Nothing Is Your Fault Or, Student Loans Are Killing Our Economy, Part CXXV

 

This picture was taken in 1992, right when the loan balances were at their highest. No word on how much the wedding cost, or if the betrothed paid for it out-of-pocket.

 

We’ve got a fantastic investment idea for you, one that you’re a fool if you don’t take advantage of. It’s a no-brainer, really. Refusing this investment would be like turning down matching funds from your employer for your 401(k). In fact, it’s even more fundamental than that. Refusing this investment would be like turning down a raise. “Do you want more money?” “No, I’m good with less, thanks.” Saying no to this investment would be like simultaneously spitting on the flag and tearing up a Bible. (Note: On the first draft that showed up on the page as “tearing up a Buble”, which would be awesome. Thank you, Mr. Qwerty, for putting the “I” and the “U” keys next to each other and making such comedy possible.)

And if you need more incentive, the President himself does it.

The investment? Student loans! Yes, they come with a mandatory interest payment, but who cares? Investment! In your future! (As if you could have an investment in your past or your present.) Keep repeating buzzwords as necessary!

If you needed any further proof that our economy is doomed and that you should save yourself and your loved ones first, read this quote from the chief executive himself:

We only finished paying off our student loans off about 8 years ago. That wasn’t that long ago. And that wasn’t easy–especially because when we had Malia and Sasha, we’re supposed to be saving up for their college educations, and we’re still paying off our college educations.

To recap: the President of the United States has a B.A. (from Columbia, which is not inexpensive) and a law degree (Harvard, which is less so). He started attending Occidental College in 1979 before transferring, and received the law degree in 1991. He financed at least one of the degrees, and paid back the loans in 2004.

So it took him somewhere between 13 and 25 years to pay off his education. Let’s split the difference and call it 19.

Also, while paying off the loans, he and his wife decided it’d be a good idea to take on more expenses – in the form of a couple of children. Those children, by the way, now attend an elementary/middle school that costs them a combined $64,920 to attend every year (includes hot lunch).

Let’s take the last part of that quote again:

We’re supposed to be saving up for their college educations, and we’re still paying off our college educations.

“We’re supposed to be saving up for their college educations”, as if it’s a moral imperative on a par with “we’re supposed to feed and clothe them.” No one even questions the value of this anymore: going to college is at least as important as anything else you can think of.

The above quotes come from a speech to, appropriately enough, a bunch of college kids (at the University of North Carolina); none of whom spent the previous weekend passing around the bong and sleeping through lectures. President Obama didn’t get into the financial details of his and the First Lady’s loans, but we do know that they took somewhere around 2 decades to pay off.

But that’s OK, because a college degree enables you to earn more money, right? It should be obvious that whatever increase in salary these borrowers enjoyed because of their educational status, it was more than negated by the price of the loan. 19 years is practically half a regular working life, and it’s being spent committed to paying down the debt incurred to ostensibly enrich that life in the first place. How much further could we take this? Would it be OK to work for 42 years, and spend 41 years paying off student loans? Why not? Investment (in your future)!

Some of you wags are bringing up objections. We can hear them already. Let the debunking begin:

1) “He was a law professor. An intellectual. The smartest man alive, in fact. What was he supposed to do, drive a truck?”

So by virtue of being smarter than someone who began working sooner and accumulated no debt in the process, the smart person…incurs obligations that take 2 decades to pay off? Fine, you lead 1-0.

2) “Well, he ended up as President. Therefore incurring student loan debt was the right move.”

By that logic, you can defend everything he did before the 2008 election. Snorting coke while organizing the community? +1. Attending a church presided over by a lunatic preacher with insane opinions? Another +1. Kids, put down the shovel and instead pick up the mirror and the straw. Then join the Westboro Baptist Church. Ticket to success, right there.

Finally, for fairness and balance, let’s include another quote about tertiary education from another man running for president:

When I went to school, we didn’t have a federal student loan program, and I was able to work my way through college and medical school because it wasn’t so expensive.

Never mind. Those are clearly the ramblings of a crazy person.

Seriously, why was college so much cheaper when Ron Paul was studying?

1. College hadn’t been rammed down our throats as mandatory. It was perfectly acceptable to brag that you were going to learn a trade after high school.

2. The government wasn’t involved.

The costs are allowed to skyrocket because you can keep kicking the can down the road. When no one has to pay the bill for decades, why even think about it? The same applies to healthcare: not post-2014 healthcare, but healthcare as it’s currently constituted.  When a 3rd party – the government, an HMO – gets between the provider and the payor, who knows (and who cares) what things cost? It’s not your problem. “My insurance is handling it.” Sure, insurance is supposed to reduce individual risk, but it increases collective risk. Give 100,000 people the same policy, same coverage, same premium and same benefits, and many of them will take risks they wouldn’t have otherwise. At that point, why not smoke and/or ride a motorcycle unhelmeted? Again, it’s not your problem. It’s someone else’s.
Furthermore, if you declare bankruptcy, the courts won’t discharge your student loans. From the lender’s perspective, this is great. If you can fog a mirror and have a Social Security Number, they’ll lend you the money.
But if the government got out of the picture, and the lenders risked losing money, they might start asking tough questions: like, “How will you pay this back with a B.A. in women’s studies?”
Would the government get out of the picture? A lot depends on who’s in charge, and what his own experience is.
This article is featured in:

Play the Percentages

Unemployment line? No, but close enough

 

UPDATE 7:27 pm GMT, April 18: reader Rhett Schexnaydre pointed out that we put a decimal point in the wrong place. We fixed it. Women are right: math is hard!

Last week we good-naturedly ragged on the brilliant PKamp3 at DQYDJ.net (it stands for Don’t Quit Your Day Job). He threw away his usually tight rationality for an afternoon so he could buy…Mega Millions tickets. $60 worth, no less. Best of all, he then blamed it on his wife.

It’s not like PKamp3 was without company. 1.5 billion Mega Millions tickets were sold for the recent record-breaking jackpot. That’s 5 tickets per American, maybe 7 or 8 per American adult. We’d love to know how many people bought tickets (or equivalently, how many tickets the average player bought.) Alas, we can only guess. But at least some smart people are buying 60 tickets at once. Other, less smart people are making 70-mile excursions to wait in line for 4 hours to buy tickets, and it’s probably safe to assume that an irrational lottery ticket buyer isn’t going to burn 5+ hours and maybe $13 worth of gas to buy just a solitary $1 ticket.

The record $462 million Mega Millions jackpot came and went, and today a meager and pathetic $30 million jackpot sits in its place. Clearly $30 million isn’t enough to change the lives of any of the myriads of people who bought tickets for the record jackpot, but are sitting this week’s drawing out.

The point of this post isn’t to decry lottery ticket buyers. We’ve done that repeatedly on this site. Rather it’s to answer what was then a rhetorical question in last week’s Carnival of Wealth – what does the mean lottery prize look like, vis-à-vis the median prize?

Obviously, the expected value of a $1 ticket is somewhere south of $1. But is that enough to say it’s a bad investment?

Say the expected value of a ticket was, for some reason, 10.2 times its price. Maybe whoever’s running the lottery is feeling particularly eleemosynary. By simple measures, an average return of 1020% means that you should invest all your money in lottery tickets. In the long run, you couldn’t help but win.

Okay, but what if that lottery worked as follows?

-only 100 tickets are sold.
-1 ticket wins $102 million.
-99 tickets lose.
-each ticket costs $100,000.

Hold on, soldier. Even though the “expected” value of your ticket is $1,020,000, no one expects to win exactly that much. You’re either going to win $102 million, or nothing. (Keep in mind that winning “nothing” means losing $100,000.)

You can’t just add up the prizes and divide by the tickets sold to estimate how much you’ll win or lose. You have to look at how often particular prizes occur.

So say you bought 175,711,736 tickets for the aforementioned $30 million Mega Millions drawing. In other words, you covered every combination. You’d guarantee yourself a share of the jackpot, but how big a share (and what else)?

 

45 of those tickets will each win a quarter million. So that’s $11,250,000.

255 tickets will each win $10,000. Another $2,550,000.

24,225 tickets will each win $150. Add $3,633,750 to our pot.

208,250 tickets will each win $10, for $2,082,500.

573,750 tickets will each win $7, another $4,016,250.

We’re almost done. Sorry this is so boring. Go ahead and attempt to plow through The Simple Dollar’s latest, and you’ll appreciate how riveting a post this is.

1,249,500 $3 winners total $3,748,500, and 2,349,060 $2 winners add up to $4,698,120.

Cumulative total, $31,979,120 plus the variable jackpot. Call it $30 million, making our total $61,979,120.

Cumulative number of winners? 4,405,086. Remember how many tickets you need to cover the bases? See above.

97.5% of tickets are losers. By extension, 97.5% of lottery players are…well, we don’t call people losers on this site. Retards, maybe. If you finished in the 97th percentile of players, your ticket would return you a payment of 0.

This applies with regard to real investments, too. The science of investment advice hasn’t yet progressed to the point where advisors disclose the likelihood of receiving a particular payout for a stock, although it’d be awesome if they did. (“Your Sprint Nextel stock has a 4.2% chance of closing above $5 by year-end, an 11.9% chance of reaching at least $4, a 43.2% chance of falling below $2, etc.”)

(NB: Why can’t we do this? We have markets for everything from sports wagering to political races. But among securities, we do this for commodities only. Anybody know why we don’t extend it to other investments? That’s a sincere question, not a rhetorical one.)

That being said, the likelihood of a payout is every bit as important as the magnitude of the payout. You can’t explain that concept to someone who plays the lottery every week, or even to someone who’s proud that he has a “system” for winning at blackjack, but the idea is beyond critical for every successful investor. Even if the investment itself is
modest.
 (If you spend $30,000 on a taco truck, at 4.9% financing, then spend another $5000 modifying it to incorporate a mobile kitchen, not to mention $20 a day in gas, what’s the likelihood of you selling enough tacos to enjoy a 10% annual profit margin? Or a 50% one? If that’s the business you happen to be in, those questions aren’t rhetorical either.)

One thing’s certain, though. Almost any real business you choose to invest in is going to have less than a 97.5% chance of wiping out your investment.

This article is featured in:

**Totally Money Blog Carnival-Big Bang Theory Birthday Edition**

Hop On And Rotate

Red always beats black. Or is it the other way around? Damn, so confusing

 

The vast majority of people on a casino floor, outside of the troglodyte simpletons populating the banks of slot machines, have no idea what they’re doing. We’re serious. Most blackjack players at least comprehend the idea of approaching 21 without going over, but don’t understand about insurance, splitting pairs and doubling down.

Most craps players don’t grasp the rules of the game, couldn’t tell you the payouts, and aren’t in the least dissuaded that they’re resting their fortunes on a literal roll of the dice. Show them the Wikipedia entry for craps, and they’d give up before the 4th paragraph. They just want the shooter to not roll a 7 or 11 (or if they’re being contrarian, to roll a 7 or 11.)

 

If the jargon in this post is already too much for you, good for you. We mean that. Consider yourself advanced, if not “lucky”, that you don’t know how these ridiculous games of chance operate. Lotteries are stupid, but they’re an unsubtle form of stupidity. Casino games, most of which are slightly more complicated than lotteries, fool the more innumerate among us into thinking that they have a chance.

 

To summarize, if you don’t feel like reading any further: there are only two places in the casino where you can make money gambling, and even in each of those it’s an overwhelming challenge. That’d be the race & sports book, and the poker tables. There are good reasons why there are scatteringly few professional race/sports bettors and poker players.

 

In the former case, the margins are tiny. You need to hit 55% to break even (on pointspread sports bets), which means you might as well find a way to spend your time that’ll cause you less heartburn. At 56%, betting on sports is barely worth your while. At 59%, you’re one of the best in the world, and no one on the planet can consistently hit 60%.

 

As for the latter, poker, indeed there’s an element of skill to the game. You have to read your opponents, and calculate odds faster than a dealer can deal. But the single biggest determinant of who’ll win any particular hand is still random chance. An inept player holding pocket aces is in a far better position than is Scott Seiver with an unsuited deuce and 7. In some form, that’s another example of a tiny margin. At a table full of pros, there are few consistent winners. But at a table full of pros with a single non-pro, there’s one consistent loser. Do you really want to take the chance that it won’t be you?

 

That’s why so many neophyte and “intermediate” gamblers gravitate toward roulette. It’s got a big shiny wheel. It’s suspenseful, the ball’s counterclockwise spin building anticipation as it decelerates. Roulette just feels like gambling.

 

It’s also crushingly stupid.

 

38 spaces, each of which is as likely to be hit as the next. (That’s the integers from 1 to 36 – each of which is either red or black – plus 0 and 00.) And each of which pays the same – 36 to 1.

 

We’d say “think about that”, but there isn’t much to think about. Put $1 down, and you’ll lose. Put another $1 down, you’ll lose again. Do it 38 times in a row, and you’ll win. You’ll win $36.

Makes it all worthwhile, doesn’t it? Collect $36 for every $38 you spend? How can you lose?

 

For the really, really mathematically disinclined among you – like Chelsea, the Utah 80 mph girl – this is bad. You’re losing $1 out of every $19. And there’s nothing at all you can do to improve your odds.

 

Any red (or any black) pays even money, as does any odd (or any even). There are several other bets you can make that incorporate multiple numbers. For instance, you can place a bet on all the numbers from 1 to 12 (or 13 to 24, or 25 to 36.) Each of those comprises exactly one-third of the numbered spaces, and pays 2-to-1. Which would appear to be fair on the surface, if you were to discount the 0 and 00.
And why wouldn’t you discount them? They have zeroes on them! Doesn’t that make them meaningless?

 

Those zeroes make the house rich. And make you correspondingly poor.

 

“Yes, but what if you win?” Fine, what if you win. Last week we lambasted the idiots who waited in line for Mega Millions tickets: here in Nevada, which doesn’t participate in lotteries, residents of Las Vegas had to drive 70 miles round-trip to the California border (or 100 to the Arizona border) to spend up to 4 hours waiting for tickets. The 3 people who won can make fun of us. The other dozens of millions of losers who bought tickets can grab a piece of this and slide off.

 

Dumber than smoking? Maybe. At least gambling doesn’t directly impact your health, although you might think twice about that if you spend a few minutes breathing the fumes at the Golden Nugget.

 

If you make $57,000 a year, betting on roulette is the equivalent of having an intruder poke a revolver in your ribs and walk off with $3000. Happy gambling.

This article is featured in:

**The Carnival of Financial Camaraderie #30**