Emergencies and emergency funds

 

Hurricane

Hurricane (Photo credit: Chalky Lives)

Are you flying without a net? So many of us believe nothing will ever happen to us, that we’re too young, too lucky, or too far in debt already to put a chunk of cash into an “investment” that makes nothing. At least nowadays it’s hard to make any money at all on easy-access money. For most people, it’s a hard job to save three or six months living expenses and make nothing on it. I want you to re-frame that thinking.

The recent events thanks to Hurricane Sandy provide lots of good examples as to why you might need access to cash in a hurry.  I know you have your credit cards, but although they are okay for last ditch emergencies, those emergencies are the kinds of things that begin to dig people into a deep ditch that it’s hard to climb out of. Let’s look at some ways this can happen.

The most horrible way, of course, is that a tree falls on you and kills you. Even if you have great life insurance, it’s going to be a while before that pays off. Will your spouse be able to return to work immediately after such a tragic experience? Think your children might need some help coping? It can take some time to sort out the emotions AND the finances, particularly if the loss is completely unexpected. Cash on hand doesn’t solve the problem, but it sure is great to have one less thing to worry about.

What if something happens that doesn’t actually kill you, but leaves you disabled? Great, you’ve got disability insurance for that, right? (At least you do if you listened to me.) But what about the cost of care? The reduced ability of your spouse to work long hours? The loss of your own hard work around the house? The emergency fund can cover it.

Roof blows off or basement floods? Your homeowner’s insurance will cover that. Except for the deductible, that is. And if you’re meeting the deductible on you house, your wrecked car, and your health insurance all at once, well, the emergency fund is there.

If you don’t have it, what happens? All these things go on your credit card (provided you can even find a repairperson that will take credit cards!) How about if your employer folds or is forced to lay off, or just can’t pay for the days closed? You could have a big bill and much less ability to pay, a double whammy that really digs people into debt.

Most of the people I see in financial trouble haven’t wildly spent themselves into debt by staying at the Ritz or driving a Rolls. Rather, they’ve had some unforeseen disaster for which they had no backstop. Don’t go there. Think of your emergency fund as an insurance fund, and the low return as the (fairly cheap) cost of that insurance and you’ll be much more at peace with the low return.

On a college planning note, those of us touring colleges might consider asking about the college’s disaster emergency plan. It’s something you never think about until your freaked-out child calls you from a disaster area. My daughter’s school, Bryn Mawr, did a fantastic job of coping, keeping everyone safe and getting the power back on (thereby avoiding Revolution and preserving the mental health of teenagers who can’t live without wifi,) and getting enough Public Safety officers in the field to personally yell at all the ninnies who kept calling to ask about what was happening (duh). Send your child off to college with a good flashlight and batteries (they never buy them), a blanket thick enough to live in, a small first aid kit, and some cash which is NOT TO BE SPENT except in, well, an emergency. Just like yours.

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

Social Security—Take the money and run?

 

English: A bag of money, US dollars, spinning ...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If I had a euro for every time I’ve heard Social Security is going broke, I’d have decamped to Paris by now and wouldn’t be dispensing all this sage financial advice. C’mon guys and gals, if you’re old enough to even think about collecting Social Security (exception being my 18 year old who worries about this stuff), it’s going to be around for you. So then it comes down to—when to collect. Lately several people have posed the idea that they will collect it at 62 or 66 and invest the money instead of spending it. Aside from the fact that I’ll believe it when I see it, here’s a look at whether you’d actually be ahead. Sure, my example is filled with assumptions that you can disagree with, but play along here for a moment.

So let’s say you’re single, 60 years old, have an average annual salary of $100,000, and your full retirement age is 66. (It’s way more complicated for couples, so I’m not even going to get into that here. Call your friendly local financial planner—me!) Using the nifty little free estimator at AARP, your benefit would be $1,911/month at 62 ($22,932/year); $2,548 at 66 ($30,576/year); and $3,363 at 70 ($40,356/year). Okay, we agreed you’re not going to spend one penny of that money you start collecting at age 62, but are going to invest it in a half-way decent portfolio of no-load mutual funds that averages, let’s be generous in today’s market, 8% return. So on the face of it, you’ll have $255,822 more at 70, right? Nice chunk of change, no? Not so fast…

At a safe withdrawal rate from your savings of, oh, 4% a year from 70 onwards, your added portfolio will give you an extra $10,232.88 per year, or about $853 per month. So instead of collecting $3,363 from Social Security at 70, you’ll have an income of $2,764 per month—you’ve cost yourself $599 per month. That buys a lot of cat food.

Let’s say you collect Social Security at 66 instead—four years of saving and the same 8% return. Now your extra cache is $107,685. At that same 4% withdrawal rate, you’ve got $4,307.38 per year, or about $359/month, giving you a total of $2,270 per month, instead of the $2,548 you would have had. Maybe $278 isn’t that much, but multiply it over a 30 year retirement–better die quick.

But wait, it’s even worse. Social Security is adjusted for inflation. Your investments aren’t. So your actual Social Security payment is likely to be more, and the spending power of your savings is  less ($101,014 at 66, $223,629 at 70, assuming 3% inflation). And oh-oh, you have to pay taxes on that Social Security if you’re still working. And taxes on your investment returns, unless they’re in a tax sheltered account. Another big hit. .I don’t think I need to run through any more numbers for you to see why not only do financial planners beg you not to take benefits at 62, but we really like to see you wait until 70, unless you have some serious medical problem that makes a different strategy compelling.

Just. Don’t. Do. It.

Enhanced by Zemanta