at the same time warning people to risk only what they can afford to lose. When people receive conflicting information, making decisions becomes more difficult. And when the conflicting information is coming from the same source — that is, the financial industry — the default reaction is the lack of trust.

Does the financial industry wants to do American citizens a favor by providing options for saving for retirement? No. The financial industry wants its companies to not only stay in business but to profit as much as possible. And to that end, it sells products — investment opportunities — designed to enrich the companies and their shareholders. There’s nothing wrong with this, because consumers will only buy products they need or desire enough. Companies will sell towards that need. And when only half of Americans have discovered retirement savings vehicles like 401(k) plans and IRAs, the industry will resign itself to doing a better job in explaining to the country why their products are needs, not wants.

Saving for retirement is important. For most people, stocks are the only investment type that can grow wealth quickly enough to provide the dream retirement so impressed upon Americans through media. It’s risky, as recent would-be retirees have seen. Thanks to the cognitive dissonance resulting in the understanding that the promotion of retirement is a result of the financial industry trying to increase profits on a large scale rather than corporate concern for the well-being of a nation and the knowledge that Americans must do something drastic to save money in order to fulfill the dream of quitting work, some Americans choose to invest while others would sooner give away their firstborn rather than drink the financial industry’s Kool-Aid.

LIMRA may be right — that most people who do not invest for retirement with 401(k) plans and IRAs have not done so because the industry’s message hasn’t successfully penetrated their consciousness. That may be due in part to a lack of education, but for others, it’s a lack of faith and trust in the industry.

Photo: zoonabar
LIMRA

{ 18 comments }

Save Money at the Gas Pump

This article was written by in Consumer. 29 comments.

If you’ve stopped at a gas station lately, you might have been shocked to see the price on the big signs. Even if your gas station charges a different amount for credit card users than for cash customers, sometimes called a “cash discount” even though it’s the cash price that’s competitive with other stations, the lowest prices are higher than ever.

According to AAA, the average gas price across the country is now $3.76 per gallon. It’s not a record, but it’s getting close. Blame it on Obama, Bush, Iran, or Saudi Arabia; it doesn’t change the situation. The best we can do as consumers is to do our best to reduce our reliance on gasoline for transportation.

Gas Pump Fuel | crowt59Here are a few tips for saving money on gas.

  • Use technology to save money. Smartphone apps can tell you the locations of the gas stations with the best prices along your path. With this information, you don’t need to drive out of your way, wasting fuel, to get to those low-cost stations.
  • Use the best gas rewards credit cards. If your spending is in check, use credit cards that offer the best rewards for fueling your vehicles. If you can get 5% on your gas spending, you could have an advantage over people paying cash, but you’ll have to compare that option with the stations that offer a cash discount.
  • Maintain your car properly. Use a trusted mechanic, watch the performance of your tires, and keep your car clean and empty. Small changes in your tires and vehicle weight can affect your gas-mileage, so keep your car running efficiently.
  • Travel less. Work from home more often. If you’re shopping for a new job, consider mass transportation or car-pool options. In the last year, since working from home, I still drove 10,000 miles. That’s down from 14,000 miles over the prior year. The year before that, I drove 15,000 miles.
  • Consider a more efficient vehicle. While I generally don’t consider it a good idea to replace a perfectly functioning car just for efficiency, if you’re shopping for a new car, it may be worthwhile to buy something partially powered by electricity. This isn’t the best plan for all drivers, and the cost vs. benefit calculation often takes a while for the increased cost of these vehicles to break even through savings on gas.
  • Plan your trips efficiently. If you can combine your errands requiring transportation rather than venturing out several times each week, you can save gasoline and money. Plan your routes in a way that reduce the total number of miles driven rather than retracing your path.
  • Use an investing strategy to hedge against gasoline price increases. It may seem counter-intuitive when your plan is to reduce reliance on gasoline, but by investing in the oil industry, you benefit when companies profit from higher gas prices. If, however, companies don’t increase their profit with higher prices, then you’re stuck paying for higher gas without a strong investment to compensate.

About a year ago, I asked if Consumerism Commentary readers were ready for gas prices of $5.00. That level as an average is starting to look like a reality for the near future. While some commentators often remind Americans that people in other current countries often pay much more per gallon than those of us lucky to live in the United States, it’s not exactly a comfort to people who have built their lives around the ease of transportation.

What are your tips for saving money on gas?

Photo: crowt59

{ 29 comments }

This is a guest article by Jacob, creator of the personal finance blog, My Personal Finance Journey. In the article, Jacob analyzes the Permanent Portfolio, a theory presented by Harry Browne, to determine whether investing along the theory’s guidelines can help investors beat the stock market.

Investors in general always seem to be on the lookout for a sure-fire strategy that they can use to outperform the market. Unfortunately, the reality is that these strategies are difficult-to-impossible to find. For this reason, I personally invest in a portfolio of passively managed low-cost index mutual funds from various asset classes and rebalance back to my asset allocation targets periodically.

Since my investing strategy does not take up too much time to maintain each month (in fact, individual stock investors might even call it “boring”), I am constantly interested in learning about new investing techniques and analyzing them to see if they have any merit.

One of these techniques/strategies I’ve learned about and analyzed over the past few months is The Permanent Portfolio created by Harry Browne in his book, Fail-Safe Investing: Lifelong Financial Security in 30 Minutes.

What is the Permanent Portfolio?

The goal of The Permanent Portfolio is to provide safety and stability in any economic climate to the money you cannot afford to lose. This is accomplished by selecting various investment components in such a way that at least one asset class is favored in any economic climate. The Portfolio components are as follows, each carrying equal weight for as long as you hold the Portfolio, employing annual re-balancing:

  • 25% in stocks, which do well in times of prosperity.
  • 25% in gold, which does well in times of inflation.
  • 25% in bonds, which increase in price during times of deflation.
  • 25% in cash, which does well in times of tight money/recession.

Existing studies on the Permanent Portfolio

There have been many studies that have looked at this type of investing over the past 5 years. Overall, the conclusions and opinions from these existing studies are mixed. Craig from Crawling Road saw enough evidence from his study of the efficacy of The Permanent Portfolio, and he appears to have adopted it successfully to his investing strategy.

On the other hand, William Bernstein and Geoff Considine feel that while The Permanent Portfolio strategy itself has merit, individual investors who flock to this strategy are most likely “chasing returns” and probably lack the discipline to stick to the allocation dictated over the long-term, causing failure/loss of money to occur. This is due to the fact that the portfolio could be essentially flat-lined while the overall stock market is increasing 20%! An investor must have the discipline to stick to the strategy in these sorts of times.

I was not ready to automatically execute The Permanent Portfolio strategy for my own investing after reading the existing studies above for the following reasons:

  1. The use of raw index prices in existing studies is not ideal. I would want to still see good performance and risk trends when common investment vehicles (ETFs or index funds) are used exclusively to construct the portfolio.
  2. Use of physical gold metal holdings in existing studies is not ideal. Since the studies discussed above used gold market prices, I’d want to perform my own analysis using an index fund or ETF to see how performance held up without the use of physical metal.
  3. Permanent Portfolio performance comparison against a more aggressive stock asset allocation. In the existing studies, the most aggressive asset allocation that was compared against The Permanent Portfolio was a 60% equity, 40% bond asset mix. However, for a younger person such as me who can take on more risk, I would be curious to see how the performance compares to a more aggressive equity asset allocation, such as 75% equity, 25% fixed income.
  4. Use of yearly rebalancing in existing studies is not ideal. I currently employ monthly portfolio analysis (and rebalancing if needed), and as such, I’d be interested to find out how The Permanent Portfolio fairs using monthly rebalancing analysis.

Refined Permanent Portfolio performance analysis

In order to address the four considerations in the previous section, I set about defining the financial instruments that would construct The “Refined” Permanent Portfolio, a hypothetical portfolio consisting of a $10,000 starting value. The components I selected are shown below.

  • 25% in stocks – Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund (ticker symbol: VFINX).
  • 25% in gold. Vanguard Precious Metals and Mining Fund (ticker symbol: VGPMX).
  • 25% in bonds. Vanguard Long-Term Treasury Fund (ticker symbol: VUSTX).
  • 25% in cash. Vanguard Short-Term Federal Fund (ticker symbol: VSGBX).

The table below summarizes the performance of the Refined Permanent Portfolio described above over the last 20 years (ending the beginning of October 2011) compared to a 100% stock and a 75% stock, 25% bond portfolio. The historical prices data source is Yahoo Finance. Monthly rebalancing is performed to maintain the appropriate asset allocation targets.

Permanent Portfolio Performance Table

Examining the table above, it can be seen that the Refined Permanent Portfolio does indeed outperform both the 100% stock and the stock/bond portfolios by a significant margin, as evidenced by nearly a 60% improvement in return on your original investment (20-year overall ROI), along with exhibiting 30-70% lower risk (lower standard deviation of annual returns).

Essentially, The Permanent Portfolio resulted in overall greater returns because it is insulated against the big decreases in price stemming from the often-volatile stock market. This phenomenon is best illustrated by the graph below, which shows the investment value growth of a $10,000 starting investment in the Refined Permanent Portfolio (blue plot) vs. a 100% stock portfolio (red plot).

The enhanced stability of the Permanent Portfolio was especially apparent in the 1997-2002 time frame (see black square in graph below), when the 100% stock portfolio first increased by more than 100%, only to then decrease nearly 50% in one to two years. The Permanent Portfolio was protected from this huge swing in prices, effectively preserving investor capital.

Permanent Portfolio Graph

Should investors incorporate the Permanent Portfolio?

Because of the consistency of the Permanent Portfolio over the past 50 years in either being competitive with or exceeding the long-term returns obtained using traditional stock/fixed income portfolios, I am convinced that The Permanent Portfolio will continue to perform well over the long-term.

However, I believe that investors should only adopt the strategy in full if the following conditions are true.

  • They will truly stick with it over the 20 years needed to obtain results competitive with or beating stocks, or
  • If they are merely looking for a conservative (not market-beating) strategy to preserve capital and stay ahead of inflation (which coincidentally, is the true goal for The Permanent Portfolio).

However, honestly, I feel that few investors (myself included) will have the resolve to stick with the strategy for the long-term, for the reasons mentioned below.

  • The majority of investors that are interested in The Permanent Portfolio at the current time are simply looking at it as a possible way to “beat the market,” and not as a method to preserve capital, as it is truly intended.
  • The Permanent Portfolio strategy’s returns have a low correlation with the returns of the stock market (a correlation coefficient of 0.58), meaning that if you employ this strategy, you’ll only enjoy any gains happening in the stock market about half the time. (Tthink about completely being excluded from the euphoria of the increase in the stock market in the late 1990′s. Would you be OK with that?) In my opinion, the low correlation of The Permanent Portfolio with the stock market makes it nearly impossible for investors looking to aggressively grow their money to stay with The Permanent Portfolio strategy.

Instead, most investors would be better served by sticking with an investing strategy using and a more “traditional” asset allocation that has a slightly higher correlation with the overall market.

Do you think that the Permanent Portfolio will continue to perform well in the next 20 years? Do you feel you’d have the discipline to stick with the strategy, even if it meant underperforming the rest of the market for long periods of time?

The complete set of calculations of the historical performance of the “Refined” Permanent Portfolio, correlation coefficients matrices, and price history of the proposed index mutual fund Permanent Portfolio is included in this Google Docs Spreadsheet.

{ 20 comments }

How Is Your Budget Doing These Days?

by Phil Cioppa

This is a guest article by Phil Cioppa of Arbol Financial Strategies, LLC. Phil has over 10 years of financial service experience and specializes in asset management strategies, insurance planning and taxation issues. A budget is an important part of any financial plan, and right now is the best time to take another look at ... Continue reading this article…

22 comments Read the full article →

5 Reasons to Beware 401(k) Retirement Plans

by Flexo
Cubicle

Financial planners just love promoting 401(k) retirement plans. They have quite a few benefits, notably a tax deduction for contributions as well as a tax deferral for contributions and earnings. They’re also one of the most popular vehicles for introducing the working middle class to the stock market, something that might not have been accessible ... Continue reading this article…

21 comments Read the full article →

5 Saving Money Tips for Car Owners

by Emily Guy Birken
Rusted Car

This is a guest article by Emily Guy Birken, author of The SAHMambulust. In this article, she offers suggestions for cutting the costs associated with car ownership. Owning a car is an expensive proposition, but most of us never stop to consider the cost of each trip. Unless you live in a city with great ... Continue reading this article…

4 comments Read the full article →

Poverty Rates Up: How to Avoid Poverty

by Flexo

According to the 2010 Census data, the poverty rate for Americans is up to 15.1 percent, matching the rate from 1993. 46.2 million people are living below the poverty line, a level delineated by earning less than $22,314 a year for a family of four or $11,139 a year for an individual. 22 percent of ... Continue reading this article…

25 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 812345···Last »