Once in a while at work I hear one of my coworkers talking about their retirement portfolios, usually about how badly it’s been hit the past couple of years.

One particular time I was cleaning out my lunch dishes and was overhearing a friend and another coworker talking.  Her portfolio had taken a hit (like many others) because of the stock market.  (We have a tax-deferred defined contribution plan supplied by our employer.)  The conversation ended with her saying something like: “I’ll be a horse’s rear-end if I’m working past sixty-five!”

(She didn’t actually use “horse’s rear end,” but I’m doing what I can to keep this site family-friendly!)

She’s in her fifties.  Everything could be just fine in a few years, or she might just end up being a horse’s rear end.

I keep coming back to something that Michael Mihalik said in his book Debt Is Slavery:  “… retirement is about money, not age.”  No one except her (and her husband, perhaps) cares whether she ever retires or not.  She may be able to continue the same job for a few years after she’s had originally wanted to retire, but maybe not.  Then what?  Maybe she’ll need to find a job, perhaps not paying what her current job does.  Hopefully that will bridge the gap.  If not, then what?  Maybe her children (if she has any) will help, or people from her church, or strangers.  But if not, then what?  She’ll scramble to make ends meet, maybe with another job.  But she won’t be retired.  Far from it.

She’ll be the back end of a horse.  Or at least I hope so.  I wouldn’t want her to be what she actually said she’d be if she didn’t retire.

Follow me on Twitter for random acts of Mighty Bargain Hunter

The Simple Dollar recently offered up a post on retirement planning for a low-income career, aimed at people like some of his friends who have “made the financially difficult choice to follow their heart” into careers that are very fulfilling, much needed and, perhaps consequently, low-paying.

The advice he offers, in broad strokes, is (a) automatic investment in a Roth IRA, even if it’s only $20 per week; (b) take comfort in the fact that you’ll figure out how to live on low income; (c) not to let pride stand in the way of someone wanting genuinely to help you.

To be fair, check out the article, but overall the theme seems to be one of accepting the fact that this means poverty for the rest of your life, so embrace it, handouts and all.  Or, more succinctly, throw in the towel.

I really hope that people in social work, missionary work, and other low-income careers fight harder than this for their financial prospects. (I mention people and social work and missionaries because he did.)  There is almost no reason why someone should have to depend on the (meager) savings from a low-income job, Social Security (what there is of it), and the kindness of strangers, when they have 20-30 years to plan.

These people (those in social work, missionaries) do what they do because they are called to it.  Over a lifetime, pursuing a calling is far more important than just doing a job.  (My calling is music.)  But when the rubber meets the road, putting food on the table, buying clothes, taking care of health needs, and providing for the time that bringing in an income isn’t possible anymore is more immediate, and can postpone – perhaps forever – pursuit of that calling.

Calling and occupation are not necessarily the same thing. It’s fantastic if they are, but in many cases they’re not, and even if they are, occupations that are long on calling are often short on pay, as social workers and missionaries find out.

Aside from the meaning of the job to the job-holder, a low-paying job is a low-paying job.  Working at a low-paying job for one’s career has predictable results:  financially uncertain retirement years.  Hinging one’s retirement years on income from a low-paying job, thrift, and the kindness of strangers is risky, and largely unnecessary.  I’d go so far as to say this:  If someone does hinge their retirement years on these things, it’s their own fault.

The key ingredient is this:  What is done after the workday is done? It’s what’s done in one’s “free time” that makes the difference.  (Time isn’t free.  That’s why it’s in quotes.)  Ten to twenty hours a week, fifty weeks a year, over 20 years, is 10,000 to 20,000 hours.  I know other bloggers that, after starting up their blogs about the same time I have only five years ago, have already quit their jobs to write, or who have exceeded their (rather princely) incomes, working only part time.  And that’s just in five years.  Imagine what could happen over 20 or 30 years, or how much more likely success will be after trying a few times.

Depending on Vanguard for your retirement is risky and foolish.  Depending on the kindness of strangers is risky and foolish.  Start a side business (or a few)  and build it over time so that it can support your calling, whatever it is.  Don’t throw in the towel and resign yourself to a life of poverty for the rest of your life, please!

Thanks to The Financial Blogger for including this post in the Carnival of Personal Finance.

Follow me on Twitter for random acts of Mighty Bargain Hunter

As I was scrolling through my feed on Facebook I was intrigued by the title of this post over at Debt Free Adventure:

Financial Retirement – How to Get There Faster

The post slug suggests what the post is actually about:  being a laborer vs. being a capitalist.  The idea is to make the transition from working for money to having other people pay you to have your money work for them.  Which is overall a good thing, since the days during which most of us can labor are numbered.

That wasn’t what initially came to mind when I thought about “financial retirement.”  What it did remind me of was a statement that Michael Mihalik made in his book Debt Is Slavery:

“If you won a multi-million-dollar lottery today, would you go back to work tomorrow? The majority of people would be happy to tell their bosses to take a hike. That’s because retirement is about money, not age.“ (emphasis mine)

It also reminded me of the distinction between being able to retire, vs. retiring in lifestyle:  traveling the world, having a life of leisure.  Some people can retire right now and have plenty of money to do nothing but build sandcastles on their ocean-front property, travel the countryside in a mobile home, whatever.  But they don’t, even though they can.

For me, personally, it would mean being able to play music and not need to worry about taking the next gig just to put food on the table.  If I could make money at it, fine, but that wouldn’t be the primary purpose, because the income streams I had developed up to that point would be more than enough to support me even without a dime from music.

That’s financial retirement as I see it:  being able to retire, but not necessarily actually retiring.  (Though being a capitalist could well be part of that!)

Follow me on Twitter for random acts of Mighty Bargain Hunter

This economic downturn hasn’t been kind to a lot of people.  Jobs that haven’t been taken away from people have had their hours cut, their workload increased, or their cost of living allowances taken away.  Jobs that people used to be able to count on are on very fragile ground.

If this US Debt Clock is accurate, we’re getting a new person on the unemployment roster every 17 seconds now.

What can you count on in this economy?  I think the only thing that you can absolutely count on in this economy is that you can’t count on anything in this economy. Retirements have been upended by plummeting 401(k)s and IRAs.  Nest eggs have been cracked by crashing home values.  Many people, all of a sudden, won’t be able to retire.

It’s foolish to take anything for granted.  There’s far less within our control than we probably realize, and proposed solutions that aim to make things better will almost certainly just make them worse.

When you think about “preparing for the future,” think instead of “hedging against the future.”  How?

• Cushions, cushions. Bolster that emergency fund to buy time in the face of job loss.  Bolster your food supply in case price controls cause shortages.  (Price controls are another solution that will backfire.  Think gas station lines in the 1970s.)
• Diversify your investments. If you’re heavy in anything (or only have a couple of asset classes) look around some more.  And don’t forget to invest in yourself.
• Diversify your income streams. Only have one income stream?  Start working on another!  And then another.  Your one income stream can go bye-bye at any time.
• Retire into something rather than just retire. It would be great if one of your new income streams involves something you really enjoy, and can do well into the traditional retirement age.
• Take care of your health. I’ve recommitted to this. The less you need health care, the better, because it will be more expensive, and you’ll wait longer to get it.
• Pray.

Thanks to The Censible Life for including this post in the Carnival of Personal Finance.

Follow me on Twitter for random acts of Mighty Bargain Hunter

Sun’s Financial Diary reported that the 2010 contribution limit for 401(k) accounts will remain at $16,500.  The announcement came from the IRS Thursday.  There had been speculation that the contribution limit could be reduced in light of a decreasing CPI (and, indeed, the CPI is down from a year ago.)

Sun ends the post with a question:

Now that there won’t be any increase in contribution limit next year, it doesn’t seem to be a big deal for one year. However, it is a big deal in the long term for those who max out their contribution every year. Just consider this: How much will today’s $500 be worth 20 or 30 years from now?

(Presumably, had the limit been increased, it well could have been by $500, as previous increases had been in multiples of $500.)

The question becomes one of a tradeoff:  Someone who would contribute the maximum allowable by law can contribute only $16,500 rather than $17,000.  This means that $500 more of this person’s investment contributions will be taxable in 2010 than would be the case if the contribution limit had been raised.

The contribution limit gets a lot of attention.  I suppose it’s the piece of the 401(k) puzzle that’s easiest to grasp (after one understands the pre-tax contribution thing).  It’s the part of the legislation that is addressed regularly.  It’s the number that usually gets raised (”We can contribute more!  Hooray!”) except next year it won’t, and some folks — Sun among them — think this is a loss for people saving to retirement.

The question about how much extra income could have been gained by allowing that extra $500 to grow tax-deferred is insignificant.  Why?  Because the money (and accumulated interest and compounded dividends) will be taxed when it’s taken out.  Who knows what the tax rate will be in two or three decades?  Would you want to be taxed now, or taxed later?

Going a step further, the tax tables aren’t the only thing that can change.  Just about all of the rules governing these accounts can change. How will the rules change, and to what extent?  I have no idea, but just because they haven’t changed significantly over their lifetime doesn’t mean they won’t.

So don’t worry about not being able to contribute more to your 401(k).  But I do encourage you to think about whether you’re contributing too much to your 401(k) already.

Follow me on Twitter for random acts of Mighty Bargain Hunter

Over at the MBN Forums there was some discussion about a short video presentation called Drive Free, Retire Rich over at Dave Ramsey’s website.

The first part of the presentation (up through Slide 11) was very well put together, and showed perfectly the value of buying used over borrowing and buying new.  A synopsis of the first 11 slides:

1. Getting a loan and buying new is a bad way to buy a car because you pay for up to six years, the car loses a big chunk of its value the moment you drive it off the lot, and it’s not what it once was after a few years, but you’re still paying for it.
2. Instead, save up to buy an inexpensive used car, and pay yourself the car payment.
3. After 10 months, sell your used car for (close to) what you paid for it, and upgrade to a better used car using the proceeds and your saved money.
4. Rinse and repeat until you’re driving a pretty nice car, and saving what you would have spent on the car loan for an emergency fund, retirement, etc.

The presentation paints very broad strokes, but the premise is a viable solution to borrowing for a car.  It will be slowed by things like taxes, registration, repairs, etc., but there’s nothing wrong with the method at all.

Then, at the end of Slide 12, the video takes a right turn at Albuquerque and enters Fantasy Land:

At the end of six years, your $11,000 paid-for car has just about run its course.  It’s been great, but it’s time to upgrade.  But hey, that’s no problem:  You’ve got a mutual fund specifically earmarked as a car-replacement fund.  You know how much is sitting in that fund right now?  At the stock market average of twelve percent, you’d have about $32,000.

What freakin’ stock market averages 12%? That’s the ballsiest claim I’ve heard about the stock market.  It’s a full 5% higher than the real return of the S&P 500 from 1950 to 2008.  How they can say that with a straight face is beyond me.  What’s more, the video goes on to make calculations assuming that this rate will hold for forty years.  Sorry, there’s little chance of that happening, unless the 12% includes inflation.  Then I suppose it can happen, but if that’s the case, then the $5-million-plus the video claims we’ll have at the end of 40 years if we follow the plan won’t be enough to retire on.

Bottom line:  Buying an inexpensive used car, paying the car payment to yourself, and upgrading every year or so is a great way to get into a nice car that you actually own.

Just don’t count on a double-digit stock market for the next 40 years to pay for your retirement, too.  Please!

Follow me on Twitter for random acts of Mighty Bargain Hunter

This month’s Wired magazine (subscribe) had a review of a couple dozen rules for tech-savvy folks, and one of them dealt with the subject of hyperopia.  Hyperopia means “excessive farsightedness” and describes people who sacrifice today for gain tomorrow more than most people do.  The negative consequences of hyperopia are lots and lots of regrets; studies show that the  “doing the right thing” like giving up a party to put in a few extra hours of work in turns pretty quickly from self-congratulation to self-flagellation.

Saving as much income as possible in order to cover future needs can turn into hyperopia as well.  As Lazy Man and Money said in that article, it’s “not very fun” to be brown-bagging your lunch, drinking water, and staying home all the time just for the sake of building up the bank account “for someday.”  If the studies are to be believed, “someday” will likely be filled with a lot of empty memories and a lot of regret.  So, if one is to avoid this, the solution is easy:  spend money on fun stuff, today.

I know that sometimes I get concerned about not doing more family getaways to see The Mouse and wonder about what other things in life my family and I are missing.  But I also have a healthy fear of where things are going, and a few thousand dollars can go a long way to alleviating fear if invested correctly.  I’m certainly not so concerned that I want to put a vacation on credit, and I hope you’re not, either.  (Maybe it never crossed your mind.  Good for you!)

At the end of the day, there are more important things to do anyway, like building a legacy and fulfilling a calling.  Once those are clearly defined, working toward them is its own reward, and regret falls by the wayside.  Time, and money, that’s spent working toward the most important thing you can do is never wasted, but getting into debt usually postpones the time that you can start working on your calling.

The bottom line, then, is to figure out what are the most important things you want to accomplish with your life, count the cost, and begin working.  Then, the decisions you make about your time and money aren’t a matter of work vs. fun.  They’re a matter of unimportant vs. important, and hopefully there’s no regret involved in channeling resources toward important things instead of unimpostant things.

Follow me on Twitter for random acts of Mighty Bargain Hunter

“For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost?” Luke 14:28

First off, Happy Independence Day to my American readers.  Happy July 4th to others.

Gary North’s Tip of the Week (subscribe for free in the upper right of this page) was on outsourcing.  He doesn’t plan to ever mow his lawn himself, because the net cost would be a loss.  He values what he can accomplish in those couple of hours higher than what it would cost him to have someone else mow his lawn.

The answer is easy for him because counting the cost for him is easy.  But what about for people who aren’t as productive now?  Do you outsource in that case?

Counting the cost is more complicated in this case.  Mowing your own lawn, making your own meals, clipping coupons, hitting yard sales, and the like are little money-saving things, but they all take time, which is irreplaceable.

Some questions that might be good to ask if the answer isn’t clear what to do:

• Do you have a clear vision where you’re going? If this is not the case, counting the cost really doesn’t have much meaning anyway.  No one can answer this except you.  Aside from just not having one, another indication of lack of clear vision is having a lot of projects that aren’t really going much of anywhere.  It is time to cut out the losers.
• Are you having trouble making your bills? If this is the case, then a good use of your time is making the money, and reducing expenses, to keep on top of your bills.  Not doing so has clear costs:  late fees, higher interest rates both for not making payments and as the result of a low credit rating.  If these things happen, they will postpone the grander legacy you have in mind.
• Are you in fair shape financially, but not good enough shape that you don’t really have to worry? This is where it gets trickier.  You can free up more time by paying to get things done that don’t directly contribute to your legacy.  The more of these activities you pay for, the more you can accomplish with the finite amount of time you’re given.  But, the more this costs — there’s the rub.  Do you sacrifice the appearance of present financial security to go full-bore at something great, or take up some of that time keeping a good financial cushion and work your legacy more slowly?  This brings about lots more questions, like whether your family is behind you, what other expenses or commitments are down the road, etc.  A silver lining to the recession, by the way, is that hiring out some activities now can be cheaper because business are hungrier for work now.

Happy cost counting!  Here’s to moving in the right direction.  Half the year is ahead of us!

Follow me on Twitter for random acts of Mighty Bargain Hunter

Liz Pulliam Weston wrote a nice article recently describing nine money priorities.  She lists them from top priority on down:

1. Pay your bills
2. Save $500
3. Start saving for retirement
4. Pay off “toxic” debt
5. Bolster your emergency fund
6. Check out long-term disability insurance
7. Enhance your retirement savings
8. Start saving for college
9. Save for spectacular expenses

I emphasized #3 and #4 because she thinks that starting to save for retirement edges out paying off debt.  Sensing backlash, she defends this position:

You may be surprised to see retirement so high on the list. Surely your credit card debt and your kids’ college educations are more important.

Except they’re not. You have only so many working years to set aside enough cash to last you for the rest of your life, and any delay in getting started will cost you big time. Waiting just five years to begin can reduce your total nest egg by as much as 30%.

Retiring (or not retiring) is about money, not about age.  If you reach age 55 (or 65, or 75, or 80) and don’t have enough money to support yourself, you won’t be able to retire.  Fill out an application to hand out yellow smiley stickers while you wear a blue vest.  Socking away money at 8% annual return (ha!) does you absolutely no good if you’re paying 17.99% APR on a credit card.  If the interest you’re paying out is outstripping the interest and dividends and appreciation you’re getting with your investments, you’re falling behind.  Filling up a leaky bucket just means you’ll be thirsty later.

There are a couple of instances when it might pay to follow this advice:

• You get a match with your 401(k). If you contribute to your 401(k) only to the point for which you get a maximum match from your employer, then this might offset putting off your debt repayment.  It’s free money.  But if your employer doesn’t match your contribution, forget contributing until your consumer debt is paid off.
• You have low fixed-rate mortgage debt. This debt is a good inflation hedge.  Gosh, if you have a rate under 5%, you’re golden.  Pay that one off slowly, and put what you want into retirement savings.  If there’s a chance that your rate will increase, pay it off ASAP before funding retirement.

Otherwise, I really don’t seen the merit of saving for retirement until you get rid of the high-APR debt.  But maybe it’s a psychology thing.

Follow me on Twitter for random acts of Mighty Bargain Hunter

This morning in Sunday school someone threw out that a substantial fraction of Americans have a lottery win comprising their retirement plans.  (”How did we get to talking about gambling in Sunday school?” you might ask.  It was just a chance discussion, that’s all.)

I just shook my head at that statistic.  I figured it wasn’t far from the truth, but looked around a little bit to verify.  This three-year-old article over at the Motley Fool cites a survey survey by the Opinion Research Corporation for the Consumer Federation of America that found about one-quarter of those surveyed thought that winning the lottery was the most practical way to amass $200,000 or more.  (Here is a summary of the survey.)

Since I’m a math-oriented guy, I thought it’d be neat to figure out the return on “investing” in Powerball® tickets.  Tickets cost $1 each.  The odds of winning different prizes, plus the average payout for each prize, are as follows (PB = red Powerball, W = white ball):

The five white ball + red Powerball win is the Jackpot. This varies from week to week and I calculated the payout by taking the sum of the cash payouts for all the Jackpots in 2008 (a little over half a billion dollars) and dividing by 104 (two drawings per week).  The payout is about 20 cents for each dollars’ worth of tickets bought, or a return of minus 80%.  (Add a few percent perhaps if you take the annuity.)

The loss gets a little bit less if you chip in an extra buck per ticket to get the Multiplier.  Each week the Multiplier is 2, 3, 4, or 5; the chance of each multiplier showing up is 25%.  If a winning ticket is a Multiplier ticket, then the payouts (except the Jackpot) will be multiplied by the Multiplier.  These tickets cost twice as much, but the average Multiplier is 3.5, which means that the payout of the first eight prizes is multiplied by 1.75.  This ends up being a loss of “only” 67%.

Ok, that’s pretty a bad return, as one should expect: the average lottery player should get taken for a ride.  But how did the Standard and Poor’s 500 Index do last year?  It was pretty bad, too.

The S&P was 1,411.63 on January 4th, 2008.  It was 931.80 on January 2nd, 2009, a loss of 34%.

So, investing in the S&P 500 was (on average) better than putting an equivalent amount of money into Powerball tickets.  But certainly our investments can aspire to better things than just outperforming the lottery, can’t they?

Follow me on Twitter for random acts of Mighty Bargain Hunter