I am often astonished to read tales of personal finance where the person in question is saving 40%, 50% or upwards of 60% of their take-home pay to reduce debt, plan to retire early retirement, move to an island or fulfilling some other dream. I often think that this is an insanely high savings rate. It is an incredible exercise in self-discipline as well. But I often think if there is such a thing as too high of a savings rate?
I look at the question in two ways- what is your savings rate and where is your savings going? My answers tend to be a little different for each depending on the context used. Before you think I am advocating no savings, fear not. Not including the payment of my mortgage (which I count as savings- see below), my contributions to my retirement, my dividend fund and emergency cash hovers between 20-30% of my take-home a month so its all a question of relativity to me and I am a big believer that the only thing in excess should be moderation.
As a definitional point, I define savings very broadly from cold hard cash to paying down the mortgage. I agree with the Business Dictionary which defines savings as: “portion of disposable income not spent on consumption of consumer goods but accumulated or invested- directly in capital equipment or in paying off a home mortgage, or indirectly through purchase of securities.”
My other guiding principle is that money should allow you the freedom to do things. Money is not the ends in and of itself. It is a means to something else (whatever you want that to be). What good is a pile of money if you are not enjoying life?
WHAT IS TOO HIGH OF A SAVINGS RATE?
Having gotten that out of the way, what would I consider too high of a savings rate? The conventional and ideal savings rate floor is 10% of take-home of your take-home pay should be used to invest in bonds and stocks (the rule made popular by the book The Wealthy Barber). The book The Millionaire Next Dollar (my little personal finance Bible) suggests that a savings rate, excluding mortgage payments, approaching 20% of take-home pay will, over time, lead to financial independence. I would consider anything over 30% to be extraordinary and anything over 40% to be too much.
Let me add a wrinkle to this now. Most people do not consider paying down the mortgage as savings but it is to me since you are adding equity to your home (assuming that your house is worth more than your mortgage). Most of these astonishing tales of personal finance I read involve a couple saving 60%-70% of take-home, mostly in very aggressive payment of their mortgage. Although most of these profiles are not in-depth, it also appears that other than paying down the mortgage, not that much of the savings is going towards investing in stocks or bond (I will freely admit I am reading between the lines and perhaps projecting my thought process into this; guilty as charged).
I would consider 60-70% too high of a savings rate. What kind of life are you living if 60-70% of your pay cheque is not going towards consumption? I work pretty hard for a living so I am of the view that if the mortgage is being paid down with at least one extra payment a year and 10%-15% of a pay cheque is going towards investing in stocks and bonds, which is a pretty healthy savings rate, purcashing an iPhone or a Xbox isn’t going to kill you and may actually let you enjoy your life a little.
Again, I am not suggesting that you blow all your money on consumption. But at some point, if you are a good saver and manage debt well, a few materialist indulgences here and there is not going to destroy your net worth assuming, as always, it is in moderation.
I am always reminded of a story a colleague once told me. He is a wills and estates lawyer. I called his practice “old law” since all his clients were old, and many well to do financially, and his clients always said the same thing to him. If they had to do it all over again, they would have enjoyed their money more while they were younger since they were not healthy enough to enjoy their money or money made people look at them differently.
I always struck by this story of how we sometimes don’t see the forest from the trees and the hyper-savers could be missing the point of why they are saving- to have the flexibility to do what you want and have fun before things are sagging and wrinkled.
I do respect those who want to retire early and are saving massive amounts of money to do it but I am already a cranky ex-lawyer in my 30′s. I am not sure how much I would enjoy life money-ed up but crankier in my 40′s and 50′s. But to each their own. But if you are gritting your teeth at a job you hate in order to save your 60-70% in order to retire early, how fulfilling of a life is that? You spend your working day hating your environment because it allows you to save money and then you go home to pinch pennies. Now if you love your job and want to retire early by saving lots of money that is a different story altogether…. again, its context.
WHERE ARE YOUR SAVINGS GOING?
The other consideration I look at is what are you doing with your savings? If you are putting all, or substantially all, of it to paying down the mortgage, is this not, in essence, bad asset allocation? Your net worth relies heavily on real estate which has turned into an asset which is just as turbulent as stocks. The same can be said if you took the bulk of your savings and put it into stock or bonds or private enterprises. I would rely on this principal regardless of what your savings rate is since this is simply bad asset allocation. We often think of asset allocation as simply an aggregate of our retirement portfolio but we need to add back in the equity in our home to get a trurer sense of asset allocation.
A good example would be someone with a large amount of equity in their principal residence and then buying REIT’s or investing in mortgages in their portfolio; they are simply over-weight in an asset class and need an asset which is negatively correlated to real estate to balance their portfolio.
You may have a moderate savings rate but if all of it is going to stocks, real estate, bonds or cash then your opportunity costs are quite large and I am not sure who is worse off- the saver who is over-allocated in an asset and loses their savings by being over-exposed or the non-saver who has little hope in the event of a financial emergency: it becomes the old sports debate- would you rather lose by 1 point in the last minute of the game or get blown out completely?
THERE’S ALWAYS AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE…
Where my thoughts about one’s savings rate being too high goes out the window is a situation where someone is majorly in debt (which I would define as anyone using 50% or more of their take-home pay to service the carrying of the debt PROVIDED HOWEVER you didn’t ratchet up your mortgage payments to increase their debt servicing load). In cases where carrying debt consumes more than half of every pay-cheque, there is no such thing as too high of a savings rate. In such a case, the analysis moves from “what is a good savings rate in which I can still considering living a good life?” to “how quickly can I obtain financial flexibility by paying down debt?”
As Albert Einstein once noted, compound interest is the greatest mathematical discovery of all time but you sure don’t want to be on the losing end of compound interest for too long. In such a case, the longer you are in debt and not chipping away at the principal, the longer you will continue to be in debt (for a good example of how compound interest works against you, see Million Dollar Journey’s example of interest paid during the life of a 25 year mortgage compared to a 40 year mortgage).
In such a situation then I would agree it is time to go on a Kraft Dinner diet and use all available resources to pay off debt whether it be student loans, credit card debt, a mortgage you couldn’t afford etc.
I am also not particularly worried about asset allocation at this point. The major imperative is to reduce how much money is being consumed servicing debt so you can start building cash and equity savings which affords you the luxury of debating asset allocation.
In the end…
It is your typical lawyers answer. It depends (and that will be $500 please…). You have to look at your particular life situation, where the savings is going and your debt load. There isn’t one definitive, one-size-fits-all answer. Just a lot of soul-searching. But I believe the healthy balance is saving 15-20% directly to non-mortgage savings, paying down the mortgage with at least one extra payment annually and trying to enjoy what is a very stressed filled life in this day and age.
Anyone have any thoughts they care to share?