The single worst piece of financial advice I've ever heard

The world and various media channels are chock-full of financial advice for you -- but not all financial advice is good advice. Here are three nuggets that our contributors find rather problematic.

Expect a 12% return and withdraw 8% per year in retirement

Brian Stoffel: In June 2013, I got into an unpleasant spat with a media personality over what to expect from a well-invested nest egg. He claimed that:

  1. The S&P 500 had average historical returns of 12% per year. As such, investors should put 100% of their nest egg in mutual funds that can deliver that return, often with a heavy sales load to boot.
  2. Assuming inflation is below 4%, retirees could then take out 8% of their nest egg in their first year of retirement, adjusting that for inflation every year thereafter.

This is advice is not supported by actual facts. The truth is that the S&P 500 has a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 9% dating back to 1871.This 3% difference might seem benign, but small changes can have a huge difference. To give you an idea, here's what would happen if you invested $5,000 every year between age 25 and 65, with a 12% return and a 9% return.

The actual dollar amount doesn't matter. The bottom line is that -- over 40 years -- you'll have less than half of what you expect. I've also heard from several financial planners that some clients refuse to invest with them because they won't guarantee 12% returns -- which leads them into the hands of planners who knowingly promise unrealistic results.

But perhaps the worst part of the advice is that you can safely withdraw 8% annually. I've already shown that in the past, following that advice would mean that you'd have a 50% chance of going broke by age 90. And if you retired in 2000, you would have been left penniless by 2009.

That alone is all you really need to know about why this isn't sound advice. Expecting 8% returns, and assuming you can pull out 4% in retirement, will lead to much healthier investing and withdrawing behavior.

RELATED: 8 essential tips to teach your children about handling their finances:

Lessons that teach your kids to save money
See Gallery
Lessons that teach your kids to save money

Play money-centered board games or games on apps, like Monopoly or Money Race.
It's an interactive and fun way for your kids to learn about basic financial practices without feeling like they're being lectured.

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Give them an allotted amount of cash to spend on lunch each week.
Your child will learn how to budget accordingly throughout the week, figuring out how to balance spending money on food some days vs bringing their own on other days (something that can be directly translated into the adult workplace).

Photo credit: Getty

Have them write down or tell you their absolute dream toy.
Then, show them that it's possible to have that toy if they save x enough money for x amount of weeks.

Photo credit: Getty

Give them an allowance.

Photo credit: Alamy

Stick to a set time and date each month for giving your child their allowance.
Practicing giving your children their allowance every other week or on certain dates of each month will help them prepare for set paydays in the working world--it will teach them to budget out and how to know when to save up in anticipation.

Photo credit: Getty

Match your child's savings each month.
This will imitate a 401K and show your child ways in which saving can (literally) pay off.

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Have your kid organize their funds in to different jars to represent different accounts.
Examples could be "Saving", "Spending", "Charity", "Emergency", "College".

Photo credit: Getty

Take your kids grocery shopping and explain certain choices you make with your purchases to them.
Your children will benefit from knowing what's best to purchase name brand vs. generic, why some snacks are better to buy in bulk, etc.

Photo credit: Getty


You needn't save money when you're young

Jason Hall: About a year ago, an article advising people in their 20s to not save money went viral. And quite frankly, it was one of the most short-sighted, ignorant pieces of bad advice I've seen in my entire life.

And not just because it was terrible financial advice; frankly, that may have been the least bad thing about it.

In short, the author seemed to draw a conclusion that saving was binary, and zero sum: Either you could save money and be unhappy, since you couldn't do anything else, or you could stop saving and be happy, since you could go eat out and party with your friends.

The big problem? This mindset totally disregards the value of finding balance between thinking about the long term and building up a safety net, and enjoying the here and now. The reality is that millions of young people will succeed or fail based on the habits they create and actions they take in their 20s. After all, the longer you put off saving -- and developing the habits that make it sustainable -- the harder it will be to start forming those habits as you age.

Besides -- and this is maybe my biggest beef with this advice -- life doesn't end at 30. By far, many of my happiest days and best experiences have happened after I turned 30, and in no small part because I didn't take this terrible advice and ignore the future.

Lastly, it doesn't take a lot of money set aside at a young age to really pay off later in life. If you invested $600 per year in your 20s in an S&P 500 index fund, you'd have $150,000 extra in retirement savings at age 65. That's right; setting aside only $50 per month during your 20s -- $6,000 total out of your pocket -- could be worth $150,000 when you retire.

Be a homebuyer, not a renter

Selena Maranjian: A particularly bad piece of advice that's often bandied about is that it's better to buy a home than to rent one. This can certainly seem to make sense. After all, paying rent can seem like pouring money down the drain, as you don't end up with any home equity for all your trouble. But remember, you do get something in exchange for all that money: You get a roof over your head.

And renting has its advantages, too. When you rent, you're not responsible for a whole host of expenses, such as property taxes, maintenance, and repairs. If the roof leaks or the water heater breaks, you won't suddenly face a significant unexpected expense. You won't have to pay insurance on the home, either, which can often top $1,000 per year. (Getting renter insurance for your belongings is a good idea, though -- and it should cost a lot less than insuring the building.)

What about the argument that buying a home is a good investment? Well, it can be. But on average, over the long haul, real estate doesn't tend to appreciate nearly as rapidly as stocks and other investments. You might make a killing when you sell your home, but you might lose money, too -- especially if you haven't stayed in it long enough to recoup closing costs. Meanwhile, since renting is often less expensive than buying, you may have more cash on hand if you're a renter, and you could invest that difference in stocks, earning a meaningful return over the years.

Buying a home is not a stupid thing to do, but it's not likely to be your best investment.

The $15,834 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook

If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets" could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. For example: one easy trick could pay you as much as $15,834 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Simply click here to discover how to learn more about these strategies.

More from The Motley Fool:
Can You Live on Social Security Alone?
Here's How Much Medicare Part D Premiums Are Rising in 2017
5 Things Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Actually Agree On

Read Full Story