The Lost Opportunity Cost Of Paying Cash…
September 1st, 2008This post is longer than normal. It deals with an issue that does not lend itself to easy explanation. Lost opportunity cost deserves closer scrutiny than most because it is fundamental to understanding, building and maintaining a successful personal economy. In addition, since it’s difficult to address the topic piecemeal, it demands a single post rather than a series of shorter entries.
Dr Agon Fly
_________________________________
Part I - The Myth vs. The Reality of Lost Opportunity Cost
There are hundreds of money myths that make bad decisions feel good. Most are propagated by popular pundits on TV and radio whose main credential is that they are smooth talkers or enthusiastic preachers of their unique money gospel.
One of the most deceptive and destructive of these money myths is that ‘paying with cash’ is always better than any other alternative. This erroneous belief ignores a basic economic principle: lost opportunity cost.
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Lost opportunity cost is the value of what is lost when you choose between mutually exclusive alternatives. This value can be estimated before the fact and determined more accurately after.
A simple explanation of lost opportunity cost, and a statement of the benefit that you gain from understanding lost opportunity cost comes from R. Nelson Nash, author of Becoming Your Own Banker.
“Any time that you can cut out the payment of interest to others and direct that same market rate of interest to an entity that you own and contol…you have improved your situation.” Third edition, p40
Another way of saying the same thing comes from an experienced advisor who says; ”You always finance what you buy.”
-
If you borrow the money to buy something, you repay principal and pay interest to another.
-
If you pay cash to buy something, you give up both the principal and the earnings it would have brought you.
-
The only way to win is to borrow from yourself so you recover the money you borrowed - your capital - and the interest too.
Part II - Money is Capital Too!
Understanding the fact that money is ‘capital’ is key to understanding lost opportunity cost. For example, it’s easy to see that a person who owns a 160 acre parcel of arable land, holds that land as capital. The owner might consider these optional uses of that capital; plant one or more cash crops each year, convert the parcel to a tree farm, subdivide the land and sell off the lots, or sell the parcel outright. Each choice would produce different results both in terms of money and time.
- Cash crops promise an uncertain but probable income each year and preserve the basic value of the capital asset.
- A tree farm might produce a greater income at a much later date and, perhaps, enhance the value of the capital.
- Subdividing the land and selling off the lots would eventually reduce the value of the asset to zero while proportionately increasing the owner’s cash capital account.
- Selling the parcel outright transfers the asset to a new owner and produces immediate cash.
Money in the form of cash is capital too, however. In banking, cash contributes to the tier one capital that determines the stability rating a bank receives from regulators. Corporate balance sheets include cash holdings among their capital assets. Your personal economy runs almost exclusively on its capital holding of cash.
Why, therefore, is there the modern day myth that paying cash for everything is always the best choice? Why the insistence that you deplete your most valuable asset on a regular basis, which, coincidentally, increases the cash account of the entity that receives your money? Is it, perhaps the very fact that it’s a myth that serves the interests of those who propagate the myth rather than your interests?
- What do you lose when you pay cash?
- Should you consider just the cash in your decision?
- Is there a benefit you might receive from using your cash differently?
- Where is the cash coming from?
- Is what you give up when you use cash worth more than what you gain by doing so?
- Are there alternatives to cash that you should consider?
Part III - The Role of Debt-to-Others vs. Debt-to-Self
The always-pay-cash mantra is usually chanted with an ‘all debt is bad debt’ chorus. The purveyors of this myth seldom, if ever, consider a third, fourth or other alternatives. I’m not suggesting that debt is good. It’s easy to justify paying cash in lieu of putting your purchases on a credit card that you may take years to repay. It may make sense for some to pay off a mortgage early to save thousands in interest.
But debt may also give you leverage in certain situations. More importantly, if you have studied the Money for Life Model that lets YouBeTheBank, you realize that debt to yourself can create wealth more readily than other more risky systems and paradigms.
Consider these common strategies used in the retail business. Here are three ways to use cash to pay for a $24,000.00 car.
- Cash, which you take from a $24,000.00 savings instrument. You also earn a $2,000.00 discount off the purchase price. This leaves you with $2,000.00 to put into a CD at 4.15% that yields $2,450.90 during the 60 month finance period. (If you were to leave the money in a five year CD paying 4.75% it would mature to a value of $27,745.52.)
- Borrow $22,000.00 from your credit union at 6.5% (you still get the dealer discount for cash) and withdraw the $430.46 per month payment for 60 months from your $24,000.00 savings instrument. You end up repaying $25,827.37 including interest and have just over $2,400 left in savings.
- 60 months of interest free payments of $400.00 per month to the dealters finance arm taken from your savings plan would reduce the $24,000.00 to about $2,000.00.
Does it surprise you that leaving your CD intact, borrowing from the credit union or taking the zero interest option all produce about the same result? It shouldn’t. In each of these cases, you effectively pay cash. When it’s all over you have depleted you savings, have very little money and a five year old car that is worth virtually nothing.
Imagine instead that you had borrowed the money from your own “bank” and repaid yourself? At the end of the 60 month payoff period you’d have both the principal and interest returned to your account…and you’d still own the five year old car.
Part IV - The Fallacies
Here’s the fallacy in the myth. The myth assumes that the payments you don’t make on the auto are going to be used to either increase savings or to pay off other debt. In this example (using numbers from BankRate.com and in order to be honest and fair in our presentation) we took the cost of the purchase from the same source in each case and did not replenish the savings.
If we factor in a monthly payment of $430.46 being made to replenish the savings plan - or in the case of the credit union loan, leaving the money in the savings vehicle and making the loan payments to the credit union - and calculate the results for each approach, the results in each case are, again, similar. You would replace the money you spent on the car plus a little interest. The auto dealer is still the one that made a profit from the transaction while you lost the earning power of your money for a net two and one half years.
This uncovers the second fallacy in the always-pay-cash myth. The myth assumes that there is only one instance of the transaction type that is discussed or illustrated; one car, one refrigerator, one vacation, one of anything. The reality is that you will have to buy many cars, refrigerators and vacations. The always-pay-cash myth doesn’t address this issue. It relies, like most other shallow financial paradigms, on a snapshot in time that captures a scene that ceases to exist the instant it is taken, and is immediately at odds with your current reality.
This leads us to the third and most compelling failure of the always-pay-cash myth. Since the myth relies on creating support for its proposition, it consistently represents unrealistic results for both its positive effects and the negative results of not following its rigid mandates. It compares apples and elephants as if they were of the same species. It discounts any alternative that does not support its position - or improve the ratings of the pompous pundit that promotes it on radio or TV.
When investments are recommended - and they usually are - an unrealistic rate of return is illustrated. While the “market” has delivered a hypothetical 12% year on year return, investors have averaged only 2.9% gross and less than 1% adjusted for inflation and taxes.
If a savings plan is suggested, little or no consideration is given to the surprisingly unsurprising surprises that life delivers on a daily basis and that create the great sucking sound that decimates your reserves.
One Final Thought and a Conclusion…
What’s a person to do?
First, recognize that the concept of lost opportunity cost is, at best, misunderstood by the celebrities and pundits who promote their personal form of mucked up economics on radio and TV shows. (I am uncertain how I would fare if ever I had my own radio or TV show. I’d hope to emulate Ben Stein, who is fearlessly well informed and honest.)
Second, recognize that the vehicles you choose to consider when making a lost opportunity cost decision will determine the validity and outcome of your decision. If you rely on hyped up hypotheticals with 6% or higher assumptions, your choices will eventually destroy your financial foundation and your house will fall. If, on the other hand, you choose a more conservative and realistic approach that is based on guarantees and high probability returns, your financial foundation will rest on rock solid ground and your framework will strengthen.
Recall the thought early in this discussion that you can estimate lost opportunity cost before the facts are in and determine the actual results later.
· Like the country-western song says, “You gotta know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away, know when to run.”
· And don’t forget what Will Rogers cautioned; “I’m more concerned about the return of my money than I am about the return on my money.”
Lost opportunity cost is one of the most powerful tools you have to evaluate financial opportunities. The Money for Life Model incorporates this tool into every aspect of its approach to helping you build a successful personal economy that lasts ‘in good times and bad.’
___________________________




