FREE NEWSLETTER

Fret less about whether your insurance policies are too big or too small—and more about the policies you ought to have, but don’t.

Latest PostsAll Discussions »

Investing

Rich or Wealthy?

R Quinn  |  Oct 5, 2026

"Okay, there are many things more important than money. That’s certainly true. But what has it to do with a post defining two sometimes mistakenly interchanged words? I don’t see anything praising the accumulation of money, just defining it and how it is perceived. So what is being responded to?"
- R Quinn
Read more »

Family

Room For Happiness

Andrew Clements  |  Oct 7, 2026

Be the first to comment.
Read more »

Health

Medicare Part D premium shock 2027

R Quinn  |  Sep 29, 2026

"You are absolutely correct. Most people look at the premium and stop there. That can be a big mistake, but understanding the formulary and the different tiers used for copays can be impossible. And as mentioned, to make it worse nobody can predict the drugs that may be prescribed over the next year."
- R Quinn
Read more »

Investing

Financial Ruin for Beginners

Mark Crothers  |  Oct 6, 2026

"Kind of a stretch, but I couldn't resist!"
- Dave Melick
Read more »

From HumbleDollar Founder Jonathan Clements

Investing

Behaving Badly

OTHERS MIGHT BE hoping to add to their wealth by picking the next hot stock. But here at HumbleDollar, we’re much more concerned about…
Read more »

In Retirement

Is now the time for an annuity?

R Quinn  |  Oct 2, 2026

"I’m on the wrong side of this one. I think IRMAA is a necessary and fair income. adjusted premium. It would be nice not to have to pay extra, but it’s still fair."
- R Quinn
Read more »

Life Events

Laundered

ArticleJeffrey K. Actor  |  Oct 3, 2026

FINANCIAL EMERGENCIES have a way of compounding when least expected. This is often coined as a correlated risk. I call it running out of clean underwear.  My father used to profess, in emergencies, that turning pairs inside out was a legitimate way to extend undergarment use under duress. Financially, this is merely extending the life of a depreciating asset.  I am sure my mother would have refuted this concept. Nevertheless, before you judge me too harshly, allow me to share the situational details. Three weeks ago our 7 year old washing machine, an example of aging capital equipment, began exhibiting signs of being possessed. Wash cycles were accompanied with grinding noises and violent walks across the floor. Spin cycles initiated poltergeist-like behavior, with heavy banging and metallic thuds made by nether-world demons. An internet search revealed the probable cause of the machine’s paranormal behavior, which was likely broken suspension rods or damaged shock absorbers holding the inner tub in place. After watching 8 or 9 YouTube videos, I decided that I had the inner fortitude to de-demonize our beloved washing machine. And being thrifty, I wished to avoid the major capital expenditure of replacing the washer. I consider myself handy and even pride myself on the 65% success rate for fixing household appliances. Yes, I freely admit that past performance is no guarantee of success. However, since I was attempting to maintain my existing emergency fund, I ordered new drum springs; at 7 years old it seemed financially responsible to repair rather than replace the machine. Upon arrival of the rods, I subsequently installed them in a mere 3 hours (I like to think of myself as methodical, rather than speedy). With a screwdriver in hand, one bruised elbow, and my pride on the line, I separated the whites from the darks and ran a load. Success! Unfortunately, the clean clothes ran up against another obstacle. Our 10 year old dryer must have been jealous of the attention its utility counterpart received. What are the odds that both a washer and a dryer would malfunction in the same week? Call it correlated asset failure. In my house, in hindsight, the odds were pretty darn high. One appliance repair was manageable. Two was beginning to feel like collusion between utilities. To make matters worse, the washing machine was only functional for two loads. Just because you can purchase parts on the internet does not guarantee long term utility after installment, in essence rendering my original repair invalid. Sunken costs for a depreciating asset. In this case, I probably broke a plastic piece holding the inner tub while replacing the springs. Unfortunately, I was lulled into a false sense of security, and was outside the house when those diabolical mechanical fiends struck again. When I returned, the washer was in full demonic dance, this time mischievously thumping our 17 year old water heater. The water tank wanted no part of the dance, and promptly sprung a supply line leak.  Great. In hindsight, advocating for a larger emergency fund balance would have been prudent for someone like me with a known 35% failure rate. I ran to the big box store to purchase a new pipe and some sealing tape, but silly me, I forgot to take measurements of the tank and valves. I called my wife in the parking lot to assist. My mistake was to ask her to check if the tank’s intake valve was functional. It was not, evident by her high pitched scream and the clear sound of water gushing. Note to self: remember to shut off the main water supply before asking the wife to help with water tank issues.  Did I mention that our daughter’s future in-laws were coming to dinner the next day?  In the end, we purchased a new water heater and were only without water for two days. We also purchased a washing machine, but it took roughly three weeks for delivery, as we required a difficult footprint size to fill the space occupied by the previous device.  Our emergency fund survived, albeit at a lower level than anticipated. As a side note, I was able to fix the dryer, for the most part, so that a full replacement was not necessary.  The experience taught me a few lessons. First, household financial risks may appear independent, yet often this is not the case. It was easy to fathom we had our unexpected events covered with our existing emergency fund. Yet compounding systemic appliance failures pushed the unexpected expenses towards our theoretical limits. Second, my father was only partially correct. Underwear is not a renewable asset. I should also think about establishing a separate Fruit of the Loom reserve account to accompany our current emergency fund. A decision my mother would have approved. Jeffrey K. Actor, PhD, was a professor at a major medical school in Houston for more than 25 years, serving as an academic researcher with interests in how immune responses function to fight pathogenic diseases. Jeff’s retirement goals are to write short science fiction stories, volunteer in the community and spend time in his garden. Check out his earlier articles.
Read more »

Investing

Why Bonds Matter

ArticleAdam M. Grossman  |  Oct 3, 2026

RECENTLY, A READER—let’s call him Tom—posed this question: If stocks historically have delivered far better returns than bonds, then why should an investor own any bonds at all? Even with the stock market's unpredictable ups and downs, wouldn't you end up way ahead by betting only on stocks over the long term? It's a fair question. Over the past 100 years, stocks have delivered returns of roughly 10% per year, while bonds have returned just 5%. More recently, that gap has been even wider. Between 2016 and 2025, the S&P 500 gained nearly 15% per year, on average, while bonds gained less than 2%. And as we've experienced in recent years, bonds aren’t without risk, so why not just go all in with a 100% stock portfolio? The most common answer to this question involves a phenomenon known as sequence-of-returns risk. That’s the risk posed to retirees by an unpredictable stock market. Suppose, for example, you retire on a Friday, and stocks drop the following Monday. This would, of course, be unnerving, but it could become a real problem if you’re forced to sell stocks while they’re depressed. Too many forced sales can cause a portfolio to deplete too quickly. Tom, the reader who posed this question, is an experienced investor and well aware of sequence-of-returns risk. His view, though, is that it’s a fear that’s overblown. Even if stocks drop from time to time, he argued, the impact should be modest. That’s because the loss an investor actually experiences in any given year would be limited by the amount withdrawn in that year. Suppose, for example, a retiree is taking withdrawals at a 4% annual rate. Even if the market were to drop 50%, that 50% loss would only be applied to the 4% withdrawal, resulting in a loss of just 2%. And since the stock market has delivered such superior performance overall, Tom asked, shouldn’t that more than offset single-digit losses like this, especially if they occur only every once in a while? It was a good question, so I ran the numbers, starting with a period that was particularly punishing for stock market investors: In 2000, the U.S. market dropped 9%. In 2001, it dropped a further 12%, and in 2002, it dropped yet another 22%. What would’ve happened if you’d retired at the beginning of 2000 with an all-stock portfolio and started taking withdrawals at a rate of 4% per year? In that case, the funds would have run down nearly to zero within 25 years. And if the withdrawal rate had been even just a little higher—4.5% instead of 4%—the funds would’ve been fully depleted within 20 years. Does that mean Tom’s 100%-stock strategy would be inadvisable? The answer is nuanced. Here are some key points to consider: First, it’s important to recognize that a retirement in 2000 was close to a worst-case scenario. Looking at retirement dates over the past 100 years, there were just two other cases in which a portfolio would have deteriorated so quickly over the course of a 25-year retirement. The first, not surprisingly, was 1929. The second was 1969, just before the malaise of the 1970s, when market returns stagnated while inflation accelerated. Aside from those limited cases, an all-stock portfolio would have been a winning strategy in nearly every other time period. In 91% of rolling 25-year periods between 1926 and 2025, a retiree would’ve ended up with more money after 25 years of withdrawals than on the first day of retirement. In about half of 25-year periods, the amount of money in the bank after 25 years would have been five times more than at the beginning of the period. Tom’s all-stock strategy, in other words, would have been the right choice in nearly every case over the past 100 years. Still, I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone approaching retirement, for these five reasons. First, and probably most important, is the fact that we each have only one chance at retirement. If we happen to end up with an unlucky sequence like in 1929, 1969 or 2000, it would be cold comfort to know that we were simply unlucky. As Bill Bernstein likes to point out, the odds of losing at Russian roulette are just one-in-six, but it goes without saying that still none of us would take that risk. Similarly, we can’t know what the future holds, so that’s why I’d recommend an asset allocation that, statistically speaking, might be more conservative than necessary. Another reality is that history is an imperfect guide to the future. In the past, there have been just three very tough periods for new retirees, but there’s no guarantee what path the market will follow in the future. Look no further than Japan, which only recently emerged from a 34-year bear market. Another risk is inflation, which was a key reason why the late-1960s were such a difficult time to retire. The government’s difficulty in reining in inflation since the pandemic is a reminder of this risk. Another consideration: I assumed in my simulation that a retiree’s portfolio withdrawals would follow the popular 4% rule, starting at 4% in the first year of retirement, then increasing in lockstep with inflation. Those assumptions are useful for financial modeling but don’t reflect the way real people spend money, which varies much more from year to year. If I had assumed spending that was even modestly higher than 4%, the failure rate would have been much higher. The last reason I’d be wary of an all-stock portfolio isn’t mathematical at all. It’s the reality that stock market declines can be enormously upsetting. So even if you can theoretically afford to take more risk, that doesn’t mean you’ll be happy when the market inevitably declines at some point—or at multiple points—during retirement. A final note: So far, this discussion has been limited to retirees. If you’re early in your working years or building a portfolio for a young person, then sequence-of-returns risk should be much less of a concern, and a portfolio like Tom’s might make sense. In fact, if you’re more than 10 or so years away from needing to draw on your funds and have some dollars set aside for whatever might come up in the meantime, then in that case, I would absolutely consider an all-stock portfolio. Adam M. Grossman is the founder of Mayport, a fixed-fee wealth management firm. Sign up for Adam's Daily Ideas email, follow him on X @AdamMGrossman and check out his earlier articles.
Read more »

Saving

A Very Humble Saving

Mark Crothers  |  Oct 1, 2026

"I only started switching about five years ago, and I never tracked the cost. As I remember it, LED bulbs initially carried a $3 or $4 premium over incandescent, but prices dropped quickly after the ban. I'd estimate my total spend at a few hundred dollars, and certainly no more than $500. Even at that upper figure, the savings of roughly $150 a year are a solid ongoing return, around 30% annually. I'd be thrilled if my portfolio made that every year!"
- Mark Crothers
Read more »

In Retirement

Strategic Retirement Income

Gordy Vytlacil  |  Oct 3, 2026

"I have a total return portfolio but the first money I spend is the dividends kicked out. If more is needed then I sell the fund with highest basis."
- Randy Dobkin
Read more »

Retirement

Will Congress Wait Until the Last Minute on Social Security?

Jeff Peck  |  Sep 27, 2026

"“we should demand…” I agree but voting, our only lever ?, doesn’t seem to change anything. New people, same result. 🤷‍♂️"
- Andy Morrison
Read more »

Lists

Jonathan’s Parting Thoughts: No. 6

Jonathan Clements  |  Oct 2, 2026

"I recently read this article and thought it might be interesting for folks to ponder, https://danhaylett.substack.com/p/the-five-things-worth-paying-for?ck_subscriber_id=3858874081&utm_source=convertkit&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Investors%20Newsletter%20-%2023384925."
- Andy Morrison
Read more »

Investing

Rich or Wealthy?

R Quinn  |  Oct 5, 2026

"Okay, there are many things more important than money. That’s certainly true. But what has it to do with a post defining two sometimes mistakenly interchanged words? I don’t see anything praising the accumulation of money, just defining it and how it is perceived. So what is being responded to?"
- R Quinn
Read more »

Family

Room For Happiness

Andrew Clements  |  Oct 7, 2026

Be the first to comment.
Read more »

Health

Medicare Part D premium shock 2027

R Quinn  |  Sep 29, 2026

"You are absolutely correct. Most people look at the premium and stop there. That can be a big mistake, but understanding the formulary and the different tiers used for copays can be impossible. And as mentioned, to make it worse nobody can predict the drugs that may be prescribed over the next year."
- R Quinn
Read more »

Investing

Financial Ruin for Beginners

Mark Crothers  |  Oct 6, 2026

"Kind of a stretch, but I couldn't resist!"
- Dave Melick
Read more »

From HumbleDollar Founder Jonathan Clements

Investing

Behaving Badly

OTHERS MIGHT BE hoping to add to their wealth by picking the next hot stock. But here at HumbleDollar, we’re much more concerned about…
Read more »

In Retirement

Is now the time for an annuity?

R Quinn  |  Oct 2, 2026

"I’m on the wrong side of this one. I think IRMAA is a necessary and fair income. adjusted premium. It would be nice not to have to pay extra, but it’s still fair."
- R Quinn
Read more »

Life Events

Laundered

ArticleJeffrey K. Actor  |  Oct 3, 2026

FINANCIAL EMERGENCIES have a way of compounding when least expected. This is often coined as a correlated risk. I call it running out of clean underwear.  My father used to profess, in emergencies, that turning pairs inside out was a legitimate way to extend undergarment use under duress. Financially, this is merely extending the life of a depreciating asset.  I am sure my mother would have refuted this concept. Nevertheless, before you judge me too harshly, allow me to share the situational details. Three weeks ago our 7 year old washing machine, an example of aging capital equipment, began exhibiting signs of being possessed. Wash cycles were accompanied with grinding noises and violent walks across the floor. Spin cycles initiated poltergeist-like behavior, with heavy banging and metallic thuds made by nether-world demons. An internet search revealed the probable cause of the machine’s paranormal behavior, which was likely broken suspension rods or damaged shock absorbers holding the inner tub in place. After watching 8 or 9 YouTube videos, I decided that I had the inner fortitude to de-demonize our beloved washing machine. And being thrifty, I wished to avoid the major capital expenditure of replacing the washer. I consider myself handy and even pride myself on the 65% success rate for fixing household appliances. Yes, I freely admit that past performance is no guarantee of success. However, since I was attempting to maintain my existing emergency fund, I ordered new drum springs; at 7 years old it seemed financially responsible to repair rather than replace the machine. Upon arrival of the rods, I subsequently installed them in a mere 3 hours (I like to think of myself as methodical, rather than speedy). With a screwdriver in hand, one bruised elbow, and my pride on the line, I separated the whites from the darks and ran a load. Success! Unfortunately, the clean clothes ran up against another obstacle. Our 10 year old dryer must have been jealous of the attention its utility counterpart received. What are the odds that both a washer and a dryer would malfunction in the same week? Call it correlated asset failure. In my house, in hindsight, the odds were pretty darn high. One appliance repair was manageable. Two was beginning to feel like collusion between utilities. To make matters worse, the washing machine was only functional for two loads. Just because you can purchase parts on the internet does not guarantee long term utility after installment, in essence rendering my original repair invalid. Sunken costs for a depreciating asset. In this case, I probably broke a plastic piece holding the inner tub while replacing the springs. Unfortunately, I was lulled into a false sense of security, and was outside the house when those diabolical mechanical fiends struck again. When I returned, the washer was in full demonic dance, this time mischievously thumping our 17 year old water heater. The water tank wanted no part of the dance, and promptly sprung a supply line leak.  Great. In hindsight, advocating for a larger emergency fund balance would have been prudent for someone like me with a known 35% failure rate. I ran to the big box store to purchase a new pipe and some sealing tape, but silly me, I forgot to take measurements of the tank and valves. I called my wife in the parking lot to assist. My mistake was to ask her to check if the tank’s intake valve was functional. It was not, evident by her high pitched scream and the clear sound of water gushing. Note to self: remember to shut off the main water supply before asking the wife to help with water tank issues.  Did I mention that our daughter’s future in-laws were coming to dinner the next day?  In the end, we purchased a new water heater and were only without water for two days. We also purchased a washing machine, but it took roughly three weeks for delivery, as we required a difficult footprint size to fill the space occupied by the previous device.  Our emergency fund survived, albeit at a lower level than anticipated. As a side note, I was able to fix the dryer, for the most part, so that a full replacement was not necessary.  The experience taught me a few lessons. First, household financial risks may appear independent, yet often this is not the case. It was easy to fathom we had our unexpected events covered with our existing emergency fund. Yet compounding systemic appliance failures pushed the unexpected expenses towards our theoretical limits. Second, my father was only partially correct. Underwear is not a renewable asset. I should also think about establishing a separate Fruit of the Loom reserve account to accompany our current emergency fund. A decision my mother would have approved. Jeffrey K. Actor, PhD, was a professor at a major medical school in Houston for more than 25 years, serving as an academic researcher with interests in how immune responses function to fight pathogenic diseases. Jeff’s retirement goals are to write short science fiction stories, volunteer in the community and spend time in his garden. Check out his earlier articles.
Read more »

Investing

Why Bonds Matter

ArticleAdam M. Grossman  |  Oct 3, 2026

RECENTLY, A READER—let’s call him Tom—posed this question: If stocks historically have delivered far better returns than bonds, then why should an investor own any bonds at all? Even with the stock market's unpredictable ups and downs, wouldn't you end up way ahead by betting only on stocks over the long term? It's a fair question. Over the past 100 years, stocks have delivered returns of roughly 10% per year, while bonds have returned just 5%. More recently, that gap has been even wider. Between 2016 and 2025, the S&P 500 gained nearly 15% per year, on average, while bonds gained less than 2%. And as we've experienced in recent years, bonds aren’t without risk, so why not just go all in with a 100% stock portfolio? The most common answer to this question involves a phenomenon known as sequence-of-returns risk. That’s the risk posed to retirees by an unpredictable stock market. Suppose, for example, you retire on a Friday, and stocks drop the following Monday. This would, of course, be unnerving, but it could become a real problem if you’re forced to sell stocks while they’re depressed. Too many forced sales can cause a portfolio to deplete too quickly. Tom, the reader who posed this question, is an experienced investor and well aware of sequence-of-returns risk. His view, though, is that it’s a fear that’s overblown. Even if stocks drop from time to time, he argued, the impact should be modest. That’s because the loss an investor actually experiences in any given year would be limited by the amount withdrawn in that year. Suppose, for example, a retiree is taking withdrawals at a 4% annual rate. Even if the market were to drop 50%, that 50% loss would only be applied to the 4% withdrawal, resulting in a loss of just 2%. And since the stock market has delivered such superior performance overall, Tom asked, shouldn’t that more than offset single-digit losses like this, especially if they occur only every once in a while? It was a good question, so I ran the numbers, starting with a period that was particularly punishing for stock market investors: In 2000, the U.S. market dropped 9%. In 2001, it dropped a further 12%, and in 2002, it dropped yet another 22%. What would’ve happened if you’d retired at the beginning of 2000 with an all-stock portfolio and started taking withdrawals at a rate of 4% per year? In that case, the funds would have run down nearly to zero within 25 years. And if the withdrawal rate had been even just a little higher—4.5% instead of 4%—the funds would’ve been fully depleted within 20 years. Does that mean Tom’s 100%-stock strategy would be inadvisable? The answer is nuanced. Here are some key points to consider: First, it’s important to recognize that a retirement in 2000 was close to a worst-case scenario. Looking at retirement dates over the past 100 years, there were just two other cases in which a portfolio would have deteriorated so quickly over the course of a 25-year retirement. The first, not surprisingly, was 1929. The second was 1969, just before the malaise of the 1970s, when market returns stagnated while inflation accelerated. Aside from those limited cases, an all-stock portfolio would have been a winning strategy in nearly every other time period. In 91% of rolling 25-year periods between 1926 and 2025, a retiree would’ve ended up with more money after 25 years of withdrawals than on the first day of retirement. In about half of 25-year periods, the amount of money in the bank after 25 years would have been five times more than at the beginning of the period. Tom’s all-stock strategy, in other words, would have been the right choice in nearly every case over the past 100 years. Still, I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone approaching retirement, for these five reasons. First, and probably most important, is the fact that we each have only one chance at retirement. If we happen to end up with an unlucky sequence like in 1929, 1969 or 2000, it would be cold comfort to know that we were simply unlucky. As Bill Bernstein likes to point out, the odds of losing at Russian roulette are just one-in-six, but it goes without saying that still none of us would take that risk. Similarly, we can’t know what the future holds, so that’s why I’d recommend an asset allocation that, statistically speaking, might be more conservative than necessary. Another reality is that history is an imperfect guide to the future. In the past, there have been just three very tough periods for new retirees, but there’s no guarantee what path the market will follow in the future. Look no further than Japan, which only recently emerged from a 34-year bear market. Another risk is inflation, which was a key reason why the late-1960s were such a difficult time to retire. The government’s difficulty in reining in inflation since the pandemic is a reminder of this risk. Another consideration: I assumed in my simulation that a retiree’s portfolio withdrawals would follow the popular 4% rule, starting at 4% in the first year of retirement, then increasing in lockstep with inflation. Those assumptions are useful for financial modeling but don’t reflect the way real people spend money, which varies much more from year to year. If I had assumed spending that was even modestly higher than 4%, the failure rate would have been much higher. The last reason I’d be wary of an all-stock portfolio isn’t mathematical at all. It’s the reality that stock market declines can be enormously upsetting. So even if you can theoretically afford to take more risk, that doesn’t mean you’ll be happy when the market inevitably declines at some point—or at multiple points—during retirement. A final note: So far, this discussion has been limited to retirees. If you’re early in your working years or building a portfolio for a young person, then sequence-of-returns risk should be much less of a concern, and a portfolio like Tom’s might make sense. In fact, if you’re more than 10 or so years away from needing to draw on your funds and have some dollars set aside for whatever might come up in the meantime, then in that case, I would absolutely consider an all-stock portfolio. Adam M. Grossman is the founder of Mayport, a fixed-fee wealth management firm. Sign up for Adam's Daily Ideas email, follow him on X @AdamMGrossman and check out his earlier articles.
Read more »

Saving

A Very Humble Saving

Mark Crothers  |  Oct 1, 2026

"I only started switching about five years ago, and I never tracked the cost. As I remember it, LED bulbs initially carried a $3 or $4 premium over incandescent, but prices dropped quickly after the ban. I'd estimate my total spend at a few hundred dollars, and certainly no more than $500. Even at that upper figure, the savings of roughly $150 a year are a solid ongoing return, around 30% annually. I'd be thrilled if my portfolio made that every year!"
- Mark Crothers
Read more »

Free Newsletter

Get Educated

Manifesto

Oct 7, 2026

NO. 10: OUR GOAL shouldn’t be more time to relax, but rather more time to pursue our passions. Working hard at things we care deeply about is among life’s greatest pleasures.

act

Oct 7, 2026

PAUSE BEFORE acting on financial decisions. We often do great damage when we make impulsive spending and investment choices. To give our brain’s contemplative side a chance to weigh in, we might make it a rule to pause before taking action—with those pauses ranging from 10 minutes to two weeks, depending on how much money is at stake.

humans

Oct 6, 2026

NO. 27: WE THINK we can forecast the stock market’s direction. Most experts agree it’s impossible to predict where stocks will head next, and yet almost every investor has an opinion. Why? Partly, it’s because market swings have a huge impact on our day-to-day wealth. But partly, it’s hindsight bias: Bull and bear markets seem all too predictable—in retrospect.

Truths

Oct 6, 2026

NO. 94: IF YOU REFINANCE your mortgage to take advantage of lower rates, you’ll cut your monthly payment, but you may also set yourself back financially. Suppose you’re eight years into a 30-year mortgage. If you refinance with another 30-year loan, your monthly payment could drop sharply—but it’ll also be eight extra years until you’re debt-free.

Money Guide

Start Here
Planner
Portfolio
Retire
Invest
Daily alert signup

Manifesto

Oct 7, 2026

NO. 10: OUR GOAL shouldn’t be more time to relax, but rather more time to pursue our passions. Working hard at things we care deeply about is among life’s greatest pleasures.

Spotlight: Abuse

Ten Important Security Tips

hitekfran   |  Nov 9, 2024

I was making a payment on Zelle recently which our landlord requires us to use to pay our rent. I had completed the process when I suddenly got an alert that I needed to make the payment again as they were having technical problems. This…
Read more »

For Safety’s Sake

David Powell   |  Jun 24, 2023

ON JUNE 15, THE NEWS was broken by The Oregonian of a massive hack at Oregon’s Department of Motor Vehicles, apparently leading to the theft of sensitive details about most of Oregon’s 3.5 million holders of a driver’s license or ID card. Incidents like this,…
Read more »

If you don’t think AI is powerful and scary, think again!

R Quinn   |  Sep 30, 2026

I just asked ChatGPT for the median household income of Americans age 65-75 and 75- 80. The answer was a bit of a shock. It said in part, “If you're interested because you're comparing this with your $x income, I can also show what percentile…
Read more »

Wrote and Grew Rich

John Goodell   |  Apr 9, 2022

IF YOU GOOGLE “best business books of all time,” you’ll find Napoleon Hill’s Think and Grow Rich at or near the top of the search results, ahead of works by luminaries such as Ben Graham and Jack Bogle. Truly helpful business analysis requires the reader…
Read more »

How to protect your retirement savings from scammers?

smr1082   |  Jul 29, 2024

I was reading this New York Times Article today titled: " How one man lost $740,000 to scammers targeting his retirement savings". See this link. This is a shocking reminder that scammers are getting more and more sophisticated. It is going to get worse. Criminals…
Read more »

Numbers Game

Kyle McIntosh   |  Oct 19, 2021

IT HAPPENED AGAIN. For the third time in two years, our credit card number was stolen. I learned this yesterday when I received the now-too-frequent question from Chase: “Do you recognize this gas station purchase for $1?” We live nowhere near the station in question,…
Read more »

Spotlight: Grossman

Staying Positive

Adam M. Grossman   |  Sep 22, 2019

PRESIDENT TRUMP recently criticized the Federal Reserve—yet again. Calling Fed Chair Jerome Powell and his colleagues “boneheads,” the president expressed frustration that they haven't done more to lower interest rates. Specifically, the president said we should, “get our interest rates down to ZERO, or less.” That last part—“or less”—was key. Not only should rates be lower, he argued, but they should…
Read more »

How to Lose Less

Adam M. Grossman   |  Jul 18, 2021

IF THERE’S ONE STORY that seems to have captured the investing public’s imagination this summer, it’s the revelation that venture capitalist Peter Thiel has managed to accumulate more than $5 billion in his Roth IRA—where it will be entirely tax-free to him. In its reporting, ProPublica, the news outlet that carried the story, focused mostly on the tax aspects—the fact that Thiel…
Read more »

What Goes Up

Adam M. Grossman   |  Nov 5, 2023

STEIN'S LAW STATES that, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” It’s named for Herbert Stein, an economist who was influential in the 1970s and served as chair of the president’s Council of Economic Advisors. Stein first made this comment when he saw government debt growing to what he felt was an unsustainable level. While half-joking in the…
Read more »

What to Worry About

Adam M. Grossman   |  Jul 19, 2020

IN RECENT WEEKS, I’ve focused on some of the growing risks in the financial system. In the stock market, there are day trading enthusiasts and their obliging brokers. In Washington, there’s a Federal Reserve that has served up a seemingly bottomless punch bowl of new money. Result: Despite the current recession and 11% unemployment, the stock market is close to…
Read more »

Stay Safe Out There

Adam M. Grossman   |  Sep 22, 2024

SOME YEARS AGO, an elderly neighbor came to our door, asking for a favor. She was looking for packing tape because she’d sold her television and needed to ship it. She went on to say that the buyer, who she’d found on eBay, was in Nigeria. It was, of course, an obvious scam. But for whatever reason, she couldn’t see…
Read more »

After the Windfall

Adam M. Grossman   |  May 5, 2019

A FEW WEEKS AGO, life changed for 24-year-old Manuel Franco of West Allis, Wisconsin. The winner of a recent Powerball lottery, Franco took home $326 million—and that’s after taxes. With a sum that large, it shouldn't be hard for Franco to make his winnings last a lifetime. And yet, more often than not, such windfalls deliver heartache rather than…
Read more »
FREE NEWSLETTER
How To
Follow Us
HumbleDollar · https://humbledollar.com/ · printed Oct 7, 2026

Log in