Money, Investing and More on Consumerism Commentary: A Personal Finance Blog (3)

Podcast 27: Man Vs. Debt and Frugal Travel

by Flexo on October 25, 2009

in Podcast

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast has now completed six months of broadcasts without missing one week. This is as good a place as any to declare the “First Season” of the podcast complete and begin the “Second Season.”

In the premiere of Season 2, Tom Dziubek and Flexo speak with Adam Baker, the creator of the website Man Vs. Debt. We discuss Baker’s war on debt and its origins. We also talk about a number of traveling tips collected throughout Baker’s experiences leaving Indiana and living in Australia and New Zealand.

Production Number: S02E01
Segment Number: 40

To listen, use the player above (Adobe Flash required), download the podcast here, subscribe to the podcast RSS feed, or use the iTunes link. Note: open links in a new window (Ctrl-click or Command-click) to avoid interrupting the podcast.

[00:00] Introduction from Flexo
[00:33] Interview with Adam Baker, Man vs. Debt
– [00:58] Baker’s story
– [07:30] Baker’s Declaration of War on debt
– [09:21] Using only cash for variable monthly expenses
– [10:14] Money with family and friends
– [12:00] Investing in ourselves
– [13:46] Baker’s move to Australia
– [16:34] Couchsurfing
– [19:16] WWOOFing
– [20:50] Long-term vs. short-term travel
– [21:50] Staying at hostels
[24:26] End

We always welcome feedback from listeners. If you have any comments for this episode or for any other, or if you have suggestions for future episodes, please leave us comments here or email us at podcast at this domain name.

{ 0 comments }

Net Neutrality Simplified

by Smithee on October 23, 2009

in Consumer

Depending on how you get your news, the topic of network neutrality can seem boring, or confusing, or both. Possibly you haven’t yet heard about it, or you’ve already formed an opinion. The reports I see are too often complicated, lacking reasoned arguments and full of hyperbolic guesses as to what the future might hold. Not to mention that both supporters and critics say that their side is the one promoting “freedom”. I’ve read all the boringly-written PDFs about the FCC’s new guidelines for you, and here’s what it means.

Same as it is now

Enacting an official policy of network neutrality means that the Internet you use now will not change. Broadband providers have ideas about limiting access to some content for customers who don’t pay as much, or aren’t on their networks.

As the specific FCC guideline is written:

broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications

Without Net Neutrality

For example, imagine if you needed to be a Verizon FiOS subscriber in order to access www.startrek.com. Star Trek fans who didn’t have FiOS would throw a fit (those same Star Trek fans might recall this actually happened on AOL many years ago). As an alternative, the owners of www.startrek.com work out a deal with the other big broadband companies and they say, “okay, fine, you can have access to it, but your broadband bill will be $5 more per month”. Meanwhile, FiOS subscribers aren’t paying $5 a month for the Web site. Sound fair?

Here’s another made-up example of a world without net neutrality: you have AT&T broadband at home, and a Sprint mobile phone through work. Your company uses Google Apps, but AT&T decides they don’t like Google, so you can’t get to your work e-mail from home. Does that sound like a good idea to you? If you’re against that idea, then you are in favor of net neutrality.

No reason for prices to change

The Internet was built by a bunch of nerdy scientists to be open and accessible to everyone. It isn’t free, because moving data requires paying people to do various jobs. At my house, we’re paying about $60 / month for some very fast Internet. Critics of net neutrality claim that “new rules” will force providers to raise prices. But remember, neutrality is what we have now, as it’s been regulated by the FCC in the past on a case-by-case basis, so there’s no logical reason to raise prices for anyone. Besides, $60 a month is almost highway robbery as it is.

Internet providers charge more for faster speeds, and less for slower speeds. Critics of neutrality want to invent new ways to charge people in addition to this one simple rule.

Regarding congestion and illegal activities

The FCC’s published guidelines (they’re just getting started writing the actual rules), make exceptions that give Internet providers the ability to manage network congestion and prevent illegal activities. So if you’re on cable, and you’ve got neighbors downloading (and uploading) 68 gigabytes of Star Trek movies, providers can find a way to stop your speeds from being negatively affected. The new rules do not prevent throttling, and they do not encourage illegal activities.

Avoiding an ugly fight

I’m speculating here, but ensuring network neutrality will also mean side-stepping huge Public Relations nightmares for broadband companies. I think a provider has the right to consider limiting access to certain content or applications, and I think it would be massively stupid of them to go through with it. Millions of people would be instantly enraged.

Back when you needed to be an AOL subscriber to access www.startrek.com, they got complaint after complaint, and it was less than a year before access was returned to everyone. Why would anyone want to go through with that again?

Preserving a Free and Open Internet, at the FCC’s OpenInternet.gov web site (which is accessible to everyone)

{ 7 comments }

Pay Czar Ordering Bailed Out Companies to Reduce Pay

by Flexo on October 22, 2009

in Economy

The executives of these companies had to see this coming. When a company is “too big to fail,” it becomes a public institution in senses of the phrase but the most literal. And for a number of banks and other financial companies in the past year, the public has become a partial owner thanks to infusion of cash from the government bailouts.

A company has a responsibility to do what is in the best interest of its stakeholders. For these bailed-out companies, taxpayers hold more of that stake than ever before. Those who own shares of stock in these companies want nothing more than the companies to be self-sustaining and profitable, but taxpayers, all who have lent money to the companies to help prop up their balance sheets and create liquidity, just want these loans paid back regardless of profit.

The government officially represents the taxpayers, not the shareholders, but you can be sure the government wants to see these companies profit, too. The Obama administration’s “pay czar,” Ken Feinberg, is going to determine the compensation for the highest 25 paid individuals in each of the companies that have not yet repaid government funds. The new compensation plans would reduce total pay by an average of 50% per individual and would reduce the cash portion of pay by an average of 90%.

Wall Street This could benefit both taxpayers and shareholders in the short term:

Pay reductions create an incentive for companies to pay back the taxpayers and become fully private.
Lowering pay lowers companies’ expenses so they can report bigger profits in their quarterly an annual financial statements.

The challenge with government-mandated compensation restriction is that executives and boards of directors believe that bailed-out companies will be less appealing to the best and brightest talent. Corporate leaders who find they can only earn $40 million at Company A but could earn $80 million or more by moving to a company not partially controlled by the public might defect for greener pastures.

That sounds like a solid threat, but it’s not likely on a large scale. There are enough talented and qualified senior-level executives out there who would be happy to take the reins of a company partially owned by the government. At least, that is what Ken Feinberg is hoping.

It’s unlikely taxpayers will see bailed-out companies repay all of the money that they received. The government’s job right now is to get back as much of those funds as possible while still, to a point, preventing the companies from failing.

Photo credit: epicharmus
Wall Street Pay Cuts Stoke Debate About Washington’s Reach, Julianna Goldman, Ian Katz and Robert Schmidt, Bloomberg, October 22, 2009

{ 12 comments }

Investor Psychology: Why We Fail to Make Good Financial Decisions

by Flexo on October 21, 2009

in People

Investors make better decisions when they separate emotions from the thought process, but it’s practically impossible to achieve the goal in perfection. Regardless of how hard one tries, emotions will always be present. The best an investor, or anyone who makes decisions about finances, can achieve is awareness of the ways psychology prevents optimal decision making.

I took Kiplinger’s new investor psychology quiz, which focuses on the ways investors’ brains work against us as we try to make solid investment decisions. I answered seven of the eight questions correctly. The quiz was a good reminder of the brain’s subtle ways of changing perception and understanding of a situation.

Here are some interesting aspects of psychology that hinder the best decision-making.

Recency effect

We tend to remember better events that happened most recently. While at the peak of a bubble, like we’ve seen in real estate and stocks, several years of increases hide the reality that bubbles burst when high prices are not supported with fundamental value. Likewise, if you are asked to review your experiences at a restaurant, even if you have visit that restaurant for decades, your most recent experience at that venue will have the most weight.

Here’s how this can damage you: In the midst of a recession, it seems like the stock market keeps getting lower. All we see is bad news like financial scandals and corruption. We forget that over the long term, the stock market has been the best way to grow your money. So we abandon the stock market and miss out on those gains when the economy rebounds.

Confirmation bias

There are certain things we want to believe. Several years ago, a friend told me that “real estate always goes up.” There’s the recency effect again. Also, to believe that any investment can’t fail, we must ignore information that does not fit in with that philosophy. We seek out the studies or opinions that match our own as we look for confirmation.

Here’s how this can damage you: If you are looking to buy a house, it would be smart to look for reasons that the purchase will be financially sound over the long term. You will cite the usual positive aspects of home purchasing, including the fact that it’s an asset likely to appreciate and you receive a small tax break on mortgage interest, but you’ll likely ignore the fact that you’re likely to move out of the house before buying gains its advantage over renting.

Losing money is painful

The brain reacts to losing money the same way it reacts to pain. As pain is something we are built to avoid, we also try to avoid any potential for losing money. On the surface, this sounds like it would be a good thing, producing decisions that are more likely to side with gaining rather than losing. What really happens is that if we are presented with a situation where we have an even chance of winning $150 or losing $100, we won’t take the chance.

Here’s how this can damage you: The fear of losing money and experiencing the associated pain will keep us from taking risks. For people invested in the stock market, the pain experienced when reading those quarterly statements with negative returns causes many to sell at the wrong moment. They’ll miss out on the market’s rebound. While the stock market has a great track record over long periods of time, if you’re only invested when the market is decreasing, your performance will never match the stock market.

Want more? Here’s a list of cognitive biases. Just about everything pertains to financial decisions in some manner.

Photo credit: Martin Pettitt

{ 6 comments }

Senator Dodd Going Ahead With Overdraft Legislation

by Smithee on October 20, 2009

in Banking

We told you last month about banks deciding to let customers opt out of overdraft fees, first announced by Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase, and then the next day by Wells Fargo (and Wachovia, which it owns).

These big banks made the changes very soon after lawmakers announced an intention to try to regulate the extent to which customers are punished for spending money they don’t have.

Here’s a summary of the changes already made:

	Opt out?	Max daily overdrafts	Balance to trigger overdraft fee
Bank of America	Yes	4	-$10 *
Chase	Yes	3	-$5
Wells Fargo	Yes	4	-$5

* Fee will also be charged for overdrafts maintained longer than 5 days, regardless of balance.

Not satisfied, Senator Chris Dodd is still pursuing a new law that will enforce some limits on all banks.

Proposed legislation

The law introduced yesterday aims to prevent:

more than one overdraft fee per month;
more than six overdraft fees per year;
fees that are more expensive than the cost of processing an overdraft;
banks from manipulating the order in which they post transactions in order to rack up extra fees;
fees if an overdraft is due solely to a bank hold, such as the hold placed on funds when reserving a hotel, if the hold is greater than the actual amount of the transaction; and,
enabling overdraft protection on customers who don’t explicitly sign up for it.

3455410819_aed2a1b3cc In addition, automated bank systems (SMS, e-mail, etc.), ATMs and bank tellers would be obligated to warn a customer if they were in danger of going negative (presumably with the current transaction), and be given the option to avoid that result.

Analysis

Opt-in

I am all in favor of “opt-in”. I want opt-in everything, but as we saw when Windows Vista was new, it’s maddening to be asked for your permission after initiating every single activity. Some things are perfectly innocent and should be opt-out instead. Frankly, I find it thrilling that for the first time, customers can opt out of overdraft fees. Apparently, it took the threat of new legislation to prod banks into introducing this, so sure, let’s make it all consistent.

Fee instances per year, and per month

One overdraft fee per month and six per year seems arbitrary to me. If I had to guess, I’d say this is related to the fact that banks stand to earn over $38 billion this year on overdraft fees, and they weren’t in danger of losing anywhere near that much from accounts which went negative and then stayed that way.

But I’m enough of a capitalist to admit that it seems wrong to limit profits just because it can be done, which this seems to smack of. When the full text of the bill is available, I’ll try to find more about where these numbers came from.

Fees more expensive than the cost of processing

To be sure, it’s part of a bank’s operation to process an overdraft, deal with a negative account, and pay the salaries of people who write the software and maintain the literal and figurative machinery.

But as was explained to me while working the phones at Bank of America, part of the fee is also meant to dissuade the customer from going negative, and failing that, to encourage the customer to bank elsewhere. Clearly, the fees are adding up to lavish profits at the expense of probably-well-meaning customers. In my opinion, it’s simply not right to profit because someone else fails, especially when that someone is your customer.

Manipulating the order of posting items to create extra fees

This should be obvious as a disgusting practice performed by a heartless behemoth of a corporation.

Overdraft fees because of a bank hold

This also seems like common sense. If a hotel has reduced your available balance by $250 when you’re only going to be paying $110, it’s unreasonably for the bank to punish you for being overdrawn. You had no intention of spending more than you have.

The same is true if there’s a hold placed on a deposit. I’m sure the vast majority of deposits that have holds placed on them end up being legitimate, probably at least 98%. A check made out to you isn’t the same as cash, but why not give your customers the benefit of the doubt, or at least avoid punishing them when you don’t and you end up being wrong?

Warning customers who are in danger of going negative

This just seems like excellent customer service. If a bank truly finds it inconvenient to process overdraft fees, they’d all be doing this today.

Sources

Dodd Introduces Legislation to Curtail Overdraft Fees, Jeff Plungis, Bloomberg, Oct. 19, 2009
Dodd Unveils Bill to Protect Customers From Abusive Checking Account Overdraft Fees, Sen. Dodd’s Official Web site, Oct. 19, 2009
Photo Credit: Tom T

{ 6 comments }

New Graduates Facing Unemployment May Never Reach Income Potential

by Flexo on October 19, 2009

in Career and Work

The unemployment rate for young workers between the ages of 16 and 23 is 18%, and that is an increase of five points from a year ago. That age group includes high school drop-outs as well as college graduates, and for these people the future looks bleak. Adults are taking the minimum-wage jobs teenagers might be offered in other economic situations. Older workers, otherwise approaching retirement, are not leaving the workforce as quickly. The openings for younger workers aren’t there.

The bad news is starting your career in a recession is one of the worst things you can do for your long-term financial security. More bad news is that there is little any one person can do about the economy at large. Here are the numbers, from a study at Yale quoted in the cover story in today’s BusinessWeek:

For each percentage-point rise in the unemployment rate, those who graduated during the recession earned 6% to 7% less in their first year of employment than their more fortunate counterparts. Even 15 years out of school, the recession graduates earned 2.5% less than those who began working in more prosperous times.

Young adults might be destined to be a “lost generation.” Here are some suggestions for 16-to-23-year-olds who find themselves having a difficult time starting their career in this recession and want to mitigate its effects on long-term income.

1. Finish your education

It’s an issue of supply and demand. First, if you have not done so, completing your Bachelor’s degree will have two important effects. First, it will improve your marketability among entry-level employees when fewer open positions will create a competitiveness that ensures that the best qualified candidates will win. A Bachelor’s degree is a gateway to at least the middle class, and that’s going to be more important than ever.

Second, finishing college now will keep you out of the worst of the recession. This will allow you to stay out of the worst fight for jobs, but it has some drawbacks. Delaying the start of full-time income can also have detrimental effects on your long-term income — but if you wouldn’t be working anyway, this isn’t much of a disadvantage. Also, if you are relying on student loans, you will be amassing more debt that will require payoff down the road, perhaps shacking you to a job or career that is not best for you. New student loans have higher interest rates than they have in the past, adding to the pain of debt.

If you have your Bachelor’s degree, consider spending a few years to earn your Master’s or Doctorate degree. Are you worried about being overqualified? Don’t be. As we’re seeing in the recession where many workers are competing for few jobs, anything that helps you stand above the rest will be an advantage rather than a disadvantage. You might want to consider adapting your desired career to one better suited for an advanced degree, however.

2. Become an apprentice

In general, apprentices earn more throughout their careers than those who don’t hone their skills in a formal training program. Traditionally, apprenticeships are common for certain crafts and trades. Electricians, plumbers, and carpenters often get their starts through apprenticeship and there is significant income potential in these fields.

One creative answer is to become an apprentice for a career that does not traditionally fit this profile. For example, if you have musical talent and would normally consider performing or teaching in a better economy, consider composing music for films or television. You can contact a professional currently in the field and contact them about becoming an apprentice. One key to successfully finding an apprenticeship is the willingness and the ability to work for free.

3. Start your own business

I’m not talking about selling your possessions on eBay, but padding your savings account with cash rather than padding your home with useless objects is never a bad idea. Everyone has at least one marketable skill. It may require some time brainstorming to determine exactly how you can turn your skills into a service you can offer people or other businesses.

A recession is perfect timing to start a business, particularly if you can dedicate all your time to making it work (that is, you are otherwise unemployed). Many new businesses suffer because the owner needs to devote his or her time to the day job, a spouse, and perhaps even children. For young workers, the time will likely never be better for starting a business with the ability of giving it your full attention.

4. Save money

As a recent graduate or drop-out, you may have the option to move back in with your parents for a short time. After all, there is a recession and being able to save money on rent or a house payment is worth the temporary shame you might feel for going home with your tail between your legs. This is most likely the biggest opportunity for savings, but you don’t want to take advantage of the situation. Show your parents that you’re working hard to make the recession work for you, and they’re more likely to give you a break. And don’t forget to express gratitude.

Consider frugality as a way of life. In an economy where you have less control over your income thanks to fewer employment options, you can still control your expenses to a point. Take the extra time to determine what you are willing to cut back in order to help your money go farther. Occasionally, generic brands and store brands are good compromises.

Creativity leads to success

Surviving in a recession where it’s difficult to find a job relies on creative thinking. Use the opportunity to rethink your career path. If the acquisition of money has been your ultimate goal, realize that money by itself is not a goal. You may use the opportunity to break into a less popular field with a lower income potential but with a greater satisfaction potential.

Accept that the odds are against you if you want to compare yourself and your bank account against people who began their careers in the height of the economy, people who, on average, will out-earn those entering the workforce right now.

Photo credits: CarbonNYC, roland
The Lost Generation, Peter Coy, BusinessWeek, October 8, 2009

{ 12 comments }