Making college pay off

 

On Monday we asked the insane question: “Is college a waste of money?”  We came up with an insane answer: “A person would do much better financially saving that tuition money and not going to college.”

Such a bold conclusion deserves some intense scrutiny.  Let’s look at this more closely and see what the key drivers are.

 

Base case

Recall from the last post that Smarty goes to private school ($280,000 total).  Fasty works at a job making $36,000 per year straight out of high school and Smarty spends four years in college then makes $60,000 per year once she’s out of school.

Results—FASTY comes out ahead by $2.7 million (11% better than her sister).  This is where we were yesterday.  Now let’s start looking at our assumptions.

 

Scholarships

Of course, this is a big one.  Scholarships effectively bring down the cost of college, potentially to zero if you get a full-ride scholarship.  The larger scholarship Smarty gets, the more the race tilts in her favor.

 

Public college

Public college is a much more affordable option, at $100,000 instead of $280,000.  Except at the very top (Harvard, Stanford, Chicago) there’s no reason to believe that Smarty couldn’t get as good an education at a public school like University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill compared to an average private school like Wake Forest.

Results—This has a huge impact.  SMARTY comes out ahead by $680,000 (4%) if she goes to a public school.  It’s not an overwhelming advantage, but the decision between public and private school makes a huge difference.

 

Wage growth

We assumed that Fasty would make $36,000 her whole career and Smarty would make $60,000 her whole career.  Those are the average incomes for people, but in real life people’s wages start lower and grow higher.  There’s a lot of debate and controversy here about wage growth and if it goes to everyone or just those at the very top (here is a link that a grad school friend posted).

If you look at more detailed data, it shows that those with college degrees have wage growth 33% higher than those without degrees.  To account for this, let’s assume Fasty starts out at $22,000 and Smarty starts out at $33,000.  Then let’s assume that Fasty’s wages grow 2.0% each year while Smarty’s grow at 2.7%.

Results—This actually has a pretty low impact.  FASTY comes out ahead.  If you assume public college Fasty is $233k (2%) ahead which is pretty much a tie.  If you assume private college then Fasty is ahead $4.8 million (39%).

 

College major

Let’s cut to the chase.  This is where the real action happens.  What you study at college has the biggest impact on what you earn.  Starting salaries for STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) majors are 30-50% higher than those for liberal arts and teaching majors.

Also, the income growth is much higher.  STEM majors can expect their wages to grow about 50% faster than teaching and liberal arts majors.  In fact, teaching majors have wages that grow SLOWER than those people without a college degree.  So if Smarty went into teaching, she would make more than Fasty at first, but Fasty’s income would pass Smarty’s eventually.

Results—This actually has a profound impact, even when you assume public college.  With a STEM degree, SMARTY will come out $3.0 million (19%) ahead.  You can play with the numbers, but it’s really hard to find a realistic set of assumptions where Smarty doesn’t win with a STEM degree, with the possible exception of private college.  This is true for medical and business degrees as well, just not to the same degree (degree-degree, did you see what I just did there ??).

As good as things look for a STEM degree they look that dismal for a liberal arts, career-focused (journalism, public policy, recreation, industrial arts, agriculture, etc.), social sciences, or teaching degree.  FASTY will easily come out ahead to the tune of $3.2 million (33%) if Smarty gets a liberal arts or teaching degree.  This assume public college; if we assumed private college, that would be drastically worse for Smarty.

 

Master’s degree

By attending college Smarty will give herself an option that Fasty just won’t have: the ability to get a master’s degree.  This is the route I took, going to college and then after working a few years getting my MBA. In a way, this is really more of the same, and links very closely to the “College major” discussion.

Getting a graduate degree doubles down on your college decision.  If you pick a major which puts you ahead, typically getting a master’s degree in that same area will puts you further ahead.  Conversely, if you pick a major that puts you behind, getting a master’s degree will put you even further behind.

Results—If Smarty gets a STEM degree she’ll come out ahead.  If she gets her master’s, instead of being about $3.0 million ahead she’d be about $3.6 million ahead.  That’s a bit of upside but not too much.  Conversely, if she gets a liberal arts degree and then a master’s on top of that she’d go from being $3.2 million behind to $6.0 million behind.  Yikes!!!

 

Taxes

Taxes always suck, but they are going to hurt Smarty a lot more then they’ll hurt Fasty.  Smarty got her degree and got a higher paying job, and that means she’ll be paying a much higher tax rate than Fasty.  Fasty makes less money and that helps in two ways.  First, she pays a lower tax rate.  Second, because her income is low she doesn’t pay taxes on her investment income.

As Smarty makes more money which is really her whole strategy by going to college, that will help her win the race against her twin, but that will also mean she’ll pay higher taxes and that has a moderating effect.

Results—The very best outcome for Smarty was a STEM degree from a public college, and then her master’s.  That resulted in her coming out ahead by about $3.6 million.  If you add taxes to that, she only comes out ahead about $1 million.  That’s still a lot, but taxes are making something that was a total sure thing a bit more suspect.

Of course, if you consider taxes on all the less favorable scenarios for Smarty (private college, liberal arts degree, etc.) it takes a bad situation and makes it even worse.

 

Smart non-college kids

We’ve been making an assumption that I think is actually flawed, and has the potential to tip the scales in Fasty’s favor pretty drastically.  Remember, we assumed that Fasty and Smarty are identical in every way—equally smart and equally hard working.

In our society, smart and hard-working high school graduates typically go to college.  That’s just what they do because they’ve been told a million times that is what they should do.  It’s a bit of a circular argument.

When we look at the data for high-school graduates with no college, those are people who never went on to college.  Maybe they were late bloomers, maybe not ambitious, maybe just plain not smart.  Based on my argument above, very few (although some for sure) had the option to go to college and passed it by.

I say all this because what would happen if Fasty is smart enough and hard working enough to go to college but chooses not to?  There’s every reason to believe that she would do much better in her career and make much more money that the “average” high school degree person we’ve been talking about.

Imagine she gets an entry-level job at a factory.  She is punctual, hard-working, figures out better ways to do things; all those things would have helped her in college but now she is applying that to her non-college job.  That will set her apart from many of the other high-school graduates who didn’t have those qualities and abilities, probably one of the main reasons why they didn’t go to college.  Eventually her talents will be recognized and she’ll get more opportunities at higher wages.  Maybe it won’t be as fast as if she earned her degree, but it doesn’t have to be.  Remember, she also has $280,000 in her bank account.

Results—If Fasty’s salary is higher or can grow faster than the average for a high-school grad, then the calculations drastically shift towards Fasty.  Remember that Fasty won the race most of the time.  It was when Smarty got a STEM degree that things changed, and that’s because Smarty had a higher salary and faster income growth.  However, if Fasty’s hard work got her even a little bit higher salary and faster salary growth, she would close the gap.

 

Other considerations

College dropouts—This is the real killer.  How many kids start college but don’t finish.  They end up with the job prospects of Fasty but without the head start.

Fifth-year seniors—Increasingly college kids aren’t finishing their degree in four years.  That is a double whammy because it delays them making money for another year and they have to pay an extra year of tuition.

Living at home—There are a lot of ways to get the benefits of college without the full-blown college experience.  Living at home (and eating Mom’s cooking) is one that drastically cuts down the cost of attendance.

 

We’ve come along way.  After Monday’s post I was pretty pessimistic on college.  I don’t know if this post made that better or worse.

Definitely we learned that private college makes it near impossible to come out ahead financially.  More importantly, what you study makes or breaks the decision; STEM and healthcare and business will probably put you ahead while liberal arts and teaching and social sciences will doom you.  There’s other stuff too, but I think those are the two most important.

Come back on Monday when I tell you what Foxy Lady and I are planning on doing with ‘Lil Fox and Mini Fox.

College is a waste of money

Holy crap!?!?!?  Did I just say college is a waste of money?

The very idea seems anathema to everything our society has drilled into us.  Education is the best investment you can make.  College allows the poor but smart to have access to lucrative job markets, allowing for incredible social mobility.  Broad access to college is often credited for many of the amazing advances in our society over the past century.

However, this is also one of the most stressful areas of personal finance.  Whenever I work with a someone on their finances I always ask what their goals are.  Nearly universally, it is to pay for their kids’ college educations and to retire comfortably.  Paying for college is a primary goal and a huge expense which causes an incredible amount of stress.

A good rule of thumb I tell people is that you’ll need to save about $500 per month to pay for a child’s college education starting when the child’s a baby.  That’s for a state school, so if you want to pay for private school the number is closer to $1,500 per month, PER CHILD.  A family with a couple children could easily need to save a few thousand dollars a month.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is real money.  Given the huge investment we’re talking about, it seems worthwhile to ask the question: Is college worth all that money?

On a personal level, I got my bachelor’s degree in finance from the University of Pittsburgh and my master’s degree in business from the University of Chicago.  That education played an essential role in allowing me to make a very comfortable income to the point that I was able to retire in my mid-30s.

For our own cubs, Foxy Lady and I save $1,000 each month in their 529s which will one day go to pay for their college educations.  When the time comes we think we’ll have about $400,000ish total combined for both of them.  That will allow us to pay for each of them to go to a state school (think University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill) with some left over, or for each of them to go to a private school (think Harvard) but they’ll need to take some loans.  Based on that, you can decide if I am eating my own cooking here.

So what gives?  Why would I even ask such a seemingly self-evident question?

 

College is expensive

College is expensive, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth it.  There are a lot of things that are expensive but are totally worth it.

The key question for college is does the increased income available because you can get a better job thanks to your degree offset the cost of attendance.  In that way, it becomes a pretty simple calculation.

Fortunately, because this is such an important issue in society, there’s actually a lot of data out there to help us with this calculation.  Unfortunately, because this is such a politically and socially charged issue, a lot of people misanalyze this data to achieve their own agendas.  The goal of this post is to get to the bottom of it all in as objective a way as possible.

This table shows how much college costs.

Total cost of attendance per year

Typical public college (UNC, UCLA, Michigan, etc.)

$25,000

Typical private college (Wake Forest, Harvard, Stanford, etc.)

$70,000

 

This table shows the average income for people with different levels of education.  There are some real problems with this table that we’ll discuss probably in the next post, but let’s start with this.

Education level

Average income

High school dropout

$26,200

High school degree

$36,000

College degree

$60,000

Graduate degree

$71,800

Professional degree (doctor, lawyer, etc.)

$90,700

 

The race of the fast versus the smart

We’re going to use my cousins Smarty Fox and Fasty Fox on this one.  They are twins, identical in every way—they are equally smart, equally hard working, equally ambitious, equally anything that would impact their career prospects.  The only difference is that Smarty decides to go to college while Fasty decides to start working right after high school.

Also, Smarty’s and Fasty’s parents saved enough for both cubs to go to a private college ($280,000 for each cub).  They’ll use that to pay for Smarty’s education.  For Fasty, they will put the $280,000 into a trust that will invest that money in the stock market and be available in her later adulthood (the comparison we’ll do doesn’t really require that Fasty and Smarty have that money upfront in a college fund, just that Smarty pays it and Fasty doesn’t). Let’s compare who ends up with more at the end of their careers.

As you would expect, Fasty starts with a huge lead.  First, she invests the $280,000 her parents had saved for her college.  We know, especially over a long time horizon, she’s virtually guaranteed to make money in the stock market.  Second, that $280,000 is growing each year; if we use an average return of 7%, in her first year she gets about $19,600 which her studious twin doesn’t get.  Third, Fasty starts working right out of high school; in her first year she makes $36,000 while her twin doesn’t make anything.

For the first four years of her career Fasty builds her lead with the salary from her job and the returns from her $280,000.  After four years, Fasty has about $525,000 while Smarty is starting at $0.  However, Smarty has a degree and can get a job at a much higher salary than her twin.  Smarty’s first job pays $60,000 which obviously is much more than the $36,000 Fasty is making.

Fasty has that head start but Smarty has the higher income.  Which will prevail?

As it turns out, it’s not even close.  Fasty’s lead is just too big for Smarty to catch up.  Smarty will be making about $24,000 more each year than Fasty, which seems like a lot.  However, Fasty’s $525,000 lead allows her to earn an investment return of about $37,000.  That more than offsets Smarty’s higher salary.   By the time Fasty and Smarty have reached 65, Fasty will be MILLIONS ahead of Smarty.

So there you have it.  Don’t go to college.  Just invest the money and you’ll come out ahead.  But . . .

 

Is college education really a rip-off?

This is a tough one.  I’ll go back to how I started this post.  College is such an integrated part of our lives and society.  Colleges also have historically been universally revered—these are good places, doing good work, making the world a better place.  But maybe those are the very places where we should question that absolute goodness.

From a purely financial point of view, college may not be worth it.  Hold on though; I’ll beat you to the punch and say all the things this quick analysis didn’t factor: college major, drop-out rate, intelligence of person, future educational options, income growth, and taxes just to name a few.  Tune in on Wednesday when we’ll go over that.

The other big thing this post missed is all the non-financial elements of college.  College might be a time to spread your wings and discover yourself.  There are so many opportunities to pursue so many interests, many of which you may never have known you had.  You’ll make lifelong friends and maybe even your life partner (as was the case for me and Foxy Lady in grad school).  Of course, I’m not sure that college, and it’s really high costs, is the only place you can get those experiences.

Also, life isn’t always about money.  This is a personal finance blog so that’s what we tend to look at, but that doesn’t mean every decision needs to be based on money.  That said, this becomes a bit philosophical.  What is the purpose of college?  My view is those non-financial things are nice-to-haves compared to college’s ultimate purpose of preparing young people for gainful employment so they can become self-sufficient and contributing members of society.

Complex stuff.  Tune in on Wednesday for part 2.

Week in review (11-Aug-2017)

Every day there are hours of airtime on CNBC and Fox Business filled with commentary on what is going on with the stock market.  Why did it just go up, or Why is it poised to go down?  Add to that the thousands of articles and post positing the same thing, and it’s a lot.

It makes you wonder if there are really that many intelligent things to say, or are they just filling time.

Every Friday I am going to do a quick post looking at the week for stocks and trying to distill what the really important stories were that drove the market.

For this week stocks were pretty much completely flat through Wednesday.  Then North Korea and some earnings misses hit on Thursday and Friday, knocking the US markets down about 1.5% and international markets down about 2.5%.  Here is my take on what caused it all.

 

Google’s diversity memo

You know it’s a slow week for business news when the top story is a memo regarding gender diversity from a Google employee.  It’s not that the story isn’t important—it is.  However, it seems like more of a social issue than a financial markets issue.

This wasn’t a story about how Google is growing it’s sales or earnings or how it is going to expand into new, profitable markets.  Those are the things that typically drive stocks.  This seems more like the type of story that leads the “News” section on mainstream news outlets like The New York Times and CBS Evening News.  It did that for sure, but it also got top billing on Yahoo! Finance and The Wall Street Journal and CNBC.

Early in the week when the story was hottest, the market didn’t move a lot.  It was a story on a very important issue (gender equality) in one of the most dynamic industries (tech) at one of Wall Street’s darlings.  That made it an important news story, but it didn’t really reflect anything driving the financial markets.

 

North Korea showdown

This was the dominant story for the week.  Tensions have been high with North Korea for a while as it pursues a nuclear ICBM.  Wednesday after the markets closed President Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un started a war of words that put the world a bit more on edge.

Trump said North Korea would face the US’s “fire and fury.”  Kim said they were targeting their missles at Guam.  Trump said the US was “locked and loaded”.  That’s where we end now.

Stocks fell sharply on Thursday as the market digested this.  I don’t think most believe a nuclear war is likely (if it was, stocks would have fallen much, much more).  But this does open the door to some ugly possibilities, namely would a war between the US and North Korea ultimately lead to a war between the US and China.  Remember, in World War I millions of Germans and French killed each other after a Serbian rebel killed an Austrian prince.

 

Snap misses

Snap is one of the new social media companies that has become a Wall Street darling.  They don’t make money but there are (were) worth over $15 billion.  I have never used Snapchat and can’t say I fully understand how it works.  But I know my neighbor’s 13-year-old uses it and says that what all his friends are doing.  Those crazy kids.

Thursday night they released earnings and subscriber numbers that badly missed expectations and their stock cratered about 13% early Friday.  This is actually good news because it shows the market isn’t getting caught in “new economy” euphoria, but evaluating these companies on fundamentals like sales, earnings, and growth prospects.  It reminds me a bit of the internet bubble, but it seems we’re being a bit more rational this time around.

Obviously this stock weighed the markets down a very small bit.  But the silver lining is that it shows that all these new companies aren’t going to make it, but that some will be strong and emerge as titans (Facebook).

 

Brick and mortal retails slows less

Traditional brick and mortal retailers like Macy’s and Kohl’s reported earnings, showing that their sales are continuing to fall, but at a less rapid pace.  That’s a bit of a backhanded compliment—things are still bad but they aren’t as colossally bad as they’ve been.

We’re experiencing a generational shift in how consumers buy things.  Stocks like Macy’s and Kohl’s and other retailers are getting hammered, but all that business isn’t just evaporating.  It’s shifting to other companies like Amazon who are giving consumers those same goods just in a different way.  For the overall economy that’s a good thing, a great thing.  There will be winners (Amazon) and losers (Macy’s) but overall we’ll end up ahead, and that’s good for the stock market.

Living the dream on the cheap

“Dreams aren’t expensive, they’re priceless”

 

 

Last year, I had an incredible opportunity to going sailing through the Panama Canal and up the Pacific coast of Central America with family friends Jim and Laura.  I chronicled it in several posts on this blog.

It was an amazing opportunity on so many levels.  Who doesn’t love the chance to be on the ocean, see Mother Nature at her purest and most beautiful, stop in hidden paradises, and on and on?

On the trip I got the chance to learn the Jim-and-Laura story.  It’s quite amazing (but maybe not—you’ll see what I mean at the end of this post).  When they retired, they sold their condo and pretty much all their worldly possessions, bought a boat, and adopted the sailing lifestyle.  They’ve been doing that for the past 10 years, and have never looked back.  They are such an inspirational couple.

Whenever I share this story, or how the idea of sailing around the Caribbean or the world is really appealing to me, one question, sooner or later, always comes up: How could a normal person afford that?

 

Before you read on, ask yourself these two questions:

  1. How much does it cost to live on a yacht in the Caribbean, going from beautiful beach to beautiful beach, totally living the dream?
  2. Could I afford it?

Think of your answer and then read on to see if you’re right.  Hint, I bet you are way high on #1 and I bet #2 is actually “yes”.

 

My time with Jim and Laura, as well as following a number of sailing blogs has taught me that living your sailing retirement dream really isn’t all that expensive.  Sure, it’s easy to bring to mind an image of the mega-rich on their mega-yachts, and instantly dismiss the idea as out of reach.

Yet, I think this really illustrates how attainable this AND MOST RETIREMENT DREAMS ARE.

 

The cost of Jim and Laura’s sailing dream

Jim and Laura (“J&L” from now on) were very open regarding their expenses, which I really appreciated because it gave me some real insights into this.  They were even more open to allow me to post this on my blog—so Thank you Jim and Laura.

The first thing you need is a boat.  J&L got a used 36-foot yacht for about $90,000 then they put about $2,000 in to it for upgrades and repairs.  It has a kitchen, bathroom, and two bedrooms.  When it was all said and done, they spent $92,000 on their boat.  That’s really the only major purchase you need to make.  Everything else is just living expenses.

Living the boating lifestyle is amazingly affordable.  About half the time they “park” their boat at an anchorage (literally, drop their anchor near a beach and just hang out there).  These are usually free.  Other times, they dock in a marina.  Marinas cost money and can vary widely based on the amenities they offer, but J&L said that $500 per month was a good baseline.

Maybe think of that as their housing expenses—a $92,000 down payment and then a $500 mortgage.  For that they have the best backyard in the world (the ocean and beaches).  Depending on your tastes, maybe it’s a bit small, but more on this in a second.  All in all, that seems like a screaming deal.

A sailor doesn’t survive on shelter alone.  There’s that other expense called . . . food.  J&L’s experience is that groceries tend to cost fairly similar amounts in the US and the places in the Caribbean they visited (about 10 or so countries, so they did get a fairly diverse perspective).  Let’s call that a wash to slightly favorable for J&L.

The other component of food—dining out—tends to be a fairly important component in retirement.  Data shows that people go out to eat a lot in their 50s and 60s and 70s.  This is one of the places where the sailing lifestyle really pays off.  Nearly all the places where people would anchor or dock have restaurants on the beach that appeal to the tourist set.  These places tend to be inexpensive compared to US standards.  When I was sailing and we went out to dinner, I consistently got really good meals (mostly seafood, but not always) that in the US would cost $30-40 and they would cost about $10-15.  J&L said that was fairly common.

Healthcare is another big expense that we all think about, especially in our later years.  A huge benefit about living in those Caribbean countries is that healthcare is very affordable.  Standard check-ups and prescriptions cost pennies on the dollar compared to US prices.  More complex procedures (Laura had a small surgical procedure), almost all dental work, and stuff like laser eye surgery are similarly cheap.  Fortunately, J&L didn’t have personal experience with more complex and uber-expensive stuff (cancer diagnosis, pacemaker, artificial joint, etc.), so it’s hard to say on those.  But the majority of healthcare expenses that we’re most likely to have are much, much less expensive that would be in the US.

Many common expenses like clothes and entertainment are a lot less.  With clothes, the wardrobe for a sailor is much simpler (bathing suits, shorts, and t-shirts plus a Hawaiian shirt for special occasions).  For entertainment, they still go to movies, see the sights like amusement parks and zoos, and things like that, but they are much less in the Caribbean.

Other common expenses are eliminated like car payments and other car expenses, cable (they just stream stuff on the internet and have Netflix), and property taxes.

Certainly there are expenses that they have which land-lovers don’t.  Since they don’t have a car if they want to go somewhere that usually requires a taxi, but those tend to be cheap (it cost me $100 to take a taxi completely across the entire country of Panama).  Also, there is boat maintenance.  The salt water is incredibly corrosive so that causes a lot of damage.  In Jim’s words “there is always something that needs to be fixed.”  This can be the $50 variety or the $500 variety and on up.  Probably once a year they take the boat completely out of the water and check everything out.  All said, Jim estimates they spend about $2,500 per year on boat repairs.

Plus, there are boat-specific expenses like boat insurance and weather reports.  They also take trips back home to see family, and other stuff like that.  But those don’t tend to be big line items.

 

As expensive as you want to be

Most people are surprised when I share these stories about sailing.  The image tends to be scenes from Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous showing mega-yachts with people with large sunglasses and white leisure suits sipping on champagne poured by servants.

Certainly that’s there.  In a marina we were at in Panama, 98% of the boats were like J&L’s.  But the boat that got the most attention was a 75-foot catamaran.  At dinner with the other sailors we would speculate that it probably cost $5-7 million.  Maybe they were drinking champagne (I never got close enough to be able to tell), but we were drinking local beers that cost $5 for a bucket of six.

This 75-foot catamaran was the talk of the marina. It was beautiful, spacious, and also pricey.

You could apply this concept to everything.  If you wanted to go to super nice restaurants every day you could and it would cost more.  But J&L and the vast majority of people doing what they were doing would go to a nice restaurant every once in a while, but most of the time went to nice but affordable places.

For J&L, they probably wish their boat was a bit bigger.  At 36-feet, it’s a bit cramped.  When I visited, there was certainly room for all of us, but it was cozy.  They could get a 40- or 45-foot boat and maybe even go with a catamaran.  That would give them more room, but of course those things cost more.

It seems true with boats as with most luxury things (ski condos, Manhattan apartments, beach houses), that the nicer, bigger, more complex you get, costs go up in a hurry.  For J&L, they could still probably go a little nicer/bigger and stay at a reasonable costs, but looking at that 75-foot catamaran as an example, it’s easy to let costs explode.

 

The reason I think this is so important is because for so many people retirement expenses loom like some kind of enormous monster.  Sure, they’re there, but probably not as bad as you think.  Certainly, you have a lot of control over how mean and big and scary that “retirement expense monster” is going to be.

This seems particularly true with an example of retiring and sailing around the Caribbean.  Just at first glance it sounds prohibitively expensive.  I wonder how many people give up that race before they even try.

Sailing is the example I used because I am most familiar with it, and it’s nearest to my heart, but I think you could tell a similar story with a beach retirement or skiing, or traveling.  All those can be super expensive if you throw caution to the wind and spend, spend, spend.  However, if you take a more moderate approach I think you’ll be amazed at what you can afford and how achievable your dream retirement can be.

As you might expect, I was very curious about all this and spent a lot of time talking to Jim about this.  At the end of the day, Jim threw out a number saying, “All in, you could live like a king on $3,000 a month.”  Yowza.  I hope that makes you sleep better dreaming about living on a beach.

Now that we’re at the end of this post, what were your answers to those two questions when you first started reading?

When can you retire?

“Time heals all wounds”

 

Over the last two blogs we started to answer the central question of personal finance—when can I retire.  This complex question really breaks down to two elements: How much will you need?, and How much will you have?  This blog ties them together with the time element of WHEN.  When will what you have be enough for what you need?  This blog will tie those two pieces together and we can figure out When Skinny Fox can retire.

 

“X” marks the spot

You can imagine drawing a graph looking at how much you’ll need in retirement based on how many years you plan on being retired.  At the extreme, if you planned on working until the day you died, you would be in retirement for 0 years, so you would need to save $0 for your retirement.  You’ll need more for a 10-year retirement than a five-year retirement, and so on.  Hopefully that is fairly intuitive.

The assumptions we made for spending in retirement would make the following table (just to make things easy, let’s assume we’ll live to 90 years old):

Age

Nestegg size needed—in today’s dollars

90

$0 (remember, we die at 90)

89

$43,000

85

$205,000

80

$383,000

70

$731,000

60

$1,122,000

50

$1,309,000

40

$1,556,000

 

That graph would look something like this:

 

Also, in the last post we drew a graph that showed how much we would have saved at different ages.  It looked something like this:

 

If you ever took an economics class you know that the answer to pretty much any question is “where the lines intersect.”  If you put those graphs together, where they crossed is where you would have saved enough money (blue line) to be able to afford your spending in retirement (red line).  In this case, the answer is $3.5 million (future dollars).

 

If you look at Skinny Fox’s age, she’ll have saved that much money when she’s 60.  Also, at age 60 is when she’ll need $3.5 million to see her through retirement.  X marks the spot.

 

It’s the process, not the answer

There you go.  Skinny Fox can retire at 60.  We should all retire at 60.  Glad we figured all that out.  Buuuuuutttttt, wait a second.  The whole point of this isn’t to figure out a number, per se.  That’s important, but what is much more important, especially as you are planning your financial future, is figuring out how your decisions impact that number.

This process we went through is enormously complex with a ton of variables and calculations on a fairly involved spreadsheet   .  If you’re good with spreadsheets and compound interest, you can figure all this stuff out and understand the impact of your choices.  If not, maybe your friendly neighborhood Stocky Fox can help.

To keep things simple let’s look at the two major variables that got us here:

  1. Spending in retirement: Skinny would spend about $6,500 per month in retirement, and that would naturally go down as she ages.
  2. Savings while working: Skinny would save 6% of her salary in her 401k, save $5,000 in her IRA, and of course get Social Security.

As is, those two ingredients spit out age 63.  It becomes really interesting when you start to change those inputs.

 

Enjoy life in the now

Maybe Skinny Fox looks at life and thinks that you only live once, so you have to enjoy life in the “now.”  You never know what the future holds.

She wants to use her handy dandy spreadsheet to figure out what would happen if she saved less today.  The intuitive answer is obviously that saving less today means she’ll need to retire later or she’ll be able to spend less in retirement.

Instead of saving $5,000 in her IRA each year, let’s say she cut that in half and only saved $2,500.  She could still retire at 60 but that would mean she could only spend about $5,700 per month in retirement, a decrease of about $800 or 15%.  Conversely, she could still spend $6,500 monthly in retirement, but then she would have to push her retirement back to age 62.

We could run a few scenarios and get the following table:

IRA/extra savings Retirement spending Age of retirement
$5,000 (base case)

$6,500

60

$2,500

$5,700 (spend less)

60

$2,500

$6,500

62 (work longer)

$0

$5,000

60

$0

$6,500

64 (work longer)

 

Retire in style

Maybe Skinny takes the opposite approach and wants to work hard now to ensure she can spend to her heart’s desire once she’s retired.  We can use a similar approach.

Instead of spending $6,500 per month, she could spend $7,500.  That would require her to save an additional $x,xxx per month while she’s working, or it would require her to push her retirement from 63 to xx.

Again, we could run a few scenarios:

IRA/extra savings

Retirement spending

Age of retirement

$5,000 (base case)

$6,500

60

$8,200

$7,500

60

$5,000

$7,500

62 (work longer)

$15,800

$10,000

60

$5,000

$10,000

67 (work longer)

 

Time is the most valuable thing we have

You’re probably starting to get the point.  There are two variables, how much you save and how much you spend.  You can move those around however you want.  The third variable of age balances everything out.

Interestingly, the age variable seems to be the most powerful.  If Skinny wanted to retire five years earlier, at age 55, she would either have to save an extra $4,800 each month or she would need to reduce her spending in retirement by $1,100 each month (that’s about 20% which seems like a big reduction).

Conversely, if Skinny was willing to work an extra five years, retiring at age 65, she could spend $3,300 more each month in retirement or completely skip her IRA.

That seems a bit surprising that over a 40+ year career that just a five year swing (a little over 10% of a working career), one way or the other, has such a big impact.  The reason is working an extra year has a triple-effect.  It gives your investments an extra year to grow, it gives you an extra year to build your nestegg, and it reduces the time you’ll be retired.  Obviously, the opposite is true too if you want to retire at a younger age.

Clearly you can see the tradeoffs Skinny needs to make.  Is it work spending more now if that means having to work longer?  Or having less to spend in her golden years?

There’s no right or wrong answer, and it’s a deeply personal decision.  For the Fox family we made the decision to retire early.  This meant spending less in retirement, but when we did our math we found that we could stop working and still maintain a reasonable lifestyle.  Sure there are times now when we wish we could spend more, but given the time/spending tradeoff, I think we’re pretty happy with our decision.

How do you feel about the time/spending now/spending later tradeoff?

 

 

We’ve covered a lot of ground here.  I hope this gives you a sense of “what is reasonable,” both in terms of how much you’ll likely spend in retirement and how much you’ll save.  Also, it let’s you get a sense for the tradeoffs you make by spending today and how that impacts tomorrow, and vice versa.

However, I think the biggest epiphany for me at least was how important timing is.  Everyone will be able to retire.  It’s just a matter of when.

 

How much should I save during my working years?

I’m trying to build my audience, so if you like this post, please share it on social media using the buttons right above.

Monday we started tacking the enormous question of “How much do I need to retire?”  We dove into the first sub-question:  How much will I spend in retirement?  Now we’re going to take on the next question: How much should I save during my working years?  Then tomorrow we’ll bring it all together by answering the third question: When can I retire?

Let’s start talking about savings.  We know that savings is the fundamental ingredient in investing and we know that starting early provides a great advantage.  We’re going to use the example of my cousin, Skinny Fox.  Skinny is 22 years old, just starting out with a $50,000 per year job.  She expects salary increases of 5% (a little more than inflation) and she’ll eventually top out at a salary of $150,000 per year (in future dollars).

Social Security

The first place to start when thinking about your nestegg is Social Security.  That’s the “forced” savings plan the US government makes you do.  It’s complex and there is a lot of nuance, but basically they’ll take 6.2% of Skinny’s income (plus another 6.2% from Skinny’s employer) over her working career.  When it’s time to hang up the spurs, she’ll get a monthly pension.  So in a very real way, Social Security is your first “savings” method.

Unfortunately, the rules for Social Security aren’t very straight-forward when it comes to figuring out how much you’ll get based on how much you put in.  However, it seems reasonable that a middle-class fox like Skinny will get a middle-class payout from Social Security like $2,000 (in today’s dollars) per month starting when she turns 67.

For Social Security, when Skinny “saves” her 6.2% of income ($3,100 in her first year of work), that gives her a pension that will be worth about $450,000 in today’s dollars; that’s about $1.6 million when Skinny turns 67.

401k

When Skinny Fox was looking for her job she knew how important it was to consider the company’s benefits beyond just the salary.  Her company offers a 401k and matches $0.50 for every dollar up to 6% of her salary.  Skinny knows she should max out her 401k because of tax reasons, but that’s just not realistic for her, so she just contributes the 6% to get her company match.

Her first year she contributes $3,000 to her 401k and her company kicks in a $1,500 match.  Over her entire career her 401k will steadily build until she turns 67 and it’s worth about $1.9 million (in future dollars)!!!

 

IRA and other savings

Skinny is a nervous soul whose father fox always taught her to save, save, save.  She knows that she can contribute to an IRA, after reading this blog she knows it should be a traditional IRA and not a Roth, with $5,000 per year.

When Skinny turns 65, that IRA is worth about $1.2 million.

If she’s still nervous, she can save in a regular brokerage account that doesn’t have the tax advantages of a 401k or IRA.  Each $1,000 per year she saves equates to about $200,000 when she turns 65.

This really illustrates the power of compounding.  I’m not saying that $3,000 per year for her 401k or $5,000 annually for her IRA isn’t a lot of money.  Especially when she’s first starting out—it’s definitely a lot.  But $8,000 doesn’t seem insurmountably unrealistic for Skinny.  Each year after that it gets a little easier.

However, the payoff seems huge.  Slowly and steadily, over her 43-year working career, her 401k will have steadily grown to $1.9 million and her IRA to $1.2 million.  She’ll also have a backstop of Social Security which would have a lump-sum value of about $1.6 million.  Combine all those, and she’s got a nest egg of about $4.7 million in future dollars (about $1.3 million in today’s dollars).

That certainly seems like a lot, but is it enough?  We know from yesterday’s post that $1.1-1.6 million is right in the range of a pretty decent retirement.  So Skinny’s there just based on her 401k, IRA, and Social Security.  The good news is that doesn’t include any home equity she builds over her adult life, extra savings just from making more than she spends, or any inheritances or other unexpected windfalls.  So maybe there’s some cushion there.

On the other hand, she maybe she shouldn’t feel especially comfortable.  She has a clear path to $1.3 million and she’ll need $1.1-1.6 million.  That’s definitely within the margin of error.  What is a vixen to do?

Come back next Monday for our final installment of this blog mini-series where we bring together what you’re going to spend in retirement with how much you have saved for retirement, and we’ll see if it all works.

When can I retire?

I’m trying to build my audience, so if you like this post, please share it on social media using the buttons right above.

This one’s a biggie.  Actually I was going to do a post entitled “How much do I need to retire?”  However, in order to answer that huge question you need to answer three sub-questions:

  1. How much will I spend in retirement?
  2. How much will I save during my working years?
  3. When will I retire?

Once you answer those three questions, I think you can have a pretty good idea of what your number needs to be and ultimately when you can pull the ripcord on retiring.  So with that said, I guess I’m kicking off a three-part series.

Determining the amount you will spend in retirement is a really hard thing to do.  That’s not really comforting given that your monthly spending has a huge impact, as you would expect, on the amount you need to retire with.  So for example, if you plan on spending $5000 per month in retirement (all numbers are going to be in today’s dollars unless otherwise noted), you would need about $1.3 million when you retire*.  However, if you increased that monthly spending to $6000 then your nestegg would need to be $1.5 million.  Push the monthly number up to $10,000 and your nestegg needs to be $2.5 million.  Obviously, that monthly number is incredibly important in your planning.  So clearly when you start figuring out your financial plan, you need to have a decent idea of what you’re going to spend in retirement.

Unfortunately, this is no easy task.  There are a couple approaches you can take, all of which leave something to be desired.

  1. Percentage of income: The most common approach you hear is to take your current income, take a percentage of it (often people suggest 80%) and plan on spending that in retirement.  I DESPISE this approach for a few reasons.  Take two identical couples, the Foxes and the Grizzlys, both of whom make the same amount of money, let’s say $150,000.  According to that formula we should take $150,000 and multiply it by 80% to get $120,000, and that’s what we should plan on spending in retirement.  That means both families need a nestegg of about $2.5 million

First, I think when you use this approach, you get a number that is way too high.  Very few families are spending 80% of their salary.  Taxes are probably 20-30%; savings in 401k’s and other accounts are a significant chunk; spending on the kids is 10-20%; a mortgage is probably your biggest expense.  All that should go away in retirement.  I bet the average $150,000-income family is spending much, MUCH less than $120,000 right now, and it seems that should go down in retirement, not up.  Am I right?

Second, it assumes all families are the same.  Let’s say that Fox family is pretty thrifty while the Grizzly family is pretty extravagant.  We’re both making $150,000 but the Grizzleys are going to need a much larger nestegg than the Foxes.  Clearly this approach sucks.

  1. What are you spending now: With another approach, you could take what you’re spending right now as a baseline for what you’ll spend in retirement.  The positive of this is that it takes your personality into account—if you’re an extravagant person now, it seems likely you’ll be extravagant in retirement; conversely if you’re thrifty now you would think that would translate during retirement.

Of course, the huge miss is that your spending changes in pretty major ways at different stages of your life.  The Fox family has expenses of about $8500 per month right now, but that includes a mortgage ($2200), preschool for the cubs ($700), saving for Lil’ and Mini Foxes’ college educations ($1000).  All those will go away in our retirement, so that off the top brings down our expenses to $4600.  And that doesn’t take into account how our expenses will change for the less expensive (down-sizing our house, not driving to work every day, etc.) and for the more expensive (more vacations, more leisure activities, etc.).  Wonderful, our expenses could range from $3000 to $8000.  That means our nest egg needs to be anywhere between $800,000 and $2,000,000.  That’s not a lot of help.

  1. Bottom’s up: You could build on approach #2 and look at your current expenditures, and then try to project what future ones will be.  Right now the Foxes spend about $1,000 on groceries and $200 at restaurants per month.  In retirement we’ll only have two mouths to feed instead of four, but we’ll probably enjoy eating out more: maybe we assume groceries go to $600 and restaurants go to $300.  Maybe we’re right, maybe we’re wrong, but at least we’re trying to get a more accurate number.

The problem with this comes in for expenses you have no idea about.  Are we going to be bitten by the travel bug?  Will that cost $400 per month or $1000 per month?  Tough to say.  Also, you have some real unknowns like what will happen with health insurance, or will Social Security be there for us?  Of all the approaches, I think this one gets you the closest and takes into account your individual tastes, but it is also the hardest to do because you’re trying to predict both what you’re tastes will be many years from now and how much that will cost.

  1. Look at the data: The last approach you can take is to look at the data.  This, combined with #3 is my preferred approach.  In the US we’re fortunate that the Bureau of Labor and Statistics publishes a huge report that looks at individuals expenditures.  This is a treasure trove for trying to figure out what is “average” and then using #3 to determine if you should be above or below average.  It slices spending along almost any dimension you want—age, gender, race, age, geography, number of family members, education, etc.—and then it breaks down the spending into categories like housing, food, apparel, leisure, healthcare, entertainment, etc.  Of course, these are broad averages and your individual circumstances will vary, but it does provide tremendous insight.

So for example, the average family spends $51,422 per year, and if you look at that by income (I know, that’s approach #1, and I don’t necessarily like doing this), you get the following table:

Income

Expenses

Less than $70,000

$34,679 (108% of income)

$70,000 to $80,000

$59,984 (80%)

$80,000 to $100,000

$67,418 (76%)

$100,000 to $120,000

$77,966 (72%)

$120,000 to $150,000

$89,521 (68%)

More than $150,000

$129,211 (51%)

A couple interesting things jump out here.  First, as your income goes up, your expenditures also go up but not at the same rate (you go from spending 80% of your income to 68% of your income), so this means approach #1 doesn’t work.  Second, spending $10,000 per month is a lot.  Only the very wealthiest Americans spend that much money, and keep in mind those are people making $150,000 per year or $150 million per year.  More on this in a minute.

Another really interesting table is when you look at expenses by age, especially in our golden years:

Age

Expenses

Relative to 45-54

35-44

$58,069

-6%

45-54

$62,103

55-64

$55,636

-10%

65-74

$45,968

-26%

75 and older

$33,530

-46%

Our spending peaks in the 45-54 age range.  That makes sense—kids are teenagers which is when they’re most expensive and we’re making more money so we want to start enjoying the finer things in life.  But after that spending starts to fall precipitously.  The kids leave the house, maybe we downsize the house, we don’t commute to work and don’t need work clothes, etc.  By the time we’re in our mid-70s we’re spending half as much as we were in our late 40s/early 50s.  Incidentally, it’s probably in our late 40s/early 50s that we’re starting to budget seriously for retirement, so we’re working off an inflated expense mindset.

You never want to use anecdotes, but all these numbers seem about right.  My grandparents are in their 80s and they hardly spend any money.  They have the means (he gets a military pension) so it’s not like they’re impoverished, but they are just at an age where they take it easy.  They don’t travel, they own a car but drive very little so it’ll last forever, and they don’t eat too much.

 

Add it all up

I think the winning combination is using #4 as a foundation and then adjusting it with the particular things you know about yourself from #2 and #3.  A super-posh lifestyle would be spending $129,211 per year.  Lady Fox and I aren’t super posh—let’s say we’re moderately posh so we’re more in the $77,507 per year category despite the fact that our current income is much higher (see, it shows that income and spending aren’t inextricably linked).  $78k per year is about $6,500 per month.  If you take our expenses now ($8,500 per month) and strip out the ones we know go away when we retire we’re down to $4,600.  Assuming we spend $6,500 per month implies we greatly increase expenses like leisure, vacation, etc.; also, we’re planning on increased healthcare expenses.  That seems reasonable, maybe even a little too high.  But let’s go with it.  If we assume spending $6,500 per month every month during a 30-year retirement, we’d need a $1.6 million nestegg.

But then remember that as we get older our expenses will go down.  They’ll peak at $6500 per month, but when we hit 55-64 they’ll go down about 10% ($5900), when we hit 65-74 they’ll go down about 26% ($4800), and after 75 they’ll go down about 46% ($3500).  If you take that into account instead of $1.6 million for a nestegg, we’ll only need $1.1 million.  That’s a pretty huge difference just for taking into account the “natural” curbing of spending that happens when we age.

So there you go, the Fox family will probably be spending in the $6500 per month range and that will slowly fall to $3500 per month when our tails are fully gray.  As I said at the beginning of this post, when trying to answer the larger question—How much do I need to retire?—this is just the first step.  Make sure you check back Thursday for my post on how to estimate the other two pieces for your retirement picture—how much you’re saving while working and when you’ll need to retire.

*All calculations unless otherwise noted assume: 30 year retirement, 3% inflation, 6% investment return.

Your Own Little Vegas

“Las Vegas wasn’t built on winners”

In a lot of ways investing in the stock market is like gambling in Las Vegas: the whole premise is based on uncertainty, you can win a lot or lose a lot, it can be really exciting, and there are suckers bets that are tempting but should definitely be avoided.

And then there is one huge difference: the “house advantage” works against you when you gamble in Las Vegas, but works to your huge advantage as an investor.  In Las Vegas, the odds are decidedly in the house’s favor.  Over the long run, it is a mathematical certainty that the house will win and you will lose.  After a single hand or roll of the dice, you might be up, maybe even up big.  But if you play long enough the house’s advantage will dominate and the casino will take your money.

However, as an investor, you are the “house”.   In investing there will be ups and downs, but over the long term the investor always comes out ahead.  Since 1929 there has never been a 30-year period where stocks ended lower than when they started.  Go ahead and read that sentence again.  If you invest, properly diversify, and stay steady with your convictions that you will come out ahead, you will make money in the stock market.  Since 1929 there have been some brutal times, some lasting 10 or even 20 years (stocks were 3% lower in April 1949 than they were in April 1929; stocks were 2% lower in November 1978 than they were in November 1968).  Yet in each of those examples and every other, if you hold out long enough, you’ll make money.  Basically, you are the house in the game of investing.

Since we know you’re the house, what are the lessons we can learn from the casinos in Las Vegas that have allowed them to make so much money?  First, offer free drinks and $5 prime rib dinners to your house guests.  Just kidding.

 

Stay in it for the long haul

There will be some days or weeks or maybe even months where a casino loses money.  When that happens and the pit boss says, “Wow, we’re down $200,000 on the craps tables this week,” casinos don’t shut down the craps tables.  They certainly don’t say “hey, we tried having craps tables, but it didn’t work so let’s stop having craps in our casino.”  On the contrary, they keep them open knowing that the more people play craps (or any other casino game), over the long run the casinos will make money.  Sometimes the long run will be a day but sometimes it will be much longer.

In stock investing, as we mentioned above, the long run could be years or even decades, but if you keep your crap tables open, if you keep investing in the stock market over a long investing career, you will make money.

 

Smaller bets are better

While they don’t say it, casinos want smaller more frequent bets.  Imagine two gamblers playing roulette: Mr One Bet and Mr Many Bets.  Both are going to gamble $100, but Mr One Bet is going to put all $100 on black for a single spin, while Mr Many Bets is going to put $10 on black for the next 10 spins.

With Mr One Bet, given the house advantage in roulette, there is a 53% that the casino wins the $100 bet.  However, with Mr Many Bets there is a 57% chance that the casino comes out ahead, because here the gambler is giving the casino 10 chances to let the house advantage work for it.  With Mr. Super Many Bets (bet $1 on each of the next 100 spins) there is a 72% chance that the casino will come out ahead.

You can apply that to investing, using your house advantage, with dollar cost averaging.  By investing over time, sometimes you’ll buy after a market run up when stock prices are relatively expensive, but sometimes you’ll buy after a market downturn when stock prices are relatively cheap.  Knowing you have the house advantage on your side, you’ll win this game more often than you lose.

 

Play the games that you know you can win

You’ll notice that Las Vegas has craps tables, blackjack tables, slot machines, but they don’t have games like trivial pursuit or chess or pop-a-shot.  The reason?  Casinos know, calculated with incredible precision, what the odds are of them winning.  They only pick games which give them a house advantage where over time they are guaranteed to win.

They don’t have a casino game called, “try your luck against our grandmaster in chess.”  Why?  What would stop Gary Kasparov or Magnus Carlsen from coming in, placing some major bets, moping the floor with the casino’s “club pro” and walking away with the casino’s money?  Nothing, other than the fact that the casino don’t to play games where they don’t have a house advantage that guarantees that they win over time.

How does this apply to you as an investor?  You should only being investing in stocks and mutual funds that you are confident will allow you to win over time.  The US stock market has over a century of history that shows that over time you’ll always come out a winner.  You can’t really say the same thing about the Argentina stock market.  Stocks and mutual funds as an investment class have a similarly long history, but Bitcoins don’t so you may want to stay away.  Treasury bills have been around for a really long time and are pretty well understood, while peer-to-peer lending is a newer innovation that might work or might crash and burn.  The moral of the story is when you’re investing your nest-egg, make sure you put your money in the investments that you know will give you that long-term house advantage.

 

Offer something for everyone

While the casinos only offer games that they know they can win, they do offer a tremendous variety of games that appeal to everyone.  There are slot machines that appeal to one type, table games like craps and roulette that appeal to another, sports betting for others.  There is something for everyone, and why is that?  The casinos don’t want to put all their eggs in one basket and just appeal to one type of gambler.

Also, they don’t know what types of gamblers are going to come in.  On Super Bowl Sunday or during the NCAA basketball tournament the sports books do a lot more business.  On a tired Tuesday in July it’s the slot machines that are carrying more of the weight.  By having different games to appeal to different types of gamblers, they can maximize their business no matter the time of year or how the gambling tastes of their guests change.

For investors this is analogous to diversification.  There are a ton of investments out there—stock, bonds, commodities, real estate.  And even within those there are subdivisions; stocks can be domestic or international, emerging markets, sector-specific.  The more you diversify, the more likely you’ll be to participate in the overall growth of the world economy.  Certainly some areas will do better than others, but proper diversification allows you to lower your risk while maintaining your higher returns.

 

The casino industry is one of the most profitable in the world because they have the house advantage and swing it like a 2×4.  Fortunately, the investment gods blessed ordinary people like us with that same house advantage when investing.  So long as we follow some of the lessons of our casino friends, there’s no reason we can’t rake in the investment profits like they rake in the gambling profits.

Smarter than a Nobel Prize winner

I’m making a bad habit out of taking extended (very, very extended) breaks from the blog.  What can I say?  I guess being retired can keep you pretty busy.  In fact, in retirement I have been doing a lot of freelance consulting work which has been fairly lucrative, but more on that in a future post.

Since I last posted, so much has happened in the investing world, so we have a lot to cover.  However, the thing that deserves the most attention is the roaring bull market we have enjoyed over the past 12 months.

 

Smarter than Schiller

Back in 2015 Robert Schiller, who had just recently won the Nobel Prize, wrote an article warning investors that future returns might not look so good.  I took the contrary position, thinking that stocks would do well.  Of course, since I’m bringing this up it must mean that I was right and the Nobel Prize winner was wrong.  Ha.

Stock performance since March 2015. The red line is international stocks and blue line is US stocks

As it turns out, US stocks are up an incredible 18.5% since then and International stocks are up 6.8%.  Those are pretty heady numbers, and hopefully you were invested and enjoyed the run up.

To be fair, when Schiller reads this and comments on this post (I am sure he is a loyal reader) he will certainly point out that he was making comments about the long term (let’s say 20-30 years), not just the next 2-3 years.  That’s fair, but facts are facts and the so far the race is not looking good for Schiller’s predictions.

 

The more things change the more they stay the same

Let’s look at the world and how it has changed since Schiller’s predictions, and try to figure out what has driven the changes.  The world’s a big place with a lot of stuff happening so I’m not going to cover everything, but here’s my short list of major developments that have impacted the stock market:

Greece—Two years ago Greece dominated the financial headlines.  The questions of whether or not Greece would get a financial bailout, if it would stay in the European Union, if it would continue to use the Euro, and the broader idea of how much austerity was too much were paramount.  Somewhat predictably, the EU waited until the last second before giving Greece the necessary loans, and the world kept on going.  I’m no expert, but my sense is Greece is still an economic mess but, as politicians are apt to do, it was easier to kick the can down the road.

Brexit—After the Greece drama, in June 2016 Great Britain voted to leave the Eurozone.  The vote was not expected, and it sent crazy reverberations through the stock market for the next couple days.

US starts raising interest rates—Back in 2008 during the great recession, the federal reserve and the rest of the world banks slashed interest rates to near zero.  And there they stayed for many years.  Many questioned if we were in a new normal.  However the US economy started to strengthen and in December of 2015 they raised the rate for the first time in seven years.  At the time this was such a major news event in the financial press it’s hard to overstate it.  Since then they have raised rates three more times.

Trump election—And the biggie.  Donald Trump defied all odds, first by capturing the Republican presidential nomination and then pulling off a shocking upset over Hillary Clinton to become the US’s 45th president.  He ran on a platform being pro-business and bringing a “business know-how” to the office.  Without getting too political, it’s been a bit of a roller coaster, but the US stock market is up about 16% since he was elected 8 months ago.

 

Keep on truckin’

Those are just my short list, and each of those could have a multi-part post.  In fact, at the time they produced thousands of articles and opinion pieces.

The point with all those, and also my point at the time of Schiller’s prediction and my rebuttal over two years ago still stands—we have a tremendously strong economy and things just keep on truckin’.  It’s impossible to predict the stock market in the short term, and certainly Schiller would agree with that.  I think it’s also impossible to predict when the stock market is going to fundamentally change for the foreseeable future, as Schiller did.

In the intervening 2+ years since Schiller’s prediction amazing things have happened to the US and global economy.  The US is producing nearly as much oil as Saudi Arabia (who would have thought) thanks to technology breakthroughs.  That’s employed thousands and lowered the price of oil to billions.

Airbnb and uber have revolutionized fairly old industries and ushered in a “sharing economy”.  Self-driving cars are now on the road and have the potential to bring the biggest life change in a generation.

The point of all this is since Schiller’s prediction back in March 2015 so much good stuff has happened.  So much innovation has occurred and so much value has been created.  Maybe the point is all that doesn’t seem abnormally high, it’s just what happens every month and every year.  And I think it would be foolish to think that won’t continue in the future.

 

In my first post in a while I wanted to make sure we reflected on how well the stock market has done despite some of the smartest people in the world saying our best days are behind us.  I promise I will be posting regularly now, and we’ll continue to look at the best way to get fat off of our investments.

Your marina neighborhood

IMG_20160324_101146214

The analogy goes that your boat is your house and your dinghy is your car.  If the analogy continues, then that would be the marina would be your neighborhood.  In this post, we’re going to look at what a diverse and odd and functional neighborhood that is.

 

Dollars and sense

Like hotels or anything else, marinas vary in niceness, and that tends to correlate with price.  Typically, you are charged by the foot of your boat.  So it might be $1.50 per foot per night.  So your 30-foot boat will cost you about $45 each night.  If you have a super big boat, let’s say over 60 feet, you might get charged more; if you have a catamaran (a sailboat with two hulls instead of just one), you also get charged more.

For that you get a slip (think a parking space) in the marina, access to all the amenities of the marina (more on that in a second), and water and power for your boat.  The water tends to be free, unless you really go crazy with it.  The power on the other hand is quite expensive, at about $0.25-0.40 per kWh.  Just to put that in perspective, in North Carolina we pay about $0.10, and even in California we paid about $0.15.  So it gets pricy there.

 

All the comforts of home, kind of

At a basic level, the marina acts as your neighborhood in the literal, practical sense.  You dock your boat up to a slip (think a parking spot) on the pier, and that’s where you’ll stay for the time you’re in the marina.  The piers act like streets, connecting you to all your neighbor boats as well as to the land.  On land you have a mix of shops and amenities that seem like them come from a strip mall, a hotel, and an auto repair shop.

IMG_20160324_101554317_HDR
This is part of the small convenience store. Notice half the shelf space is dedicated to liquor.

Like any neighborhood, you have your grocery store, gas station, and restaurants.  And all that is there at your marina.  The grocery stores are more like convenience stores, smaller overall but outsized liquor sections (more on the “drinking culture” of the sailing community in the next post).  Like all convenience stores, the selection tends to be limited and prices tend to be higher, but you can get most of your food and toiletry items there.

There are also gas stations, but in a marina you can easily imagine that everything is set up to fill up boats instead of cars.  Then you have at least one restaurant but probably a couple that, similar to many neighborhoods, act as the central gathering point for socializing.

You also have all the amenities of a hotel.  In fact, many marinas are attached to hotels and there is a reciprocal agreement where being in the marina gives you access to all the hotel “stuff”.  There’s usually a pool and workout room.  Just like with hotels, the nicer marinas will also have spa type areas.  Plus there are more practical things like laundry facilities and shower facilities.  That last one is important because the showers on boats aren’t that “user-friendly” so when you have the chance to take a shower with good water pressure on solid ground, that’s a no-brainer.

IMG_20160324_101447585_HDR
Here is the workout room. This is decent but obviously it could be much nice. Jim said this marina was “okay, maybe a little less than okay.”

A third major component of the marina is the boat yard.  As Jim said, “when you sail, something is always breaking.”  So when you’re in the marina that’s when a lot of people do the repairs they need.  It can be little stuff like fixing wiring or changing the oil in your motor, or stuff like that.  Or it can be extreme stuff like doing a total haul out (where your boat is taken out of the water and held on stilts.  This is when major repairs are done as well as repainting the bottom of your boat (something you need to do every few years).

This whole repair component is a bit odd in that the marina, like a nice hotel, tries to convey a sense of luxury.  But then a few feet away you have grimy workmen doing the sweaty and dirty work of boat maintenance.

 

The most diverse neighborhood ever

While we were in the marina, what struck me was this neighborhood was incredibly diverse.  Obviously there is a lot of national diversity (more on this in my next post), but what was fascinating was the diversity of the types of boats from an “expensive” point of view.

IMG_20160324_101717966
This was the nicest boat in the marina–a 60+foot catamaran which people estimated cost $5 million or so.

In most neighborhoods, the houses all are similar—in size, in cost, etc.  It would be weird to see a $5 million mansion on 5 acres next door to a tenement apartment that looks like it might fall down any day.  But in the marina, you kind of have that.  There are amazingly nice yachts that cost $5 million or more.  They are sitting next to tiny, beaten-up boats that might not even fetch $10,000.  And there are all sorts in between.

IMG_20160324_102358290_HDR
This is a solid middle class boat.

Also, there are hugely different purposes for the boats.  Most are like Jim and Laura’s where they are very seaworthy (obviously because we made the 800 mile trip), but they spend 90% of their time in the marina.  Other boats are just in the marina to get provisions, get something fixed, or whatever and then they are off again.  Then a third category are non-seaworthy boats where the owners have decided they are going to permanently live on their boat in the marina.  As you can imagine, that leads to a very diverse range of boats that connect to an equally diverse set of sailors.

IMG_20160324_102232194
This eyesore was disassembled (no most to sail with) so it can never sail again. It just permanently sits in the marina with its crew living on it.

Finally, just by virtue of the fact that for most boats, the marina is not a permanent stopping point, there are always different people and different types of boats coming in and out.  It sort of reminds me of the hustle and bustle of a city like Chicago or New York, but of course, in those cities the buildings are picking up and leaving after a couple days.

 

I say all this because on land so many of us are so isolated in terms of that diversity.  We live in houses that look like everyone else’s, and we tend to live near people who are similar to us in terms of income, education, stage of life, etc.  The marina is really the opposite of that, and it was totally fascinating.  Even more fascinating is that diversity in the marina leads to an incredibly rich, although somewhat frustrating, mix of fun and interesting people.