Personal finance

There is a very good post by a California tenured professor about the challenges of making ends meet in an expensive city.  It's true (and she admits it) that the student loan decisions were not ideal.  Bu it is also remarkable how many of the expenses of her position get shifted on to her.  In the private sector, I can't imagine being told to pay for a required conference yourself. 

The 401(k) world

There has been some real tough reflection on tax expenditures recently.  I have always seen 401(k) and IRA savings vehicles as being a better than average idea for using this approach.  It's sure better than tax advantaging investment income, which is very interesting in the abstract but in the real world seems to flow to the best off. 

But people are making some solid points about whether this is really a good idea or not.  If they don't work to incentivize the right behavior on the part of either consumers or vendors than maybe they are not an ideal retirement savings approach.

James Kwak:

The first is that they go overwhelmingly to people who don't need them -- like my wife and me. As two university professors living in Western Massachusetts, where the cost of living is low, we make more than we need to support our lifestyle. We max out our defined contribution plans every year, and because we're in a relatively high tax bracket (28%, I think), we save thousands of dollars a year on our taxes. This is the problem with most subsidies that are delivered as tax deductions. Their cash value depends on the amount you can deduct and on your marginal tax rate. In this case, fully 80 percent of retirement savings tax subsidies goes to households in the top income quintile. (See Toder, Harris, and Lim, Table 5.)

The second problem is that these tax incentives don't work. They don't cause people to save more. In my case, the amount we save is just our income minus our consumption, and our consumption isn't affected by the tax code. If there were no tax subsidy, we would save the same amount and just pay more in taxes. And it's not just us. A recent and widely discussed paper by Raj Chetty, John Friedman, Soren Leth-Petersen, Torben Heien Nielsen, and Tore Olsen looked at what happened when the Danish government reduced tax subsidies for retirement savings by rich people. The short answer is that decreases in retirement savings were almost perfectly matched by increases in non-retirement savings. The overall effect, they estimate, is that for every dollar in tax subsidies, total savings go up by one cent. The other ninety-nine cents is just a handout to people who would have saved anyway.

Matt Yglesias

Middle class retirement savings isn't like that. We know roughly how much people need to put away in order to retire with a standard of living they'll be comfortable with. And we definitely know what kind of investment vehicles are most appropriate for middle class savers. And we have abundant evidence that, left to their own devices, a very large share of middle class savers will make the wrong choices. What's more, because of the nature of the right choices it's obvious that the dominant business strategy for vendors of middle class investment products is to dedicate your time and energy to developing and marketing inferior products, since the essence of superior products in this field is that they're less remunerative.
 

The most convincing part is the whole question of how 401(k) plans are designed to reduce consumer choice and the resulting incentive to offer inferior products.  After all, the employer setting up the 401(k) has little incentive to make sure that difficult to spot fees don't eat up other people's money. 

The alternative, at this point, is social security.  I am very sympathetic to arguments that assets are just claims and that providing for the elderly ultimately turns into a resource sharing problem.  The difference appears to be that social security would divide the resources we put towards older adults more equitably than tax-advantaged savings plans do. 

Felix Salmon on personal finance

Felix Salmon has beaten me to the punch here but I do think that this statement needs to be properly understood for what it means:

It surely comforts modern parents who have spent fortunes educating their children to know that these children are spending money on pork belly and not, for instance, cocaine. But what solace can it offer to realize that $300 a week put into an S. & P. 500 Index fund over the past five years would have provided an annual rate of return of 10.34 percent and grown to $100,354 today? Even saving $300 a week at a 6 percent rate of return would have yielded about $91,000, Mark X. Chemtob, a financial adviser at Ameriprise, said, adding that in both cases, the sums would qualify for a down payment on a starter apartment in New York.

So if a person invested for five years, and got a retern of 10.34 percent they would have a lot of money.  So have happened 5 years ago (2007)?  Here is wikipedia:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average, Nasdaq Composite and S&P 500 all experienced declines of greater than 20% from their peaks in late 2007. 

So if you had perfect market timing then you could have invested directly after a crash (as opposed to during it) taking advantage of the recent market crash.  Unless, of course, you were the 23 year old in the article who is likely in school and not making $300/week of investable income. 

The other side of this coin is that it is very hard to be 23 years old, just graduated from school, making real money for the first time in your life and not enjoy some of it.  After all, perpetual deferred gratification is never being able to enjoy the rewards of your career.  Nor is it clear that somebody in their first year out of college should be buying a Manhattan apartment (a highly leveraged investment) until they find out if they are going to be successful in New York. 

Nor can you drop the cost to zero.  I would find it hard to eat in New York city for less then $75/week.  Remember, we are taking a city where space is at a premium and everything bought in the city is expensive (including kitchen facilities).  So eating 21 meals at about $3 apiece is actually pretty tough, even if you have good skills for cooking from scratch.  And, even more interesting, the person in this example is taking on extra work to fund her leisure time (as opposed to, for example, debt). 

So I agree -- a very misleading example. 

Felix Salmon is back: California pension edition

Felix has a very nice post on the new retirement program that California is considering.  I think it is a very good idea and the state running it is a major plus.  It's astounding but true that the very best instruments that I can find in the private sector (currently thinking Vanguard here) seem to run neck and neck with large retirement plans in terms of both fees and returns.

I am a little less thrilled by investment guarantees, unless they are really well adjusted for inflation.  But, conditional on that, this would also smooth out returns in a very nice way.  Sure, it has the government investing in the markets.  But the only other alternative is paygo, which has come under a lot of question as to the willingness of taxpayers to honor previous promises.

I agree that this is an exciting development.

Stock Markets

Brad Delong

Historically, people who invest in indexed mutual funds like the Vanguard S&P make 5.5%/year above inflation (but, alas! only 1%/year since January 1, 2000); people who invest in actively-managed mutual funds like those run by Fidelity make 4.5%/year above inflation (but, alas! only 0%/year since January 1, 2000); people who actively trade individual stocks turning over their portfolio once year or so as it appears Paul Ryan does make 3.5%/year above inflation (but, alas! only -1%/year since January 1, 2000); and day-traders who trade every day lose 5%/year (and, alas! have lost 10%/year since January 1, 2000).

These differences in returns are a lot of the reason that I see it as critical to have a paternalist view on retirement savings.  The more involved the individual invester is, the worse that they seem to do in the brave new world of finance.  Passive investing, the best option listed, depends critically on individual stocks not going out of balance with the whole (ask any Canadian about Nortal and Canadian stock index funds).  But all of the other options are worse. 

If the more recent (since 2000) figures are the result of demographic factors and not as a result of "unique" or "unlikely" economic factors (due to the liquidity crisis or what not) then the future of stock market investment is bleak indeed.  At the very least, periods of slow growth like this are not good signs for the future. 

Stock Markets and Beta

Regular readers will know that I have a pet interest in personal finance.  One thing that I have thought a lot about is the contrast between structured saving vehicles (like the 401(k)) and government pension plans (like the Canadian Pension Plan).  One worry that I have had about government pension plans is that they seem to be under attack when times are bad (thus bearing political risk).  However, the last 12 years seem to suggest that it has not been a good time to invest in the stock market:

This means that historically, the stock market more than doubles your money in real terms every 12 years, but over the last 12 years, it’s down 20%.

That is a great deal of risk to bear as an individual investor.  Leaving the market in 1999 and purchasing an annuity (leaving the job market 12 years early) would produce a better retirement than saving for an additional 12 years.

Now add in the losses due to management fees and it can be a tough slog to put together a retirement account. Of course, you can't easily avoid the management fees as taxes are worse than these fees (which mostly seem to be a rather substantial subsidy to wall street).  So saving in personal accounts is also hard.

That leaves two possibilities -- a entity that can smooth out risk over decades (e.g. a government) or simply making more income.  Since it is not trivial to generate large pay increases, the former does seem like the only realistic way to mitigate time period risk for retirement.

Or am I missing something?

Logic on social security

Somehow, I doubt that this post will be influential:

Oftentimes, however, I see people on your television programs or your televised debates making reference to the idea that “younger workers” should divert some of our payroll tax money into some kind of private retirement accounts. At this point you, the national political reporter, absolutely must ask them how we’re going to pay current benefits of this happens. What privatizers want to say is that current retirees will keep getting benefits and future retirees will be okay despite our lack of benefits because we’ll have private accounts. But current retirees can’t get benefits if my money is in a private account. And my account can’t be funded if I’m paying benefits for current retirees.

The obvious answers are either a) we will stop paying benefits or b) taxes are about to hit a new and large high as we switch from Paygo to pre-funded accounts. If the answer is a), why do we trust these same people not to play games with the individual accounts when they start to become a major liability (i.e. have to be paid out)? I am not against option b) but it seems to be an unusual direction for the United States to go, and an enormous financial sacrifice for a fairly small policy gain.

I also think that the distinction between lending to the government, via a private savings account, and having a future claim on government revenues is a narrower difference than most people think. After all, playing with the tax rates on withdrawals from these accounts has the same effects as a benefit cut in social security (and both are within the easy ability of the government to accomplish).

401(k) plans

We have talked a bit about how personal finance and saving for retirement is hard. One reason that 401(k) plans have been able to charge high fees (management fees plus fees from the individuals mutual funds) is that they are tax free savings vehicles (and tax free covers a lot of sins). That is now being openly discussed:

The tax break for defined contribution retirement plans will cost the Treasury $212.2 billion between 2010 and 2014, according to the Joint Tax Committee. But the vast amount of that benefit - as much as 80 percent - goes to the top 20 percent of earners, according to estimates from the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan, but liberal-leaning, think tank.

For example, a person in the 35 percent tax bracket saves $35 in taxes every time he puts $100 in his 401(k), for a net cost of $65. Someone in the 15 percent bracket pays $85, after tax, for the same $100 contribution. The Pension Rights Center, which has favored traditional defined benefit pensions and other programs aimed at lower-income retirees, advocates rolling back the current $16,500 annual 401(k) tax-deferred contribution limit to the $10,500 level it was at before the Bush tax cuts, its director, Karen Ferguson, has said.

One way to address both the cost and the disparity is to change the deduction into a credit. William Gale, of the Brookings Institution, will present a plan like that to the Senate committee on Thursday. His plan would eliminate the deduction entirely and replace it with a federal match that would be deposited directly into workers retirement accounts. A match of 30 percent would be revenue neutral, he says.

Neither solution is ideal. Lowering the deduction limit makes these plans less able (even in theory) to store enough wealth for retirement. It also makes "catching up" after a period of unemployment or education more difficult.

Matches, on the other hand, are much easier to cut than tax breaks. Dropping the match from 30% to 28% is an easy cut that raises a lot of revenue. It may be harder to penalize post-tax withdrawals, which runs the risk of funds being emptied due to an unexpected job loss.

None of this would really matter if we were confident that social security would be around. It really is the key government anti-poverty program. But ponzi scheme comments are not helping build confidence in the long term health of the program.

Personal Finance talk

There has been a lot of discussion of personal finances in the blogsphere this weekend, and several really good points have been made. I want to comment on the cool stuff at Worthwhile Canadian Initiative, but first let us consider two interesting posts by Karl Smith. One is on Apple:

Let’s add up how much of the iMac, iPod, iPhone, iBook and iPad profts have been paid out to the owners of Apple. Well lets think. . . oh yes I have it now, ZERO DOLLARS! Not one single penny.

So far is this really different from what Allen Stanford did? I hear some of his investors actually got redemptions. But, I am sure Apple investors will get their money some day, right.

They have the value of their share of the company, but that might very well be spent on other things before any dividends are paid. It's scary to consider.

Even worse is his discussion of Sir Alan Sanford:

You can do whatever you want to Allen Stanford. He is now broke. He got beat up in prison. He may very well spend the rest of his life there. But, he’s 61 years old now. These experience were his life. You can’t take that away.

Once you realize that, you realize the fundamental vulnerability that everyone has in handing over your assets to someone else. There is just no recourse against the other person consuming them.

You have to trust and that’s at the heart of what call The Big Externality.

That is a lot more scary. It really makes the idea of a government sponsored pension program way more appealing. And it definitely makes one skeptical about the ability of a typical investor to manage their assets. After all, I would not have seen Apple as an atypical investment vehicle, mostly because I like and consume their products. But if they are not paying dividends, then the idea behind getting money out of them is entirely to sell shares to somebody else.

But why would they want to buy them if they do not produce returns?

When good news is a long way away

An interesting thought on retirement fundamentals:

These long-held concerns are now critical in a decade where the 79 million U.S. people born between 1946 and 1964 start retiring as soon as this year and larger boomer retirement waves build to peak around 2020-2022.

The concern is that the ebb and flow of U.S. stock markets over the past 50 years is highly correlated with the available pool of household savings channeled into equity investment.

Assuming peoples' prime savings years are those between ages 40 and 65, the proportion of the population in that bracket is therefore key to driving the market. As early as the 1980s, economists feared the impact this may have on U.S. housing markets -- and the recent real estate bust may owe it something -- but stock market connections are more convincing.

The data is alarming. Movements in the ratio of these high savers to both retirees and younger adults has presaged long cycles in real equity prices from the downward funk of 1970s to the subsequent 18-year equity boom through the late 1980s and 1990s as boomers swelled the ranks of prime savers.

The worrying bit for the United States is that ratio peaked in 2010.

This may very well be the beginning of the long and painful adjustment suggested in Boom, Bust and Echo. On the academic side, I expect these types of weakening returns to slow retirements, especially as Universities shift more and more to defined contribution pension plans., Mark's excellent post on this makes it rather obvious how unimportant returns are to wealth when they are as low as they are now.

The question is how do we break out of this cycle?

Alternatively, what is the best strategy for those of us who have to try and make some sort of plan for the future under these conditions?

And, finally, with bond yields low and the cost of Social Security baked into the financial system, why is this a good time to talk about privatizing the system? Wouldn't we want to do this in an environment with high rates of return on assets to make the new program have a chance to succeed?

Some reflections on student loan debt

I have a mixed set of feelings about Megan McArdle's Atlantic column. Sometimes I could not disagree with her viewpoints more (mostly when she rails against government spending without a good discussion of what a "public good" really is). Other times I think she does a very good job of thinking through the issues. A recent case in point is her posts on student debt. In these posts she does a really commendable job of pointing out two things that are important:

1) It is very hard to settle student loan debt and the lenders have ruthless policies to singificnatly increase what you owe

2) There is a problem with a social norm that makes default a trivial event

That being said, I must admit that the elephant in the room is probably the increasingly draconian state of US debt law. The stories of police raids over student loans (actually not owed by the person being put in handcuffs) may be missing important facts but the general picture is not pleasant.

But, at a more prosaic level, the inability to fail has a lot of serious issues. I have little sympathy for Elie Mystal , per se, but I do see a broad culture of making things worse when one experiences adverse life events. If one should end up unemployed they may well have no health insurance, limited access to bankruptcy for large debts (student loans), and have issues with basic necessities.

I am all for civic virtue and personal responsibility. These are both things that I wish we had more of. But I worry that we are creating a culture of cascading failures where one thing going wrong can set off a series of disasters. In a world with long term unemployment, is this really a good direction to be going?

Alternatives to Social Security

Matthew Ygelesias tackles the difficult question of what is the alternative to a government run universal pension plan. After all, if we want to replace the current system of government run pensions then it makes sense to have an alternative.

The results are pretty dismal.

So where else does the money come from? Well:

— Defined benefit pensions.
— Labor income.
— Private savings.

These three alternatives are all deeply problematic. The problems with defined benefit pensions in the public sector (chronic underfunding, etc.) are well-known, and in the private sector those problems are even more severe. Labor income is not a realistic option for people over a certain age. And private savings are, frankly, a disaster. As a country, we’ve tried to deal with the decline of defined benefit pensions by encouraging the mass middle class to engage in private retirement savings with 401(k) plans, IRAs, etc. And it doesn’t work. On the one hand, people don’t save enough. On the second hand, the tax policy is deeply regressive. On the third hand, virtually 100 percent of the management fees extracted from customers through these vehicles are value-destroying rents. On the fourth hand, it’s extraordinarily difficult for a middle class person to properly diversify his portfolio. And on the fifth hand, widespread ownership of index funds and mutual funds undermines corporate governance.

I think the drawbacks to the first two approaches are well known. But the concerns about the government savings vehicles are very thought provoking. Instead of a single (fatal objection), like the first two options, he lists a series of smaller problems that add up to a big issue. That being said, the issue of people not saving enough is always a concern.

I'd say that there is one more issue, though, that we should consider. Older adults are more easily subject to fraud on the part of either third parties or their money managers. It's not always clear that they have strong advocates. So even if people saved enough, the third option has the sixth downside of being vulnerable to theft in a way that pensions and labor income are not.

Another argument for Social Security

From Felix Salmon:

A lot of people have signed up for Wikinvest and handed over access to their brokerage accounts. I spoke briefly to SigFig founder Parker Conrad, who explained that it’s incredibly easy to flick through those accounts and come up with examples like the one he pulled up, of a man with $2.3 million in his Merrill Lynch account.

This guy probably knows that he’s paying his Merrill broker an annual management fee of 1.75%, which alone is more than $40,000 a year. But he doesn’t know that other Merrill clients in his position are paying far less — that Merrill brokers basically charge as much as they can, and the average Merrill client on Wikinvest pays less than half that, just 85 basis points.

And there are other things this guy doesn’t know, as well, because they’re buried in his statements — things like the fact that Merrill charged him $5,763 to make 24 trades last year, over and above that $40,000 management fee. That’s about $240 per trade.

Other fees are even higher. The Merrill broker bought something called the Fidelity Advisor International Capital Appreciation Fund, which charges 1.45% per year on top of a 5.75% fee payable when you buy the thing in the first place. The fund is substantially identical to the Fidelity International Capital Appreciation Fund, which has a 1% management fee and no front-loading at all. Why would any advisor with his client’s best interests at heart put that client into FCPAX rather than FIVFX? He wouldn’t — FCPAX is simply a vehicle invented by Fidelity for advisors which allows them to skim off hefty commissions.

Given these tricks, one can easily imagine how older adults (as they get less sharp over time) falling victim to all sorts of tricks of this sort. In that sense, the Federal Government can act as a disinterested party and act as a responsible agent in terms of managing pension savings. Given the risk of an older adult being rendered impoverished by these kinds of practices, I am unsure of why a program like social security is not universally popular. There may be some funding issues that require tweaks, but the basic idea is genius.

"How to Erase $70,000 in Debt"

First, get an income of $140,000...

You know, when Steve Martin and South Park did this sort of thing, they meant it to be funny.

Some Thoughts on Personal Finance

It was unfortunate that Mark decided not to write about personal finance as I think that there is a lot to say about this topic. In particular, I agree that it was odd that this article was treated as a revelation. Consider this comment:

I won’t bore you with the math, but this meal plan cuts out all the extras. No snacks, no OJ, no organic milk at $5.99 per gallon, no Parmesan cheese sprinkled on top of that pasta, no frozen yogurt at night in front of DWTS. The husband brown bags it to the office. I’ll admit I included my coffee, at $2.15 per week, because I consider it essential, along with milk for the kids at every meal.

I have actually been extremely poor and I begin to think that most financial journalists have never been in that state. I remember saving up to buy powdered skim milk (as the only possible option) and would never have dreamed of affording organic milk. Some of the cheap food options that are listed are good but I remember buying huge bags of rice (10 kg, if I remember correctly) so I could stretch a tiny food budget out over a month. I notice this level of extreme economy is absent from the discussion.


In a lot of ways this is a good thing. The United States is wealthy country and it is good that inexpensive food is an feature of our society. But one should not mistake this advice as being how one would actually deal with dire poverty.