As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: back


This is a guest post from J.D. Roth, who founded the Get Rich Slowly blog and currently writes at More Than Money. J.D. recently launched a year-long "Get Rich Slowly" course, which is based on the idea that you’d have greater financial success if you managed your money as if you were running a business. I’ve previously written about approaching your finances like a business.

I’m convinced that more people would achieve financial success if they managed their home economy as if they were running a small business. We all know that a company needs to earn a profit to survive, but few understand that the same principle applies to our personal lives.

To build personal wealth, you must spend less than you earn. When you do, you’re earning a “profit” and building wealth. But if you spend more than you earn, you’re losing money and in danger of falling into debt. The greater the gap between your earning and spending, the faster your net worth grows (or shrinks).

The key is to boost the profitability of your personal economy by spending less and earning more.

But not every path to profit is equal. Some opportunities are unappealing because they take either a lot of time or a lot of effort -– or both. Other options are a low priority because they have only a small impact on your bottom line. The best paths to profit – in business or personal life – are those that provide some combination of low difficulty and high reward.

There are four types of things you can do to reduce your expenses or boost your income.

  • Pyrrhic victories are activities that take a lot of time or effort without yielding an equivalent payoff. In business, these might include sweeping the parking lot or leasing a large office space. On a personal level, these are things like making your own laundry detergent or raising money by collecting old newspapers door-to-door.
  • Ongoing projects also require a lot of time or effort, but they provide huge payoffs when they’re finished. Last year, for instance, I organized and sold my collection of comic books. That project took over 100 hours of tedious work, but paid off with a $25,000 windfall. Similar projects might include moving to a cheaper home in a cheaper city or returning to school to earn a degree.
  • Daily victories are the bread-and-butter of personal finance. They’re easy (or quick) actions that yield small rewards, such as working overtime, clipping coupons, or making use of the public library. Because there are so many small, simple ways to boost your personal profit, these are the things most commonly covered in books and blogs and magazines. These daily victories are great—but it takes a long time for them to affect your bottom line.
  • Big wins are the Holy Grail. They’re the easy (or quick) things you can do to supercharge your saving rate. These include negotiating your salary (which takes minutes, but can pay off for decades to come) and reducing your transportation costs (which you can do in a matter of days).

You can improve profits by doing things in all four categories, but it’s important to keep each action in its place.

You should only pursue Pyrrhic victories when you’re unable to do any of the tasks in the other three categories. It’s foolish to try to get out of debt by making your own laundry detergent while you still have a huge mortgage. That’s like Microsoft trying to boost profit by spending less on pencils instead of selling more copies of Windows.

And what are the best ways to achieve these big wins? Well, it’s doing the things that most other people are unwilling to do:

  • Down-size your home. Housing is the biggest expense for most Americans, and by a wide margin. The typical household spends $1408 on housing each month, or about a third of its budget. Drop that by 10%, and you’ll save $150 per month. Drop it by 30% and you’ll save more than $5000 per year!
  • Drive less. Transportation is the second-largest expense for the average family. You can save big by biking or walking, using public transportation, or swapping your current car for a less-expensive used model with good gas mileage.
  • Earn more. You can cut costs only so much, but your earning potential is theoretically unlimited. If you really want to boost your personal profit, make more money. Go back to school, become a landlord, sell your stuff, take a second job. Of course, as an entrepreneur, you’re already working hard to increase your income.

The biggest barrier between the average person and financial success isn’t ability. It’s psychology. Big wins require effort and sacrifice, which can be tough to stomach. But the sooner you see that these choices aren’t extreme measures but the best way to achieve your financial dreams, the quicker you’ll get out of debt or reach financial independence. The small stuff forms a great basis for behavioral change, but it’s doing the big things that will make you rich.

This is a modified excerpt from "Be Your Own CFO", the 120-page guide included with the year-long "Get Rich Slowly" course. The guide includes tips for boosting revenue and cutting costs so that you can maximize profit in order to achieve your dreams, whether those are to retire early, send your kids to college, or travel the world. Want to know more? Buy it now.

{ 1 comment }

I recently appeared on the Stacking Benjamins podcast to talk with Joe Saul-Sehy about the Debt Avalanche and the Debt Snowball, two very similar methods of paying off existing debt — usually applied to situations that involve mutiple credit cards. They two approaches differ in one important aspect, and I’ve discussed that in detail on Consumerism Commentary.

You can listen to that podcast episode here. We go beyond the details of debt payoff and discuss the mindset that comes about from being hopelessly devoted to gurus and strong personalities. And one thing that comes out of this mindset is that everyone who disagrees with your particular guru is wrong, doesn’t “get it,” and is jealous of the guru’s success.

I’ll call out experts I disagree with, but when I also find myself leaning towards certain advice, I’ll point that out as well. Gurus, even the most persuasive, can be wrong, and the same gurus can be right. It’s not that all strongly-opinionated authors and seminar leaders are providing bad information, but the nature of these communities is based on groupthink. People lose the ability to make decisions for themselves and see the subtlety in personal situations that destroys the relevance of one-size-fits-all prescriptions.

One thing that I’ve concluded, at least thus far, is that some criticisms of one author’s approach to building wealth, David Bach’s Latte Factor, are unfounded.

I wrote about two invalid criticisms of the Latte Factor yesterday — that time is better spent earning more money than saving money and that frugal people have already succeeded with the Latte Factor but have nothing else to gain from the advice. Today I’ll continue with two more criticisms I find to be incomplete.

3. The purpose of money is to spend it on things that make you happy. If that’s a daily cappuccino, so be it.

First, I’ll take a look at this criticism from the coffee-literal perspective.

Ask someone who relies on a morning latte to get through at least part of the day with their sanity intact, you can imagine the drink is something about which he’s not likely willing to compromise. But maybe having cheaper coffee at home would help him maintain a positive attitude through the morning while avoiding the $8 drink at the name-brand coffee shop.

Perhaps there’s a social aspect to getting coffee at the same shop every day, but if that’s the case, the drink isn’t the important part and can be easily switched with, say, a cup of water. It may just be the fact that you have a daily routine that maintains your happiness, and changing that routine might be difficult at first but will easily become the new normal.

Now, here are my thoughts on this criticism taking a more generalized perspective to the Latte Factor.

There’s no point in improving your bank account balance if you don’t have any ideas for what you’d like to do with your life. Money is not a goal by itself. When you know what the purpose of your money is — some type of legacy you want to leave on the world — you are more inclined to think about your financial choices carefully and make decisions that provide better results in the future.

Happiness is an important piece of long-term goals. And spending money on experiences, not things, is a more efficient of spending money when happiness is concerned. Most people should better understand that happiness is a choice, not an ultimate goal. In fact, happiness comes through the little things in your life on a daily basis, not a state of being that won’t be realized until some other condition is met (such as having a high net worth.)

The idea that happiness is a choice might come close to the same danger I illustrated yesterday, how living situations can be overwhelming to the point that not much philosophical change is possible, but regardless you don’t need a daily coffee to be happy.

The idea that one should continue spending money because it makes one happy is a convenient excuse that allows people to feel better about making bad decisions.

4. Most people who try the Latte Factor aren’t successful.

This is probably the most ridiculous criticism of anything, let alone the Latte Factor. It’s crazy for people to believe they’re better than average or can be more successful than average. And I pointed that out when I wrote about the chances of being a successful entrepreneur earning $10 million from something that starts as a side business. It’s possible, of course, but it’s not common.

But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. Princeton University’s acceptance rate in 2012 was only 8.2% of all applicants. And it’s safe to assume that most of the high school students who bother to apply for Princeton University are already highly qualified to attend. That doesn’t mean that if you are qualified you shouldn’t apply because the chance of acceptance is so low. It’s not that difficult or complicated to succeed at reducing daily, habitual expenses, and by looking at the idea as a philosophy instead of a rule, the concept becomes a part of your life and invites success.

Find internal motivation and you won’t give up.

5. By the time you realize the great savings over a long period of time, inflation’s effect will make that money not worth nearly as much as its sounds today.

There’s some disagreement about how much the Latte Factor can actually save someone. We can easily calculate and define the savings amount on an annual basis, but beyond that, there are too many variables in play for anyone to make an informed decision based just on numbers. If you could save $5 a weekday by avoiding expensive coffee, a trip to Wendy’s, a pack of cigarettes, or some other expense, you’re looking at $25 a week or $1,250 a year (50 weeks). Over twenty years, that’s $37,500 saved.

That’s about where the facts end. You can assume that the $1,200 a year is invested on a monthly basis in a broad stock market index mutual fund in an IRA, the investment increases each year by 3% inflation, and the investment ends up earning an annual rate of 8%, a pretty average for the stock market. With all of those assumptions, your ending balance will be more than $220,000 after 30 years. That sounds great, but inflation eats away at the purchasing power of that money, so $220,000 30 years from now could be equivalent to $97,000 (a figure I determined by using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator to compare 2014 dollars with 1984 dollars).

The assumptions are aggressive and leave holes in the calculation:

  • What are the chances that someone will invest all the money they save through the Latte Factor?
  • What are the chances he won’t need to withdraw money from the stock market during an economic downturn?
  • Is the daily “latte” (or whatever the habitual expense might be) just being replaced with another unnecssary daily expense?

There are too many variables to be able to make a prediction. It also doesn’t take into account the positive effect on other areas of your financial life by implementing the Latte Factor. In fact, the calculated savings might be too conservative — that is, you’ll save even more money than the calculation expects — if the philosophy helps you make better, informed decisions about money.

The important point is this. Even if you end up with $100,000 in your “Latte Factor” bank account at the end of thirty years, that’s $100,000 you wouldn’t have had otherwise. And while being successful with a business might generate $1 million, $10 million or more over the same amount of time, there’s no reason you can’t pursue that at the same time you’re being smart about your own finances. And I hate to disagree with the “You can do it!” entrepreneur coaches, but the chances of being successful in business at that level are quite low.

I don’t think any Latte Factor supporter has ever said that the concept of cutting back on habitually repeated expenses is the sole key to building wealth over the long term, but most of the criticisms assume that the philosophy is prescribed as the definitive solution, and those who follow it aren’t capable of taking a multifaceted approach to improving their finances, whether those financial goals include getting out of debt or reaching financial independence. No, $100,000 thirty years from now is not going to make anyone financial independent. That doesn’t mean the Latte Factor fails — it addresses a different concern.

That is the big assumption that drives the criticism. The Latte Factor is a simple concept, but it’s only one part of a larger philosophy. This is just a small part of the fact that people spend money and time on what’s important to them. When people say that saving money or earning more income is important, but spend no time or mental energy working towards those goals, their words disagree with their actions. It’s those actions that matter, like everyone knows.

If you want to be financially independent, but aren’t considering all avenues for reaching that goal, including reducing expenses and earning more money, then you don’t really want to be financially independent. You don’t really want to be out of debt. Or you don’t want these things enough to actually make changes in your life. Everything good is worth sacrificing for.

There may exist legitimate criticisms of David Bach’s Latte Factor. It’s not applicable for all people in all situations, certainly. But these five criticisms come from a misunderstanding of the goals of this frugal approach, bad assumptions inherent among some individuals who implement the advice, or incorrect expectations about the results.

Photo: Flickr

{ 3 comments }

More than seven years ago, I encouraged readers to forget about the Latte Factor. The Latte Factor — a registered trademark — is the core marketing message from personal finance guru and author David Bach. The concept uses a daily morning latte as a metaphor for all small, habitually repeated expenses, that add up to a lot of money over time. A lot of that money could better serve us by being placed in savings or investing than being spent through an unnecessary habit.

The Latte Factor and its bigger meaning have drawn much criticism. Not all financial experts are interested in encouraging those with advanced financial goals to pay too much attention to small changes. I, for one, have raised my concerns with the relevance of focusing on the Latte Factor for long-term wealth building. David Bach appeared on the Consumerism Commentary Podcast to discuss this financial advice, and he addressed some of my criticisms.

From the discussion with David Bach, from discussions with other financial experts, and through internal reflection, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the Latte Factor, at least, not as much as other critics think is wrong. Most criticism comes from a misunderstanding of the goals of the approach.

Here are some of those common criticisms, including some of mine, and how the concept behind the Latte Factor still holds up to scrutiny.

1. It’s more worthwhile to spend time earning more income than it is to spend time saving money.

I completely agree with the above statement. Given the sentiment, building your ability to earn more money over the course of your lifetime greatly overshadows the benefits of saving $5 a day. There are good reasons why gurus, particularly entrepreneurial-focused self-proclaimed experts, encourage focusing on income rather than frugality through modified spending habits.

  • “Big wins” generate a strong impact on your ability to become financially independent.
  • Cutting back your expenses has a finite limit — when you reach the bottom level of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs expressed in budgets. Earning more income is theoretically infinite.
  • Focusing on building income instead of saving more money has benefits in life other than just increasing your bank account balance.

These are all good reasons for focusing on building income. I think everyone should work on building income if they can. But if you’re concerned that the Latte Factor was born in the “self-help movement” and relies on telling people what they want to hear to encourage action and motivate people to change their lives presumably for the better, the “you can earn more money, and so do I!” approach is even more rooted in those empty, aphoristic motivation techniques that sell millions of books.

The big assumption among those who say, “It’s easy. Ignore the Latte Factor and spend your time earning more money!” is that everyone listening to such advice is a middle-class American: gainfully employed, probably in a nine-to-five office job, a little dissatisfied with work and life, and having extra capacity for turning a hobby or passion into a side job and perhaps even a career.

I want to see one of these gurus walk up to a single mom, working two daily jobs to support a couple of children, juggling school and day care, and tell her, “Turn your passion into an income! Get another job! Work harder!” It’s just not going to happen. Some people can’t make changes to their lives as easily as those who write the books. Getting a better job requires education, education requires time, and time is hard to come by if you’re having difficulty raising your family as it is. The appropriate response to our motivational guru with this particlar gall is, “Fuck you.” (Pardon the French.)

Now, bad circumstances can’t always be an excuse for refusing to put in more effort to increase income. Sometimes being better at a current job is enough to make a little bit of an impact. Small changes in behavior can increase the chances. And some people are just lazy — if they are able to increase their motivation, they could see they have more opportunities than they initially imagined.

There is certainly a good proportion of people who can afford the time and energy to build their income through a better job. And those who can should. But that doesn’t make the Latte Factor irrelevant. You can spend your time and effort earning more money at the same time you analyze your spending and figure out where you can eliminate excess.

The Latte Factor is only one piece of the wealth building puzzle. No one is restricted to either saving money or earning more. The good thing is that once your spending habit is identified, it doesn’t take much effort at all, and still has significant benefits in the long run.

2. Frugal people have already eliminated their daily extras.

This was one of my questions to David Bach. Many frugal individuals and households have already eliminated their daily latte. They’ve already analyzed their spending and cut out what they could. Where does the Latte Factor leave them?

It’s going to be difficult to take someone who isn’t predisposed to a frugal lifestyle and encourage them to successfully adopt frugal strategies. People do change their philosophical beliefs, though not many, and a good number of those who do are frugal only out of necessity, for a short period of time. The loss of a job certainly increases the need to change one’s approach to saving money, but a job loss should only be a temporary situation.

To contrast, changing your approach to money through the Latte Factor has to be a lifelong commitment in order to realize the benefits that are strongly touted, like the purported nest-egg increase of a million dollars over the course of several decades. So if there is a good chance most individuals not predisposed towards frugality will ignore the advice anyway, and a good chance that individuals already considering themselves frugal have already applied the Latte Factor to their lives, why spend so much time and effort discussing the concept?

The Latte Factor is about more than fewer less coffee-related drinks. It’s about eliminating automatic habits and making decisions about money something that happens in the part of the brain that handles conscious decision-making. The philosophy encourages people to think about the consequences of their actions.

This is not only good for saving money, but it’s a positive approach that helps people earn more money, too.

In addition, unless you’ve reduced your life to the bare necessities of food, water, and shelter (Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as referenced above), there’s more you can do to save money. It’s just a question of how far you’re willing to go to adjust your lifestyle in exchange for long-term savings. Some changes, and perhaps the compromises you make in your happiness, may not be worth the savings, but that’s a decision you can make only once you’re able to fully evaluate the situation.

The Latte Factor encourages people to switch from automatic mode to conscious mode when dealing with financial situations. It doesn’t matter if that philosophy is put into effect through refusing expensive coffees, avoiding the fast food restaurant for lunch each day, cooking meals instead of eating in the office cafeteria, or quitting smoking.

Of all the criticisms of the Latte Factor I think go too far and miss the point of using a philosophical adjustment to change behavior and improve finances, these are just two. I will share three more tomorrow that focus on the happiness derived from daily habits, the “most people fail” criticism, and the erosive effect of inflation that helps overstate the financial benefit of saving about $5 a day.

Photo: Flickr

{ 9 comments }

The realist in me recognizes that the best plan for getting out of debt is any plan that allows someone to achieve that goal. The realist is constantly at odds with the optimist in me, the part of me that wants people to be high achievers, to strive for excellence, and to seek an informed level of knowledge and use that knowledge to make the best decisions for their actions.

The concept of the Debt Snowball always bothered me. In general, paying off any amount of debt with cash flow, whether you follow a specific philosophy, involves three steps.

  1. Pay the minimum amount due to all debts to avoid accumulation or capitalization of interest.
  2. Pay any extra cash flow to the one debt you prioritize the highest.
  3. As you find yourself with fewer minimum payments to make through the elimination of a debt, don’t reduce your total debt elimination payments. Just shift to focus even more on the debt of the next priority.

Dave Ramsey, a very popular personal finance guru who has written several books, sells a seminar called “Financial Peace University,” and has a radio show through which he weaves in “Christianity Lite” into his philosophy, coined the “Debt Snowball” term.

The Debt Snowball plan follows the process outlined above and provides a prioritization plan based on size of debt. The most important debts are the smallest accounts; in this manner, the smallest debts are paid off first, theoretically or allegedly giving those on this path an emotional boost of success, which in turn, theoretically or allegedly provides motivation to continue with the payoff plan.

Here is a more in-depth discussion of the Debt Snowball. And be sure to quickly review where the Debt Snowball fails — the purported “advantages” of the reliance on emotional boost is a disadvantage when time comes for people to stay out of debt once they succeed in paying off debt.

Experts often relate getting out of debt to losing weight. And there’s a good analogy here. The Debt Snowball is like a fad diet. It’s a pervasive philosophy, very popular, and is communicated through a best-selling book (and online classes, in-person seminars, and an array of branded multimedia). People connect with fad diets becauses they tell people what they want to hear. You can eat everything you want, barely exercise, and still lose weight! Read our success stories and view our (Photoshopped) before and after photographs! Likewise, The Debt Snowball tells people they don’t have to change their emotional approach to spending in order to get out of debt.

The path to unmanageable debt is diverse. Households wind up in debt because they habitually overspend on unnecessary items, they have an unexpected hospitalization, they’re victims of a crime or of society, they have an issue with self-control, they have a mental or emotional disorder, or a variety of other reasons. And because these reasons differ, the debt payoff prescription might need to differ.

For emotional spenders, the Debt Snowball deals with the symptoms but not the root cause. Emotional spenders, who are only able to get out of debt when they rely on emotional boosts throughout the debt repayment process, would be more inclined to fall back into old habits after the debt is paid off. Why? Because those habits aren’t old at all. The habits haven’t been addressed and the root cause, for these particular individuals, remains.

I’m happy to see that writers continue to address the differences between the Debt Snowball and other approaches to the prioritization of debt. I compared the Snowball with the Debt Avalanche, as well as with a hybrid approach and an approach that weighs importance on “emotional impact.” All of these should be considered, and there’s a solution for everyone somewhere in the mix.

The Debt Avalanche, a term I coined, describes a debt payoff philosophy that’s been around as long as credit has existed. It’s the mathematical approach to paying off debt, and it ensures that someone who abides by the plan will get out of debt as fast as possible for as little expense as possible.

That, right there, should be the most important emotional impact when it comes to any plan related to money.

You can’t eliminate emotions. All human decisions are made based on emotions, even when they seem logical. The Debt Avalanche doesn’t try to remove the emotional aspect of getting out of debt, it reframes the emotional aspect so that people who practice it get in the habit of making better financial decisions.

If you want to get out of debt, you should want to take the approach that not only gets you there via fastest path possible, the approach that costs the least (after all, this is about money at the end of the day), and that guarantees long-term success with handling your finances (unlike fad diets and their effect on long-term weight management). And that approach is the Debt Avalanche, prioritizing debt accounts by interest rate.

Myth: The Debt Snowball method is better because it emphasizes “quick wins.” Relying on motivation through quick wins is inferior to the motivation one can draw from the healthier knowledge that you would be saving valuable time and money by understanding the mathematics behind debt payoff. If you keep believing the safe, feel-good emotions rule your money decisions, you will continue to make emotionally-driven, potentially dangerous choices when you’re later in a better situation.

Also, there is also scientific study that supports the claim that the Debt Snowball method (the prioritization of debts with the lowest balance first) has a higher success rate than any other designed and coached system or plan.

If you do like the idea of “quick wins” and other psychological tricks, the Debt Avalanche method still pays off better. You still celebrate when you pay off each debt account, and in most situations, that date you pay off that first account would not be all that distant from when it would have been with the Debt Snowball.

You can create your own “quick wins” by setting midterm goals. Choose $100 total paid off, $1,000 total paid off, or $10,000 total paid off as your goal — any amount that is meaningful to you. Yes, it feels good to cut up a credit card when that particular account is paid off in full, and there’s no scientific evidence that particular action or feeling has any long-term effect on anyone’s finances, but you can still take that approach with the Debt Avalanche if it’s important to you!

Celebrate those milestones! If you want an emotional boost to increase your motivation, make your debt pay-off fun. Just don’t spend money to celebrate that would be better spent paying off more debt.

Focus on the the debt payoff goal. Run a quick calculation to determine how much you’ll be saving by sticking to the Debt Avalanche method rather than the Debt Snowball. The amount of time and money you’ll save may not be much. In fact, the financial advantage of the Avalanche over the Snowball would be zero in one specific and unlikely instance, when the list of your debts, from highest interest rate to lowest interest rate, matches exactly the list of your debts from smallest balance to largest. In that case, add to your projected savings the cost of Dave Ramsey’s books that you don’t need to buy. Put your debt payoff date on a calendar and plan to celebrate it like an anniversary.

Don’t forget the real reason. Money management doesn’t exist solely in a vacuum. There are reasons people want to be debt free and to grow their wealth. Having a big number on the bottom of a balance sheet is not one of these reasons. Looking at an ATM receipt with any particular number is not a reason. People want to build wealth so they can live their lives on their own terms with the freedom to spend time and energy doing something meaningful. Getting out of debt is the first step along this road to financial independence.

The Debt Snowball is popular because of the following reasons.

  • It’s a contrary approach to logic, and people like thinking there’s something better out there than logic.
  • It tells people exactly what they want to hear: you don’t have to change the way your brain works to get out of debt.
  • The Snowball is part of a “philosophy.” Those who accept the philosophy see themselves as insiders with core values that don’t exist outside of the “club.”
  • The philosophy offers a confirmation of pre-existing notions about the nature of money and the financial industry.
  • The movement features an enigmatic leader in Dave Ramsey, a great motivational speaker who earns quite a bit of money from marketing his own brand of math.

The realist in me just wants to see more people get out of debt and understands that any method for doing so is a “net positive.” But when it comes to building financial independence over the long-term, of which getting out of debt is only a part, so much depends on doing more than just the minimum. People must strive for excellence in everything they do in order to see extraordinary results, like financial independence.

The Debt Snowball is a realization of mediocrity. It lets people get away with weak excuses for wasting time and money. That approach says someone doesn’t feel confident enough to take steps towards debt freedom without a “crutch” of quick wins, even though those quick wins aren’t much different emotionally from what you can get out of a superior plan. The quick wins have just been marketed better.

Photo: Flickr

{ 11 comments }

Buying and Selling Stocks Is Often a Losing Strategy

by Luke Landes
Grow Your Dough Throwdown - March 2014

After three months, my $1,000 investment portfolio, nicknamed “Feemaggeddon,” is lagging. This portfolio is part of an investing challenge, the “Grow Your Dough Throwdown.” It’s a lighthearted competition featuring several top financial bloggers. I have two goals with this portfolio. The first is to test a specific popular investing philosophy. Among those who offer advice ... Continue reading this article…

4 comments Read the full article →

Naked With Cash: Laura and Leon, February 2014

by Luke Landes
Laura and Leon - Naked With Cash 2014

Naked With Cash is an ongoing series at Consumerism Commentary in which readers share their households’ finances with other readers. These participants benefit from the accountability that comes from tracking their finances publicly and the feedback of the four expert Certified Financial Planners (CFPs). For more information, read this introduction. This year, we have four ... Continue reading this article…

7 comments Read the full article →

Naked With Cash: Brian, February 2014

by Luke Landes
Brian - Net Worth - Naked With Cash

Naked With Cash is an ongoing series at Consumerism Commentary in which readers share their households’ finances with other readers. These participants benefit from the accountability that comes from tracking their finances publicly and the feedback of the four expert Certified Financial Planners (CFPs). For more information, read this introduction. This year, we have four ... Continue reading this article…

1 comment Read the full article →

5 Reasons to Avoid Cash Back Rebate Cards

by Luke Landes
American Express Prepaid Rebate Card

At the end of last year, I took advantage of a sale on some photography equipment. I perceived the deal to be good, and after contemplating the purchase for some time, I decided to go ahead. The sale price was manipulate through the offering of a manufacturer’s $300 mail-in rebate after a retailer’s discount of ... Continue reading this article…

13 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 23212345···50100150···Last »