Pork Barrel Spending in Corporations is Equally Appalling

To understand the significance of the downturn in the market, check out Sequoia Capital's Powerpoint presentation on Tech Crunch, which contains a quote near the end that reads "spend every dollar like it's your last one." Though this exaggerates the advice that I offer on this site, it's an interesting principle to consider before you open your wallet.

When you, personally, are fronting the bill for an expense, it's easy to say "no" if you feel like you're overpaying or being frivilous. But when your company is going to pay the bill, you're probably less likely to stop yourself, knowing that you can just "expense it."

Employees in come companies legitimately think, because they're traveling for business, that expensive dinners and hotels and plane tickets and car services and luxury retreats are consumables to which they are entitled. Somehow the fact that the company is going to pay the bill excuses them from making financially sound decisions that are in the best interest of the shareholders. The same goes for over-the-top construction, decorating, and other unnecessary eyes-closed, blank-check spending.

Not all companies are guilty; I actually believe that the company I work for does an excellent job of exercising thrift. However, I find it sad that employees in other organizations that expense extravagant happy hours and meals and hotel rooms are doing a horrible disservice to the actual owners of their companies. All employees of a corporation have an indirect fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders, even if that relationship is separated by many degrees.

It's easy for John McCain and Barack Obama to criticise the government for its pork-barrel spending. Americans hate to see their tax dollars wasted. But the truth is that much of our retirement money lives in corporations. Why do we not hold them accountable for their inefficiencies and outrageous spending (does the AIG $400,000 retreat ring a bell?)?

Every time a client is taken to Morton's instead of Panera; every time a consultant stays at the Marriott Marquis instead of the Comfort Inn; every time a quarterly meeting is held in Las Vegas instead of corporate headquarters, the bottom line is knocked down another notch. And the more corporations whose bottom lines are affected, the more affected are those whose retirement accounts are in mutual funds.

My grandmother has her life savings in her IRA, which is losing money like it has holes in its pockets. I understand that frivilous business expenditures aren't the main culprit that got us into the crisis we're in today, but they're his first cousin. I believe that outrageous senses of entitlement and a complete lack reasonable, responsible financial behavior, on behalf of both individuals and corporations, are to blame.

I welcome and encourage your anonymous comments about outrageous corporate spending that you've seen in your career.

Liquidity: The Apples and Oranges of Your Financial Health

It's important to periodically assess your personal financial health. I enjoy using a free tool, NetWorthIQ, to determine my overall net worth. Essentially, the tool works by applying generally accepted accounting principles to your accounts, summing all of your assets and subtracting all of your debts to produce your net worth. It's just like high school accounting where Assets minus Liabilities equals Owner's Equity. Though this tool is useful for numerically and graphically tracking progress from month to month, it can't be interpreted as a realistic assessment of your financial health. Here's why:

All of your assets and liabilities aren't quite as simple as apples and oranges. Some liabilities have tax advantages and disadvantages, and some assets have costs associated with turning them into cash. For example, a student loan and an auto loan may look similar on paper if they have a similar balance and interest rate, but the interest paid on a student loan is tax deductible. $10,000 in a 401(k) and $10,000 in a RothIRA may seem equal, but the Roth money will never be taxed while the 401(k) will be once it's withdrawn.

So when you're determining your financial health, it's important to figure out not just your net worth, but also your liquidity. Liquidity is essentially your ability to turn your assets into cash. I'm sorry to say that these dorky financial terms don't just apply to corporations and accountants -- they apply to you. Think I'm full of it? Consider this:

Some friends of mine bought a house a few years ago for $190,000 and got a zero-down loan. Today, they owe about $187,500 on the place. After a recent life change, they need to move to a different state. Though their house is listed for several thousand dollars more than they paid and now owe, they're still worried about being able to afford to move. According to Zillow, their home's value exceeds what they owe by about $20,000. But when calculating their liquidity, they need to take into account the likely sale amount and their real estate agent's commission, which happens to be an exceptionally low four and a half percent.

Yesterday, a potential buyer offered $195,000 -- $6,500 more than what they owe. But in order to not lose any money, they'll need to sell the house for at least $196,355. The current offer leaves them bringing $1,300 cash to the table at the time of sale. Sure, they could counter offer, but who's to say that they'd ever get a higher offer?

I'm a big proponent of bean counting. It's an important step in the road to wealth. But when you decide to count your money, be sure to do a second analysis that considers only the liquid value of your assets. Obviously, cash is completely liquid. But when considering at your home's value, use a pessimistic market value (depending on how quickly you need to sell) and subtract whatever you would expect to pay a real estate agent. When considering the value of your retirement savings, subtract any taxes and penalties you would need to pay as well as any non-vested employer contributions. When calculating the value of your vehicles and personal property, think about how much cash you would realistically receive for them from a sale.

You'll probably find that your liquid assets are much smaller than your total assets. Though it might not be fun to look at, it's an important truth factor that speaks wonders about your genuine financial wellbeing.

Setting long-term financial goals

I've been a long-time proponent of creating a budget and setting short-term financial goals. As a recent escapee of credit card debt, short-term goals have been the best tools to dig myself out of that hole. But during dinner last night, my wife and I were talking a little bit about our retirement and I realized that I had no idea when we could retire. All I knew was that we make decent money, don't waste too much on frivolous things, and try to pay cash for as many big-ticket purchases as we are able. Given our current situation, can we retire at 65? 60? 50?!?!

Because I'm no expert, I won't try and tell you how specifically to plan for your retirement. But I will share some results of exercises that I've been going through this morning. Ideally, I'd like to retire at age 50. And according to some initial calculations, I'll need to save a significant percentage of my income to retire at that age, assuming that I do not receive any social security. Of course, my lifestyle during retirement will affect the amount of money that I need to save. Assuming the following lifestyles (% of my current annual income, adjusted for inflation, that I would like to withdraw during each year of retirement), I will need to save the following percent before tax (assuming 8% growth before and during retirement):

• 70% of income: 32% savings
• 80% of income: 37% savings
• 90% of income: 42% savings
• 100% of income: 46.5% savings

Of course, those numbers assume that I will retire at age 50 and will receive no social security (mainly because the system is in the toilet and I don't want to rely on it). If I assume that I will receive social security benefits, my income/savings percentages change significantly:

• 70% of income: 23.5% savings
• 80% of income: 28% savings
• 90% of income: 32.5% savings
• 100% of income: 37.5% savings

One important thing to consider about these numbers is that they all reflect the minimum percent savings required to ensure that the money won't run out by age 90. Each percentage will result in a near-zero balance by age 90. However, by saving approximately 4% more than the minimum savings percentage required for my desired income, I will be able to draw from the account annually without decreasing the principal balance. Essentially, by saving for an 80%-income lifestyle and actually living a 70%-income lifestyle, my account balance will continue to grow indefinitely. Assuming that I save enough to live off of what is today $42,000 per year (70% of 60,000), saving an extra 4% annually will give me an account balance at age 90 of about $1.5 million. Not saving the extra 4% annually will leave me with a balance by age 90 of about zero dollars.

What I have learned from my research is this: I should figure out what kind of annual income I would like to have in retirement. Next, I'll save enough to make that goal, plus at least an additional 4%. It is that relatively small extra savings that will determine if I die rich or poor.