General advice for an imaginary average person

Personal finance advice comes in many forms, running the gamut from Dave Ramsey’s philosophies on getting out of debt to Suze Orman’s no-nonsense anti-stupidity spending advice. Opinions vary wildly as you stroll down the promenade from the broker, a salesperson, to the financial planner paid by the hour rather than commission. Mass media, by definition, must appeal to the masses, so unless you’re working individually with a professional, the advice you hear is geared towards the “average” individual.

I don’t know any average individuals. This concept is a fictional statistical human being, an amalgamation of a sample population, with no defining characteristics. Mass advice cannot cater to the most diligent or intelligent of the crowd, because invariably less apt individuals overestimate their abilities, attempt techniques designed for the more able, and fail. Thus, advice is often “dumbed down” or simplified to meet the lower qualifications of a larger group.

Take, for example, the case of the best way to pay off credit card debt. I call it the “Debt Avalanche” but it certainly wasn’t my invention. While there are exceptions, this method of debt repayment calls for credit card debt always being paid off by focusing on the debt with the highest interest rate first. But people don’t always want to take this approach. They may receive more “satisfaction” by paying off the debt with the lowest balance first, which they believe will motivate them to continue paying off debt. Money, after all, is emotional more than it is mathematical.

Unfortunately, it’s this mindset which helps many people fall into debt in the first place (or repeatedly), and it is not correct. The best way of reaching a specific financial goal will always be the mathematical way. If not, your true goal is not purely financial. For example, is your true goal to get out of debt quickly and efficiently or is it to feel good about your debt situation? You will feel better in the end knowing you took less time and spent less money to get out of debt. If not, then perhaps you haven’t learned much from the experience and will find yourself succumbing to the “emotions” of money again and perhaps falling back into debt.

There are legitimate places for emotions when dealing with money, but debt reduction is not one.

Self-limiting philosophies and beliefs

You may hear that “doing what works for you” is the best way to approach a financial situation, but it’s often not a good idea. Doing what works the best mathematically is the ultimate approach. Other approaches may help you reach your goal, but not in the best way possible. “Doing what works for you” is an admission that you feel you have no need to improve yourself. This philosophy tells the world that you’ve learned everything you need to learn and are satisfied with your choice, even though you know it may not be the best. Or worse, if you have not learned all you need to know about your situation, you may not even realize that what you’re doing is in fact “not working.”

“Doing what works for you” is one of a number of self-limiting philosophies, excuses that people will use to convince themselves that they don’t need to strive for excellence. Here are some others:

“Luck and chance affect me more than my effort and skills.” Do you attribute a missed career opportunity to bad luck or not enough hard work? When you received a good grade on a college exam, was it due to the ease of the test or your preparedness? Those who attain their goals are more likely to be those who believe their own decisions and actions affect outcomes, good or bad. Those whose philosophy of outcomes is built around an internal locus of control have been shown to reach their goals more often.

The locus of control is one way psychology pays a significant role in your goals, financial or otherwise.

“Anything is better than nothing.” When it comes to saving, reducing debt, and investing and planning for the future, I agree. You have to start somewhere, but it is only a start. But if you believe that your financial condition in the future is important, the minimum is not enough. Don’t stop at “anything,” even if it is better than “nothing.” This is like saying it’s fine to feed your children one meal a day because one meal is better than no meals. Everyone is busy, but if the minimum is all you have time for, don’t expect results.

“At least I’m better than average.” The New York Times recently cited the Federal Reserve Board with an “average household credit card debt” figure of $8,565. Owe less than that and you’re in good shape, right? It’s unclear how that figure is determined. It may in fact be the average credit card debt of only households that have credit card debt. Include debt-free households in the calculation and the figure will drop. A number this high lulls many people into a false sense of security with the belief that with their balance of $6,000 in credit card debt, they’re “doing better” than most of the country.

This “security” leads to inaction and, in this case, to the glee of credit card providers, merchants, and manufacturers around the world.

Getting over it

The result of a lifetime with these beliefs is guaranteed mediocrity. While removing self-limiting philosophies doesn’t guarantee excellence and the ability to reach every goal, keeping these philosophies guarantees that you will not do your best. I do not know any man or woman with children who is satisfied with being anything but the best father or mother he or she could possibly be, so why are so many people satisfied with being an average personal financial officer?

There is usually a perfect mathematical solution to financial goals, like the Debt Avalanche mentioned above. Although Dave Ramsey says that most people have more success with a different, more expensive and time-consuming technique, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t strive for the better solution. Just because perfection is not always attainable doesn’t mean that it’s worthwhile to stop striving for that approach and settle for lackluster results, especially if the better approach is not more difficult than the alternatives.

If you’ve found something that “works for you,” don’t assume that there isn’t something else that works better for you. Follow the best examples, not examples set by the fictional average individual. If your financial security is important to you, don’t settle for mediocrity. You won’t always reach your highest goals or always be excellent, but you’ll never be excellent if you limit yourself.

It’s very tempting to quickly peek at your investments to see if they’ve gone up or down in the past twenty-four hours. The same technology that makes our lives so much easier, computer software, can drive us insane. It takes almost no effort to log into my company’s 401(k) website. When I’m at home, Quicken is only one Quick Launch icon away. At any given time, morning or night, it can take me less than 30 seconds to determine whether my tune for the day is The Gold Diggers’ Song (We’re In the Money) or Stormy Weather.

This is not necessarily a good thing. While I can usually control myself, I’ve occasionally pulled the trigger and rebalanced my 401(k) asset allocation when I shouldn’t have. These days I pay less attention to detail but I haven’t solidified my asset allocation strategy.

Susan Byrne recently shared with Money Magazine the best investment advice she ever received. Susan, the founder, chairman and chief investment officer of Westwood Management, learned while she was managing other people’s money but doing a poor job with her own assets, to keep her hands off her 401(k) except for once a year.

It’s often best to keep your eyes and hands off. Stick to your asset allocation strategy and rebalance the portfolio annually, automatically if possible.

Perhaps this is true for more than just investments, but I’m often tempted to touch things I can see. I’ve stopped looking at my investments daily, but the next step is to determine an asset allocation and stick with it. Are you tempted to change your strategy, particularly when you see your balance declining from day to day?

The smartest advice I ever got, Money Magazine

Mellody Hobson, the president of Ariel Investments, recently shared her favorite piece of advice to Money Magazine.

When I was 22, a friend who is very successful explained to me that no one ever got rich through earned income. “Look at all the great wealthy families,” he said. “From Carnegie to Rockefeller, it was never how much they made at work that made them wealthy – it was their investments.”

And that made me shift from thinking about a paycheck to thinking about building equity and long-term wealth. And it has helped me a lot. Instead of a raise, I ask for more stock.

This may be good advice for a senior level executive at a large corporation. Those who make the compensation decisions may have the authority to grant stock. The concept suggested by Mellody’s advice may also be helpful for those working at a small company at the onset. Then again, perhaps there is no cash available and the promise of stock is all that can be offered.

I have the feeling that most people are like me, however. They work at a large company and don’t have the option of bargaining for alternative compensation. My boss, for example, would not have the ability to simply grant me stock. I suppose that the vice president of my division could put a request through our human resources department, but in the end, it would still come from the same budget. So practically, I see no difference for the company between offering stock or cash as a raise other the simplicity of cash. I cannot see my large financial corporation seeing a stock grant as a preferable alternative to a typical raise.

Another issue I have with accepting company stock in lieu of cash is related to diversification and risk. An employee is deeply vested in the success of the company and the company’s desire to keep you. Look no further than Enron to see what happened to employees who relied too much on their own company. While the senior management at Enron lied to its employees about the company’s health, many employees suffered more during the company’s collapse. They suffered because they relied on the company for much more than just their income. In addition to salary, the employees most affected held too much company stock, particularly in 401(k)s. Enron actively encouraged its employees to buy company stock outside of retirement, as well. If your company’s stock started nosediving with imminent failure and the management decided to freeze stock so you could not sell it, how would your finances be affected?

So would you take Mellody’s advice? I think she’s right about shifting from an income-from-paycheck mentality to income-from-investments mentality, but is company stock the best path? Would you ask for more company stock in lieu of a raise?

The smartest advice I ever got, Money Magazine

Robert Shiller, a professor of economics at Yale University, shares advice about investing he learned in graduate school.

One needs to think antisocially to excel in investing, to resist the patterns of thinking that seem mysteriously to arrive simultaneously in the minds of millions of people around the world. People do not trust their own judgment but go along with the crowd, even when they can see truth.

It’s tough to take a contrary view point. First, it’s easy to believe that “a million people can’t be wrong.” The “wisdom” of crowds may be valid for some things, but usually not investing decisions. When the rest of the world is selling, it is probably a good time to buy. And vice versa.

Second, the media make it easy to get confused. mass market hype will trend in one direction, while a bevvy of financial reporters in a small segment of the media will unanimously vote in the opposite direction. Which trend should you buck?

The smartest advice I ever got, CNN Money, July 22, 2008

Bill Miller, the manager of Legg Mason Value Trust, shares some advice about building wealth.

[My father said…] “See this ‘plus .25’? That means that if you own one share of this company today, you have 25¢ more than you had yesterday.” I had come in from mowing the grass for three hours to earn 25¢. So the lesson I took was that in the stock market you can make money without doing any work… Of course, I realized only many years later that you could earn the market rate of return by doing no work, but to earn an excess rate of return certainly does require some work!

Passive income is an attractive thought. Dumping money into index funds and holding onto the investment for decades can provide results that beat most of the active fund managers. This contradicts Bill’s advice—it’s quite possible to do a large amount of work in terms of researching stocks but perform worse than the indexes.

The most passive form of income has to be that returned in the form of interest on savings accounts. Saving accounts, however, won’t provide much interest. When it comes to passive income, I’ve already stated that certain activities don’t qualify, like blogging and real estate investing, because you certainly are trading some portion of your time for that income. The Amateur Asset Allocator goes farther by outlining eight levels of passive income.

The Smartest Advice I Ever Got, CNN Money, July 22, 2008