Your mutual fund is battling back

Do a Google image search for "rich woman", and for some reason this picture of Malcolm Gladwell comes up

Welcome to Recycle Friday, in which we dig up the carcass of a vintage guest post of ours and see how it stands up in the modern era. Today’s originally ran on 20sMoney last year. Annotations in CYC maroon:

Today’s happy headline (“Your mutual fund is hurting worse than you think”) necessitates a little look back. How does today’s Dow Jones Industrial Average compare to, say, the Dow of February 1997?

Answer: It doesn’t. Sure, the average is 10,192 today (12,069 this morning, baby! The proverbial gravy train with biscuit wheels! Start borrowing!) and was around 6900 twelve years and 3 months ago, but…the average of what?

The Dow is the sum of the prices of 30 of America’s largest stocks, multiplied by a constant. But the roster of stocks itself isn’t constant. Here are some of the blue chips that comprised the Dow in ‘97:

General Motors
Citigroup
AIG

(This is already reading like a list of notorious contemporary eradications. Despite where we appear to be heading, the next items on the list are not the Seattle SuperSonics, the French franc and Lindsay Lohan’s career.) (Those semi-pop culture references still hold up, kind of. Maybe we could trade out Charlie Sheen for Lindsay Lohan, but that’s it.)

Altria
Honeywell
Eastman Kodak
International Paper
AlliedSignal
3M
Goodyear
Sears Roebuck
Union Carbide
Bethlehem Steel
Westinghouse
Woolworth

That’s almost half the then-Dow, consisting of the infamous and the doddering. Today, these names sound as though they belong in some bygone epoch of American proto-commerce. (Woolworth, if you’re interested, took scarcely more than a generation to fall from five-and-dimes with lunch counters that wouldn’t serve black people to sneaker retail. The company shed all its fat and kept its one legitimate asset, which is now its successor company – Foot Locker.)

So yes, the Dow has “risen” 60% since the cloning of Dolly the sheep. But that’s comparing today’s Dow to something that no longer exists. A basket of 1997 Dow stocks wouldn’t have risen anywhere near 60%:  a lot would depend on whether you used your General Motors certificate to make a paper airplane out of or wipe up kitchen spills with.

(Since then, General Motors made a comeback of sorts. The old shares were indeed rendered worthless, thanks to a federal government that decided that GM’s bondholders and owners didn’t matter as much as its employees – or more importantly, its employees’ union bosses. The new shares began selling on November 18 at $34.19. Fortuitously, they just happened to have dropped a record 5% yesterday to close at $33.02. Did we mention that your tax dollars are responsible for this? We did.)

(No Dow stocks have changed out since Cisco and Travelers joined in 2009. In fact, none of the current 30 are even in trouble.)

Conversely, if you’d had the foresight to invest in stocks that were to become Dow components –Verizon, AT&T, Chevron, Cisco, Intel, Pfizer et al. – you’d have enjoyed a lot more than a 60% return over 12 years. But you’d have had to predict that cell phones would become ubiquitous, gas prices would rise, every new electronic component would need a router, and every man in America would convince himself that little blue pills were the only things standing between him and a happily exhausted wife.

What about companies that barely existed in 1997? Google didn’t trade publicly then, and wouldn’t for years. Yahoo! did, at around $1. Each company’s profound growth remains invisible to the Dow.

Because the Dow regularly replaces its weaker components with stronger ones, its levels can mislead. Only if you own a Dow index fund – a basket of stocks that consists of equal proportions of Dow components, and whose makeup changes as the Dow itself changes – can you truly track that investment consistently over the years.

But because the Dow is measured in dollars, or at least a mathematical manipulation thereof, you have to account for inflation. The Consumer Price Index has risen 37% since February of 1997. (And 1.4% annually since this post first ran. Are we ever going to see the hyperinflation we’ve been anticipating?) (The Consumer Price Index is subject to biases of its own, but explaining them would require a few thousand more words.) The Dow itself has risen 43% in that same period. (See above.) So in real dollars, a Dow index fund has appreciated .4% annually since then. Two-fifths of a stinking percent, and that’s ignoring broker fees. Should the Dow drop another 400 points – and it dropped half that much in the last 10 minutes of trading on May 23 – that’d wipe out every penny of those miniscule gains. That’s one term of Clinton, two terms of Bush, and a term-in-progress of Obama with no appreciable gain in the Dow.

(The changes since then amount to a rounding error. Seriously, it’s up to an annual increase of 1.8%. Maybe things really are looking up, if by “things” we mean “stocks” and by “up” we mean “harder to buy”.)

Your conservative neighbor whose entire portfolio is 3-year CDs doesn’t look so stupid now, does he? Yes, it’s easy to look back with perfect eyesight, but there is such a thing as overdiversification. And while that’s never as dangerous as riding the waves with only one or two stocks, it does lower your ceiling. When you put your eggs in one gigantic uber-basket, you’re not giving undervalued, bargain stocks a fair chance to boost your portfolio.

At Control Your Cash we shudder at the idea of frequent and indiscriminate turnover. A stock is an investment, not a blackjack hand. But we also hammer one primary mantra: Buy assets, sell liabilities. Do that often enough and you can’t help but get rich. Overpriced Dow components (and other big companies) with poor fundamentals are almost always liabilities.

(Fortunately, Dow Jones Inc., the folks who determine which stocks comprise its bellwether index, have gotten a little more pragmatic lately. A company’s history, or its influence of a couple generations ago, is no longer as important as what it’s done for us lately. Maybe those fancy semiconductors and software really are here to stay.)

**This post is featured at the Totally Money Carnival #9-Funny Baby Videos Edition**

3 personal finance books that aren’t horrible

Don't cry. Your copy of Buffettology should be in there somewhere

The list itself is tiny, although this introduction isn’t. Most personal finance books are garbage.

Anything that includes worksheets, don’t buy. It’s a gimmick to increase the page count of a book, and besides, you’re never going to fill out the worksheets. No one does.

Ramit Sethi will tell you you’re an idiot. Dave Ramsey will patronize you. Suze Orman will draw you into an endless maelstrom of ancillary CDs, DVDs, sassy hair and pantsuits. The personal finance bloggers who hawk books – they know who they are – will do something even worse, which is repackage patently obvious information and call it a book. If you need to be told that you should spend less than you earn, build an emergency fund, and comparison shop before buying something expensive; and you couldn’t have determined that on your own, a reading list should be the last thing on your mind. Worry about food and shelter first, then move onto mastering fire and understanding the wheel.

Here are some personal finance books we don’t hate. Again, it’s a microscopic list.
The Intelligent Investor – Benjamin Graham with annotation by Jason Zweig

Benjamin Graham is the guy who taught Warren Buffett everything he knows. He wrote this guide to stock investing a long time ago, in a vernacular that can put you to sleep at times. Zweig, who writes for The Wall Street Journal, freshens the work up and contemporizes it.

The Wall Street Journal Complete Personal Finance Guidebook – Jeff Opdyke

It’s informative and comprehensive despite being short. Still, that didn’t stop Robert Rubin. The only downside is that Opdyke is the guy who writes that insufferable “Love & Money” weekend column that lots of local newspapers pick up for their business sections. Endless stories about what it’s like to have a wife and kids while holding down a job, something no one in the history of the world did before Opdyke. Fortunately, he mostly keeps this book free of such tedium.

Wow. That’s all we could think of? Apparently.

That just reinforces why we wrote Control Your Cash: Making Money Make Sense. It was the personal finance book we wanted to read, but no one had yet written it, so…

Get our book, and get it on Kindle. Buy a Kindle – the latest regulation-size one is $139 from Amazon and you can probably get a new one for less on eBay. You can take notes with the keyboard, and another labor-saving feature is that you can select memorable clips with the press of a button (they end up in their own easily accessible file.) Beats using a highlighter and hoping it doesn’t bleed over to the preceding or succeeding page. If you’re worrying about the formatting of Control Your Cash on a Kindle, don’t. The charts are easy to read and the footnotes line up just fine.

(The Kindle endorsement is moot if you don’t read, of course. But then again, you’re on a website that’s mostly text, and you’re on that website’s recommended reading list page.)

**This post is featured in the Totally Money Carnival: Presidential Quotes Edition**

&

**The Festival of Stocks Berkshire Hathaway 2010 Annual Letter Edition**

Why the Self-Employed Are STILL Smarter Than You

Self-employed, Self-determination, Incorporate, Save Taxes, Make Money

Self-employed, kind of. Also he blinked when we asked permission to use the photo

This is an updated version of a post that ran on LenPenzo.com 11 months ago. We’re thinking of doing something similar every Friday, the argument being that a) of our 3 weekly posts, you probably pay the least attention to the Friday one and b) everyone else recycles content once in a while, so why not us? As it stands you’re still getting over 2000 words of freshness weekly. More importantly, we actually edit our stuff. Those 2000+ words are polished to a keen sheen before you get to read them. Otherwise, we’d be like that one chick who cranks out 20 blog posts a week and opens them with insight like “Thanksgiving is a great time to reconnect with family.”

————————————————————————

Who pays a greater share of his income in taxes – Warren Buffett, or his driver? (Actually, Buffett’s so eccentric he probably drives himself. In a 1970 LTD with 8 million miles on it.) Still, posing the question implies its answer. Details below.

Politicians may tout the virtues of our “progressive” tax system, but it doesn’t really favor the poor over the rich.

Nor does it favor the rich over the poor, not when 40% of federal tax receipts come from 1% of the population. Fairly or otherwise, the tax system favors the diligent over the unprepared. (As most things in life, so maybe the system is fair.) Specifically, the system favors independent businesspeople over salaried workers.

This topic requires a book-length explanation (such as the groundbreaking and heretical Control Your Cash), but to summarize, starting your own business lets you enjoy tax advantages wage slaves only dream of. Take two people in the same field, making like incomes, living in the same city (which means their costs of living should be similar), only one owns his own business and the other works for someone else. It’s eminently possible that the latter person’s tax bill is 9 times the former’s.

Declare your independence today, if your career lets you make a horizontal shift to entrepreneurship. If you’re an anesthesiologist, you can’t rent out an office and put up a sign that reads “Mepivacaine Administered Here—Happy Hour 4–7.”  But if you’re an accountant, real estate agent, home inspector, software engineer, attorney* or in any kind of creative profession, you can take advantage of complex tax laws.

This isn’t the kind of entrepreneurship that requires you to open a physical storefront and spend years building a customer base. These are changes you can make now that will immediately impact your bottom line.

I tried to go as long as I could without using the first-person pronoun, but my story illustrates the point. 5 years ago I was working for a decently-sized advertising agency as a senior copywriter, making somewhat more than the nation’s per capita income. One day I ran the numbers and realized I could make more money going out on my own.

I collected most of my new clients, other ad agencies, via word-of-mouth. But most importantly, I took on the very agency I’d left as a client. And charged them about 30% more than they paid me as an employee. There are two components to that: 1) they were underpaying me to begin with, but had to cough up once I exercised my leverage and threatened to walk and B) the daily rate they paid me after the switch was just for the services I rendered – nothing else. It included no employee benefits, no capital expenditures for a workstation, no space reserved for me at the office Christmas party (thank God), no food/clothing/transportation allowance, no 6.2% Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax, no unemployment insurance premium. The responsibility for all that now fell on me.

Which is wonderful. It meant that instead of my former employer enjoying all the possible tax deductions from my labor, I got to take advantage of them. My taxes got a little more complicated – I now had to keep more detailed records, and file quarterly instead of annually – but the benefits grossly outweighed the costs.

It’s easy to get started, but also easy to make mistakes. You don’t want to be a single proprietor. You want to found an S Corporation, a legal entity that protects you from creditors who are forbidden from coming after certain classifications of income. An S Corporation lets you separate your money between salary and capital gains, the latter of which is taxed at a lower rate.

Find a company that specializes in entity formation. It’ll cost maybe $400-500 for them to register you with the relevant state’s Secretary of State office. You don’t have to register in your home state, either. If you live in California or New York, you don’t want to—those states’ laws don’t protect you enough from creditors. Register in Delaware or Nevada or, failing that, your home state.

Once you incorporate it starts forcing you to think like a businessman. Your income will now be tabulated on IRS 1099 forms, rather than those infamous W-2s. As a practical matter, once you incorporate you’ll pay (correction: your company will pay) you a salary. What’s a reasonable amount to cover your annual living expenses— maybe $24,000? Then that’s what Employee #1, you, will receive and pay taxes on. After deductions, your effective tax rate on the salary will be close to 0.

But what about the rest of your company’s income? Legally speaking, the rest of the revenue your S Corporation takes in is not salary, but shareholder dividends. Which are taxed at a lower rate than salaries are. And you can now deduct all sorts of business expenses before calculating the net shareholder dividends you’ll pay taxes on. Go to IRS.gov and check out Form 2106. Your employer fills one of these out every time you go on a business trip, or eat a meal on company time, or buy anything related to your job. Your employer, not you, then enjoys the tax deduction.

(As for Warren Buffett’s driver, he probably makes around $80,000 a year, which would put him in the 25% bracket. Almost all of Warren Buffett’s income is in capital gains, and the highest long-term capital gains rate in the U.S. is 5 percentage points lower than the assistant’s marginal tax rate.)

*Leeches, all of you. Thanks for making the tax code so damn complicated in the first place. If not you, then your ilk.

**This post was featured in Tax Carnival #79: Filing season begins**