This book is “okay”.
A year or so ago, I finally paid off my college loans, after 12 years of bearing that giant psychic weight. My employer is good to me, so now I’m at a point where I can think about saving. My first impression was — and still is — that everyone is out to screw me over. There are financial advisors, but their incentives are well-known; there are mutual funds, but all my reading tells me that they can’t be expected to beat the market consistently, and hence that your best bet is to just place your money in an index fund and be done with it. Or you come to the topic of buying a house, and you can’t help but feel that everyone *there* is also trying to pull a fast one on you: the realtors, the banks, the owners of the homes themselves.
So I asked around on Twitter, and Austin Frakt helpfully pointed me to The Bogleheads’ books. A Boglehead, if you’re unfamiliar, is a discipline of John Bogle, founder and former CEO of The Vanguard Group, a mutual-fund company now managing around $2 trillion in assets. If you didn’t know about the Vanguard Group before picking up this book, you soon will; much of the book reads like an advertisement for Vanguard.
I’m still a little confused, after reading it, what exact purpose it’s supposed to serve. Is it a beginner’s guide to retirement planning? If so, I think it was incorrectly structured. It contains a chapter on defined-benefit retirement plans (i.e., pensions), for instance, which only 29% of the population even has access to. That number drops to 17% if you exclude the public sector. Yet it’s one of the first chapters in the book. That is part of the testimony to this book’s odd structure.
So let’s imagine that the book were restructured into a more appropriate form. Honestly, I think the best form would be as a web app of some sort, à la TurboTax: ask you a series of questions, and let previous questions guide subsequent ones. “Do you have a defined-benefit retirement plan?” 7 out of 10 of your readers would answer “no”, and on you’d go. That would also allow most people to skip over the “are you in the middle of a divorce?” section, or the “are you in the middle of a financial crisis?” section, or the “here’s the order in which you should withdraw from your retirement savings when the time comes to withdraw from them” section. I submit that that last section isn’t really helpful to someone like me, who’s 35 years old and (hopefully) many years away from drawing down his retirement savings.
What I *do* want to know, and what I haven’t yet found the appropriate book for, is how to spread my money around across various buckets. Right now, I can choose to save money for a house, for retirement, for future children, for a rainy day, etc. How should I split things up? This retirement guide provides a bit of useful guidance in that direction, inasmuch as it taught me that profits on the sale of your primary home are non-taxable (at least for now). That’s fantastic news. It certainly suggests that your primary home should be considered a central part of your retirement strategy; maybe you should buy the largest home you can afford, and tax-shelter the appreciation in its value. Unfortunately, the Bogleheads’ book only approaches the home when retirement time comes; they suggest that you consider selling the home, downsizing, and pocketing the difference. That all sounds correct, but what do I do *now*? Suppose I have $1,000 lying around; do I put it in my 401(k), or put it in a house? And how about buying a triple-decker and using it for rental income; is that a thing I should do?
That’s one problem I’ve noticed with a good many books of this sort: they focus on one problem, like buying a home or saving for college or planning for retirement, but don’t necessarily treat those problems as parts of an integrated whole.
To the extent that it *does* treat them as part of an integrated whole, the Bogleheads’ book seems to have one bit of advice: all the various things you need to think about — which life insurance to buy, which mutual funds to invest in, how to write a pre-nup — require professional help. You and your partner should write your pre-nup with two lawyers; find an insurance broker you can trust; choose a financial planner who doesn’t live off commissions. (They illustrate this with a nice quote: where are the *customers’* yachts?)
Which just brings us back to where we started: the problem is finding people whom you can trust. Find trustworthy insurance brokers, trustworthy realtors, trustworthy lawyers, etc. How do you decide whether they’re trustworthy? Well, ask your friends, I suppose. But how do you know whether, for instance, your friends have been suckered into buying a life-insurance policy that will not actually help out their beneficiaries when your friends die? To paraphrase that famous story about the scientist explaining the origins of the universe, it’s trust all the way down.
What I conclude from reading this book, and from life more generally, is that I am too stupid to make above-market returns. I’m willing to go further and suggest that the vast bulk of Americans are also too stupid to make above-market returns. And if we *do* make above-market returns, they’re frittered away by fees from investment companies, who are the ones making all the money. So one conclusion is: invest stupidly. Put my 401(k) in a low-fee, passively managed mutual fund that invests in a broad market index.
This adds fuel, by the way, to the book I want to write. Americans are told that we can’t afford to provide the good life for our people, and specifically for our retirees; the best we can hope for is that Social Security will be cut less than Republicans would like. In fact we can afford the good life; it’s just that the story over the last 40 years or so has been that we 1) remove people’s safety net, 2) tell them to take care of themselves, and 3) turn the safety net over to private companies, thereby creating a rentier class that siphons the public’s money into the pockets of the already-wealthy. We can certainly afford the good life; it will just require that the rentiers be euthanized.
A possible beginning: http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2013/06/29/jason-zweig-thirty-years-of-enlightening-investors/
Zweig is worth reading, Brown is for the introduction.
I’ve learned that the most important choices are the ones not to make. To avoid thinking you can beat the market sort of beats the market if you consider that the buying power of your peers.
Housing has historically until the recent bubble been an awful “investment” (yes that bad). In real terms prices didn’t change much during the entire 20th century for the entire country. Maybe that will pass for the country as a whole and of course in greater part for those areas that are more economically viable as land gets more precious. America is becoming more like Europe and Asia where real estate matters more as an investment as land is limited. And yet the prices of financial securities tend to regress to the mean, though some asset classes like housing move so slowly that in practical terms we could all be long dead by then. Still stocks over the long run are the best investments on a relative basis. Holding periods of less than 20 years gets progressively trickier for US stocks. When you get to that point you should slowly move more funds into bonds (you should always own some bonds). Of course you could end up holding the wrong markets, like say French stocks between 1914 and 1984 when you would have made exactly nothing after inflation. And of course you were supposed to hold a completely new set of stocks, witness expropriations and pay taxes all along. Though much better than war bonds a Parisian apartment would have been a superior investment. In this world there are no guarantees.
The disadvantage to stocks is you should never borrow against them unless you have a death wish, and so you cannot invest more than you have saved. With a house you have a mortgage and thereby play a game of tax-free appreciation on a larger sum of assets than you otherwise could. Of course you have to pay interest, but after inflation and mortgage interest deductibility it might be reasonably cheap to sit and wait. Of course most Americans can’t as they move a lot throughout their lifetimes.
In practical terms the middle class always hold “too much” real estate and not enough diversified holdings of bonds and equities. If you’re in the 10% it could be a different matter. Diversification and holding some cash for emergencies is the kind of boring advice that never goes out of fashion.
I would avoid investing in anything you don’t – or anyone else for that matter – understands. Think commodities without any earnings passing through like gold, metals, energy, art works and other social assets. Those are for gamblers.
Good luck.
LikeLike
I’ve participated in the Boglehead’s message board on and off since 2005. They’re really super people, and Taylor Larimore is a saint. I haven’t read the book (I had everything straightened out by the time it came out). You’re right, the Bogleheads thing doesn’t answer the big questions, but the core message of reducing investment costs is certainly worthwhile. I give them credit for that. The thing you’re talking about, how every decision effects every other and that every investment and consumption decision needs to be made jointly, that’s beyond the scope of any book, unless the book is about dynamic programming. From what I can tell ESPlanner does a pretty good job (free basic version here). The bad news is that it was created by entitlement scaremonger Larry Kotlikoff. I think his politics are nutty but as far as I can tell his software is legit.
I’m all for the euthanisia of the rentier, but our privatizated retirement system has insidiously turned everybody into little rentiers. People look at their 401Ks and IRAs and start to think they’re capital when they’re really labor. After participating on the Boglehead’s board for years, and seeing how hard it is even for intelligent, motivated, and well-informed people to make good decisions, it’s obvious there’s zero point in regular people investing at all. Even the best planning can’t hedge the biggest risk, that the market will stink during your investing years. We should just socialize retirement and education completely. Just take five or six percent of GDP and cut checks to old people, make no-frills college education free, and let people get on with their lives. I’d promote rentership instead of homeownership as well.
LikeLike
The book is probably skewed towards the generations of the authors, more likely to have pension. Their web is a good resource for investment topics. I generally follow the principles of Bogle. Just consider one aspect, expenses. Make a comparison of different offerings which follow a particular index. View the disparity of expenses, and ask which particular offering you’d prefer over 30 years. It makes a lot of sense to me to have a core of index funds, and then you can track your own choices against that. Look for studies which correlate returns and expenses.
LikeLike
0 Pingbacks