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

Posts tagged as:

guru

I’m not a big fan of “rules of thumb.” These are bite-sized nuggets of wisdom masquerading as advice, designed to apply to a mass audience. At best, they cant point someone in the right direction, but at worst, rules of thumb can erroneously send people on the wrong path or can mistakenly instill a false sense of security. This is a good example of why the best financial advice is specifically tailored to an individual or a family.

Rules of thumb satisfy the human desire for knowledge on a stick, like fast food for the brain. They are easily repeatable and retweetable, and they invite a minimum of critical thinking. But it would be unfair to suggest ignoring all rules of thumb. Some are better — more accurate for a larger number of people — than others. But it’s important to determine which ones apply to your situation and which one’s are not relevant.

Here are some of the more popular rules of thumb targeting personal finances, often repeated by gurus and writers targeting a wide audience.

Rules of thumb

You should save 10 percent of your income. Grade: B-.

This rule of thumb is not specific. It is not clear whether 10 percent should be counted before or after taxes. Saving this percentage of your gross income, a larger sum than the same percentage of your “take-home” income, would be preferred. This rules of thumb also does not specify whether your 401(k) or other investments are included or if this only refers to savings not invested or spent.

I can’t say that saving 10 percent is a bad idea. This is a good starting point; in fact, putting this portion of your income away without touching it will put you far ahead of the “average” American. Many people, however, will need to save more, some significantly more, than 10 percent in order to meet their goals. This rule of thumb, ingrained in the minds of many people who have read books suggesting this amount, can convince someone than 10 percent is enough.

Your emergency fund should be large enough to replace 3 to 6 months of your income. Grade: D.

Again, this is a good starting point, but your income is not related to the size. Your emergency fund should be allow you to afford your non-discretionary expenses while you work to replace your income. Determining the right size for your emergency fund requires measuring your monthly expenses, judging the stability of your income, determining what you would be willing to do to replace that income, considering how much it might cost to relocate in an emergency, and seeking expenses to cut.

The economy and the job market — how long it might take you to find a new job — should be a consideration as well. A better rule of thumb might state that the size of your emergency fund should be enough to cover necessary expenses for the number of months equal to the unemployment rate. For example, if the unemployment rate in your state is 10 percent, your emergency fund should be large enough to cover 10 months’ worth of expenses.

You can withdraw 4 percent of your nest egg in retirement to provide yourself an income while keeping enough invested to last indefinitely. Grade: C.

The 4 percent “safe withdrawal rate” relies on a number of dangerous assumptions. First, the funds from which you take the 4 percent must be invested completely in a diversified selection of stocks, like the S&P 500. As we’ve seen recently, beginning retirement while completely invested in stocks in a year where the stock market is down can be disastrous to financial health. Secondly, in assumes the stock market will perform 5 percentage points higher than inflation. That’s a reasonably good estimate when you look at the stock market on average, but there is rarely an average year. The stock market performs significantly better in some years and significantly worse in others.

The rule of thumb is not detailed enough to explain, but 4 percent is the withdrawal rate for the first year only. The withdrawal in every subsequent year should increase by the rate of inflation. For example, if you withdraw $40,000 from your $1,000,000 in the first year, and in the second year your nest egg increases to $1,001,000 after a year where inflation was 3%, your withdrawal in the second year should be $41,200 (3% more than $40,000) rather than $40,040 (4% of your new balance).

To find the percentage of your portfolio that should be invested in stocks, subtract your age from 100. Grade: F.

According to this rule, once you are no longer a minor the most you’ll be invested in stocks or stock mutual funds is about 80 percent. Someone retiring at age 65 would have a portfolio only 35 percent invested in the stock market. This directly contradicts what would be necessary to make the 4 percent safe withdrawal rule of thumb a reality. And for most people, the calculation using 100 just simply won’t cut it in order to grow wealth over the long term.

There’s more to consider. Suze Orman has a massive net worth compared to most people, and can therefore afford to play it safe by investing almost all of it in bonds. Stocks are riskier, and she and other people with significant net worth do not have to take on as much risk as what is found in the stock market to provide more than enough income for the rest of their life. Not only that, but significant wealth in a less risky investment helps ensure there will be an estate to leave to family or charity at the end of life.

The rest of us must take on the risk of the stock market in order to provide the best chance of building wealth in the long term. And the amount of risk needed for us is a higher percentage than the result of subtracting your age from 100. Perhaps 130 or 140 would be a better figure to use.

To retire comfortably, you will need to have an income of 80 percent of your maximum pre-retirement income. Grade: C.

Although it’s common to believe your needs, and therefore expenses, will be less in retirement, reality shows that this is not always the case. It is safer to assume that your expenses will be 10 percent higher in retirement. Keep in mind that health care costs will most likely rise dramatically as you age. And with people living longer than ever, those expenses will last for many years.

Once size does not fit all. Rules of thumb are good starting points, but don’t fall into the trap of believing you are safe if you follow these rules. Do you know of any other rules of thumb deserving a thrashing?

Photo: John Leach

{ 21 comments }



Last week, I had doubts about the advice provided by a so-called financial expert on the local prime-time network news program. Offering advice in public is a difficult task to do well. You have to appeal to your audience by suggesting solutions appropriate for the bulk of the listeners, a group that can vary in terms of intelligence, experience, and education.

In many cases, what ends up happening is that the advice is geared to the “lowest common denominator” (in the non-mathematical sense) and those in need of personalized financial advice end up feeling dangerously fulfilled by platitudes, rules of thumb, and averages. But aside from financial guru superstars like Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, and Robert Kiyosaki, how do producers of local news programs find the experts they use for their economic/human interest pieces?

According to “the Mole,” my favorite undercover financial adviser, radio and television stations contact financial professionals in the community. The stations approach financial advisers to invite them to present “expert opinion.” There is a catch, however. The financial adviser must pay the station to appear.

Previously, I assumed two things. First, if you are interviewed on a television or radio show, you are not paid for your appearance, nor do you have to pay the broadcaster. I’ve been interviewed several times for print and radio, and never once have I been paid nor have I received an invoice. Second, if you are a station or program’s “official financial expert” or “resident financial adviser,” you are paid for your affiliation. The station should be lucky to have an expert like you on “staff.”

This is not the way media works. Radio and television considers your appearances as advertisements for your financial advisory business. Accordingly, you must pay in order to appear. While I have no evidence if that was the case with the financial adviser on the ABC news program I happened to catch, if the Mole is correct (and I generally trust what he has to say), it’s likely she paid ABC in order to be their resident expert and have her name and phone number flash across the screen.

It makes sense from a business standpoint as well. Presumably, the news audience will believe that this financial adviser is reputable for her to be “awarded” the post of resident expert. In turn, some of the audience may become clients. This may make the adviser’s fee worth the price of admission.

As consumers, it’s more evidence that we can’t simply trust appearances.

Taking financial advice from radio gurus, the Mole, Money Magazine, October 1, 2008

{ 8 comments }

I’ve done a good job of sharing my disdain for Dave Ramsey’s popularization of a method of getting out of debt that caters to unmotivated individuals, the “Debt Snowball” method. That doesn’t mean I don’t agree with his principles or his intentions. I just think he, as one of the most popular “gurus” in personal finance, has to cater to the masses. It makes sense for him to profess a methodology that is simple reaches people on an emotional level. Real financial planners who work one-on-one with individuals to get out of debt and formulate a lifetime financial plan would be able to supply better options.

Dave Ramsey does offer something I like, his “Baby Steps.” These are seven suggestions that, when followed sequentially, will do wonders for helping people struggling with their finances to take ownership of the money in their life and start moving towards a more prosperous future.

Here are Dave’s suggestions, verbatim:

In general, I like this plan of action. These “baby steps” help someone ease into a pattern of new, financially responsible behavior, with small mini-goals which when taken in full view go a long way to help ensure financial stability.

These “baby steps” are designed to appeal to a large mass of people. This is not advice based on any one individual’s real situation, so it’s fair to apply some customization and perhaps even improvements. Here are a few small criticisms.

Is $1,000 enough or too much for an emergency fund base? Dave Ramsey suggests shoring up a $1,000 cash cushion before beginning to pay off debt. Although $1,000 is a finite number of dollars, its value has a different meaning to different people or to different families. A family with an income of $250,000 a year and $1,000,000 in debt may not consider $1,000 to be much of anything, while a family earning $20,000 per year and $100,000 in debt might find the saving of $1,000 to be a struggle. So what’s a better option? I would suggest that this base savings, what is needed to lay the groundwork before embarking on the great debt reduction journey, should be one months’ expenses, whatever they happen to be. That sets a high enough starting goal.

The “Debt Snowball” method is not so great. Despite its popularity and proven track record with a million dollar business marketing this method, I’d like to see more people give a real try to the Debt Avalanche. They’ll save money and time in the long run if they are intrinsically motivated. I’ve discussed this at length before.

Is it too soon to worry about college funding for children? I’ve heard experts suggest that parents should make sure their retirement is fully funded before worrying about funding education for their children. I don’t think saving 15% of household income, unless begun at a young age, will get most parents to a secure retirement, but that depends on the family’s needs at that later date. There are too many variables to predict that with any accuracy. The reason most experts suggest this is because you can borrow money for college, but you can’t borrow money (as easily or inexpensively) for retirement.

I strongly believe that parents have a responsibility to ensure that the best educational opportunities are available to their children, but with the prices of tuition increasingly well beyond the rate of inflation, I’m not sure how well that philosophy will work in the future.

Why pay off the mortgage early? Dave Ramsey is strongly against holding all forms of debt. Mostly, I agree. If the mortgage rate is low enough, and you have the fortitude, risk tolerance, and availability to invest the funds you would otherwise use to accelerate your mortgage payment in an asset allocation designed with a long-term time horizon, it may make more sense to pay just your minimum to the mortgage. But I won’t stop anyone who wants to pay off their mortgage early, even if they might end up with a lower net worth than if they had invested. The market is unreliable, but when paying off a mortgage early, you’re guaranteed to “earn” the rate of interest you’re being charged. It’s not a precise way of figuring the math, but knowing that you don’t have to pay interest that was originally included in your amortization is good.

Thanks go to Dave Ramsey for popularizing good general advice.

{ 19 comments }