Jonathan Clements's Blog, page 400

The Dreaded Letter

WHEN I CHAT with clients about the IRS and mention audits, many turn white with fright. To alleviate angst, I explain that years of underfunding have forced an understaffed IRS to significantly scale back its enforcement efforts. But my reassurances are insufficient to assuage the fears of some clients, so I alert them to tactics that can make audits less traumatic and expensive.

Let’s start with the bad news: Audits are basically adversarial proceedings. Even worse: They differ from criminal trials, where defendants are presumed innocent. In disputes with the IRS, the burden of proof generally falls on taxpayers, not the IRS.

Take deductions. The IRS doesn’t have to show that taxpayers didn’t incur and pay the expenses. Instead, the burden is on taxpayers to show they did. What if they can’t? “Nyet problemy,” says the IRS. It simply disallows the expenses.

The agency admonishes its examiners to insist that taxpayers provide the following kinds of evidence. First, establish that they had the expenses. Bills can take care of that. Second, show that they paid them. Canceled checks, credit card statements and the like are usually sufficient. Third, they have to establish that the items in question qualified as deductible expenses.

When it comes to business expenditures, they must be “ordinary and necessary,” though the IRS will often cut you some slack. Among other things, it acknowledges that an individual’s business ventures needn’t be fulltime. They can be part-time, as when a person moonlights from her home as a writer and has a fulltime job elsewhere.

Taxpayers may also have to persuade skeptical examiners that other kinds of write-offs are allowable. Some examples: dependency exemptions and itemized deductions claimed on Form 1040’s Schedule A for outlays like charitable contributions, medical expenses, casualty and theft losses, state and local income taxes, and property taxes.

What if taxpayers are unable to satisfy all three requirements? Their deductions fail to pass muster; two out of three isn’t a passing grade.

That said, staffers have some leeway to let taxpayers get by with incomplete verifications when they come up with reasonable explanations. That’s why I remind clients to cooperate and answer questions politely. But I caution them to provide only those checks, receipts and whatever else is necessary to substantiate their positions.

What shouldn’t taxpayers do? Don’t show up with hardly anything in the way of supporting documents; tell sad stories about dogs eating the checks and other records; or explain that the records have unaccountably vanished. A better approach: Ask for more time to get what’s needed to satisfy the IRS. I also urge clients to confine their answers to the questions raised. Otherwise, they might wind up with more auditing than they bargained for.

When does it make sense for taxpayers to appeal the findings of examining agents? It depends on the issues and amounts involved, and on the IRS’s policy in settling similar disputes. But the agency’s own statistics reveal that it settles many appeals for far less than examininers demanded.

Suppose an agent’s superiors agree to reassess the case, but the taxpayer and the IRS still can’t reach an agreement. Or suppose the taxpayer decides to skip the agency’s appeals system and take the dispute to court.

If taxpayers want hearings before judges who are independent of the IRS, they’ll opt for the Tax Court, a forum that allows them to make their arguments without having to first pay the taxes in question. Should they lose, they then have to pay the taxes, plus interest and penalties. Still, the Tax Court is especially advantageous for folks whose cases involve no more than $50,000 in taxes and penalties (but not interest) for all years in dispute. The court settles such “small tax cases” with as little formality, expense and delay as possible.

J ulian Block writes and practices law in Larchmont, New York, and was formerly with the IRS as a special agent (criminal investigator). His previous blogs include An Ode to Owing, Right on Schedule and No Substitute. Information about his books is available at JulianBlockTaxExpert.com. Follow Julian on Twitter @BlockJulian.

The post The Dreaded Letter appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Choosing Badly

TIME VALUE of money, asset class, diversification, dollar-cost averaging: This is the language of investment professionals. But it isn’t the language of everyday Americans, including those saving for retirement in their employer’s 401(k) plan.

Trust me, I know. During my nearly 30 years overseeing 401(k) plans, including providing financial education to participants, it became clear to me that using such plans as intended wasn’t easy for most people.

For diversification, employees would often invest in several different mutual funds all focused on a similar collection of U.S. stocks—with no thought of adding bonds or foreign shares. In many cases, workers couldn’t be dissuaded from putting all their money in their employer’s stock. When target-date funds were added to a plan’s menu of investment options, many participants bought them as one of several investments, thereby negating the intended purpose.

During the 2008-09 financial crisis, employees often panicked, even if retirement was decades away. Needless to say, this locked in losses and meant they missed out on the subsequent recovery. Even worse, some workers were turned off investing in stocks and instead retreated to bond funds and other-fixed income options, in the process likely making their retirement-income goal impossible to achieve.

Participants consistently displayed a tendency to be ultra-conservative or dangerously risky with their investments. In either case, they put their retirement in jeopardy. It was rare that employees adjusted their investment mix as retirement approached. Many focused on their retirement date as if, on that date, they would use all the money in their account, thereby missing the vital point of allocating their investments to maximize an income stream over what could be 20 years or more. All these missteps were common, despite extensive and ongoing efforts to educate plan participants.

The reality: Workers can be overwhelmed by the choices they’re required to make—and by the consequences of making wrong choices. This is often compounded by employers adding too many investment options, which leads to indecision or throwing a dart at several funds with nice sounding names. One plan I reviewed for a friend offered 42 different mutual funds. That friend, not understanding the differences among the funds, chose none and instead defaulted to a fixed-income fund. Result? He retired with $45,000 in his account.

For most Americans, 401(k) plans are the most important retirement savings vehicle available to them, especially so when there’s an employer match. And yet these plans won’t provide a secure retirement if used incorrectly. Getting workers to save is the first step. Teaching them to invest is the second. We have a long way to go.

Richard Quinn blogs at QuinnsCommentary.com. Before retiring in 2010, Dick was a compensation and benefits executive.

The post Choosing Badly appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Exposing Yourself

PUT YOURSELF in their shoes. I’ve been doing that in recent weeks, thinking about how I’d design a portfolio if I lived in, say, Australia, Japan or the United Kingdom. What prompted this navel-gazing? I’m in the middle of revising my 2016 book, How to Think About Money, for an international audience.

One conclusion: Here in the U.S., we have it far easier than foreign investors—and a big reason is currency exposure. Roughly speaking, U.S. securities account for half of global stock market value and half of global bond market value. That means we in the U.S. can build globally diversified portfolios—and still end up with relatively modest foreign exchange exposure.

Let’s say you put 50% of your money in Vanguard Group’s Total World Stock Index Fund—which replicates the global stock market—and the other 50% in high-quality U.S. corporate and government bonds. You would own a stock portfolio that holds every significant stock from the U.S. and abroad, weighted by its market value, and yet just a quarter of your overall portfolio would be exposed to currency swings.

Foreign investors don’t have this luxury, because foreign stock markets aren’t just smaller than the U.S., they’re tiny by comparison. Again, consider Vanguard’s Total World Stock Index Fund. As of March 31, U.S. stocks accounted for 51.7% of the fund’s assets. The next biggest country was Japan—at just 8.5%.

Now, imagine Japanese investors followed the above strategy, splitting their money between 50% in a total world stock index fund and 50% in high-quality domestic bonds. Our hypothetical Japanese investors would end up with almost 46% of their portfolio exposed to foreign exchange fluctuations. Given that Japanese investors—like those in the U.S. and elsewhere—will end up spending much of their savings on domestic goods and services, it’s a huge mismatch to have that much of a portfolio exposed to currency swings.

I’ve never been a fan of funds that hedge currency exposure, because of the cost involved and because the added complexity increases the chances that something will go awry (and it gets even worse if a fund is actively managing that exposure, trying to guess whether currencies will weaken or strengthen). But if you’re a non-U.S. investor, buying funds that hedge currency exposure strikes me as the lesser of two evils: It’s better to own a global stock portfolio that hedges currencies than take the risk of keeping much or all of your money in domestic stocks. After all, what if your home stock market has atrocious performance—like the Japanese market, which is still 43% below its year-end 1989 peak?

On top of that, for foreign investors, keeping all their bond market money at home also seems a tad risky. In countries that aren’t as diverse economically as the U.S., there’s a greater risk of bond defaults—and hence a stronger argument for allocating serious sums to foreign bond funds. You would also want those funds to hedge their currency exposure.

That said, you shouldn’t eliminate all foreign exchange exposure from a portfolio, because it can provide added diversification. If the domestic economy weakens, perhaps the currency will fall—and having part of your money in, say, an unhedged foreign stock fund could deliver gains that help offset losses elsewhere in your portfolio.

That brings us to a second advantage enjoyed by U.S. investors: The cost of investing is far lower here and the array of index funds on offer is far broader. Still, I’m impressed at the variety of index funds now available around the world. Indeed, arguably, index funds—both the mutual fund variety and the exchange-traded version—have proven to be one of America’s most successful exports, with firms like BlackRock’s iShares, State Street Global Advisors and Vanguard Group leading the way. Want to see the choices on offer abroad? Check out the index funds available in Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan and the U.K.

Follow Jonathan on Twitter  @ClementsMoney  and on Facebook .

The post Exposing Yourself appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Protect Your Privacy

ERIC SCHMIDT SAID THIS when he was Google’s chief executive: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

In his Congressional testimony last week, Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg didn’t say anything nearly as condescending or abrasive. But his testimony was a good reminder that we’re in a very different world privacy-wise than we were even 10 years ago, when Schmidt made his comment.

In recent years, stories about data breaches have become routine. They come in two general categories. First, there’s hacking, either directly into a victim’s computer network or indirectly, via the systems of an organization that holds the victim’s data. Recent examples include data thefts from Target, health insurer Anthem, Yahoo and even the Federal government’s own Office of Personnel Management.

Second, there are phishing attacks, also known as social engineering, that dupe victims into opening the door to a thief. This is the strategy, for example, that hackers used to access emails during the 2016 presidential campaign.

But it turns out there’s a third category: Internet companies share vast amounts of personal data in ways that are perfectly legal—and that’s what really seemed to bother legislators at last week’s hearings. Take Acxiom, a company that’s in the business of matching consumers’ offline and online activity. Buy diapers at the supermarket, for example, and that information will be available to marketers online. For years, Acxiom had been a data provider to Facebook. In the wake of the recent controversy, they terminated this partnership, but there was nothing at all impermissible about it.

As a consumer, what can you do? Internet regulation is still an open question. Fortunately, though, laws exist to protect consumer privacy in most other industries that handle sensitive information. In medicine, HIPAA—the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act—has been in place since 1996. In financial services, the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires financial institutions each year to provide consumers with a breakdown of the information they collect and how they share it. They must also give customers an opportunity to opt out of at least some of this sharing.

Still, these rules put a large part of the responsibility on consumers—to read dense disclosure statements and to take steps to opt out of data sharing when companies give them that option. To manage this, I see four approaches you could take:

1. Do nothing. If the only shows you watch on TV are PG-rated movies, if the only things you buy at the drugstore are vitamins and if your only bank transactions are charitable donations, you might decide that data sharing really doesn’t bother you. In that case, perhaps you just leave well enough alone.

2. Opt out of data sharing. If you’d prefer to limit the degree to which your data is trafficked, you could take five or 10 minutes to read through the privacy notices you receive each year. Look for the “Can you limit sharing?” information and then follow the instructions for opting out. In most cases, you can go online to make these elections and it takes just a minute. Once you opt out, it’s good for five years, so be sure to renew your preferences from time to time.

3. Avoid companies with overly aggressive data sharing practices. If you’re shopping for a new bank or credit card, review each firm’s privacy policy before you open your account. There are significant differences among institutions. In my research, I’ve found that smaller regional banks definitely share less and provide more of an opportunity to opt out than the big national banks. But it’s worth checking.

4. Avoid creating sensitive data. It’s impossible these days to stay completely “off the grid.” But if there’s a particularly sensitive purchase you want to make, it’s not too hard to stay below the radar of internet marketers: Don’t search Google for the best price, don’t buy it online and don’t pay with a credit card. Instead, go into a brick-and-mortar store, don’t use the loyalty card the store gave you—and pay good old-fashioned cash.

Adam M. Grossman’s previous blogs include Fancy Your Chances, Free Lunch and  Plan, Prioritize, Proceed .  Adam is the founder of  Mayport Wealth Management , a fixed-fee financial planning firm in Boston. He’s an advocate of evidence-based investing and is on a mission to lower the cost of investment advice for consumers. Follow Adam on Twitter  @AdamMGrossman .

The post Protect Your Privacy appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Teachable Moment

FOR THREE-QUARTERS of students, loans have become a standard part of the college experience. Scholarships, grants and parental funding may be preferable. But the reality is, many families will need student loans to pay college expenses.

Navigating this world can be baffling. There are many different kinds of loans and repayment programs, and choosing the right option is important. After all, you’ll be living with your choices for 10 years or more.

Federal student loans are backed by the federal government and offered through the Department of Education. There are two major types of federal loan—Direct and Perkins. The Direct Loan program is by far the largest of the federal offerings. With the Direct Loan program, the Department of Education is the lender; with the Perkins Loan program, the school itself is considered the lender.

When it comes to federal direct student loans, the driving criteria is financial need; creditworthiness isn’t a factor in the decision. There are four kinds of direct loans through the federal government: direct subsidized and unsubsidized, direct PLUS (for both parents and graduates) and consolidation loans. While each type differs slightly, in all cases the student will borrow from the federal government and will make their payments to a servicing company the government selects.

Benefits to borrowing through the government are many. Typically, borrowers get a lower interest rate with federal loans. There are also many repayment options available, including graduated and extended repayment plans. For borrowers who get into financial trouble, there are income-driven repayment programs, direct consolidation loans, forbearances and deferments—all designed to help borrowers stay out of default.

There are, however, drawbacks as well. While all loans affect your credit score, a federal loan can also affect your ability to get an income tax refund or other federal services. If you default on a federal student loan, for instance, you won’t just see your credit score drop. On top of that, you could see your tax refund put toward your loan payments or find your paycheck garnished.

Private student loans are an alternative for those who don’t want to go the federal route. This type of student loan is offered by a bank or other lender, and is based upon creditworthiness instead of financial need. They’re getting more popular. About 1.4 million students take out private student loans each year, though this number still pales next to the 12.9 million annual federal borrowers.

Private loans often fill the gap between the cost of school and the total financial package awarded to a student. What are the drawbacks? For starters, you’ll usually pay higher interest rates than on federal loans. Private loans also require repayment to begin immediately. While some lenders allow you to pay only interest, they do demand some sort of payment while you’re still in school—unlike federal loans.

In addition, there are far fewer protections with a private student loan. There are no deferment or forbearance options available to students who need help paying back their loan. Since the loan is only between you and the lender, it’s handled much like any other loan—and can affect your credit score after only one late payment. If you can’t pay back the loan, there’s a good chance that your wages will still be garnished, and you could be hounded by private debt collectors.

So what’s the best way to pay for college? With both federal and private loans having pros and cons, it can be a bit confusing deciding between the two.

My advice: Think first about the amount you need to borrow and what it’s for. If you need to borrow a large sum for tuition, a federal loan is probably the better option. You’ll see a lower interest rate—which means the loan will cost you less in the long run if it’s paid on schedule—plus the flexible repayment options could be a big help later.

Still, there are some occasions when a private loan is a good idea. Let’s say you have some specific, small expenses—such as a new computer or textbooks—and you’ll have the money to pay the loan off quickly. In that situation, a private loan could be the better option. If you find that, even after scholarships, grants and federal loans, you need yet more money, you might also check out private loans. But keep the drawbacks in mind.

Andrew Rombach is a content associate at LendEDU, a consumer education website with an editorial mission of improving financial literacy. Check out the LendEDU blog to learn about finance, read up on industry news or check out the latest data-driven studies.

The post Teachable Moment appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Living Larger

NOTICE ANYTHING different? This week, we’re rolling out an expanded homepage for HumbleDollar. Our three latest blogs are now stripped across the top of the desktop version’s homepage. If you’re viewing the site on a mobile device, you’ll see the blogs stacked one on top of the other.

But the big changes are just below. We’ve scrapped the old “This Week” feature and replaced it with “Act.” Twice a week, we’ll suggest steps you might take to improve your finances.

We’ve also introduced two new features. “Numbers” aims to deliver a steady stream of intriguing statistics. “Think” regularly recaps key ideas that should guide you as you look to make the most of your money.

All this is in addition to the daily insight carried at the top of the homepage, our daily preview of a key section from our money guide, and our monthly newsletter. Put it all together, and every day we hope you’ll find something new and interesting to read on HumbleDollar.

Follow Jonathan on Twitter  @ClementsMoney  and on Facebook .

The post Living Larger appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Fueling the Fire

I’VE BEEN EMPLOYED on at least a part-time basis since I was 17 years old. For almost three decades now, I’ve been working fulltime. It’s probably not surprising that, at almost 51 years old, I’ve reached the point where I spend considerable energy contemplating a life beyond work.

The idea of achieving financial independence and retiring early—captured by the acronym FIRE, short for financial independence/retire early—is never far from my thoughts. As a born planner, I’m all about drawing up a strategy and putting it into action. But even for me, figuring out exactly what it will take to leave my fulltime job often seems overwhelming. Faced with so many variables and unknowns, I’ve tried to solve my retirement equation the only way I know how: by breaking the plan down into smaller, more manageable chunks.

I started by thinking about how to move from fulltime employment to fulltime retirement. Since I didn’t get serious about saving and investing until I was well into my 40s, I’m assuming I’ll need to work part-time for at least a few years before I leave the workforce entirely. Part-time employment will be beneficial in a couple of ways. It will allow me to have more “me time” to do the things I enjoy, while letting my investment accounts grow for a few more years before I start taking substantial withdrawals.

Next, I started thinking about actual numbers. How much money would I need to save before I felt comfortable bidding farewell to a 40-hour work week? There’s certainly no shortage of advice on the subject. I settled on a goal of $500,000. It was an amount I felt I could realistically achieve through aggressive saving and frugal living. When combined with my pension and Social Security, that $500,000 should allow me to maintain a reasonably comfortable lifestyle.

Of course, estimating how much I need to save is determined, in large part, by how much I spend to maintain my lifestyle. Over the past four years, I’ve drastically trimmed expenses and now live on roughly half my gross income. When it comes time to transition to part-time employment, living modestly means I should be free to choose what I want to do, with little regard to how much it pays.

The next item on my agenda was determining when I could access my various retirement investments. The accounts I have with my current employer contain the bulk of my nest egg. I can take withdrawals from them as early as age 55, provided I leave my job. My Roth IRA contributions, as well as my taxable mutual funds, can be accessed at any age. I can begin drawing money out of my pension as early as age 58 and as late as age 70, and I’ll be eligible for full Social Security benefits when I turn 67. Knowing the ages at which I can access these various funds has guided me as I wrestle with how long to continue with either fulltime or part-time work.

Health care coverage is a major concern for anyone contemplating early retirement. Fortunately, I have access to generous benefits through my current employer—and it’s a major reason I can even contemplate leaving my job before full retirement age. Once I reach age 55, I can continue to receive the same health care coverage I currently have, even if I leave my job. And at age 65, I’ll receive a monthly stipend to help offset the cost of any Medicare supplement plans I choose to purchase.

Kristine Hayes is a departmental manager at a small, liberal arts college in Portland, Oregon. Her previous blogs include longevity.Stanford.edu, Independence Day and Case Closed .

The post Fueling the Fire appeared first on HumbleDollar.

This Week/April 15-21

BUNCH CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS. The 2017 tax law’s higher standard deduction, coupled with the $10,000 cap on deducting state and local taxes, means you may not get any tax benefit from charitable gifts. One possibility: Bunch, say, three years of contributions into a single tax year. You might even set up a donor advised fund and spoon out gifts from there.

The post This Week/April 15-21 appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Saving Is Sexy

WE DON’T PROMISE THINNER thighs and harder abs here at HumbleDollar. But—unbeknownst to us—we could be the secret to your relationship success.

This revelation comes from an academic paper, “A Penny Saved Is a Partner Earned: The Romantic Appeal of Savers,” by Prof. Jenny G. Olson and Prof. Scott I. Rick, which is based on Olson’s dissertation research.

Conventional wisdom—and earlier academic work—suggest that, if men flaunt their wealth, they’re likely to have greater dating success. But it turns out that big spenders are more likely to go home alone.

The Olson and Rick paper grew out of a series of experiments, which found that savers, both men and women, were viewed as more desirable romantic partners, because they’re perceived to have greater self-control.  In truth, it isn’t clear that good savings habits and greater overall self-control really are connected. But because good savers are viewed that way, they’re seen as less likely to, say, lose their temper, drink too much or be unfaithful.

Not all the news is good. While good savings habits may help you find a long-term partner, it may not help if you’re hoping for a short-term fling. For that, it seems spenders fare just as well as savers—and sometimes even have an edge. Those who toss their money around may be viewed as more fun and exciting, and hence a better choice for a one-night stand.

“The exact same photo labeled ‘saver’ was perceived as physically more attractive than the exact same photo labeled ‘spender’,” says Olson in a YouTube video devoted to her research. “But savers were perceived as significantly less exciting.”

Still, when you’re sitting at the bar, how could anybody possibly know your financial habits? Olson ran an experiment that found we’re pretty good at sizing up who’s a saver and who’s spender, even if no words are exchanged. Exactly how we do so isn’t clear. But maybe if folks are, say, in good physical shape or aren’t too flashy in the way they dress, we might infer they’re generally good at self-control—including being good savers.

“People’s snap judgments were incredibly accurate,” notes Olson in her video. The upshot: “Spending a lot of money to get a first date probably isn’t wise, because it conveys a lack of self-control.”

Follow Jonathan on Twitter  @ClementsMoney  and on Facebook .

The post Saving Is Sexy appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Fancy Your Chances?

ANYONE WHO FOLLOWS MY WORK knows I am a staunch advocate of index funds and believe that stock-picking is a difficult road. That said, there are three undeniable facts about picking stocks:

All of the great fortunes—Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates, Buffett—were built by owning one stock: a very good one but, nonetheless, just one.
There are rare investors who are able to outperform the market averages by picking the right stocks. It’s hard, but it can be done.
Stock-picking can be fun.

While I don’t recommend stock-picking to anyone—since the data clearly show the odds are against you—I do recognize the appeal. If you want to go down that road, preferably with a small portion of your portfolio, here are five books I would recommend as a curriculum of sorts:

The Intelligent Investor by Ben Graham. This book was written in the 1940s by Ben Graham, who was Warren Buffett’s teacher, employer and mentor. Buffett often cites this book as the one that got him really interested in investing. It can be dense, but I’d recommend starting with two chapters: “The Investor and Market Fluctuations” and “Margin of Safety as the Central Concept of Investment.”

Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits by Phil Fisher. Most people don’t know much about Fisher, but he was a giant in his time. Some of his examples are dated—for example, he talks about color TV as a new technology—but the principles still apply. Unlike Ben Graham, Fisher was a growth investor, so I would read this together with The Intelligent Investor to clearly understand the difference between growth and value investing.

One Up on Wall Street by Peter Lynch. As most people know, Lynch had an outstanding track record running a fund at Fidelity Investments from 1977 to 1990. This book is both entertaining and incredibly informative. Like Fisher, Lynch was a growth investor and coined the term “ten bagger.” He didn’t get bogged down in Graham’s valuation discipline. Instead, he hunted for good companies that looked like they were going to get much bigger. And it worked very well.

The Little Book That Beats the Market by Joel Greenblatt. The author ran a hedge fund that for years racked up staggering returns, easily offsetting his fees. He was in the tradition of Graham, and he provides in this book a simple formula for identifying value stocks.

The Most Important Thing by Howard Marks. The author is chairman of an investment firm on the West Coast, but his commentaries have a wide audience. He writes excellent periodic memos, which you can subscribe to through his website. This book is a compilation of some of his best pieces. Marks focuses a lot on the emotional side of investing and really makes you think.

Arguably, the real father of investment analysis—and specifically, the notion of intrinsic value—was not Ben Graham, but a fellow named John Burr Williams. His book is 600 pages and dense, so I don’t recommend it. But I quote from it and cite the central ideas in this article I wrote on the importance of intrinsic value.

Finally, if you like podcasts, I would recommend “Invest Like the Best,” hosted by Patrick O’Shaughnessy. He interviews investors of all stripes. In college, he was a philosophy major and it shows: The discussions are always thoughtful and informative.

I feel obliged to repeat that, if you choose to pick stocks, the data and the odds are against you. Feeling good about your chances? As a reality check, see the work of University of California finance professors Brad Barber and Terrance Odean, who for years have studied the results of individual investors.

Full disclosure: If you purchase the above books by clicking through to Amazon using the embedded links, HumbleDollar will earn a small fee. 

Adam M. Grossman’s previous blogs include Plan, Prioritize, Proceed, Free Lunch and  Face Plant. Adam is the founder of  Mayport Wealth Management , a fixed-fee financial planning firm in Boston. He’s an advocate of evidence-based investing and is on a mission to lower the cost of investment advice for consumers. Follow Adam on Twitter  @AdamMGrossman .

The post Fancy Your Chances? appeared first on HumbleDollar.