Smart savings for education

 

Loans

Loans (Photo credit: zingbot)

Open any newspaper or visit any financial website and you only need about 10 seconds to find a story about students with massive education debt. Do you wonder how this happens? I think I can answer that, and also offer a smart technique I just learned from a client. First, let’s look at some of the ways you (or your child) can rack up a huge bill, with an eye to AVOIDING these “techniques”.

  1. Choose a dumb major. I’m all for a liberal arts education. I do not think undergraduate work should be trade school. So if you want to major in English, or history, or Near Eastern archaeology, go for it. There are a few things that I would strongly discourage—film studies, speech, hospitality industry—but mainly because these aren’t even recognized by most employers as solid academics. Nothing wrong with a few courses, but pick something that seems to indicate you might actually be able to write and analyze something. The problem with a dumb major is that there’s almost no possibility of getting a job in the field. If you’re going to choose a dumb major (film studies, again), it better be at the absolutely best school in the field, or you have NO HOPE. It’s also not a career plan to be a professional athlete, novelist, or opera star unless you have 1) significant professional recognition in college 2)independent inheritance, indulgent parents, or a wealthy and willing spouse, 3)a way to make a living while you’re trying. Music majors especially can cost a fortune in coaching, instruments, and all the little extras.
  2. Change majors several times and spend more than four years in school. This is a good way to add another $40-50K to your bill. If you don’t know what you want to major in, maybe you need to take a year or two off and WORK until you figure it out. Unfortunately you will then need to begin repaying any loans you’ve taken out. Best to buckle down and finish something. In college and in life, sometimes things aren’t perfect but you still need to stick with them.
  3. Borrow everything. I wish someone would tell me how they tote up $160,000 in loans for undergraduate work. If you really had no money and filled out the aid forms, you should have had some portion in grant money. If you were determined but not sought after (i.e. nobody offered you money but you went anyway) you need to keep your eye on the finances. If you’re also borrowing all your living expenses, you need a JOB. Really.
  4. You borrowed money without ever considering what you might earn. Don’t borrow more than your potential profession earns the first year. Major in English and figure out what a teacher, editor, meeting planner, etc. makes the first year out—and know what jobs people from your school got with that major. Talk to your professors—they’ll be stunned that anyone showed up for office hours. Get know to the careers office—you’re paying for that service whether you use it or not.
  5. You paid the full freight for graduate school. This is where I think people really hit the big time on loans. If you’re getting a grad degree in the liberal arts or humanities, you’d also better be getting significant aid. If you’re not, THEY DON’T WANT YOU and neither will an employer when you get out. To make a living in academia, you need to be shining pretty brightly by graduate school.

It’s a different story for the professional schools: biz, law, medicine, etc. Virtually the only “aid” available is loans. This is because (at one time) anyone who landed a degree walked out with a huge new salary and often (in biz & law) with a signing bonus big enough to take a huge bite out of the debt. No more. And the real poor idiots are ones that drop out before completing the degree—they have nothing BUT the debt.

And now the really smart thing I learned from my client:

Start saving into a Roth as early as you can—yes, this means high school or college if at all possible, but certainly as soon as you graduate from college. Also, put the max into your employer’s retirement plan and get that match. Maybe you’re not going to save it for the next 40 years (although I hope you will). But guess what—under normal circumstances you can take this money out for education. Voila! A very good chunk of change to get your MBA, or social work degree, or whatever. Look at the stats—plenty (most, in MBA programs) of people are in their late twenties or early thirties in professional programs. Maybe it helps to know the landscape of the profession by working in it before you incur two or three years of lost income and $150K in loans. You’ll be far less likely to drop out before finishing, be an unfocused slacker, and you’ll have done your “market research” on whether the degree is worth the cost. With any luck, you’ll have found an employer that will either pay for part of the degree or give you some time off to get it.

As in all other life situations, some savings give you far more options.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What the Emmys can teach us about financial planning

 

NASA Television 2009 Philo T. Farnsworth Prime...

(Photo credit: nasa hq photo)

I’ll ‘fess up and admit I didn’t watch the whole thing—instead I scared myself so much watching Wallander that I was afraid to take the dog out. However, I couldn’t resist taking a peek at the dresses on the New York Times’ Style app this morning. So I’ll try to link to specific examples.

If you’re going naked, you probably should be under 35.

Naked was a big look at the Emmys (isn’t it always), but this time it was transparent, or what passed for it. I thought Zooey Deschanel looked great. Similarly, if you’re going naked in investments (i.e. all stocks) you should be very young—enjoy the benefits and the risks while you can.

No matter that you were once a cute young thing, at some point it’s time to revise your style.

There’s a point where fresh has an expiration date. As you move through the decades, you need to tone done the risk and get some sophistication. Jessica Lange, I love you but you need sleeves. Or maybe, bonds.

No matter how good it looked on paper, make sure it’s right for your individual situation.

The dress shouldn’t wear you (Julianna Margulies). Your goals should drive the investment plan, no matter what the latest investment guru formula says.

Take a long, hard look at who you really are.

I hope Christina Hendricks decides to get a second opinion in the future. There’s a difference between sexy and porn queen. No one should squeeze you into an investment situation that’s not right for your individual needs. Get professional help, and then think critically about the advice.

Some styles are timeless.

This vintage Valentino on Gretchen Mohl would have looked great in 1960, 1970, 1980, or Pericles’s Athens. Don’t fall for the currently fashionable crap: my best candidates for that category are hedge funds, managed futures, non-traded REITS, …I’ll never run out. Run, as soon as you hear the words “this time it’s different”. No, it’s not, whether it’s good taste or good investments.

Act on what you say you believe.

Between the recent Jay Leno appearance and the Emmys, I’ve seen way more of Amy Poehler’s boobs than I ever needed to. C’mon, she’s a middle aged mom, reasonably intelligent comedienne, and runs an organization to encourage girls to have positive body images. And this is what she wears? If you say you believe in passive managed index mutual funds, why is your portfolio filled with “hot” managers and individual stocks? You know better, don’t you? And, BTW, don’t completely lose your dignity when getting a divorce.

I could go on—get a decent dye job, not one that looks like India ink; don’t open your shirt past your chest hair if you have a wrinkly neck (that one’s for the guys), etc., but I’ve already used up my catty allotment for today. Meow.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Getting things straight: about Bill Clinton and asset allocation

One of the principles of a blog is that it’s supposed to be regular and I mostly get that, but phew! the last few weeks. First, there was the college drop off of my dearest beloved child (and the shoveling out of the remains of her room), the usual medical and veterinary crises, and a conference or two, mixed in with just about everyone in Northern Illinois deciding to finally get their financial life in order and call me (which I am definitely NOT complaining about). It’s been a busy few weeks. But in between time I watched the political conventions and now I, like everyone else, think I could do better on policy. At least in one area.

To be honest, I didn’t watch the one (very much) that featured Scarecrow and the Tin Man, but I had to tune in to watch Bill Clinton work that old black magic. He’s getting pretty grey now, but honestly he’s the only man who has ever held the job that I can actually imagine anyone ever wanting to date. Barack looks like excellent husband material, but if you really want to get in trouble on a Saturday night, Bill was certainly the go-to guy. But I digress. What this post is actually about is asset allocation. Lost you right there? Wait!

Because it’s now or not-until-next year for their 401ks, most people who have called me lately want to talk about what investments they actually should have selected instead of that target fund they picked when they couldn’t decipher the other offerings. If all you have is the 401k, the target fund may not be such a bad choice. But no, 99.99% of people I work with have a bigger coin collection.

You’ve probably got a 401k (or two, or three, depending on how many jobs you’ve held). Maybe you taught or worked for a non-profit, so a 403b is lurking around somewhere. In a burst of frugality, I’ll bet you opened (and maybe continued to add to) an IRA, maybe a Roth, and if you had a side gig or self-employment, you probably collected money in a SEP-IRA. If your income increased over the years, you’re probably not allowed to add to some of these any more, and you might also have a plain old mutual fund account or brokerage that our beloved IRS is happy to collect taxes on.  So when I see all the internet advice on “proper asset allocation” and “tax-smart investing”, I realize it’s just about as much a fantasy for most of us as keeping our houses clean, our dresser drawers neat, and our dogs brushed.

I spent about 7.5 hours yesterday trying to sort out a client’s accounts and move around the large collection of investments to a coherent plan they could manage, understand, and withdraw from. If I’d have actually billed them for the amount of time it took, at least one of them would have croaked and I’d be talking to the remaining one about settling the estate. And when I present these things, the client’s eyes just glaze over. Sure you can simplify, dear client, but that probably means cutting down your 15 or 16 accounts to 8. One solution, of course, is that they sign up for professional ongoing management, but they’re trying to be frugal and handle it, and I support that and really want to help. Truth is, it’s hard and it took me a good long time to learn to do asset allocation properly—and I began investing 30 years ago and the books I’ve studied on the topic are bending several shelves in my bookcase.

I have another solution, and it’s political. Why can’t we just have national retirement accounts? You get one—if you have a generous employer, they can match your contribution. If you make under $X, your contributions are deductible, otherwise, no. If you’re self employed, maybe you get to contribute a little more. You choose the investments and where to house the account. There’s a default option (maybe a target fund) and a default deduction (if employed). All these different programs, deductible, non-deductible, different income thresholds, different contribution limits, rollovers—well, it’s just plain crazy. Maybe accountants and financial planners get plenty of business out of this, but it’s crazy making for the investor.

With my idea (which admittedly needs flesh on the bones) many middle to moderately affluent citizens (maybe even the rich guys, though Mitt would find a way to beat it) would end up with one, maybe two accounts: retirement and maybe regular investing/savings/brokerage. So much easier to get reasonable diversity without trying to spread out choices among seven or eight accounts. You might actually be able to see what you have. You wouldn’t lose track of it when you changed jobs, or be tempted to cash in the seemingly small sum (no. no. no.) And when retirement comes, you could have a rational withdrawal plan that would be manageable as you age.

Now, I’m not trying to privatize social security (omigod people can’t even invest decently under the system we have. What a nightmare.) or advocating a flat tax because then I’d probably have gone over to the dark side, er, become a Republican. But isn’t there anyone in at least one of the parties that could think a little bit about coming up with a streamlined way for most of us who want to save for retirement to actually do that without using up most of our precious remaining grey cells?

Until that happens, I’m here to help. It ain’t easy and you’re not dumb if it isn’t crystal clear on the first run-through. Maybe after the dust settles, retirement savings could get some attention? After we get done worrying about where Barack was born.

Enhanced by Zemanta