Killing Sacred Cows Blog

With my "Fire Your Financial Adviser" seminar and our Producer Power Hour podcast this week, I wanted to address a topic that I feel is grossly misunderstood.  When I was a traditional financial adviser, I would rattle off some assumed 2000 Bureau of Labor Statistics that came out with a longitudinal report that studied where 25 yr olds in 1960 were in 2000.  It showed 29% of 65 year olds deceased, 66% totally dependent on others or still working, 4% financially independent, and 1% wealthy.  By the way, I have never seen any government source confirm these numbers, but I have seen many financial institutions and network marketing companies quote it.  In fact, in my presentation, I would have a tagline that said "People don't plan to fail, they only fail to plan."  This was what I used to convince others to take action and do business with me.  However, even if those numbers were accurate, hadn't more than 5% of Americans implemented some sort of retirement products during their life, like 401(k) and IRA's, some with financial advisers?  Weren't many of these "Prime lifers" born in 1935 strict savers because of the influence of the Great Depression?

 

The Tragic Truth

The reality is much worse.  According to the National Centre for Health Statistics, a 25-year old only has a 16% chance of death before age 65, not 29%.  Of the surviving, the 2000 Bureau of Labor Statistics says that 24.4% of 65-69 year olds were still working and 66% of them depend on Social Security to provide at least 50% of  their income (22% are totally dependent).  The median household income for those 65 and older was only $33,802 in 2002.  In addition, the 2000 U.S. Census said that this aging population had a net worth of $108,885.  However, $85,516 was home equity leaving a measly $23,369 for retirement.  If you read my blog on hidden 401(k) fees (August 8^th), you would also notice that the average balance in a 401(k) for 65 year olds is only about $60,000.  Could you live like that for one year?  Two years?  Ten years?  How about 25 more years? 

 

The Cause

There are many factors contributing to this, but let's address some of the most overlooked. First, most financial planners will quote some "average" return in the markets that someone can likely count on for the long haul.  However, the "actual" return often is different.  See diagram below.

 

This is a pretty drastic example, but it proves the point that the number an adviser or planner puts in the calculator will never match up to reality.  From 1965 to 2004, the S&P 500's (stock market) performance was an 11.74% "average" rate of return but the "actual" return was 10.4% per year.  You may think that 1.34% makes little difference; however, after 40 years, your money is less by about 38%!  This doesn't even include fees that they never factor into your rate of return.  If your fees totaled about 1.25% per year, you would see that number cut by another 36%!  This would mean that you would actually only have about 39% compared to what a financial calculator would tell you based on the average rate of return!  Therefore, in this S&P 500 example, if you were expecting $1 million when you retire, even if it performs how it is supposed to, you would only have about $390,000.  Would you be disappointed?  How would that affect the income you were hoping for?  What if you had to pay taxes on that disappointing figure as well?  How much would $390,000 really be worth in 40 years given the actual inflation rates, including health care, as well as keeping up with certain technological changes and so forth?  To see what other factors do to your money, I would suggest listening to our August 27^th podcast on http://www.producerpowerhour.com/ or registering to attend Part 2 of my seminar/webinar at http://www.fireyourfinancialadviser.com/.  I will further illustrate how a positive ACTUAL rate of return of 12% could become a negative return in reality.

 

The Solution

It's simple.  Get further educated on leveraging the assets you have.  One cannot expect to get different results by believing the same things about investing as everyone else.  Misunderstood concepts, like some that were previously mentioned, are contributing to the dilemmas and drain on Social Security.  To hear more on this subject, check out http://www.fireyourfinancialadviser.com/ or http://www.freedomfasttrack.com/.   

By Chris Miles

One of my clients recently asked me a question regarding whether or not someone needed passive income to truly be financially free. I believe that many of those striving for financial excellence have asked this same question and debated it.

In response to this question, I would ask "What is passive income to you?" How you define passive income will determine whether or not it can really exist and sustain itself.

Passive = No Direct Value Creation

Many believe passive income to be earning income on investments without having to do anything to earn it. Or, in other words, provide little or no value to receive a lot of value. However, if one owns a rental property and gets paid rent, is that really "passive?" Did you really do nothing for it? If you do nothing, will the income last?

Consider having a business as another example. If you provide tremendous value in a business for months, or even years, so that you create conditions to make money while you sleep, was that a passive event, or were you active in creating it? Do you still have to maintain it?

Do you think Garrett Gunderson put minimal time or value into Killing Sacred Cows to help it sell? If he decided to put little effort and time into it by cutting corners and using no research, what kind of "passive" income do you think he would receive from book sales?

On the other hand, if passive income means working smarter and leveraging your abilities, passions, and talents (Soul Purpose), and others' as well, could that kind of income continue for a longer period of time?

The Law of the Harvest

We violate the Law of the Harvest (sowing and reaping) when we believe that we somehow can reap where we have not sown. If one ever feels that they are getting paid to provide little to no value, that income will not likely last. As a result, it becomes a state of bondage due to uncertainty of the returns rather than financial freedom.

When I have had income streams in the past where I was not certain why I was receiving so much income for providing little or no value, the passive income never lasted longer than a few years. The only income streams I have been able to count on are the ones where I have significant control and contribution.

Some may consider maintaining control and applying one's human life value bondage, but is it really? Who is paid more -- one who provides value for others in a way that few can or one that gets paid doing virtually nothing and has a difficult time understanding why they get paid so handsomely?

With regards to passive income creating freedom, did our Founding Fathers say, "Once we are ‘out of the rat race' then we will begin to fight for freedom?" They declared their independence when they were still subject to King George's rule.

What is Financial Freedom?

Is freedom a state of having or a state of being? Could one ever have enough money to buy freedom? Can freedom be purchased with money? Is it possible that many that have passive income could be slaves to doing investments or businesses that they do not enjoy? If you do real estate investing only to make money, how is that different than a job? Would you call doing an investment or business only for money "freedom?" If that were the case, couldn't one work a typical full-time job and still be free?

I do not believe that living financially free can be purchased. The only ones I have met that believe this theory are the ones that have never had money. I have had times where I have felt more enslaved with more money than living paycheck to paycheck.

Granted, our minds can be put at ease if we are wise stewards with our resources. We may choose to create conditions that cause more stress and worry, such as living on more than we have means. However, the only way to have financial freedom is to live a life of based on purpose, not a life based on our pocket books.

Freedom is a state of being, not a state of your account balance.

I challenge each of us to put money in the proper perspective as a tool to be used to serve others through our soul purpose rather than money being a master that will command us when we will be free.