Zion, IL
By A.B. Dada
—
I received quite a few emails regarding my post from a few days ago, titled Preparing for the Worsening Credit Crunch. I forgot to enable comments, oops.

One of the emails was added as a comment because I had asked her to. A regular reader, Lane Petersen, emailed me the following question:

this advice goes against everything ive ever read from ramsey and other financial gurus. id love to see you prove them wrong tho, because we are in big debt and following ramsey’s advice and each month we have nothing left over and it is depressing. i read it twice and it does sound like it makes more sense in a harder economy. can i email you my financials and have you tell me how to go over payments?

I emailed her back last night, and she emailed me her family’s financial situation, which is precarious but not over the cliff. From the few people I’ve emailed about my theory, which goes against every financial expert’s view, I think it will work, and it will lessen the burden of a possible recession.

To recap, I have always been a “Pay off debt before investing” financial advisor for friends and family. Why invest at 10% if you’re paying 20% on your debt? It generally makes more sense to knock out debt before saving for the future, because you’ll pay less in interest sooner, compounding your long term investment gains. In the past 3 months, I have changed from that view significantly. I believe that savings is more important than debt reduction, but with a few standard caveats thrown in. I’ll try to explain my advice by using Mrs. Petersen’s example below. As I said, and others confirmed, there are not a lot of financial advisors who recommend this system. I am not a professional, I have no financial degree, and I am just theorizing this based on what I consider common sense, coupled with what I have seen as a massive amount of questions from people I respect who are now in financial trouble.

Here is the information that Mrs. Petersen sent me about her financial situation. She has given me approval to post it:

Income
Husband - $53,000 per year
Wife - $48,000 per year

Expenses
Mortgage - $1100 per month ($13,200 per year)
Property Taxes - $2100 per year
Insurances - $3600 per year
Credit Card #1 - 17%, $13,000 balance (Min is $260/month)
Credit Card #2 - 12%, $18,000 balance (Min is $360/month)
Credit Card #3 - 6%, $5,000 balance (Min is $100/month)
Auto Loan - 4%, $11,000 balance (36 months remaining, $325/month)
Groceries Monthly, $960 (budgeted)
Utilities Monthly, $840 (Electricity, Gas, Cable, 2 Cell Phones)
Auto Gas, $180 per month (they rideshare to work with others)

I totalled everything up, and their annual budget is $55,000, making just minimum payments. Lane told me that after taxes and budgeted payments, they have approximately $18,000 left over, or about $1500 per month. They’re putting all of this toward retiring the credit card debt, but they have absolutely nothing saved except for a small 401K. She told me that even though their bills are paid every month, they are depressed with their financial outlook for the future. I figured that if they continued to put all their extras towards debt payments, they’d be debt free in 25 months. If they paid the minimum, they’d be paid off in approximately 86 months. The difference is huge: 2 years versus 7 years.

The problem with the situation is that they have NO emergency capacity, other than credit on their cards. This is very scary. If either should lose their job, they would immediately be underwater. Thankfully, they did NOT HELOC a lot recently, and have paid that off. Their equity in their home is reasonable enough even in this popping bubble market, but taking a HELOC to overcome a job loss is not a good idea.

I looked over various options based on my “save now, pay debt later” theory, and I came to the following conclusions:

1. They’re overpaying for insurance. Because they have at least $20,000 left in credit lines, are very healthy, and don’t use their insurance often, they should raise their deductibles immediately. Putting a yearly deductible payment in an emergency on a credit card is actually a reasonable option, until you’ve saved enough in cash to pay for the deductible. By raising their low deductible from $500 to the maximum allowed (by law or policy), they can shave almost 30% off their health insurance and car insurance bills. This savings alone adds $1200 a year more to their extra.

2. Their utility bills are too high for the area they live (relatively warm winters). Yes, energy costs are up, but there are many ways to save. Wear sweaters before turning the heat above 66. Dress lighter rather than run the A/C. Turn off the lights (of course), and unplug appliances that aren’t in use (especially the TV which isn’t turned off but put on standby). They can shave another $300 a year with some basic changes. I highly recommend a family gathering each week to note your electrical, gas and water usage at the meter. Write this down into a spreadsheet. Look at week-over-week and month-over-month uses. You can even calculate what your bill will be (within 10%) by using the information from your past bills. I guarantee you’ll see at least a $30 savings the first month when you see what minor changes can do. Some households can see a $100+ saving in 2 months by learning what effects each utility.

3. There is no reason why they can’t be “saving” around $2000 per month. Their monthly minimum payment for all expenses comes to $4190. To have 18 months of security, they’d need $75,000 in the bank. Because they are a two job household, I believe that having 9 months of security in savings makes good sense, since the chance of both workers losing their jobs (in two different non-related industries) is slim. It can happen, but it is unlikely. I told her that they should try to get to $36,000 in the bank as fast as possible. This would take 18 months. It would means that all their credit, other than mortgage, could be paid off in 4 years instead of 2.

We examined both of my analyses this morning: how long they can live safely if one person lost their job, but they were paying down debt fast versus house long they can live safely if they paid the minimum and saved the maximum. The difference was 3 months versus 26 months, based on the idea of cutting off all unnecessary items and living VERY frugally if one person lost their job. We then made the same analyses together based on if one person lost their job, but quickly went to work for a very low wage at a restaurant, retail store, or other “lower income” type work. The difference was 8 months versus 44 months.

Mrs. Petersen and her family will be trying this theory. I have guaranteed her 6 months of interest if she doesn’t like it (I will pay the difference in interest). Already she says her and her husband are relieved, because she remembers when they had money in the bank, and the comfort it gave her when she knew she would be OK if life through a rock at her. Yes, it is counter to almost every financial expert, but the experts sometimes forget the depression you can enter when you’re paying your bills, but your subconscious mind makes you concerned about life’s speedbumps.

Note that my theoretical idea is not for everyone. I told Mrs. Petersen that their spending MUST be kept at the current level: zero. They have NO budget for some typical needs (new clothes, travel, household goods, etc) beyond what is listed above. They have NO gas budget right now either, as they both rideshare with others. I mentioned the idea of selling one car, but they’re unable to do so currently. One of their cars is paid off, and has a KBB value of approximately $7500 wholesale. This would get them to the 9 month safety level 4 months earlier, at which point they could consider buying an older but in good shape used car.

While this is a typical family in some ways, I have a great deal of respect for them to look at future problems before they occur. Most of my friends who are concerned about finances are already over the edge, and I have a very difficult time in helping them without resorting to bankruptcy or other legal, but immoral, means. This theory is for others like the Petersen family: those who feel “comfortable,” but have a nagging sense of depression or fear in the background.

Paying debt off quickly makes sense, but not if you can’t weather the short term before you catch up with the long term. Even if the dollar falls in value, your debt is based on the previous dollar’s value. Eventually, money inflation can lead to wage increases (without value increases), which does help pay down your debt easier, but other expenses are costlier as a percentage of your income.

Zion, IL
By A.B. Dada
—
About 1 year ago, I posted an article titled Gold de-hedging and the short term effect on gold’s dollar value. I was watching the dehedging phenomenon with gold in 2006, which was a very coordinated and systematic process over 2006. It continued into the first quarter of 2007, and started accelerating since then. I’m writing this article specifically because we hit #2 on Google for “Gold Investment” and #2 on Google for “Gold De-hedging” and I am getting a bunch of emails requesting information.

A year later, we now have top news regarding increased gold de-hedging, with the gold hedge book at its lowest level since 1992. In the third quarter of 2007 we saw a markable increase, one that is not expected to slow as the fourth quarter hits.

According to my information, the gold de-hedgers chopped almost 15% of their hedges in the second quarter alone. Some of the largest gold hedges are completely de-hedging all their positions by year’s end (I believe as much as 40% of hedges will be gone).

Why is this? Normally, gold producers hedge against gold in both directions: against a fall in prices, and against a huge rise in prices. Without these hedges in place, the producers seem to be thinking that there will be a large rise in the price of gold versus most or all currencies. This could be due to insider information detailing a future shortage of new gold, an increased demand in gold in the future, or a combination of both. I don’t believe specifically that this de-hedging comes because the producers believe that currencies will fall in relation to gold’s price. If that happened, the producers would be in trouble as they purchase their fuel, machinery and labor with fiat currency. When we look at gold’s price change, we always (always!) have to consider those three issues:

1. Is there more or less gold coming up out of the ground?
2. Is there more or less gold being consumed or bought in the market?
3. Is the currency base moving up (inflation)?

In case #3, gold’s price moves upwards only because the currency value has fallen. This means that a move from US$700 to US$800 per gold ounce doesn’t really return a reward, it just made all other prices higher due to the dollar’s fall in value. Yet if gold does move upward in demand, or downward in available supply, we’d also see prices move up, but not just due to currency values falling.

I still am not certain as to why we saw the massive de-hedging this year. The gold news sites (Kitco, GATA, etc) issue absolutely impossible to read reports written by people who don’t want to explain why this is happening, other than to confuse the situation. With the de-hedging likely coming to an end (at least in speed) this year, it could have two opposite pressures on gold’s price in all currencies:

1. End-of-year gold profit taking would send the price down in currencies.
2. End-of-year gold supply reductions could send the price up in currencies.

Will they balance each other out? Will one overpower the other?

Through 2006, I increased my silver hold and actually liquidated some gold. In early 2007 I increased my gold positions early on, and slowed down my silver holds. In the third quarter of 2007 I increased both in equal measures. Now I am bearing on gold for year’s end, for a variety of reasons.

First, the credit crunch is hurting wealthy people I know. I know of at least 3 business owners who manage $100m+ businesses who rely on the commercial paper market to protect cash flow. They use factoring organizations, short term loans, and lines of credit to overcome their slow payments from clients. I’ve noticed my own income has slowed from an average collection of 45 days to 70 days. This is not just in consulting, but also in working with not-for-profits. I don’t use lines of credit to keep cash flow smooth, I deal with the peaks and valleys. From an income perspective, I am paper poor for the fourth quarter due to delinquent payments over 45 days. When the wealthy are cash poor, they’ll sell commodities to make up the difference. Almost every wealthy person I know with gold holdings over US$100,000 is talking about selling at year’s end.

Second, the de-hedging puts a lot of confusion into what really will happen. If the producers expected gold’s price to fall regardless of currency inflation, I’d think they would be VERY concerned and hedge stronger. If gold’s price fell due to monetary deflation (the act of destroying credit and liquidity), I think they would have little concern as that act can also put downward pressure on machinery and energy costs. If they believe that there will be a shortage of gold and an increased demand, I would think they would want to be exited from all hedges (which cost money) since they feel secure in real profits from gold sales, not just paper profits from the fall of currency values.

Third, my focus on gold has always been to protect myself only in massive societal emergencies, coupled with the fact that gold is illiquid to me for short term useless purchases. Gold’s liquidity is great if I am in real trouble, but I won’t go out and buy a $3000 TV or a $30,000 car by selling my gold without thinking. When I sell gold (rarely), it is always to cover real short term or long term concerns (such as if my collections go over 80 days and I have no available cash to live). I feel comfortable with my income positions in 2008, especially with my deliquencies settling at the 50-55 day mark. When someone owes you money for 2 months, but still uses your services, it is usually a sign that they know they need you. If they escalate to 70+ days late, it is usually a sign of severe problems with their business or market. I can weather the 50-55 day delinquency just fine, and it gives me a sense of job security since I feel my business income will maintain a mild growth or minor loss in 2008. We’re prepared for a 25% fall in revenue, but are expecting a 7% increase in 2008. My real concern comes in 2009, especially if the credit crises get more severe worldwide.

My gold for 2008 is not to necessarily increase my gold or silver positions significantly, but to work harder to decrease our expenditures even more. We’re a six-figure household, but this winter we’re doing the blankets and sweatshirt “energy conservation” routine. Set the thermostat at 65 and deal with cold mornings. We’re also working harder at reducing our driving, cutting back to using 1 car 90% of the time. Also, we’re correlating our long distance visits with customers, family and friends to coincide with each other. If I have to work sometime in the next week 25 miles from here, and it’s close to a friend or family, we’ll set up both visits together. We’re currently trying to see if we can live on 1/4th our income without dipping into our hard money or credit lines. We’re working heavily on new income streams that should turn profitable in 18-24 months, albeit at 1/10th my hourly rate.

I am fairly scared for the status quo United States resident. I have many friends with significant debt on their books (at least 4X annual income, including mortgage), and they aren’t considering market declines in their industries. I think that the next 18 months should be a time to shore up savings (whether in dollars or hard money) rather than just debt reduction.

I am a big fan of paying off your debts fast, as fast as possible, even if it means that your life isn’t so fun for a year or two. I’ve changed my position completely. Now, I believe it is more important to bolster your savings over paying down debts more than the minimum. Why is this?

Consider this: If you use every cent you have to pay for your minimum overhead and maximum debt reduction, you end up with zero savings. If you should lose your job, you will have NO ability to pay anything, including your minimum overhead and minimum debt payment. Even if you’re paying 18% on your credit cards (or more), it makes sense to try to fulfill a savings account that can continue to make the minimum payment through a job loss or market change. Yes, you’re paying more in interest by not accelerating debt reduction, but you’re also giving yourself a bit of protection in the short term. It may add 4 years of debt payments just to get 12 months of savings security, but it will help you weather those 12 months. It’s a hedge against short term calamity.

I am extremely aggressive in telling my heavily in-debt friends to buy gold and silver over debt reduction for the next 18 months. Hard money is hard to spend easily and stupidly. It gives you a position of comfort and reduces the depression of “what am I going to do to pay the bills next month?” But my hard money protection advice comes ONLY with the advice that you must live at the bare minimum, and I do mean the bare minimum. With Christmas ahead, now is a perfect time to eBay literally everything that you own and don’t touch once every 3-4 months. That great book collection? Get rid of it. Toys the kids don’t play with? Sell them. Extra clothes? Even $1 a piece is something, and it reduces clutter and maintenance needs. Tape up the windows to keep energy costs low, wear a lot of layers in the cold winter, skip eating out (even $5 McDonalds runs), and cut back on expenditures as much as possible. Work with another family to oversee each other’s expenses: mutual accountability here is key.

Every other expert, include the honorable Dave Ramsey, will disagree with my “slow down debt payoff” ideas, but they’re also thinking that the market will stay solid for all. I am not so sure. As I said, at worst you may end up with 4 more years of debt and only 1 year of savings — but if there is a decline in your specific industry, you’ll thank me.