Averting College Financial Disaster – Barely

My family dodged a major financial catastrophe this Spring. 

I have one large point to make about the difficulty of making optimal personal finance choices within one’s own family. In the telling of the story, I slip in some small points about paying for college and updates to 529 education savings accounts.

This story ends well, but for a while it looked like we were totally cooked, financially.

Pursuing one’s dream 

In November 2021 we did an official campus tour of highly selective out-of-state private University A. Old buildings, beautiful weather. Incredible foliage. Everything you’d want based on the brochures. My daughter, early in her high school career then, fell in love. I think it was the foliage. University A became her top choice from then on.

You might think allowing her first to fall in love with, and then second to apply to, a private out-of-state university was the original sin we committed. You wouldn’t be wrong. On the other hand, she has told us for at least the past four years that going to college out of state was a primary criterion. We respected that. Also in our defense we had not been totally irresponsible with funding her 529 account, which we started when she was 1.5 years old. The account had grown to something substantial. 

A gorgeous building at University A

Unfortunately, the sticker price of higher education for private universities has also grown, but to absurd heights, over the last 20 years. What normal family can afford this? If you haven’t checked lately, the all-in cost (tuition, room & board, books, fees, insurance and transportation) is about $90 thousand per year. Multiplying that by 4 years gets you to $360 thousand for an undergraduate degree. What even? Huh?

Briefly about 529 Accounts

529 accounts are merely fine investment vehicles. They are better than nothing. They are inferior to retirement accounts like 401Ks or IRAs.

I advise parents who have to choose which bucket to place their scarce investment dollars to fund their own retirement accounts more generously than their child’s 529 account. The tax advantages, opportunity for employer-matching, and long-term growth are all superior in retirement accounts as compared to a 529 account.

Another long-time knock on – or at least fear about – 529 accounts was that overfunding these accounts could leave dollars stranded, unusable for education purposes. I know that’s possible because two different families I am close to – relatives of mine – have overfunded their kids’ 529 accounts.

A 2024 change in 529 rules has made these accounts somewhat better and reduced the risk of “stranded money.” I’ll describe the rule change below.

But first, back to my daughter’s college journey.

She received a number of college acceptances this Spring, including her dream school, University A. Yay! 

Because of its prestige, it has a policy of not offering merit scholarships. This is typical of highly selective universities in which the admission office essentially says “all of our accepted students have extraordinary merit,” so nobody gets money on that basis. Boo! 

University B – With a generous merit scholarship!

She also got into University B with a very generous merit scholarship. For social and sporting reasons she also strongly considered University C, which offered a decent scholarship. In April of this year she had narrowed down her choice to A, B, or C. All three out of state, and private. The sticker prices for each is wildly high, but because of the three different merit scholarships, A, B, and C had totally different actual costs for our family.

The difference between finance rules and real life

With my finance-guy hat on, I know the cost of private out of state college is utterly ridiculous. Unconscionable. Absurd. Specifically, University A would cost us more than twice the amount that we had saved up over 17 years.

University C was also in the mix as an attractive option

But I am not only a finance guy. I am also a dad and a husband. And something strange happens when you try to apply finance-guy rules to real life choices for people who you love more than anything in the world. The rules melt away in the face of your most precious relationships.

[A reader recently wrote in to chastise me for making certain choices with respect to home equity line of credit debt, which isn’t in line with theoretical best practices. That’s right, I have done that. I will continue to deviate from best practices at times. Other criteria are sometimes preferable to the finance theory.

I know deep in my bones the personal finance rule that for a student – and her parents – going into extraordinary debt for undergraduate education is not a wise idea. And yet, when it came to the moment for my daughter to decide on college before May 1st, 2024, we did not insist on her choosing the optimal financial strategy. 

We said she could choose University A. 

My wife and I were those parents who did not enforce the right thing financially. Because of the crazy cost of private higher education, we faced taking on six-figure debt to make her dream come true. To paint a slightly fuller picture of the University A scenario, we also would have required our daughter to borrow the full amount of Federal unsubsidized loans under her own name, which adds up to $27,000 over four years. Which is also not optimal.

Financially, this was nuts. Emotionally, however, we were not willing to deny her a chance to pursue her dream. 

The new 529 to Roth IRA rules

As I promised, I also have a small point to make about paying for education. That is, while 529 accounts aren’t amazing, they just got incrementally more flexible in 2024. That’s a good thing. Beginning in 2024, surplus funds – by which I mean money in a 529 account that will not ultimately be spent on the beneficiary’s education – can now be repurposed in a very advantageous way.

Surplus 529 account funds can be contributed to a beneficiary’s Roth IRA, with certain restrictions in the fine print, as follows.

First, the 529 account must have been open for a minimum of 15 years. Next, the lifetime limit for moving surplus 529 funds to a Roth IRA is $35,000. At the current annual individual contribution limit of $7,000, it would take at least 5 years to max out this 529 to Roth IRA conversion opportunity. In addition, the IRA beneficiary must have earned at least the contributed amount of income in the year it was contributed. So for example, a student earning $3,000 in income during a calendar year could only contribute up to $3,000 to her IRA that year. Finally, funds in the 529 have to have been in the account for more than 5 years before turning them over to the beneficiary’s Roth IRA. 

These are a lot of conditions to satisfy. The purpose of all these persnickety rules is to make sure the 529 account is not being used as a backdoor Roth IRA funding loophole.

This 529 to Roth IRA rule is available this year for the first time in 2024. 

Which is very very good! Because we got lucky and our daughter decided to give up her dream of University A in favor of University B. With University B, because of their generous merit scholarship, we will have funds left over in her 529 account at the end of 4 years.

In my family’s particular case, we satisfy all the persnickety conditions, so we are eligible to help fund our daughter’s Roth IRA, up to $35 thousand dollars, in her early working years. 

This is all subject to change if she chooses instead to go to graduate school or some other educational opportunity that is more attractive than funding her Roth IRA. She starts University B in a few weeks. Hopefully she’ll have a Roth IRA funded after her first 5 working years as well. We got lucky and it was a very close thing.

A version of this post ran in the San Antonio Express News and Houston Chronicle

Post read (106) times.

Book Review: The Curse of Bigness by Timothy Wu

Editors’ Note: I wrote this for my column in the San Antonio Express-News back in October 2021. After the ruling of Google as a monopolist in August 2024, I realized I hadn’t posted it here yet. Whoops.

Prior to a few weeks ago, I was not overburdened with any particular bias or knowledge when it came to antitrust law and how it affected US businesses. If anything, I start with a bias that regulators should butt out of markets whenever possible. 

Then I read a short book. 

And now I recommend you read this small book, weighing in at a slim 139 pages, Tim Wu’s The Curse Of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age.

This book not only has changed my mind about what is likely to happen during the Biden Administration. It also has changed my mind about what ought to happen. 

Antitrust, I see from Wu’s history, is something that enhances markets. It improves competition. It’s usually fought tooth and nail by the target company but it can be something necessary for an industry as well as for consumers. I had not expected to come to this conclusion.

We sort of, kind of, remember that the first wave of trust busting involved the dismemberment of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil into 34 regional oil companies. Far from wrecking the oil industry, the break-up in 1911 of Standard Oil kicked off a robust national oil industry of competitive and innovative firms in the US. 

Exxon, Amoco, Marathon Oil, and Chevron among others thrived in the over one hundred years since. Compare those to the lumbering national giants like Mexico’s Pemex, Venezuela’s PDVSA, or Saudi Arabia’s Aramco and you would always choose our market structure over theirs. You can see in them what a problem leaving Standard Oil’s monopoly would have been. 

Or take the case of AT&T, the last great antitrust break-up, in 1982. This is the most convincing part of Wu’s book, in which he connects the dots between monopoly power, innovation, and the need for antitrust regulation to improve markets. AT&T never would have chosen the path of breakup if President Nixon hadn’t initially brought antitrust action against the company in 1974.

Before its breakup, AT&T had a monopoly on long distance telephony, local distance, and all equipment that could be plugged into a phone jack. It jealously killed off innovators that threatened any of its control, like tiny MCI trying to innovate with microwave towers. As Wu tells it, cutting-edge technologies of the early 1980s – like answering machines and fax machines! – would have been quashed or controlled by AT&T. The ability to innovate with modems, to eventually allow home computers to connect to “online service providers” like Compuserve and AOL, was only made possible by breaking up AT&T’s monopoly power. 

Timothy Wu. Law Professor and author

Having read Wu’s book, however, I’m jumping on the antitrust train.

Wu argues that Europe and Japan in the 1980s largely left their national telephone monopolies in place. Japan – a tech innovator in the 70s and 80s – suddenly found itself leapfrogged by independent US telephone, and then computer, companies. Nippon Telephone and Telegraph retained its size and monopoly power for too long. As Wu writes “There is, after all, only so much you can do when your innovations need to be engineered not to disturb the mother ship.” 

It’s hard to imagine counterfactuals, but the sheer size and control that AT&T had over telecommunications until 1982 meant that all the innovation that followed in the United States might never have happened, were it not for antitrust actions begun by Nixon.

Fast forward to the late-1990s. Microsoft nearly established monopoly control over the internet and search engines by crushing the startup Netscape, and bullying its way to 90 percent share of browser usage with Internet Explorer. Google and Amazon and Apple too at that point were merely scrappy medium-sized companies. After years of antitrust litigation, and an ultimately rescinded order to break up, Microsoft ceded space in the browser and search wars. (Just imagine if Microsoft hadn’t backed down. We’d all be using Bing today for search. Ugh. Bing is awful.)

Now we have today’s Big Tech monopolists. Like Amazon, Apple, Alphabet (aka Google), and Facebook. 

Don’t get me wrong, I love these companies. They are extremely customer-friendly. I use their products every day. I am grateful for the convenience and services they provide. 

I am convinced by Wu that their size alone justifies their breakup. Notice, I did not say “destruction.” Just separation into smaller, non-monopolistic parts, like what happened to AT&T and Standard Oil. 

Currently, the antitrust train against the sheer size of Big Tech is gathering steam in state capitals and Washington DC.

Their size is why Texas Republican legislators teamed up with Governor Abbott to warn large social media companies that any perceived political biases will be punished and regulated. Their size is what made the recent “60 Minutes” whistleblower story resonate, in which a former employee said Facebook purposefully emphasizes hateful and anger-inducing content, because it’s better for increasing engagement with the platform. Their size is why, when Facebook and Instagram suffered an unexpected outage recently, the schadenfreude was palpable. Many of us use these companies but we also rightly fear – and truth be told – loathe them a little bit.

Their extraordinary control over speech and media is what so angered President Trump and conservative supporters when Trump was de-platformed following the January 6th riots. 

Sen. Josh Hawley goes after Big Tech

Conservative Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) pushes his “Trust-Busting Agenda For the 21st Century.”

The language on his website, calling out Google and Amazon in particular, seems straight from Wu’s book. On September 30th he introduced legislation to allow parents to sue social media companies if their children were harmed. 

In the wake of the temporary Facebook/Instagram outage, progressive Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) took to Instagram to call for breaking up Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, due to their size.

Rep. AOC calls for Meta break-up

You could almost ignore these calls as fringe political voices. But you shouldn’t. The antitrust calls will soon be coming from inside the White House. Tim Wu joined Biden’s National Economic Council as Special Assistant for the President for Technology and Competition Policy. I don’t believe Wu joined just to have a job. Stuff’s going to happen.

Having read Wu’s book, The Curse of Bigness, I want stuff to happen. Bigness is its own threat. Bigness ultimately quashes innovation. A better society, and a better market, requires governments to at times check the ambition, size, and voracious appetites of our biggest, and yes, most successful companies. 

Don’t fear the trustbusters. We don’t know yet what tech marvels would be possible from the broken-up pieces of Google. Those software engineers don’t just go away. They probably just continue to invent, but without the innovation-squashing that incumbency and monopoly create. 

Chop down the tallest tree and let the forest grow.

This post ran as a column in 2021 in the San Antonio Express News and Houston Chronicle.

Please see other Bankers Anonymous book Reviews – They’re all here!

Post read (66) times.