Jonathan Clements

WHO SHOULD DIET? This isn’t exactly a tough one: It’s people who need to lose weight.
Who should budget? If you listen to conventional wisdom, this is another easy one: It seems we all should. Creating a written budget, and then tracking our spending against it, is considered a sign of high financial rectitude.
I think this is nonsense. I have never created a written budget and I don’t track my spending—because I don’t need to.

THE SAVINGS RATE has been revised by the federal government—and the new numbers offer a rosier take on America’s financial rectitude. But is the story believable?
Make no mistake: The old figures told a sorry tale. They suggested our savings habits fell apart after 1984 and with a vengeance after 1997. But suddenly, post-1984 doesn’t look so grim. Under the new methodology, the annual savings rate averaged 11.3% over the 35 years through 1984,

YOU’RE UNLIKELY TO get the right answers—unless you ask the right questions.
That’s especially true when it comes to managing money. We have answers thrust in our faces all the time, as marketers and salespeople exhort us to buy this mutual fund, that car, this stock, that home and this insurance policy.
But are these really what we want or need? It’s hard to know unless we ask the right questions. There’s ample evidence that many folks end up with financial products they don’t need and spend money in ways that bring little or no happiness.

A FINANCIAL PLANNER called Archie Nickel is stealing entire articles from HumbleDollar and posting them to his own site—without permission. In the online world, it’s fine to link to interesting articles elsewhere on the web. But it’s a no-no to swipe entire articles. I’ve endeavored to contact the nefarious Nickel, by posting comments on his site and via Twitter, but he’s ignored my requests to stop purloining this site’s blogs and and to remove the blogs he’s previously stolen.

WE CAN GATHER financial facts and research issues. But what we learn will always be tainted by what we’ve experienced.
As I mentioned last week, anecdotal evidence often proves more powerful than statistics. I’m talking here about the same phenomenon—but writ larger. What we read in articles and books is scant competition for the informational scraps we collect throughout our lives: the comments our parents made, the milieu we grew up in, the stories we hear from colleagues,

YOU MENTION TO a colleague that longtime smokers shorten their life expectancy by an average of 10 years. Your colleague responds by talking about his grandmother who smoked a pack every day until she died at age 98. We all know that the statistic should trump the anecdote. But on the conversational scoreboard, it’s one point for both sides—and, three weeks later, you can’t help but recall the grandmother’s story.
The same thing happens with personal finance all the time.

WHEN I WAS a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, I repeatedly heard two complaints from editors, especially those with little understanding of personal finance: “Our readers want something more sophisticated” and “Where’s the news hook?”
That, in a nutshell, explains why the media can be so bad for our financial health. When print and broadcast journalists cave in to the twin imperatives of timeliness and sophistication, they’re almost guaranteed to lead their audience astray—for three reasons:
1.

WE CAN’T CONTROL the financial markets. But we can pretty much guarantee we’ll pocket whatever the stock and bond markets deliver—by buying index funds. So why do I hear so much grousing from indexers?
At issue isn’t a failure of index funds, but rather a failure of investors’ expectations. Over the past few months, I’ve heard from countless hardcore indexers who have done the sensible thing and built globally diversified portfolios. Often, they own some variation of the classic three-fund portfolio: a total U.S.

WE HAVE FINALLY HIT rock-bottom. Last week, Fidelity Investments announced that it was introducing two index funds with zero annual expenses, while also slashing expenses on its other index funds and dropping the required minimum investment on all funds, both actively managed and indexed. All of this raises five key questions.
1. Why is Fidelity doing this? I view Fidelity’s move as both bold and borne of desperation. When I started writing about mutual funds in the late 1980s,

I’M STILL WAITING. Along with many others, I have spent much of my investing career expecting five key financial trends to play themselves out—and yet they’ve stubbornly refused to do so.
Sure, these predictions could still come true. But I have my doubts. Maybe these five financial forecasts aren’t the slam dunk they appear:
1. Stocks will revert to average historical valuations. Whether you look at price-earnings ratios, cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratios,

FORGET XBOX AND PlayStation. If you’re an investment nerd, nothing beats playing with a financial calculator, especially running scenarios that combine dollars, investment returns and great gobs of time. Here are six mathematical musings—not all of them happy:

Got a newborn daughter or granddaughter? If you invest $1,000 on her behalf and the money notches 6% a year, she’ll have almost $106,000 at age 80. That 6% is my assumption for long-run annual stock returns.

OUR PERSPECTIVE ON money slowly shifts as we age. How so? Below are 11 changes I see in myself and my contemporaries, those also in their 50s and 60s. Admittedly, some of these changes are more aspirational than actual. We don’t behave quite as wisely as we imagine—but we are, at least, trying to be wise.

We’re less confident we can beat the market, but more confident we know what we’re doing.
We are freer with our money—but more calculating with our time.

IS IT TIME TO STOP messing around with our portfolios—and go for radical simplicity? I’ve been asking myself that question in recent months, as I eye the growing list of funds that offer broadly diversified “one-stop shopping” portfolios built solely with low-cost index funds.
Take Vanguard Target Retirement 2050 Fund, which invests its assets in four Vanguard index funds and is geared toward those retiring in 2050 or thereabouts. The 2050 fund has a $1,000 investment minimum and charges just 0.15% a year,

YOU MAY BE SAVING and investing for retirement. But what you’re really doing is buying future income. How much income? That brings us to a little number crunching, which I hope will illuminate five key financial ideas.
Let’s start with the numbers. Imagine stocks notch 6% a year, but inflation steals two percentage points of that gain, so you collect an after-inflation annual return of 4%. If you socked away $1,000, what would it be worth in retirement?

YOU WILL RETIRE ONE day—and, if you want to spend your final decades in even moderate comfort, it won’t be cheap. Not too concerned about saving for retirement right now? Here are five uncomfortable realities:
1. You’ll almost certainly live to retirement age. Sure, you could go under a bus before then. But that isn’t something you should bank on: If you’re age 20 today, there’s an 85% chance you will live to 65,