With markets entering a period of significant volatility this past week, CNBC was curious what type of discussions I’m having with clients. I told them, in short, that I’m talking about ways that we, as investors, can benefit from market losses.
||October 17, 2014
||Gaining Through Market Losses – CNBC
||Street Signs on CNBC
Exchange-traded funds—commonly referred to as ETFs—are all the rage. While there are several excellent reasons to use an ETF over the seemingly archaic traditional mutual fund, they are not a universally preferable solution.
First, to be fair, let’s review a few reasons why ETFs can be a better solution than mutual funds.
ETFs generally have lower associated costs than comparable mutual funds. This isn’t news, I know, but since costs are one of the few variables over which we have control as investors, I don’t mind flogging this deceased ungulate.
The expense ratio is the most obvious cost reduction. For example, the legendarily inexpensive Vanguard 500 Index Fund has an expense ratio of 0.17 percent, while Vanguard’s S&P 500 ETF has a barely noticeable expense ratio of 0.05 percent. This makes ETFs an ideal choice for investors making a sizable, broadly-based, one-and-done purchase.
As the kids head back to school, many of us are getting back to work on our personal financial plan. I talked with Susie Gharib about the most important considerations for Millennials, Gens X & Y and Empty Nesters on the Nightly Business Report on PBS (produced by CNBC):
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently released its annual “Cost of Raising a Child” report. The news from it is really no news at all to us parents—kids are stinking expensive and growing even more so. However, if you read between the lines, there are three extremely important points that don’t show up in the executive summary:
1) Parents still have a choice. The USDA estimates that households with less than $61,530 in income will spend a total of $176,550 per child. Meanwhile, “middle-income parents” making between $61,530 and $106,540 each year can anticipate spending $245,340 per kid. Those blessed with household income over $106,540 should expect to spend $407,820.
Here’s how I read these numbers: It likely costs approximately $175,000 to care for a child’s needs in today’s dollars. Beyond that, it’s our choice as parents if and how we spend additional money on our progeny. When your household income jumps from $106,000 to $107,000, the USDA isn’t holding a gun to your head and demanding that you spend an additional $162,480 per child.
It’s completely up to you, and you may choose to spend more or less than some of the USDA estimates. For example, you may choose (wisely) to spend more on one child than another for various, justifiable reasons, including each individual child’s own gifts and weaknesses. If you choose to put even one child through private school, from kindergarten through a graduate degree, you could easily spend a million bucks just for education—and college isn’t even included in the USDA’s numbers.
There is no shortage of receptacles clamoring for your money each day. No matter how much money you have or make, it could never keep up with all the seemingly urgent invitations to part with it.
Separating true financial priorities from flash impulses is an increasing challenge, even when you’re trying to do the right thing with your moola — like saving for the future, insuring against catastrophic risks and otherwise improving your financial standing. And while every individual and household is in some way unique, the following list of financial priorities for your next available dollar is a reliable guide for most.
Once you’ve spent the money necessary to cover your fixed and variable living expenses (and yes, I realize that’s no easy task for many) consider spending your additional dollars in this order:
A study by the Urban Institute uncovered a shocking statistic, that 35% of Americans have some consumer debt in collections. I discussed this with Tyler Mathisen on PBS’s Nightly Business Report, produced by CNBC.
Throughout the course of my career, I’ve heard a lot of financial horror stories. The majority of these stories are told by baby boomers whose aggressive stock market strategies went bust, often at the behest of a transaction-oriented “advisor.”
The most pain—yes, even marginally greater than that of former Enron employees and Bernie Madoff scam victims—has been felt by a younger generation, however, in America’s suburbs, far from Wall Street.
“I was wrong.”
There are few words strung together that possess such power to free us. In less than a second, we’re able to reconcile the inconsistency between our previous conviction and the apparent truth. Humbling, yes, but also strangely euphoric.
Well, I’ve earned the opportunity to claim said euphoria, as I must confess that I had bought into the most prevalent myth du jour surrounding bond investing. You’ll forgive me, I hope, because this misconception—like all of the most powerful ones—is especially deceptive because it’s grounded in half-truth.
Let’s be quite clear: Rising rates simply do not guarantee negative bond returns.
There’s no magic to a million in retirement, but as the Baby Boomer generation begins making the transition, it’s a question oft posed. In this Nightly Business Report clip, Sharon Epperson (CNBC) and I answer the big question: Is a million enough?
The disproportionate rise in the cost of college relative to the cost of everything else is not news, but a new survey shows that college students are dumping their top choices for education based on price. Have we finally reached the tipping point?
Well, I’m a planner—not a prognosticator—so I’ll defer judgment to those with functioning crystal balls, but let’s address the college cost crisis and a way to avoid becoming the next student or parent squashed by education overpayment.
Is there really a crisis?