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

Search: yahoo


When I first read The Millionaire Next Door by Thomas Stanley and William Danko, it didn’t inspire me. It’s not that I disagreed with the authors, but I found the book uninteresting. It was one of the first financial books I read after beginning Consumerism Commentary, and it came highly recommended from readers here and participants in The Motley Fool‘s community.

Without getting too much into my problems with the book, I will say that the idea that a “millionaire” is more likely to be your local business owner rather than someone born into a family of money was new to me.

Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like, a fair definition of “wealthy,” and possibly “millionaire” once you begin including home equity and other assets. Only 6% of those surveyed earned their money from inheritance alone. 69% earned their wealth mostly by trading time and effort for money, or by “working.”

Here are some interesting statistics I pulled from an article discussing the survey results.

  • 36% of earners and 27% of heirs are concerned about an economic recession.
  • 77% of earners and 67% of heirs believe they have a lot of control of their financial future.
  • 39% of earners and 21% of heirs are moderate or risky investors.
  • 75% of earners and 50% of heirs have less stress thanks to their wealth.
  • 51% of earners and 33% of heirs believe their wealth has led to increases of happiness.
  • Heirs are twice as likely to believe that their wealth causes more problems that it solves.
  • 37% of earners and 25% of heirs believe that luck played a major role in their financial success.

For me, the choice is clear. There is only one option if I want to find myself with $500,000 of investible assets: earn rather than inherit.

[Yahoo Finance, MarketWatch: Earnings Growth]

{ 19 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 }

There are more ways to interact with Consumerism Commentary than visiting this website. I hope you do visit this website often to participate in the discussions.

Subscribe to the Consumerism Commentary RSS feed

For those with feed readers, we offer an RSS feed, bringing the full text of these entries to your reader, the way you like to see it. Please remember to visit the site in order to leave comments after reading the entry in your reader. Here are some quick links for subscribing with some of the most popular news readers.

Subscribe

Follow Consumerism Commentary on social media

Consumerism Commentary is active in the most common social media. Join us on these social media sites for exclusive content and interesting discussions.

{ 0 comments }

I’m an accidental entrepreneur.

I never quite fit in with big hierarchical systems, like public education (as a teacher) and corporations. Getting things done, particularly accomplishing various things the way I wanted to accomplish them, has always been a struggle for me in these structures. I knew from the day I started working at a corporation after leaving a small non-profit arts agency that I would never quite find my bliss or even thrive in that type of environment. I remember thinking that my first job, an administrative type of position, didn’t add any value to the world. The position only existed from a pure corporate need, not a societal need. If the corporation weren’t as big as it was, my job function would be unnecessary.

There were other options for me to consider such as owning an independent school of some type or creating an arts foundation, but those goals required two things I did not have at the time: money and experience. So I stuck it out in the corporation for more years than I would have liked, and I put energy into hobbies like writing and blogging.

My hobby became a business over time, and you can see this in its incarnation as Consumerism Commentary. While all I was doing initially was learning how to become the chief financial officer of my own life, I became the CEO of a company that was helping me attain that first goal. Being a CEO has been outside of my comfort zone, and I’ve made a number of mistakes over the last few years. The experience has been one of growth for me, and I believe I’ll eventually get the hang of running a business and accepting the fact that I am an entrepreneur.

In the past, the word “entrepreneur” has always been associated with a negative connotation for me. I viewed people who called themselves entrepreneurs as people who knew exactly what to say to manipulate others into relationships. They’re savvy, smooth, and disingenuous; they see all communication and relationship-building with a purpose in mind — building their own business and growing wealth for themselves.

Now that I’ve become what other people often call an entrepreneur, I’m dealing with this cognitive dissonance. What other choice did I have, though, to work for myself? I was out-of-place in formally-structured work environments, particularly where I wasn’t free to take whatever approach to my work I wanted, when I wanted. I may have misjudged entrepreneurship, but I still see this type of posturing in my daily experiences operating Consumerism Commentary.

To add another layer to the idea of entrepreneurship, with the employment market still very much in favor of employers, the trend in financial advisory media towards working for oneself has increased in volume — in both senses, quantity and amplitude. I do agree that by finding a way to work for yourself removes employers from the picture, giving you much more control over your financial destiny. (A portion of that control just moves from an employer to potential clients or customers, however.) A typical advice-based article attempts to convince all corporate drones to leave their unfulfilling job and start their own businesses.

Meeting RoomTaken to the extreme, a nation of business owners wouldn’t work. This advice, however, might inspire a small portion of readers to crash through their psychological barriers and find a way to add value directly. Not everyone will be a successful entrepreneur.

I think there are certain personality traits that lend themselves to being a great business owner, first from a Myers-Briggs perspective, where the best business owners likely have a profile of “ENTJ.” (After some quick research, I’m right on the money with this assessment; the ENTJ type is often called The Executive type.) For contrast, I am an “INFP.”

  • Extraversion. Dealing with business issues is much easier for someone on the Extraversion side of the first dimension. This would be someone who feels energized after dealing with people. I find certain aspects of dealing with people on a business level very draining, though I am comfortable being among large groups of people. I am slightly on the Introversion side of this dimension, but a Myers-Briggs Step II assessment reveals that this is slightly different from my core personality, which would call for a stronger Introversion score.
  • Judging. While my personality traits register on the Feeling side of this dimension, a Judging tendency helps people lend themselves towards the same working structures I’ve never been comfortable with. The same trait that encourages the hierarchical approach to business, helpful when working in school systems and large corporations, is also beneficial to running a business. I’ve also been uncomfortable judging the sincerity of people I’ve worked with in the past. Many of my mistakes I alluded to above are related to my impressions of people.
  • Self-motivation. Without a boss providing guidance and deadlines, the responsibility for performing rests only with the business owner. I find that motivation is much easier when you own the process. Like students who perform better in college when they pay their own tuition, an entrepreneur’s business is all about that one person. The ability to design a business based around something you’re passionate about or particularly skilled at will infuse motivation into many people who’ve struggled with this in other employment settings.
  • Forward-looking and big picture. Anyone who is content with repetitive tasks or would prefer to perform a job by following a step-by-step guide may not be best suited for a life of entrepreneurialism. Running your own business requires looking beyond the next step. It involves always considering the big picture and the ability to define goals. Not everyone is suited for this level of thinking.
  • Determination. From the outside, determination can look like stupidity. Being determined in the face of critics, refusing to give up regardless of what someone else might think of your abilities or your business’s potential is essential to becoming successful. Not only that, but considering businesses often fail, being serious about working for yourself requires the ability to brush off the failures and use them as an opportunity to learn about the business and about yourself.
  • A careless attitude towards money. Many entrepreneurs have succeeded because they have had the financial means to go after their dreams. If you’re already wealthy, you can stand to take some risks with your business. Someone less established financially would find it much more difficult to justify the risks. For a business like mine, there was not much financial risk at the beginning. I did, however, spend almost all of my waking and some of my sleeping hours to finding a path to success, to the dismay of those who sought to spend more time with me.

    The concentration on my own business most likely affected, though probably in a small way, my ability to focus on and care about my day job. I may have missed out on promotions because I wasn’t going beyond my job scope, I was using my own time to build a business. In the end, it was the right decision for me, but it could have easily gone another way. I would have ended up with a continued low salary and no income on the side. From a truly financial perspective, starting a business can be a careless risk. Good entrepreneurs accept this or ignore this, or are just unaware of this.

  • Obsessive-compulsive. With the biography of Steven Jobs due out soon, a lot of media attention has surrounded his attitude, particularly his obsessiveness. In the book, Jobs is described as not settling for anything less than perfection all the time, and perfection in his opinion could rarely be defined before him. He would know it when he were to see it.

    From a design perspective, this has shown to be immensely perspective. As Malcolm Gladwell said in his coverage of the biography, “The great accomplishment of Jobs’s life is how effectively he put his idiosyncrasies—his petulance, his narcissism, and his rudeness—in the service of perfection.”

  • Generalist. Today’s economy seems to appreciate specialists over generalists, but I see the opposite as being the better approach to a fulfilling life — and generalism is an approach particularly suited for entrepreneurship. Large companies have the need for specialists, people who are very good, excellent, or best in the world at doing one particular thing. This can be a very narrow skill. An entrepreneur who starts a company from the ground up, particularly with limited resources at the beginning, needs to be able to handle many different types of tasks and goals, at the same time, while holding herself to a very high standard.

    As the business grows, there can be adjustments. When struggling and to build their business, the founders of Yahoo brought in a CEO from the outside because running the company at a certain level required skills the founders couldn’t quite meet on their own. During the start-up phase, however, the entrepreneurs needed to find a way to tackle all the hard tasks. In this respect, being a jack of all trades, master of none is the best approach for an entrepreneur, provided that this particular jack is a very skilled jack in all trades.

Leaving traditional employment structures behind is not for everyone, and the advice we often see telling everyone to quit their job and start a business can be largely ignored. If you aren’t predisposed towards at least a few of these personality traits, success will be very difficult. If, however, you don’t have these traits in your system, you can train yourself to be comfortable with the actions you would be taking if these traits were embedded in your personality. Acting against your personal profile can be very stressful, though, and might lead to an unsatisfying conclusion.

What do you think about being an entrepreneur? Is it something anybody can do with a little practice or are there certain personality traits necessary for success? Would you consider starting your own business if you felt it was a better path to greater financial well-being over time?

{ 21 comments }

More Banks Drop Debit Card Fees

by Flexo
Chase Bank

Consumer outrage and backlash does work, apparently. Wells Fargo Bank and Chase Bank have been testing debit card fees in a small number of locations within the United States, but due to the anger unleashed after the largest bank, Bank of America, announced it would add a $5 debit card fee in 2012, the two ... Continue reading this article…

3 comments Read the full article →

About Consumerism Commentary

by Flexo

Welcome to Consumerism Commentary! This website was one of the first blogs to focus on money from a personal finance perspective, and Flexo was the first blogger to share monthly financial updates, such as his net worth statement, with no restrictions. Consumerism Commentary is now a premier personal finance blog offering daily articles stemming from ... Continue reading this article…

0 comments Read the full article →

The Jersey Shore Film and Television Tax Credit

by Flexo
Jersey Shore

New Jersey has been gaining a worldwide reputation thanks to the plethora of newer television programs featuring the state. It may have started with The Sopranos, but Jersey Shore, Jerseylicious, The Real Housewives of New Jersey, and Jersey Couture have continued. The state government has been providing a tax credit encouraging filmmakers to bring their ... Continue reading this article…

14 comments Read the full article →

Save Money By Not Having Children

by Flexo

I don’t have children; perhaps I will at some point, but I don’t see kids in my immediate future. It’s not due to the cost of raising children, though for many years, I believed I wasn’t in a financial position to provide all that I would want to provide to a child growing up. A ... Continue reading this article…

36 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 3312345···Last »