logo
Welcome to Foothills Financial Planning, Inc.

  • 529 Plans
  • Banking
  • College Savings
  • Credit
  • Debt
  • Emergency Fund
  • Estate Planning
  • Fiduciary Standard
  • Financial Advisor Compensation
  • General
  • General Personal Finance
  • Gift Tax
  • Health Savings Accounts
  • IRA
  • Real Estate
  • Retirement Planning
  • Spending
  • Stocks
  • Taxes
  • 2010
    • March (3)
    • February (4)
    • January (3)
  • 2009
    • December (1)
    • November (4)
    • October (2)
    • September (6)
    • August (2)
    • July (2)
    • June (2)
    • May (3)
    • April (3)
    • March (5)
    • February (4)
    • January (1)
  • 2008
    • December (2)
    • November (1)
    • September (1)
  • 2007
    • September (1)
    • February (2)
  • 2006
    • November (1)
    • September (1)
    • August (1)
    • January (1)
  • 2005
    • December (2)

Lake Forest's Secret Millionaire and the power of compounding

Monday, March 08, 2010

Much has been made recently about the story of Grace Groner.  For good reason.  If you're unfamiliar, Ms. Groner died last week at the age of 100.  While working at Abbott Labs, she bought 3 shares of stock in 1935, reinvested the dividends, and lived within her means for the rest of her life.  That investment is now worth $7 million, which she has donated to her alma mater.

There are a couple of interesting story lines associated with this.  Most of them center on frugality and charity.  Again, deservedly so. This is a great lesson in both.  Although she doesn't perfectly fit the mold, Grace Groner's behavior would have made her a good subject for Thomas Stanley's The Millionaire Next Door series.

There are a couple of other vectors here that are interesting, though.  In his Wealth Report column, Robert Frank highlights one of them, which involves the power and risk of putting all one's eggs in one investing basket, especially when that basket belongs to your employer.  He points out that luck played a big role here.

In reality, though, if she had invested in the broader market, she would have enjoyed impressive returns as well.  But how impressive?  That is the story line that is most instructive, and it involves the power of compounding, which is coincidentally a favorite topic of this blog.

Let's look at some data.  In 1935, stocks were up 46.74%.  That's a nice way to launch a long-term investment.  The next year, the market was up 31.94%.  In other words, if Grace Groner would have invested in a broad stock index fund on January 1, 1935 (had they existed then), she would have almost doubled her money after two years!  Of course, the market is a volatile beast, and 1937's 35.34% drop was undoubtedly a good reminder.  Nonetheless, from 1935 through 2009, the average broad stock market return was 12.23%, according to the Federal Reserve's numbers.  What was Grace Groner's return?  By my calculation, it was just under 15.4%, with full reinvestment of dividends, etc.  That is what allowed Ms. Groner to donate $7 million to Lake Forest College.

But what about Robert Frank's assertion that luck played a huge role in her investing success?  How much would she have been able to donate to Lake Forest if she had instead been able to invest in the broad market for 75 years? $919,042.85!  In other words, the difference between a 12.2% and a 15.4% per year average return on a $180 investment for 75 years is more than $6 million and almost 87% of the final value of the investment.

That leads me back to two fundamental points:  1) the power of compounding cannot be overstated, and investing early is a huge advantage if one is hoping to build wealth, and consequently 2) finding inexpensive investment vehicles makes a huge difference, provided the associated returns are similar.  If Ms. Groner had paid 100 basis points, or 1%, for management of her Abbott investment, she would have ended up with a bit less than $3.8 million.

Tags: power of compounding, grace groner

General Personal Finance | Retirement Planning | Stocks

E-mail | del.icio.us

IRA Basics - What is an IRA?

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

If you were to ask the IRS, the term IRA refers to Individual Retirement Arrangements, which can take the form of Individual Retirement Annuities or Individual Retirement Accounts.  The latter vehicles are what people typically refer to when they use the term “IRA”.  The IRA was created by Congress in 1974 to encourage individuals to save for retirement.  Prior to that, the only formal retirement accounts that existed were pension plans that were set up by some companies to help ensure a comfortable retirement for their employees.  People saved and invested, of course, but there was no particular tax incentive to prepare for retirement before 1974. 

The IRA has undergone some changes since it was created, and there are now several flavors of IRA that exist in the marketplace.  In this post, we’ll focus on traditional Individual Retirement Accounts.  These IRAs are the most direct descendant of the original act.  They allow individuals to set aside money each year that will grow on a tax-deferred basis until it is withdrawn after the age of 59½.

Deductibility

Under certain circumstances, the contributions to a traditional IRA are deductible on the contributor’s federal tax return.  If neither you nor your spouse is covered by a plan at work, the full amount of your contribution can be deducted from federal taxes in the year that it is made.  If you are covered by a retirement plan at work, you may still deduct contributions if you are single and your income is below $55,000.  If you’re married filing jointly, the threshold is $89,000.  In both cases, the deductibility phases out as income increases from those levels.

Contribution limits

For 2009 and 2010, taxpayers can contribute a maximum of $5,000 to their traditional IRA.  For those aged 50 and above, the limit is $6,000.

Taxes at withdrawal

In all cases, taxes will be paid on the investment earnings that have accumulated over time when those earnings are withdrawn.  If a deduction was taken for a given contribution, that contribution is subject to taxes.  If a deduction was not taken for a contribution, the amount of that contribution can be withdrawn without paying tax, because taxes have already been paid on those funds. 

When can funds be withdrawn?

As I alluded to earlier, funds can be withdrawn without penalty beginning at age 59½.  However, it is not mandatory to withdraw funds until the accountholder turns 70½.  These mandatory withdrawals are referred to as Required Minimum Distributions, and are designed to allow the IRS to start capturing tax revenue on the investments that have been enjoying tax deferral for so many years.  They are based on the investor’s remaining life expectancy, with the idea being that distributions will be taken evenly over the remaining years.  In a future post, I’ll demonstrate how the RMD is calculated.

Tags: ira basics

Retirement Planning | IRA

E-mail | del.icio.us

IRS announces that 401k contribution limits will remain unchanged

Thursday, October 15, 2009

After concern that the limits may actually be lowered, the IRS today announced that pension plan contribution limits will remain level with 2009.  The specter of a downward adjustment arose because the cost-of-living index that the IRS uses to calibrate contributions dropped during the third quarter of 2009.  However, the IRS says the Social Security Act prohibits them from reducing these limits.  Therefore, the maximum 401k contribution that can be made pre-tax remains at $16,500 for 2010. For individuals who turn 50 before the end of 2010, the law allows for an additional $5,500 to be contributed.  This is called the “catch-up” contribution.

Progression of pension contribution limits

  • 2004 - $13,000
  • 2005 - $14,000
  • 2006 - $15,000
  • 2007 - $15,500
  • 2008 - $15,500
  • 2009 - $16,500
  • 2010 - $16,500

Tags: irs, 401k limits

Retirement Planning | Taxes

E-mail | del.icio.us

Invest at a high rate of return - a simple illustration

Thursday, September 24, 2009

In two previous posts I illustrated the value of investing early and often.  Specifically, the earlier you start an investment plan, the more time it has to compound and grow into wealth.  More obviously, the more that is invested, the more there is to grow.  This illustration also demonstrates the power of compounding, by showing the difference between averaging a 7% rate of return over a long period of time, versus achieving a 10% rate of return.  The point is not to suggest that these rates of return represent two specific asset classes.  It merely shows how dramatically a 3% difference in average returns affects a long-term investment plan.  We’ll build on these themes in future posts when we discuss appropriate levels of risk.

7% vs 10% compounding illustration

Tags:

General Personal Finance | Retirement Planning

E-mail | del.icio.us

Invest often - a simple illustration

Monday, September 14, 2009

In my last post, I showed the power of starting to invest for retirement at age 25 versus age 35.  This time, we’ll look at the value of investing “a lot” rather than “a little” over a long period of time.  Specifically, the hypothetical 25 year-old who invests $2k per year until retirement at age 65 will end up with about $518k, assuming an average rate of return of 8%.  On the other hand, the investor who puts away $10k per year over the same time period will have almost $2.6m.

2k-vs-10k-compounding-illustration

Tags:

General Personal Finance | Retirement Planning

E-mail | del.icio.us

Invest early - a simple illustration

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

I posted about this several years ago, but I think it bears repeating. It is pretty much a cliche at this point to say that the earlier one starts to invest for retirement, or anything else for that matter, the better. The following chart illustrates the point. An investor that invests $10k per year at an average rate of 8% starting at age 35 will have about $1.13m at age 65. If that investor had started at age 25, he or she would instead have almost $2.6m at retirement. Which investor would you rather be?

25-vs-35-compounding-illustration

Tags: invest early

General Personal Finance | Retirement Planning

E-mail | del.icio.us

Using Retirement Funds to Finance a Business

Friday, February 20, 2009
On Friday, February 20 Kevin was quoted in an article in the Phoenix Business Journal discussing the use of 401k funds to finance the start up of a new business.

Tags:

Retirement Planning

E-mail | del.icio.us

Who Can Benefit Most from the Current Environment?

Sunday, December 21, 2008

As I pointed out in a parallel post, I recently drove from Chicago to Phoenix and had ample time to listen to podcasts and catch up with a range of financial and business news, among other things.  While listening to one of the several Wall Street Journal podcasts, I was startled to hear the narrator state that even Warren Buffett had been wrong about his recent call on the stock market.  If you didn’t catch the reference, it was a response to Buffett’s op-ed in the New York Times on October 16, in which he said that he is betting on American equities.  I suppose the point of the podcast was that the markets have been very volatile and unpredictable over the last few months.  Quite an insight.  What’s shocking to me is that Warren Buffett is undoubtedly the most scrutinized investor in history.  That is not hyperbole.  There have been other investors that have outperformed the market on a sustained basis, and I’m not even suggesting that Buffett is the most successful investor of all time.  That’s impossible to determine.  However, we’ve never had the multitude of channels of information that we now have.  Despite the irony of it, given his lifestyle, he is indeed a celebrity investor in a time of massive media access.  The point of all this is that most people who spend any time paying attention to the Buffett investing philosophy know that he wasn’t calling an absolute market low in October.  He was simply acting on the belief that the market as a whole was undervalued, and he was acting greedy in a time when others were acting out of fear.  Could it become more undervalued?  Maybe.  Could it gain 20% the day after he decided to jump in?  Perhaps.  Which, incidentally, would mean that he would have missed that upside had he not been in the market, which is the whole point of his article.

Before I continue, let me point out that one doesn’t have to be a Buffett observer to understand his perspective when he chose to buy into the US stock market.  His rationale wasn’t shrouded in Greenspan-like rhetoric.  To quote from the article:  “Let me be clear on one point: I can’t predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven’t the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month — or a year — from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up. So if you wait for the robins, spring will be over.”

So why is this aggravating to me?  I guess the real answer to that is that the media is perpetuating a sentiment of fear that feeds a cycle that can be dangerous to all of us.  From a more applied perspective, though, I think it causes people to act in a way that runs counter to what is in their best interest.  Without doubt, times are tough.  The question is, what are you going to do about it?  That brings us to the point of this post.  The discussion on the podcast set me to thinking about who is in a position to benefit from the current economic and psychological environment.  I’m not referring to what companies or industries do well in a down market, or which hedge funds are poised to reap the benefits of the fear that has swept substantially all of our markets.  I’m thinking more about individuals.  Many of us had a significant percentage of our assets in the stock market heading into this mess.  There are things we can do, especially at year-end, to harvest tax losses and such (see your financial advisor for help with this), but unless we’ve been sitting on cash for the last year or so, our net worth has decreased, probably by a lot.  In Warren Buffett’s case, the pile of money to which he was referring was in his own account, which is typically invested in government bonds.  In other words, he was sitting on a pile of money that was not ravaged by the recent stock market decline.  That’s nice for Warren Buffett and his heirs, but who else is in a position to take advantage of this situation?
Retirees are certainly the class that has been the hardest hit by this.  They have little opportunity to recover from an investment standpoint, and in many cases can do nothing to enhance their income at this point.  As retirement tends to last a lot longer than it used to, many retirees have had some exposure to the stock market, so they’ve felt some pain.

People nearing retirement are in a position that is similar to retirees, except that they may have a better chance to recover because their time horizon may be a bit longer, and they generally will have the option of working longer than they had planned.  Not a great scenario, but it’s good to have options.
Those of us who are in the accumulation period of our lives are better poised to benefit from the current scenario.  In general, we may have been hit hard by the declines in our 401ks and the 529 plans we’ve set up for our children’s education, but we’re also typically investing on a consistent basis, which means we’re taking advantage of some fantastic bargains at present.  I know it doesn’t feel very good right now, but people really do build wealth in times like these.  The worst thing we can do is put our money in cash equivalents or over-allocate to fixed income.  I will say that there are a lot of opportunities in bonds right now as well as stocks, however, and you should discuss that tradeoff with a financial advisor.

This brings me to group of individuals who I think are in the best position to establish a firm financial foundation for the future in this environment.  I’m going to be specific, but pieces of this are relevant those who share some attributes with the profile I’m specifying.  Young, dual income couples who are professionals and have not owned a house are in the sweet spot to benefit from this crisis.  The housing market is down, and the government really wants you to purchase a home.  That is not a new concept; there are powerful tax incentives for all homeowners.  But if you’re willing to buy before July 1, 2009, the federal government wants to give you an interest-free loan of $7500.  More on that later.  In addition, you’ll have two incomes to pay your bills, and you likely both have some sort of defined contribution retirement plan to which you can contribute, i.e. a 401k.  Here’s the thing:  as much as I’d appreciate you doing your part for the economy and buying that $50k BMW because you just got a big raise, don’t do it.  Get a used Toyota and invest your money.  It will probably be a while until we see a better time to invest, and how much happier will you really be with an expensive car?  Likewise the home electronics, etc.  Think hard about the personal utility you’re going to realize from the expenditures you make.  I’m not suggesting that your only concern should be building wealth, but I do believe that you have a unique window of opportunity to maximize your investments and establish a framework that can lead to financial freedom in your future.  There are some tremendous bargains in the stock market right now.  Ignore the news and invest aggressively with money you don’t need in the short term.

As for housing, in most parts of the country there are many opportunities for patient investors.  Unfortunately, some of these prizes come in the form of bank-owned properties that are the result of somebody else’s misfortune.  Regardless, the government wants to give you an additional $7500 on top of a mortgage deduction to stop paying rent and start building equity.  I say…do it.  You don’t have to buy your dream house at 25 years old.  If you’re savvy, you can buy a relatively inexpensive home to live in for a few years, and it can then become an investment property when you move on to something else.  I realize that $7500 is not a ton of money relative to home prices, but it’s a boost, and it goes a lot farther today than it did 2-3 years ago.  With that said, let’s talk a bit about the high-level parameters of this tax credit.

  • It’s only available for first-time homebuyers, or those who have not owned anything for at least three years.
  • The home must be, or have been, purchased between April 9, 2008 and July 1, 2009.
  • If you’re single, your income must be below $75k for the full credit.  If you’re married, combined income must fall below $150k.
  • This is essentially a loan.  You must pay it back, interest-free, over a 15 year period.

Of course, you shouldn’t over-extend yourself to purchase a home.  Keep your payments within 28% of your gross income.  Again, that should be much less problematic than it was a couple of years ago.

As I indicated earlier, if you share any attributes with the profile I’ve described, you’re a candidate to benefit now from this crisis.  Without question, there is a lot of fear impacting the economy right now, and it’s certainly not totally unfounded.  It is, however, very influential in terms of our overall economic health.  If people are too afraid to buy, companies don’t realize revenue, they have to lay off workers, unemployment rises, and things just get worse.  Today, the risks we face in most markets (i.e. the stock market, the housing market, the bond market) are significantly lower than they were a couple of years ago, when prices were astronomical relative to the intrinsic value of these assets.  That’s a simple concept, but very hard for most people to internalize.  If you can do that, you stand to build a strong financial foundation for your future.

Tags:

General Personal Finance | Real Estate | Retirement Planning

E-mail | del.icio.us

Vanguard Individual 401k

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

If you’re a small business owner, you may be happy to learn that, after teasing us for awhile, Vanguard has finally launched its Individual 401k.  There are a couple of compelling characteristics of the plan.

As with most Vanguard product offerings, the fees are extremely reasonable.

  • There is no setup fee for your business.
    • For each Vanguard fund in which you invest, the annual account fee is $20.
    • Expense ratios are generally very low for Vanguard funds.  The average across all of their funds is .2%.
    • Depending on the fund, there may be a transaction fee, but these are easily avoided.
  • There are three ways to contribute to the account.
    • The employee can contribute on a pre-tax basis.
    • The employer can contribute or match on a tax-deductible basis.
    • The employee can contribute to a Roth account on a post-tax basis.  This allows funds to be withdrawn in retirement with no additional tax applied.

Keep in mind that this is really designed for self-employed individuals, typically sole proprietors and partnerships.  Business partners and spouses who work for the company are eligible, but this account is not available for firms with other employees.

Tags:

Retirement Planning

E-mail | del.icio.us

Some Important New Limits for 2006

Saturday, December 31, 2005

This is a brief list of selected limits which may be relevant in the quest to reduce your tax bill and maximize your wealth in 2006. Please comment if there are questions about or proposed additions to this list.

401k contributions

For 2006, the maximum 401k contribution is now $15,000. For individuals who turn 50 before the end of 2006, the law allows for an additional $5,000 to be contributed! This is called the “catch-up” limit.

IRA contributions

The maximum IRA contribution in 2006 remains at $4,000. Individuals who turn 50 before the end of 2006 can add another $1,000 under the catch-up limit. This applies to regular IRAs as well as Roth IRAs.

Income limits for contribution to a Roth IRA are as follows (in other words, if your income exceeds these levels, you cannot contribute to a Roth IRA):

$110,000 if you file as a single taxpayer
$160,000 if you are married filing jointly

Income limits for Traditional IRA deductibility

If you are covered by a retirement plan at work, you can take a deduction for traditional IRA contributions if your income does not exceed:

$60,000 for taxpayers filing as single or head of household
$85,000 for married filing jointly

Annual Gift Tax Exclusion

In 2006, you can give a gift of up to $12,000 (per gift recipient) to another individual without incurring any tax consequence to the giver or receiver. For instance, parents can gift a maximum of $12,000 to each of their children without the parents or children having to pay tax on the gift.

Child Tax Credit

The maximum credit remains at $1,000 per child for 2006, subject to the following income limits (i.e. the credit is not available if your adjusted gross income exceeds these levels):

$110,000 if you are married filing jointly
$55,000 if you are married filing separately
$75,000 if you use another filing status

Tags:

College Savings | General Personal Finance | Retirement Planning

E-mail | del.icio.us
 

HOME | SERVICES | ABOUT US | FAQ | CLIENT FORMS | NEWS | DISCLOSURES | BLOG © 2008 FOOTHILLS FINANCIAL PLANNING, INC WEBSITE DESIGN AND PRODUCTION BY GLENDALE DESIGNS