MOST OF US WILL ENJOY wonderfully long lives. For those born in 2000, the average life expectancy at birth was age 80 for men and 84 for women. That’s a vast improvement since 1900, when life expectancy was age 52 for men and 58 for women.
The bad news: While men can now expect to live 28 years longer and women 26 years longer, the bulk of the improvement—20 years—came in the first half of the 20th century.
ESTATE PLANNING IS EASY for most folks—but many don’t bother. Surveys regularly find that half of all adults don’t have a will. Yet a will, the right beneficiaries listed on retirement accounts and life insurance, and correct titling on property (such as the house you own jointly with your spouse with right of survivorship) are all most of us need.
Sure, there are other niceties, like drawing up durable powers of attorney for financial and health-care matters,
TOMORROW IS THE 805th weekly edition of The Wall Street Journal Sunday, a publication carried in 67 newspapers with a combined circulation of 6.2 million—and, I’m sad to report, also the last. I wrote columns for 423 of those editions, including both the inaugural publication, which appeared Sept. 12, 1999, and tomorrow’s final paper.
You can get an early look at my last column on MarketWatch.com. In that column, I discuss five notions that—I believe—are indispensable to a happier financial life.
STAT OF THE DAY: In 2012, 27% of Americans said they were satisfied with their financial situation, versus 32.2% in 1972, according to the General Social Survey. That 27% was the third lowest reading ever for the survey, which has typically been conducted every two years, though sometimes more often. Meanwhile, over that same 40-year stretch, inflation-adjusted per-capita disposable income grew 108%.
INVESTORS SHOULD VIEW THEMSELVES not as pursuers of performance, but as managers of risk. The fact is, nobody has a clue what will happen next in the financial markets, so we shouldn’t waste time fretting over something we can’t control. Instead, we should focus on the stuff we can influence–how much we save, our portfolio’s tax bill, our investment costs and how much risk we take.
I tackle the topic of risk in this weekend’s column.
MY NEW BOOK was mentioned in two recent articles. In the Chicago Tribune, Carolyn Bigda discusses the Money Guide’s suggestion that folks look back at 2014, recall what spending brought them the most pleasure, and then use that to guide their spending in 2015. My hunch: Most people will find they got the most happiness not from new possessions, but from money spent on experiences—things like vacations, dinners out and going to concerts.
MANY FOLKS CAN’T WAIT to retire. I hope to avoid it—at least in the traditional sense. I can’t imagine having endless days with no clear purpose, other than to “relax” and “have fun.” I much prefer devoting at least part of every day to work, whether it’s banging out my next column or writing my next book.
If you’re retired, this daily sense of purpose doesn’t have to generate income, but it’s sure helpful if it does.
WALL STREET HAS CHANGED remarkably during my three decades of writing and thinking about money—mostly for the better. For instance, financial advisors now earn an estimated 64% of their compensation from asset-based fees, rather than from commissions. That eliminates many of the worst conflicts-of-interest, including the incentive to churn a client’s account and sell products that pay the highest commission. Today, you also see many advisors making heavy use of index funds, a topic I discuss in my column this week.
REAL-ESTATE BROKERS COMPLAIN when I write about housing, and proclaim that there’s no better investment than a home. Insurance agents whine when I discuss insurance issues, and trumpet cash-value life insurance and tax-deferred annuities as the best things since slice bread. Financial advisors fire off fiery emails when I write about the advice business, and insist that the building blocks of financial success are stocks, bonds and an advisor’s wise counsel.
Maybe one of these groups is correct—but they can’t all be.
AS I TRY TO DRUM UP interest in the Jonathan Clements Money Guide 2015, I spoke today to theStreet.com’s Gregg Greenberg for a video interview and talked to a writer for the AARP blog.
WHAT COUNTS AS GOOD financial advice doesn’t change much from one year to the next. In 2014, you should have owned a globally diversified portfolio, kept investment costs low, avoided credit-card debt, maxed your 401(k) and avoided annuity salesmen. Ditto for 2015.
So why do folks read the business section every day, buy personal-finance books and subscribe to business magazines? There’s an entertainment aspect: We like feeling engaged with the wider world.
But there’s also a practical reason: Even if good financial advice doesn’t change much from one year to the next,
THE FUN PART–writing the book–is over. Now, it’s time to generate sales. This is the part that authors hate, which is hardly a surprise: Why would folks who spends their days staring at a screen and tapping at a keyboard be any good at standing in the middle of the road, pounding their chests and declaring their own virtue?
Fortunately, a bunch of longtime friends have saved the Jonathan Clements Money Guide 2015 from obscurity.
HERE’S ANOTHER REASON TO LOVE retirement: You get the chance to save big money by managing your annual tax bill. I recently discussed this notion with the folks at Bottom Line/Personal. For more, check out the full article.
NEAR THE PEAK of the real-estate bubble, I wrote a column about how I had fared financially with the house I then owned in New Jersey. It wasn’t the first time I argued that a home shouldn’t be considered an investment. But that 2005 column triggered the biggest reaction by far.
In addition to a deluge of scornful emails, I came across an online forum where the article was discussed. The first person who posted had read my column.
WE MIGHT OVERINDUGLE this holiday season—but we probably won’t be honest about it. For my Money Guide, I took a look at how America spends. There are two key sources: the Commerce Department and the Labor Department. The Commerce Department relies on top-down economic data, while the Labor Department surveys consumers.
It turns out that consumers aren’t entirely honest. The Commerce Department found that, in 2013, U.S. households spent an average $900 on tobacco,