Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Bruce Wiliams :: Townhall.com Columnist
Fireproof or Safe Deposit?
by Bruce Wiliams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 

DEAR BRUCE: Is it better to have a safe deposit box at a bank for which one pays an annual fee, or a fireproof safe in your house? If the safe is the best option, how does one find a good one? Also, what sort of documents should one store in them? -- A.T., via e-mail

DEAR A.T.: The less expensive option, unless many years pass, would be the safe deposit box at the bank. The one major drawback of a safe deposit box in most, though not all states, is that if the bank becomes aware of your passing, it will seal the box until it can be opened in the presence of a representative of the state. The reason behind this is that the state wants to make sure you haven't stashed in the box a lot of money or other valuables that you haven't paid taxes on. The safe in your home is more convenient but can be quite expensive, and should be placed in a spot where any fire will be the least intense. Against an outside wall in an attached garage would be good, compared to a bedroom on the second floor that could easily collapse into the flames below. In terms of the safety of the documents themselves, the deposit box is probably a better choice. A safe can also keep jewelry and other valuables safe from most intruders. The one thing that does not belong in your safe deposit box is your will. Oftentimes, the safe deposit box will be frozen and inaccessible to your family. The best place for an original copy. which is the only one that matters, is in the care of the attorney who drew it.

DEAR BRUCE: I have a house in Michigan that lost 30 percent of its value recently. Today, it is worth about $550,000. I carry a $300,000 mortgage on it, with a stable income of $140,000 base plus $30,000 stock and bonus. I have no other debt. On a recent vacation in California, I found property that has declined about 60 percent in value since 2005, and is being offered at $239,000. It is my dream to move to the area. Eventually I would like to sell the Michigan home, but I'm trapped due to today's economy. Also I'd like to potentially benefit from California's future rebound, since it is broadly desirable (unlike Michigan). I am considering carrying both homes, and splitting my residence. I telecommute, so my job is flexible. Taking on this second house would tighten my budget, but I will still be able to save. It would also leave me with only $30,000 cash after putting 20 percent down. -- J.S., via e-mail

DEAR J.S.: Don't be mesmerized by the decline of 60 percent you cite. It may have well been overpriced by 80 percent, a frequent phenomenon in California The mitigating circumstances are your desire to live in California and the fact that all real estate will go back up to some degree. Whether home values will ever hit the absurd highs that they did in California, Florida and other states is a matter of conjecture. The plus here is that you want to live in California and you can reasonably afford to carry both mortgages. The troublesome thing is that you will be almost out of cash and if something happens to your income because of the economy or an illness, you will be in a very, very tenuous position. That would distress me. How much of a gambler you are and how risk-adverse you are only you can tell.

DEAR BRUCE: My partner and I are both employed, and make pretty good salaries. Do you think it is effective and advisable to seek the input of a financial consultant? We're both trying to put money into savings, but we don't have any grand strategy of how to build wealth beyond that. However, I'm concerned that just going to a financial adviser from our local bank will result in them trying to up sell us on products we don't necessarily need. C.W., via e-mail

DEAR C.W.: The fact that you are saving religiously is an enormous plus. As to grand strategy, you can learn a great deal by reading the financial sections of newspapers, money magazines, etc. It would be difficult for me to advise given that you didn't include your ages, what you have already acquired, etc. I would suggest that since you are living with your "partner" as contrasted with a spouse, keep your finances separate. The laws are still extremely fuzzy about this type of relationship, and it would be a lot easier to keep things sorted out.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Brucce Williams is a contributor to the Motley Fool.

Be the first to read Brucce Williams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
The very best in financial advice from Dave Ramsey, Larry Kudlow, Motely Fool and many more plus Dilbert!