Sharon Harvey Rosenberg, author of The Frugal Duchess: How to Live Well and Save Money, is today’s guest on the Consumerism Commentary Podcast. Sharon, known to the world as “The Frugal Duchess,” joins Tom Dziubek and myself to talk about her experiences and to offer tips for other duchesses.
Production Number: S02E03
Segment Number: 39
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 Tom Dziubek
[00:31] Interview with “The Frugal Duchess,” Sharon Harvey Rosenberg
– [00:51] Philadelphia roots and background
– [02:21] Tips for young women living in a big city
– [04:55] Experience as a shoe model
– [07:52] Frugality among celebrities
– [13:59] Having a dream house
– [16:01] The Frugal Duchess: How to Live Well and Save Money
– [18:17] Sharon Harvey Rosenberg’s current projects
[20:25] 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.
After the Credit CARD Act of 2009 was signed into law, we saw how credit card issuers started making life tougher for their customers. In short, banks were levying fees on their customers indiscriminately, affecting both the good and the bad.
This has been going on for months. Lawmakers have publicly condemned it, and made requests to the federal reserve, but all to no avail. This week, however, an amendment to expedite the Credit CARD Act (giving it an effective date of December 1st) has passed the House of Representatives in a better-than-average bipartisan manner (only 53% of Republicans opposed it), and I’m hopeful for all of our sakes that a similar measure quickly passes in the Senate.
I read through the words in both versions, and found a few differences, which might make it take longer to work through Congress:
In the House
The House version (full text) makes an exception for depository institutions (banks) with fewer than two million credit cards in circulation. It also comes with various clarifications to make sure that the new law doesn’t apply to banks and creditors who haven’t punished their customers (many of whom continued to pay on time and remain in good standing) in advance of the new law.
It also includes new features starting at Section 6 which state that:
- if you receive notice of a new fee, and you pay off your balance in full, or cancel your account, that won’t negatively impact your credit score
- there will be a nine-month moratorium on rate increases with a start date of the enactment of the Credit CARD Act of 2009
If these amendments pass, the moratorium would start December 1, 2009, instead of nine months after the law was passed, on about February 22, 2010.
In the Senate
The Senate version (full text) includes no additional clarifications or amendments, only a date change to December 1.
Flexo and I don’t agree on everything (if everybody did, life sure would be boring), but we agree that Congress should pass each idea into law based on its own merits, and not bundle them together into a jumbled mess of unrelated ideas. In this case, if you want to expedite a law, then document the new date and move on. Now’s probably not the time to be adding new regulations.
When Mint and Intuit announced the latter would be acquiring the former, the Quicken team and Aaron Patzer, the CEO of Mint, now a vice president of Intuit’s personal finance division, claimed that their two similar online product offerings, Mint and Quicken Online, would continue to co-exist. This made little sense to me.
In fact, I asked, “How long will it continue to make sense to maintain two highly similar services under one roof?”
We now know the answer is, “Not long at all.” The acquisition has passed regulatory requirements and is now official. With this news, Intuit has also announced that Quicken Online will cease to exist within six to nine months. This phase out will move Quicken Online users over to the Mint software.
It makes more business sense for Intuit to consolidate these similar product offerings, and I figured that in time either this would be the case or Mint’s software would be re-branded with the “Quicken Online” name.
I am not a heavy user of either Mint or Quicken Online. I prefer the desktop software. With Patzer heading the development of the desktop software as well, I expect some improvements in a year or so with the next or subsequent yearly release.
It’s official. Today President Obama will sign a bill into law that extends the $8,000 First Time Home Buyers’ Tax Credit, recently set to expire on November 30, until April 30 next year. The tax credit, originally part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was intended to stimulate the real estate industry, and Congress has been talking about extending the credit for months.
1.8 million home buyers have qualified for the $8,000 first time home buyers’ tax credit so far or will qualify by the end of November. According to the National Association of Realtors (who have a vested interest in seeing the credit be extended and expanded) says 335,000 of those home buyers would not have purchased a new house if not for the credit.
With house prices still lower than their highs and not much activity in the market, the industry wants more stimulation. And the industry is getting more than the $8,000 stimulus. Formerly, the tax credit was available only to home buyers who hadn’t owned a house in the past three years. The new bill adds a $6,500 tax credit for current home owners who buy a new house, and who have lived in their current house for at least five years. The extensions comes at a cost of $10.8 billion over 10 years according to the Joint Committee on Taxation
In order to qualify for either credit, the purchase contracts need to be signed by April 30, 2010 and the closing must take place by June 30, 2010. The value of the purchased house must be less than $800,000. There is an income limitation as well, but it has been increased with the passing of this bill into law. If your adjusted gross income is above $125,000 (single filers) or $225,000 (joint filers), the maximum credit you are allowed to claim is phased out.
The extension of the home buyers’ credit was included within H.R. 3548 (Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009), a bill which increases unemployment benefits for Americans for up to 20 weeks.
Do you think this extension is a good idea or with the economy beginning to improve, should we cease creating more stimuli?
Photo credit: pnwra
Although it’s a little late this month, it’s now time to share my personal finances. I’ve been doing this roughly every month since Consumerism Commentary started in July 2003. I did recently make one important change — I am no longer counting my “business” bank accounts in my net worth. I’m trying to separate my business, which consists mainly of Consumerism Commentary, from my personal accounts.
October was an interesting month. I traveled to my brother’s wedding in California, so there were a number of extraordinary expenses related to the event. I do have some good news, however. The IRS has approved the reclassification of my side business from a sole proprietor LLC to an S-Corporation. this should result in a refund of over $8,000 from my 2008 tax payments.
It could take a while to receive the refund, so I’m not planning anything for it yet, but it will most likely stay in a savings account for a while.
Here are the numbers. [click to continue…]
The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) is setting up a new division to oversee new financial products, and this group is starting with target date funds. These are mutual funds usually taking the form of baskets of other mutual funds, designed to target a certain year of retirement. As the year approaches, the fund automatically changes asset allocation, usually between stocks and bonds, to become less risky.
I’ve pointed out some of my concerns with target date funds here before. Mainly, they could be too conservative and it’s easy to hide fees. Mary Schapiro, the head of the SEC, pointed to the exchanges from stocks to bonds. The cost of the sales and purchases is buried in the daily price of the target date fund, and there is currently no good way for customers to understand how much they are being charged for the re-balancing of the portfolio they could do on their own.
Schapiro also noted that there is no standard across companies. A target date fund designed for those who plan to retire in 2050 with one fund manager may have a different allocation between stocks and bonds than a 2050 target date fund with another fund manager.
Here is a comparison of the asset allocations for the funds designed for those retiring in 2050 from Vanguard, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price.
|
Vanguard |
Fidelity |
T. Rowe Price |
| Domestic Stocks |
72.0% |
69.5% |
67.2% |
| Foreign Stocks |
18.0% |
20.0% |
22.9% |
| Bonds |
10.0% |
10.4% |
7.2% |
| Other
| 0.0% |
0.1% |
2.7% |
The variation seems small but could have an significant effect on returns by retirement in 2050. If target retirement funds were standardized across companies, customers could accurately and easily compare returns between fund managers, understand the level of risk, and have the opportunity to make better investment decisions.
I am not convinced there is a need for this. Any fund’s composition is described in detail in the prospectus and in on a multitude of financial data websites like Yahoo Finance and Google Finance. What isn’t clear are the true fees. We do know that Vanguard’s fee for their 2050 fund is 0.19%, Fidelity’s is 0.82%, and T. Rowe Price’s is 0.79%, but that only tells part of the story. Whenever there is turnover — stocks are sold and other stocks, bonds, or other investments are purchases — fees are generated but wrapped tightly into the daily price of the fund so it is barely noticeable.
Asset re-allocation is the purpose of target date funds. Even if the underlying funds, those in the basket, are low-turnover index funds, the managers may be rearranging the index funds in the basket often. For those disciplined to handle the responsibility of occasional re-balancing themselves, and it’s not that difficult, I suggest avoiding target date funds.
Target date funds have lots of fans because it’s a form of automation, and automation in finances is usually a good thing. There is a danger of automation leading to complacency and a false sense of security. If you choose target date funds, familiarize yourself with the details and evaluate whether the pre-packaged re-allocation system is worth the thousands of dollars or more you could be losing in hidden fees and with a risk profile that doesn’t match your income needs and tolerance.
Would you like to see target date funds standardizes so a “2050 Fund” from one company matches a “2050 Fund” from another company? or should companies be left to determine what strategy is best for their customers?
Photo credit: viZZZual.com
‘Target Date’ Funds Get Senate Scrutiny, Daisy Maxey, Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2009
SEC to look at retirement investing risks, Marketplace, November 3, 2009
This is a guest article by Scott Treadwell, a long-time Consumerism Commentary reader and graduate student at the University of New Hampshire. Scott is studying finance and is conducting a study in behavioral finance. Please look for the survey below and help Scott conduct his study.
We are only a year removed from the greatest financial crisis that has been seen since the Great Depression, and many voices have vowed reform throughout the industry and have assured us that these events would never happen again. The world of academia, however, needs to catch up to reality. As our engine of intellectual innovation, they should be on the cutting edge, but the same flawed precepts that have been taught to our business and finance students over the past twenty years continue to be taught (although the smart instructors will deliver the material with a caveat).
The standard methodology has been the Efficient Market hypothesis. Since news and information is so prevalent, academics assume the massive army of savvy investors that are active in the financial markets will instantly price the stock at the appropriate value. Given that assumption, most variables in the financial markets including human error are factored out and statistics are easily utilized to measure risk.
However, factoring out the human element was a mistake. Humans are the actors who analyze stocks and choose to buy, sell, or hold, thus determining the stock price. This is true whether the investor is an individual trading in her own account or a manager of a large mutual fund or trust. Based on recent events, it became clear that these three key assumptions surrounding efficient markets were incorrect:
- Prices DO NOT reflect all available information. Not all information that is acted upon is available to the public. Frequent and chronic insider trading nullifies this effect. The problem is not just Wall Street; corporate executives and employees with a shareholder interest in their own company can, and do, cash out before unfavorable information becomes public, although few get caught.
- Public information IS NOT always interpreted correctly. For example, many companies’ exposure to Mortgage Backed Securities was clearly stated in their financials, however that was determined to not be a problem until default rates skyrocketed. Some in the financial community warned that the level of risk was being underestimated for years, but inertia trumped their few voices and valuations remained unchanged, and wrong.
- Human Beings are NOT rational actors. Many precepts of economics are based on the assumption that the average human will optimize his economic interest at any given time by making the optimal decision. If this were the case, impulse consumer buying, groupthink, and stock market booms and busts would never happen. This is like saying that when there is a fire in a crowded theater, people will calmly line up in the reverse order of their seating arrangement and orderly file out of the building because they know this behavior is in their best interest. The concept sounds ludicrous in that context, so why is it applied to financial markets? People panic due to fear, they over-extend themselves due to greed, and they make foolish decisions. In other words, they behave like humans, not robots.
Enter the field of behavioral economics and finance, one that has been on the fringes of academia for many years. Once viewed as a disparate group of contrarians who analyzed strange aberrations in the market, their work was discounted by mainstream. However, in light of recent events, academics and investors are paying new attention to this field and the body of research conducted over the past several decades.
So what is behavioral economics? Essentially, it is study of trading behavior that is not rational. The trading behavior of humans is analyzed to gain insight about financial markets and to account for deviation from normal behavior. Here are some examples of these unique trading patterns:
- emotional or vested attachment to stocks
- panic selling and impulse buying
- recency effect (you are more quick to sell a stock you just bought rather than one you have owned for awhile)
- disposition effect (people are more willing to sell stocks that increase in value and hold the stocks that decrease losers)
Now the next question is, why do you care? Accepting where we went wrong is the first step, however everyone from finance professors to Wall Street professionals need to understand how the forces in play that can shape the investment environment now and in the future. If non-rational human behavior is truly a large factor in the market, we need to be aware of it and consider it as we formulate our individual investment strategies.
In order to gain some more insight about individual behavior, I have a quick survey about your trading habits. It’s quick, easy, and totally anonymous. The goal is to gain as much input as possible. Five minutes of your time will yield great results which I will be happy to share with Consumerism Commentary readers once the data and reports are available.
Please complete this anonymous survey.
Editor’s note: I completed the survey in under two minutes. Please take a moment to complete the short questionnaire and help Scott, a graduate student, complete his research study and earn his Master’s degree. ~ Flexo
New Staff Writer, Quicken 2010 Winners, and Best of October
by Flexo on November 8, 2009
in Administration
Several weeks ago, I mentioned I would be seeking a staff writer to add to the Consumerism Commentary team, to add one additional article each week. After a good number of applications, I narrowed the field to six finalists. Over the next two weeks, each of these finalists will be presenting two guest articles for Consumerism Commentary readers.
At the end of the process, I will welcome feedback from readers about the writers. The decision will not be based on your votes, but I will take any feedback to heart. The goal is to find a writer to add a fresh voice to Consumerism Commentary in addition, and as a complement, to the articles by myself and by Smithee.
Winners of Quicken Deluxe 2010
Last month, I reviewed Quicken Home & Business 2010 and offered a copy of Quicken Deluxe 2010 to two lucky readers. The two commenters chosen randomly to win, Javier and Jeremiah, were contacted earlier. I should have more giveaways to offer fairly soon.
Best of Consumerism Commentary, October 2009
We also had a number of great guests on the Consumerism Commentary Podcast. In October, we discussed unconventional paths to becoming a millionaire with the Millionaire Mommy Next Door, financial advisers with Neal Frankle, doing-it-yourself, beekeeping, and the Credit.com Credit Report Card with Mark Frauenfelder, and frugal travel and the war against debt with Adam Baker.
Join the community
{ 3 comments }