Q&A: Should I Buy a Bigger House for Roommates?

Following last week's post on the ROI of rental properties, another interesting question is whether you should buy a small one-bedroom condo (for example) to keep expenses low, or a three- or four-bedroom house to gain some rental income. There are two main considerations: ROI and overall financial safety.

As far as ROI is concerned, I think it's very similar to last week's calculations. There are some differences in the details, though. Your principal and interest (P&I) payment will be higher, but when determining the ROI on the rental portion of your property, I think it should be specified as the difference between the large house's payment and the small home's P&I. You would have had the base P&I payment anyway, so it's not really a cost associated with the renters. Similarly for most of the expenses. Property taxes and insurance will be higher for a larger house, usually. Maintenance costs will be higher with the increased wear and tear, and you'll need a larger refrigerator, but maintenance costs haven't risen that much for me. Utilities will be higher, but probably not terribly so.

Your investment amount should be the increase in down payment, or the difference in overall home value. In this scenario, I am strongly inclined to use the overall home value in my calculations. This gets into the overall financial safety aspect. A pure rental property can be abandoned and sold off if you don't want to deal with renters anymore. If you get tired of having roommates, you can kick them out, but you still have to pay for the entire house. Lowering your expenses requires moving and the house-buying-and-selling process and headaches associated with it.

Consequently, I think it is very important to buy a house with many financial cushions included, even when you plan on having roommates. As I mentioned ages ago, I bought my home knowing I could afford the payments and other costs using just my base salary after all my preferred expenses had been taken out - 401(k) contributions, IRA contributions, miscellaneous spending money. Each of these expenses was a cushion, and any rental income was a nice bonus.

And there are other reasons why you may not have roommates anymore. I would guess that most people are single when they contemplate having roommates in a house they are buying. It's possible you meet that special someone that thinks you're a special someone, too. Roommates may get in the way then. It's possible that special someone comes with a second income that's much higher than that provided by roommates, but they might also be going (back) to school, or you might be having kids right away and one of you will be staying home. Either way, it'd be nice to be able to spend your first year together in wedded bliss, rather than struggling to downgrade your home.

For me, it seemed to make sense to buy a bit bigger. It's definitely worked out so far. On the other hand, I'd have a much lower debt than I have now, and might have purchased a standalone rental property already. It's hard to know exactly how things would have been different, but I can't say I've had any major regrets with my house and/or roommate situation.

Q&A: What's My Effective Mortgage Interest Rate?

When you sign and initial the hundred or so times required to purchase a home, chances are good that you wind up with a mortgage to go along with the property. That mortgage has an associated interest rate that is used to calculate how much you're charged each month, but it isn't always an accurate measure of how much you pay, in the end. (The mortgage also has an advertised APR that includes points, lender fees, and any applicable PMI thanks to the Truth in Lending Act. Honestly, I've never found the APR that helpful, and it definitely isn't helpful in this discussion - we need to look at the base interest rate.) The net interest you pay depends on your tax situation, and results in what I call your effective interest rate (not to be confused with the more official effective annual interest rate - new name suggestions are appreciated!).

Mortgage interest is tax deductible, which is great in theory, but it doesn't always help very much, if at all. Individuals get a standard deduction of $5,700, and married couples filing jointly get $11,400. If your mortgage interest isn't greater than whatever standard deduction applies to you, then the mortgage interest deduction doesn't help you on its own. You may have other deductions like qualified medical expenses, 401(k) contributions, charitable giving, and the like. If you have a mortgage, chances are good that you have an income and pay state and/or local income taxes, and chances are even better that you have property and are paying real-estate taxes, both of which are deductible. With these deductions, the mortgage interest deduction can be more beneficial.

My medical expenses are well below 7.5% of my adjusted gross income, so those are not deductible. My 401(k) contributions go into a 401(k) ROTH account, so they are not deductible. I have some donations and the occasional miscellaneous deduction, but my main deductions are the state income and property taxes I pay. In the end, most of my mortgage interest winds up being deductible. That means I pay a lot of state and local taxes, though, so that's not entirely a good thing.... It doesn't apply to me this year, but your deduction can also span tax brackets, making the calculation that much more complicated. Some of the deduction may save you 28%, while some may save you 25%, for example.

The amount actually deducted (we can call it the effective deduction until a better suggestion comes in) affects the effective interest rate you pay. For a 5% mortgage with outstanding principal of $200,000, your interest payments will be around $10,000. Say you contribute to a 401(k) and so can deduct all your interest and are in the 25% tax bracket. You effectively reduced the interest paid by 25% * $10,000 = $2,500. You are now paying a net of $7,500 for an effective interest rate of around 3.75%.

Because I'm such a fan of calculators, I just couldn't resist making another one!

Interest Rate (%):
Interest Paid ($):
Interest Deducted ($):
Tax Bracket (%):

Infinite Retirement Calculator

As you may know, I plan on living forever. Dying just seems so wasteful, so I think I'll skip that part of life. Living forever requires some planning, though. It'd be rather annoying to retire and then be forced back into the workforce at age 2718 because I ran out of money. Every retirement calculator I've ever found requires you to choose how long you will be retired. The longest option I've seen is 120 years, but even that's rather pessimistic. So then, I need to know how much money I need to save up in order to retire - forever. Alternatively, I'd like to know how much I can take out every year given my current investments.

I tried to be as conservative as possible in my planning. I assumed I would take out the entire year's spending money at the beginning of the year, i.e., I was pessimistic about how much of my net worth would grow each year. Of course, this pesky little recession has shown that I'm being ridiculously optimistic by assuming any sort of consistent growth during my retirement. Still, this is for planning purposes only, and certain assumptions have to be made in order to make the math at all reasonable.

So, without further ado, the calculator!

• Modify either the "Net worth" or the "Max sustainable income" field and the other will be calculated.
• "Growth rate" and "Inflation rate" are configurable as well.
• The bold label indicates the calculated value.

Net worth ($):
Growth rate (%):
Inflation rate (%):
Max sustainable income ($):
Monthly values?

For every $0.00 you save, your eternal retirement income increases by $1.00.

Some following ado is in order. It should be noted that the "Net worth" and "Max sustainable income" values are in current dollars. The amount you withdraw is assumed to adjust for inflation each year; your infinite retirement should maintain a consistent quality of life. Since money equals happiness, this means your purchasing power should remain the same no matter how long you live. Similarly, the "Net worth" (when calculated) is how much you would need today in order to retire. The amount you need goes up each year, since your income requirements get larger as you postpone your retirement, but most of the difference should be accounted for in the principal growth that would be occurring. It should also be noted that the amount you have to save per dollar is entirely dependent on the growth and inflation rates, so these are rather important to estimate right (and/or conservatively).

Observant readers may have noticed that the default inflation rate of 3.3% closely matches the annualized inflation rate discussed previously. They may have also noticed that the default growth rate of 7% does NOT match any of the numbers in my discussion on the annualized growth rate. I chose 7% because this calculator models retirement, and people tend to be more conservative in their retirement. I think 7% is a better reflection of a portfolio with a significant percentage allocated to bonds, for example.

The "Net worth" label is probably a bit misleading, but it gives you a good place to start. I would probably not include my home equity in these calculations because I don't plan on using that for income in any way. Similarly, cash accounts won't come close to the average growth most people assume in their models, and would probably best be ignored. I would have used "Retirement savings" except that term is usually used to refer to 401(k) and IRA accounts, and regular taxable accounts can grow and produce income, too.

Growth and inflation rates are APY values. The default values reflect yearly budgeting, and for yearly values, APR=APY and things are simple. When the "Monthly values?" checkbox is checked, the growth and inflation rates are adjusted such that the APY remains the same as for the yearly case, other than rounding errors. When looking at monthly values, your overall income will still be higher (or your net worth needed lower) because you are leaving your money growing a few months longer.

Q&A: When and Where to Save

Now that we've made a decision on where to put our money, generally speaking (and it's okay if your decision is different than mine), it's time to decide on when to put it there. First, we'll look at which accounts get priority when allocating contributions. Then, we'll look at the timing of those contributions throughout the year.

Where

The highest priority for your money is definitely 401(k) contributions that qualify for employer matching contributions. This is typically an instant 50-100% return, depending on your employer's plan. Once you've passed the match cutoff, deciding between 401(k) contributions and IRA contributions depends on a number of factors. Hey, it sounds like we need yet another bulleted list!

• Maxing out contributions? - If you plan to max out both 401(k) and IRA contributions, keep in mind that the only way to contribute to your 401(k) is through salary deferrals. It is important to contribute enough to your 401(k) early in the year to make maximizing your contributions possible. There is more flexibility in contributing to an IRA. You have all year to contribute, plus until tax filing of the following year. Your 401(k) is more time-sensitive, and therefore may have a higher priority.


• Investment options - 401(k)s typically have a very limited number of investment options. For example, IBM offers mutual funds that follow large sector indexes. Additional mutual funds are available for a small administration fee, though even these choices are limited. By contrast, my IRA through E*TRADE has access to over 7000 mutual funds, 1000 ETFs, plus stocks, bonds, and options, of course. The nice thing about 401(k) investment options is that they usually (but not always) have very low expense ratios. Still, it's important to look at net returns, and IRAs often have many more investment options than 401(k) plans, which means more opportunities for better overall returns.


• Roth vs Traditional - If your employer doesn't offer a Roth 401(k), but you've decided that Roth is a better option for you, prioritizing contributions to a Roth IRA before additional 401(k) deferrals makes sense.


• IRA vs Nothing - Of course, if your employer doesn't offer a 401(k) at all, an IRA is your only option. I would strongly suggest taking the issue up with management or HR!

Naturally, tax-advantaged accounts have received the priority. When you have extra money and no tax-advantaged accounts left to put it in, a regular brokerage account finally comes into the picture.

When

Generally speaking, trying to time the market is not recommended. It is possible, perhaps likely, that you will miss out on significant gains. I'll admit to some attempts at timing the market, though. I think the important thing is to be careful not to try to time the market too much. It would probably be bad to hold your $5000 IRA contribution waiting for a low point in the market, but I don't think it's bad to alter your 401(k) deferral percentage based on large market trends. For example, I lowered my my 401(k) deferral percentage at the beginning of 2008 and 2009, then raised it about halfway through so that I would contribute more during the latter half of the year, while still maxing out my contributions. For 2006 and 2007, when the market was good, I maxed out my 401(k) contributions in little more than 6-8 months. The economy shows some signs of improving, so I might set my deferral percentage to max out my 2010 contributions around August. This is different than the usual definition of timing the market, too - I still have all previous contributions invested, and I am still making regularly timed contributions. Basically, I don't feel bad about my 401(k) deferral adjustments. In all years, I contributed to my IRA fully in the first quarter. As discussed previously, I am using my Roth IRA for more aggressive stock and option trading through E*TRADE. This year, I didn't try to time the market with my IRA contribution(s), but I did not make a contribution until I had a specific trade I wanted to make. It just so happened that there were trades I wanted to make in February and March.

There are, of course, some other things to consider than how to best time the market without trying to time it too precisely. For example, it is very important to maximize your employer match, as it is highly unlikely that market gains will be as high as 50-100%. When I max out my contributions early in the year, IBM will continue to make their matching contributions with each paycheck. Basically, as long as I've contributed up to the match cutoff, IBM will match fully, no matter what the timing of my contributions. Some employers may not have a match maximizer program. In this case, it is important to spread out your 401(k) contributions so that you get your full matching contributions each paycheck. This isn't always ideal from a budgeting standpoint, however. It can be nice to max out your contributions (and here I don't necessarily mean the yearly contribution limit, but whatever amount you plan on contributing) a bit before the end of the year so you have more spending money for the holiday season.

One nice thing about 401(k) contributions is that they are usually added to your portfolio without transaction fees. In regular brokerage accounts and IRAs, investing money can often be subject to transaction fees, immediately reducing your return. You can get around this by choosing to invest in no-load, no-transaction fee mutual funds, for example. Another option involves the timing of your contributions - making fewer but larger individual investments will result in lower overall transaction fees. If your IRA is not readily accessible online, it can also be a hassle to write multiple checks throughout the year. Before I moved my IRA to E*TRADE, I made my IRA contribution in one or two payments just because I am that lazy when it comes to check writing.

Finally, I'd like to mention a more technical note on mutual funds and taxes as it relates to timing investments. As we discussed earlier, mutual funds are required to pass on gains to share owners. They usually do this at the end of the year, but the actual timing can vary. As I mentioned before, as an owner of the mutual fund, you own a portion of the profits and those count as income, even when reinvesting them in the mutual fund. When buying mutual funds in a taxed account, it can be beneficial to wait until after this distribution so that you avoid the tax liability on profits you didn't actually receive. (More information on mutual fund NAV pricing and distribution tax consequences.) Similarly, it can be beneficial to sell a mutual fund from a taxable account before this profit distribution. If you read the second link in the preceding parenthetical statement, this may sound counter-intuitive. If the distribution lowers the NAV, wouldn't the gain from the sale be reduced accordingly, making the tax burden the same? The difference is that the distribution likely contains significant short term gains, while a sale is more likely to be long term gains. Of course, how much of this sale is long term gains depends on your transaction history, but you should be able to estimate the upcoming gains distribution's short term percentage based on prior years' distributions.

Q&A: Investment and Tax Strategies Across Accounts

The different tax structures of the various account types - traditional, Roth, and regular taxed brokerage accounts - should be taken into consideration when planning your investment strategies. How do we take advantage of these different account types, all while maintaining a balanced portfolio? The answer is to break up your asset classes into each type of account, rather than trying to make each one roughly balanced. It can be advantageous to hold certain asset types in each account type. I'm going to keep things relatively simple and talk just about stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and ETFs (and a bit about options, I suppose, but not commodities or specifics on market capitalizations and whatnot).

• Stocks - Your basic stock has dividends and stock price appreciation. While some stocks are chosen for their dividend yield, when we talk about stocks, we usually are focused on stock price appreciation as a goal. For stocks that are held longer than a year, we expect/hope that the majority of our profits are the result of stock price appreciation. This will result in long term capital gains, which is always taxed at a lower rate than regular income tax.


• Bonds - Bonds have coupons and price, which taken together produce a yield. Because the coupon (the interest rate) doesn't change, price and yield are inversely proportional. While the price may go up and down while you hold the bond, your yield is locked in when you buy the bond. We are usually focused on this yield, which provides a steady stream of income (and is taxed as such). Bonds are a more conservative investment, where yields are expected to be lower than the average return of stocks, but with less risk.


• Mutual funds - Mutual funds provide a convenient way of diversification. Owning a share of a mutual fund gives you an ownership stake in all assets the fund holds. You also own a share of the profits, and the taxes due on those profits. The form of those profits - short term or long term - are mostly under the control of the fund manager, and may not be ideal for your current tax situation. Some funds are actively managed and change their assets often (have high turnover). These funds tend to have a lot of realized gains every year, and behave more like bonds, tax-wise. Other funds are passively managed, or tax managed, and do their best to avoid gains that have to be passed on to the shareholders. These funds tend to have fewer realized gains per year, and behave more like stocks, tax-wise. The performance of mutual funds depends on the assets it invests in.


• ETFs - Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are like mutual funds, but all ETFs follow an index, and so are like passively managed mutual funds. They also don't have to buy or sell their underlying stocks as often as mutual funds, and instead do in-kind trades, which the IRS doesn't tax. So, ETFs generally behave more like stocks, tax-wise, than mutual funds, but there are a few ETFs that aren't as tax-efficient as their mutual fund peers, but these tend to be mutual funds that themselves already behave as stocks. More information, for anyone who wants it.


• Options - Options include your two basic types of options contracts - puts and calls. A put option is merely a contract to buy a block of shares (usually 100) at a given price. Similarly, a call option is a contract to sell a block of shares at a given price. Most options trades are for short term contracts, and are therefore short term gains taxed at high rates. For example, so far all of my options profits and losses have been short term. Options can be used to add extra value to owned stocks, insure an equity position, or put cash to use, but either way, gains (and/or losses) are expected to be relatively large.

With our asset types defined, we can now match them with their ideal account type. First, let's take a quick look at how much of your portfolio each should be. Unfortunately, there's no single answer. Each investor has to decide for themselves what level of risk they are willing to accept in their pursuit of returns. Common stock/bond ratios are 80/20, 70/30, and 60/40. This can be achieved through mutual funds and/or ETFs, or directly through individual stocks and bonds - with individual stocks and bonds being more risky. The percentage of your portfolio invested in bonds usually increases as you approach retirement, as well. Because I am young and have time to make up any losses I might suffer, I have decided to be risky and have nearly 100% stocks, including some individual stocks. I also use some options trading, which has definitely been risky.

• Brokerage accounts - Regular brokerage accounts are taxed as often as possible. Every trade in the account is subject to income or capital gains taxes, as applicable. They are not tax advantaged at all. Consequently, brokerage accounts lend themselves to few trades that result in long term gain. From above, that would be ETFs and stocks - specifically stocks that are good buy-and-hold stocks.


• Traditional accounts - Traditional retirement accounts are taxed as regular income when you take the money out, but grow tax free. I think traditional accounts are ideal for the bond portion of your portfolio. Bonds are full of short term gains that we can avoid the tax on, and aren't expected to produce returns as large as other investment types, which means our tax at retirement will be lower. Perfect!


• Roth accounts - Since Roth accounts grow tax free and end tax free, I find them to be ideal for my more aggressive investments. As I said, most of my portfolio is made up of stocks, but if I did have bonds, I would try to keep them out of my Roth accounts. Also whenever possible, I do my options trading in a Roth account.

So, to summarize, I would like my Roth accounts to contain mostly aggressive stocks and mutual funds, my traditional accounts to hold mostly bonds and bond-like mutual funds, and my brokerage accounts to contain mostly stable stocks and ETFs, or tax-exempt bonds/mutual funds. Of course, it's not always easy to allocate things between traditional and Roth accounts. For example, my 401(k) plan has a limited number of investment options - all mutual funds (or IBM stock). To make things more challenging, my 401(k) does not make it easy to consolidate information on which assets are in traditional versus Roth accounts, and managing separate investment allocations between pre and post-tax accounts is not automatic. Thus, I have not implemented any special treatment for the traditional side of my 401(k) as of yet. If your IRA account is through a financial planner, they may only offer mutual funds, or hands-on trading may be impractical. It was for the latter reason that I transferred my Roth IRA to E*TRADE. This gave me access to thousands of mutual funds and ETFs, along with individual stocks and bonds. It also let me take advantage of options trading opportunities tax free.

In my next post, I will take a look at the relative priority of each type of account, and my thoughts on spacing contributions throughout the year.

Q&A: Roth Versus Traditional

I was recently asked a few interesting (to me) financial questions about 401(k)s, IRAs, and contribution strategies. I've decided to answer those questions in a few Q&A blog posts so everyone can benefit (or get screwed if my strategies aren't sound).

The primary difference of concern between Roth and traditional IRAs and 401(k)s is taxes. Traditional contributions are pre-tax (they are tax deductible), but the distributions are considered as regular income and taxed accordingly. Roth contributions are post-tax, but the distributions are tax-free. So, traditional contributions lower our tax burden now, but increase it later, and Roth contributions raise (or don't benefit) our tax burden today, but lower it later. Another way of looking at it is that traditional contributions are tax-deferred, and Roth contributions include prepaid tax. This gives us two things to think about: our tax bracket now and our expected tax bracket when we start taking distributions.

The general wisdom is that if you expect your income tax bracket to be higher in the future, you should choose Roth retirement accounts. Determining if your tax bracket will be higher can be a complicated question. Personally, I took the following items into consideration when trying to evaluate my future tax bracket:

• Current income - For IRAs, traditional contributions are only tax deductible for those earning less than $53,000 (phased out through $63,000). This made my decision for IRA contributions easy - Roth is still allowed until you make $105,000-$120,000. Traditional 401(k) vs Roth 401(k) still required the following bullet points, too.


• Future income - I've been maxing out my 401(k) and IRA contribution limits since I've been working at IBM. I am on track to have more money coming in than I really know what to do with. I expect my future income to be quite high.


• Current vs. future tax deductions - I can currently deduct mortgage interest, but when I retire, I will not have a mortgage. That's actually my only major deduction at the moment. But, does your employer only offer a traditional 401(k) plan, or have you already decided against the Roth 401(k)? Have children? Taking classes? More deductions that might not apply in retirement!


• Historical tax bracket trends - As you can see from the graph in the link, we are enjoying relatively low tax rates (especially for the rich, which we all hope to be). Does this mean tax rates will rise in the future? Not necessarily, but it wouldn't surprise me.


• National sales tax - I like a lot of the features of a national sales tax instead of an income tax. However, if we go to a national sales tax, our future tax brackets will all be zero percent. After George W. Bush got torn apart for merely suggesting that we look at the plan, I decided a national sales tax isn't too likely to happen, but it's still something to consider.


• Alternative Minimum Tax - The AMT is one of the most complicated set of tax laws out there. It was designed to ensure the wealthy can't deduct their way out of too many taxes, basically. There is some fear that an AMT-like system will be implemented to tax some ROTH distributions that are currently promised to be tax-free. As much as the government loves to tax, I think this, too, is unlikely.

Another thing to consider is how much you will contribute. When you contribute fully, there is an advantage to Roth accounts. Each dollar contributed into a Roth account is equivalent to a pretax contribution plus taxes. Thus, you can make a larger (pre-tax equivalent) retirement contribution via a Roth account. This assumes the same tax bracket now and at retirement, and is definitely not the only consideration. This same type of idea is relevant to estate planning, too. Roth accounts are more valuable, dollar for dollar, than traditional retirement accounts. Retirement accounts are assessed at their account value, not at their after-tax value. A traditional and a Roth account of the same value will be taxed the same amount as part of the estate tax, but the traditional IRA will then have additional income taxes taken out when your heirs take their mandatory distributions.

There are a couple of features that really sold Roth IRAs to me. Because Roth 401(k)s can be converted to a Roth IRA without having to pay taxes when you leave the company, these also end up applying indirectly to Roth 401(k)s! The first feature is that there are no forced distributions from a Roth IRA. You can keep compounding those returns as long as you don't need the money. This gives you a lot more flexibility in your tax and estate planning. The second feature is that Roth IRAs allow you to withdraw the contributions at any time. This makes Roth IRAs a sort of emergency fund - but definitely an emergency fund of near-last resort. Once withdrawn, there is no way of putting that money back in, and you will lose future compounding returns. A better option is probably a 401(k) loan, and a better option than that is probably a home-equity loan (HELOC). Still, it's a nice feature.

As I mentioned in the current income bullet above, only the Roth IRA made sense for me at all. For 401(k)s, there are no income limitations for the vast majority of people. When deciding between a traditional 401(k) and Roth 401(k), or a mix between the two, I looked at the above points and decided that my income is likely to be greater in the future, my tax rate is likely to be higher, and the Roth variety gives me more flexibility later. Still, it is tempting to hedge your future-tax-bracket bet by splitting 401(k) contributions between traditional and Roth 401(k)s. Splitting contributions is allowed, but I have decided against it for the time being for two reasons. First, the Roth 401(k) option has only been offered at IBM as of the beginning of 2008. This means I've already bet two years worth of contributions on traditional 401(k) being better because there was no other bet to make. This year will mark two years of Roth 401(k) betting. Second, employer match contributions have to sit in a traditional 401(k) account. I view these matching contributions as an additional bet on traditional 401(k). Even if you don't view it as a bet, it is at least going to affect your future income levels at retirement and/or when forced distributions kick in at 70.5. Thus, I am maxing out my Roth 401(k) contributions, for the time being.

[For anyone curious, as of the time of this writing, Roth contributions make up 47.19% of my 401(k), and 100% of my IRA.]

In my next post, I will take a look at how tax-advantaged accounts can affect investment choices and how I (plan to) balance my portfolio across my varying accounts to better utilize that tax advantage.

Favorite Time of the Month

I look forward to the beginning of the month. It's a very special time for me. My mortgage payment goes out at the beginning of the month. This prompts me to... wait for it... update my spreadsheet!

My budget spreadsheet is the first I created with multiple worksheets. It has nine (one of which goes unused, and the other just has information used in calculations on other sheets)! I've always been a long-term thinking/planner. While I like the idea of tracking things monthly, like Jonathon does over at MyMoneyBlog, I think I'm content with updating things monthly but tracking things on a yearly basis. You can look at my spreadsheet as a long term planning item, and Mint.com as my monthly tracking place. Alternatively, you can look at Mint.com as my monthly history, and my spreadsheet as my yearly outlook. It's really not much of a budget, I guess.

Recently, I haven't been using much of the spreadsheet besides the Retirement Planning tab. (I may have to look at what this says about my current job satisfaction at a later time.) This tab isn't so much of a plan of how to get to retirement - my 401(k), Roth IRA, other savings, and house are my retirement plan already being taken care of. The Retirement Planning tab lets me know when I can retire and live forever off of my accrued savings. I compute the live forever part of that by determining if the growth of my investments will outpace inflation.

By my current assumptions of 3% inflation, 7% retirement portfolio return, and $70,000 (in 2006 dollars) yearly withdrawals, I can retire permanently at age 56. Now, $70,000 seems like a ridiculously large amount of money to spend in a year, to me. However, I would like to have a wife, and I don't want to underestimate those associated expenses... Seriously, though, that should allow for most travel plans I can think of, charitable giving, and regular living expenses, with hopefully enough left over to handle unexpected expenses, or temporary-ish ones like college costs for children.

Even though I don't use most of the parts that I programmed into it, updating the spreadsheet is still a very fun activity. Very few things are better than a large table of numbers.

---

This was supposed to be posted nearer to the beginning of the month, but my main computer was having issues. Chkdsk seems to have sorted them out, though. It took a few hours, but it completed. I was fooled a few times by long periods of no screen updates and the keyboard not working. That is, I restarted the process more times than necessary, I think. For future reference, the Num Lock and Caps Lock keys don't work when chkdsk is running, and it's apparently normal for some operations to take an hour without updating the screen.

401(k) Surpasses Merrill Lynch

Friday marked the first time my 401(k) account was worth more than my Merrill Lynch investment account. Before the recession, this was a milestone I wasn't expecting to happen for another couple of years yet. Since my Merrill account has been halved by the economic downturn, though, my regular 401(k) contributions have a larger relative effect. Of course my 401(k) was halved, too - I don't mean to badmouth Merrill Lynch.

There's nothing more to say on this topic, really. I just found it interesting how the economy tanking altered my various accounts relative value. For example, my Roth IRA is not roughly half of my Merrill or 401(k) account, which is far higher than originally projected. Fun times!

Financial Woes

I was having a conversation with a friend this afternoon about how money appears to be tight for the next few months. I mentioned how I have to figure out how to make mortgage payments, pay property taxes and regular income taxes, make an IRA contribution, continue to make contributions to my 401(k), renew homeowners and car insurance, and continue to make all my utility payments and the like.

My huge spreadsheet indicates I'll have a surplus of about $2000 this year. But if that surplus is accumulated throughout the year (or mostly in the second half of the year, like in 2007), I could be in trouble in the first half. On a side note, my spreadsheet also indicates I severely missed my goal of 8% net worth growth last year. I have a 0.76% growth rate for 2007 (dismal), but that does include mortgage closing costs and some unrealized losses in my E*TRADE account.

Anyway, at the very end of the conversation, I remembered that my maximum house price was determined based on being able to afford it even without renters, that I don't have to max out my 401(k) every year, and that I have a large reserve of capital currently invested in mutual funds and the like. In other words, money is only tight because I save so much and I have a lot of cushioning built into my budget if I need it. I need to be reminded every once in awhile that I really don't have much to complain about, financially.

House Shopping

So far, I've seen about 25 houses through real estate agents and open houses. I've found a few I like, too. My favorite is almost certainly about to be sold. My third favorite is also in the process of the final paperwork. My second favorite, so far, is available, as far as I can tell, but it's not my ideal house right now.

I suppose I should start with the basics. I am looking for a 4-bedroom house for myself and two roommates I have lined up. I would like it to be somewhat close to work, or at least within easy access of the highway (and then preferably against rush-hour traffic). I require a fireplace, but I don't think I've seen a house without one, ever. Wood-burning fireplaces are becoming rare, however. My final hard requirement is a big basement. I'd like to be able to play ping pong (and also pool?) while having a TV area. A wet bar would be an added bonus.

I've recently decided that a finished basement is not needed if it knocks the price of the house down by $30k. I can finish a basement for less than that, plus it would be done exactly how I want it. Of course, that cost to finish the basement is out of pocket, as opposed to financed. I used to also want a large backyard in which to play volleyball at gatherings. My brother brings up a good point, though: you have to mow it.

Now, given all these requirements (4-bedroom being the main one), I am definitely spending over $200,000, and most likely around $300,000. I've run through the numbers a few times, now. If I purchase a $340,000 house, I can make the monthly payments on my own, but money would be very tight. I have a few built-in cushions, though. First, I don't plan on spending the full $340,000. Second, roommates paying rent should help considerably. Third, performance bonuses and raises should happen at least a bit - that is, my income should rise with inflation, while my mortgage payment should not. Finally, if I end up having to dip in to savings just to keep my house, I can always reduce my 401(k) contributions down to the matching percentage.

So, given that I can afford a house, I now just need to pick one out. I am going to see more houses on Saturday with my agent. I sent him a list of houses I found online, and he looked them over for any major problems (such as one that backs to US-69 highway). I have 18 from this list left to see. We'll probably get through 6-10 houses on Saturday, depending on how close together they are. Then I'll hit up the open houses, as usual, unless my agent says we should continue the concentrated search that day. It's just such a long process.