The “Power of 3” Personal Finance Strategy Part II My personal finance thesis: Real financial security should be measured by sustainable cash flow coverage of core living expenses — not by asset values alone. After 30 years of studying personal finance, managing and operating large businesses, I’ve come to believe many people are using the wrong scorecards. A portfolio can rise. A house can rise. Net worth can rise. Income can rise. And yet real financial security can still be getting weaker. Why? Because we do not live inside our brokerage statements. We live in the real world of: - housing costs - food costs - healthcare costs - utilities - insurance - taxes - transportation - and changing purchasing power Wealth matters. Assets matter. Net worth matters. But if those measures are not connected to actual living and living expense coverage, they can create a FALSE sense of security. A person can have a larger portfolio, a higher home value, and a bigger nominal net worth — while at the same time having less real purchasing power and less durable financial security. That is why I use this measure: Financial Security Coverage The question is simple: How many times does your sustainable cash flow cover your absolute core living expenses? In my view, that is one of the clearest and most important measures of real financial security. --- Why traditional wealth measures can mislead In recent years many people have seen: - stock portfolios rise - home values rise - retirement balances rise - nominal net worth rise Someone may say: - “I hit $1M in my portfolio.” - “My assets doubled in five years.” - “My net worth is up massively.” That may all be true in nominal dollars. But the more important question is: Has your real financial security improved at the same rate? Often, the answer is not nearly as much as they think. Because while asset prices rose: - inflation eroded purchasing power - living costs rose - insurance rose - healthcare rose - taxes rose - replacement costs rose So yes, statement values may be higher. But if the cost of sustaining your life rose sharply too, then the practical meaning of that wealth may be far smaller than the headline number suggests. This is the illusion of nominal wealth without purchasing power awareness. Asset growth matters. But wealth should not be measured only by what it is worth on paper. It should also be measured by the cash flow support and life coverage it can provide in the real world. --- My framework: Financial Security Coverage Financial Security Coverage = Sustainable Cash Flow / Absolute Core Living Expenses My target is 3.0x. If my absolute core living expenses are: - $7,000 per month - $84,000 per year Then my target is: $84,000 x 3 = $252,000 So I target $252,000 in sustainable, after-tax cash flow capability. Not gross income. Not paper gains. Not one-time wins. Not inflated asset values. Not temporary market strength. Sustainable. Durable. Net cash flow. Why 3.0x? Because in my view that is where you have: - essential life coverage - contingency - flexibility - meaningful margin of safety - cash flow left over to save, invest, and compound wealth - near-complete financial durability under stress testing At 1.0x, you are covering life. At 2.0x, you have meaningful breathing room. At 3.0x, you have what I consider durable financial security. Sharp readers will realize that reducing the denominator — expenses — is one of the fastest ways to improve security. --- Reality check In my view, many people are operating between 0.85x and 1.15x core living expense coverage. That means they are: - below full coverage - right at the line - or only slightly above it This is why so many people feel pressure even when income looks decent or assets have risen. A small disruption can destabilize everything: - medical costs - car repairs - rent increases - insurance increases - income loss - tax changes - business slowdowns Any honest personal finance framework has to begin with empathy. Most people are not failing because they are reckless. Many are struggling because they are living with very little margin. That is a STRUCTURAL issue. --- Definitions matter ABSOLUTE CORE LIVING EXPENSES: The essential costs required to maintain life at a durable baseline: - housing - utilities - food - healthcare - insurance - transportation - minimum debt service - essential household expenses - baseline taxes This is not luxury. This is not status spending. This is the number required to keep life functioning. SUSTAINABLE CASH FLOW: This should be after tax, durable, and repeatable. Examples: - reliable salary - durable business income - pension income - recurring rental cash flow - recurring distributions - conservative portfolio income assumptions It should exclude or heavily discount: - one-time gains - temporary spikes - windfalls - irregular bonus dependence - speculative cash flow - unrealized paper gains A lot of people look secure on paper. Far fewer are truly secure in cash flow. --- The second layer: Direct and Indirect Cash Flow I now think the most accurate version of Financial Security Coverage should include both: 1. Direct Cash Flow The sustainable, after-tax cash flow you receive now: - salary - business income - rental cash flow - pension income - recurring distributions This answers: How well is my life covered by the cash flow I currently produce? 2. Indirect Cash Flow The sustainable cash flow your assets could support: - stocks - bonds - retirement accounts - taxable portfolios - other investable assets A simple proxy is a conservative withdrawal rate such as 4%. If someone has $2,000,000 in investable assets: $2,000,000 x 0.04 = $80,000 If core living expenses are $84,000, then: $80,000 / $84,000 = 0.95x This answers: How well could my life be covered by the cash flow capacity of my assets? --- Why this is a better measure of wealth Most people measure wealth by: - portfolio value - home value - net worth - income Useful, yes. Complete, no. A better question is: What level of sustainable life support do my income and assets actually provide? That is why I believe Financial Security Coverage is a more accurate and more important measure of wealth and security than asset values alone. It translates both: - income - assets into the one metric that matters most: Coverage of Real Life And unlike nominal balances, it forces us to think about: - inflation - purchasing power - changing living costs - market volatility - income durability - resilience under stress --- Why tracking it Year over Year matters This framework becomes more powerful when tracked annually. Year-over-Year changes in: - direct cash flow coverage - indirect cash flow coverage - total living expense coverage reveal what is really happening and a far more accurate measure of Wealth and Financial Security If the ratios improve, it may mean: - income is strengthening - assets are becoming more supportive - purchasing power is holding up - expenses are becoming easier to carry If they deteriorate, it may mean: - inflation is outrunning cash flow - expenses are rising too fast - income is less durable than expected - assets are worth more nominally but support less real life - financial security is weakening despite appearances This is the difference between paper progress and real progress. --- How I interpret the ranges Below 1.0x — financially exposed Cash flow does not fully cover core living expenses. 1.0x to 2.0x — functioning but VULNERABLE Essentials are covered, but margin is limited. 2.0x to 3.0x — real RESILIENCE Core life is well covered, contingency improves, and optionality begins. Above 3.0x — robust SECURITY and compounding power This is my target zone: real coverage, real flexibility, real resilience. Moving from 0.95x to 1.15x matters. Moving from 1.15x to 1.50x matters. That is real improvement. --- My conclusion After 30 years of personal finance study, I believe this: Wealth should not be measured only by asset values. Security should be measured by sustainable cash flow coverage of core living expenses. And the most complete version of that measure includes both: - Direct Cash Flow — what your life produces today - Indirect Cash Flow — what your assets can support tomorrow Track both. Measure both. Watch them year over year. Because the real question is not: What are my assets worth on paper? The real question is: How well can my finances sustain my life, now and in the future, in a world of changing costs and changing purchasing power? That is why I use Financial Security Coverage. And my target is 3.0x. That is my thesis. My definition of Financial Security: https://link.blossomsocial.com/7uYa/ir4906pb Expanded post on cash flow: https://link.blossomsocial.com/7uYa/i0eun8py Expanded post on tracking living expenses: https://link.blossomsocial.com/7uYa/qkgdki8p Financial Control Part I — Emergency Cash: https://link.blossomsocial.com/7uYa/k3e80c3w
2,590 views
11 Comments
solomon @ambessa · 20h
as a financially disciplined individual i score well above 3 on your index. All your points make sense. I'll also add 'unexpected expenses' to your list. Great post!
Mukul @growth_investor · 21h
Wow excellent post!
Blair @tackaberry17 · 21h
🎯 spot on - excellent points everyone should utilize
Clantosa @clantosa · 21h
I would say 1.5 to 2 is my cash flow. Covers a family of 4. All bills paid and all registered accounts maxed every year
See the full comment section 👀Sign up for the full Blossom experience!
