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

Search: cfp


When someone who has accumulated debt across a number of credit cards embarks on the journey to rid himself or herself of this debt, and when that person is generating enough monthly income to cover all expenses and the minimum payments due on all cards with additional funds left over, there are two main philosophies describing the best way to achieve this goal. Although all approaches are good, there is no question where I stand on this issue.

I suggest following the path that affords the opportunity to get rid of debt as quickly and as cheaply as possible. This method has many names, but I’ve called it the Debt Avalanche in the past. The opposing viewpoint is the Debt Snowball, popularized by author and guru Dave Ramsey. This method suggests paying off debt in such a way that it might take more time and be more expensive but offers “quick wins” which help some people gain encouragement and momentum at the earliest stages of the process. And there are, of course, many points of view that present a compromise between these two extremes.

The snowball approach to debt reduction

By ordering your credit card debts from lowest balance to highest balance and paying the minimums to all except the first on the list each month, you will pay off your first debt sooner than by following any other method. If you need encouragement to continue your journey as you pay off debt, you can celebrate after your first credit card has a zero balance.

Not everyone requires this type of extra motivation for paying off debt. Additionally, even those who need extra motivation may not suffer by choosing a cheaper and quicker method of paying off debt. The “quick win” of paying off the first debt could come just as quickly by using the Debt Avalanche. But even if the first payoff doesn’t come as quickly, you can redefine your first milestone to allow yourself helpful celebrations as explained in the next section.

J.D. Roth from Get Rich Slowly has seen success with the Debt Snowball approach, as have many others. It is the most widely marketed philosophy.

For an illustration of the monthly process of sending minimum payments to all credit cards except the one on top, regardless of how the debts are ordered, see this visualization from No Credit Needed.

snowball3

One major problem I have with the above snowball approach is that your largest balance may be significantly more expensive than your smallest balance. Today it is not difficult to find a default interest rate on a credit card north of 30%. There is no way in good conscience I could recommend holding off on eliminating a debt this expensive in favor of paying off a small balance with a 7.9% interest rate. The same goes for payday loans, whose fees can border on usurious if interpreted as interest rates.

The avalanche approach to debt reduction

There is no question that anyone who follows this alternate approach to its conclusion will have emerged from debt sooner and by paying the least amount of interest possible. Some people argue that it is not as likely for someone to follow the Debt Avalanche through, but there are no data to support this. By ordering your credit card debts from the most expensive (highest interest rate) to the least expensive and paying the minimum each month to all cards except the first on the list, you reduce your interest payments quicker.

Since this is a mathematical approach, critics say it doesn’t take into account the emotions that come into play when dealing with money. It is true that emotions — your feelings about money — play an important role in financial decisions, and although this is a mathematical approach, how you feel about money still is represented in this method.

  • If you follow the Debt Avalanche method, you can feel good knowing that you’ve made a sound decision and will spend less money than others who take a different approach.
  • You can motivate yourself throughout by creating your own milestones for achievement, including paying off your first credit card, paying off $1,000 (or some other meaningful amount), or consistently reducing debt for six months (or some other meaningful time frame).
  • Your emotions may be the cause of your debt in the first place. While they obviously cannot be eliminated, learning to focus on the best mathematical approach for certain financial decisions can improve your overall relationship with money.
snowball4

Here I outlined the details of the Debt Avalanche. Trent from The Simple Dollar also likes the Debt Avalanche approach and Five Cent Nickel explains how Dave Ramsey is bad at math.

Other approaches to debt reduction

The hybrid approach. Somewhere between a snowball and an avalanche lives this hybrid. The concept here is simple. Order the credit cards from highest interest rate to lowest, like the Debt Avalanche, but move the card with the lowest balance to the top. This will provide a “quick win” if necessary but could still save significant money and time when compared to the Debt Snowball approach.

Pay the most annoying debts off first. This approach plays directly into the human psyche. The urge to eliminate a persistent itch is strong enough to motivate anyone to scratch, just ask any kid with chicken pox. Stephanie from Poorer Than You is a fan of this approach. This works well when you include debts other than credit cards. If you have a personal loan from a family member, I usually suggest paying that debt off the quickest while paying minimums to your credit card to help retain good will within close relationships.

Baker from Man vs. Debt says the same thing slightly differently: Pay off the debt with the highest emotional impact first. The argument here is simple. For some people the debts with the highest emotional impact are simply the debts with the highest interest rate, while others have a different psychological composition requiring alternate focus. You can’t go wrong by this approach which if continued will help you feel better quicker.

So what is the “right” answer?

It is easy to say, “Do what works for you,” and allow the debtor to come to his or her own conclusions. This can be a dangerous approach as it invites people to skip the consideration of all the options. Many people I’ve talked to who have successfully eliminated debt by using the Debt Snowball method not only found themselves back in debt after some time but did not realize that they could have saved hundreds of dollars and been out of debt sooner just by ranking their credit cards in a different order. They simply followed a guru’s advice without any critical thinking. Not only did they not learn to approach money from a more stable viewpoint but they paid extra money in the form of credit card interest for this “feature.”

Would they have succeeded if they were simply presented the idea that they could save money on their debt reduction journey by following a more mathematical approach? It’s certainly possible.

There is no approach that does not have some sort of merit. Getting out of debt in any way possible is better than not getting out of debt at all. All that I ask is that the details, including the total cost and time differences, are fully explained before a method is prescribed for someone else.

Here’s a calculator that will help inform anyone in debt about the timing and bottom-line differences between the various approaches to eliminating debt. In some cases, the cost of one method over the others will be striking.

An informed decision is the best type of decision. With a full understanding of the differences and is familiar with their own psychological tendencies, someone with debt can make an intelligent choice that is right for the individual or family.

Photos: House of Sims, Joe Shlabotnik

{ 19 comments }

In discussing unbanked and underbanked American consumers, we tend to focus on low socioeconomic status communities. The mainstream opinion is that building wealth and long-term financial stability relies on the use of traditional banking and investing products and the knowledge to use these products effectively. The financial industry tends to avoid low socioeconomic status communities for a variety of reasons, but the bottom line is that these customers have not been proven to be profitable. Taking the place of these mainstream institutions are check-cashing facilities and payday loan outfits, designed to be very profitable while providing the immediate services required in these communities.

These “low-class” financial product purveyors are part of a growing industry. As with any burgeoning industry, there is beginning to be more research into its consumers. The unbanked and underbanked consumer is becoming better defined, and traditional banks see this as an opportunity to create products that directly compete with the successful check-cashing and payday loan market.

Check CashingWith this new research comes some interesting findings. Prepaid debit cards are products designed for consumers with low or no credit scores, a condition that is more common among low-income households, though there are many reasons anyone in any income bracket could have damaged or undefined credit. Think Finance has determined that the use of prepaid debit cards is the same regardless of income level. Among the consumers surveyed, a representative sample of the Millennial generation, someone earning up to $74,999 a year is just as likely to use a prepaid debit card as someone earning less than $25,000 a year.

The statistics pertaining the check-cashing services show a similar trend. For a fee of usually 1 to 4 percent, a check-cashing storefront can immediately give you cash. So can any bank branch, but you often need to open an account first, and that requires patience, the willingness to share your personal information and submit to a ChexSystems verification, and the openness to endless marketing. In many cases, it’s just easier to just pay the fee. 34 percent of Millennials with the lowest income make use of check-cashing services outside of traditional banks, only 5 percentage points higher than those with the highest income.

An article in USA Today addresses what might representative of the fact that the status of unbanked or underbanked is pervasive in this age group regardless of income:

Ammy Orozco, 30, who works as an executive assistant at a Check Cashing USA branch in Miami, has a checking and savings account with Bank of America but often chooses to cash checks at work instead. She says she’d rather pay to cash a check immediately than pay for gas to drive to the bank. She has also taken out payday loans in emergencies. She’s tried to get a loan from the bank, but it was “stressful.”

“They wouldn’t confirm right away… You’re there sitting and you need the money, and you’re like, is this going to happen or not?”

Millennials expect instant gratification and are willing to look past fees and unnecessary expenses in order to feed this desire, regardless of income. For a generation whose defining economic moment has been the Great Recession, the credit crunch, and high unemployment, as well as the media environment dominated by stories about bank executives behaving badly, poor use of taxpayers’ money, and class-action lawsuits pertaining to anti-consumer practices, it’s understandable that a mistrust of the mainstream financial industry keeps people away from banks regardless of income. Half of Americans are not saving for retirement, and while unemployment certainly plays a role, lack of trust in the industry and in markets in general is an important factor.

With the proliferation of services targeted to the unbanked and underbanked reaching a wider set of customers — that is, popularity and use has moved beyond low socioeconomic status communities — regulators have begun to take notice. (In other words, these products and their negative effects were acceptable when they took advantage of only the poor and whoever you might assume is more likely to live in poor neighborhoods, but now that the middle class is targeted, it’s an issue worthy of consideration.) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is looking into designing regulations for these products. Meanwhile, traditional financial institutions are taking advantage of this regulatory grey area to create products that compete with check-cashing storefronts and payday loan issuers, and to use these products as profit centers with the intent of eventually mainstreaming these customers into other profitable services.

Are you a Millennial who prefers immediate services like check cashing, payday loans, and prepaid debit cards instead of checking accounts, bank loans, and credit cards? This is not the primary audience of this website, but I’d love to hear some feedback from the millions of Americans who fit this description.

Photo: Daquella manera
USA Today

{ 13 comments }

Today on the Consumerism Commentary Podcast, Jay Frosting and Flexo talk with Matt Schulz, Vice President of Content for InvestingAnswers.com.

They discuss the implications of a recent legal ruling that excludes credit card application fees from the limit on fees that credit card issuers can charge within the first year.

Consumerism Commentary Podcast
Credit Card Application Fees: S07E01 / 157

DownloadRSSiTunes

Table of contents

Consumerism Commentary Podcast[00:00] Introduction from Jay Frosting
[00:33] Interview with Flexo and Matt Schulz
[00:49] Challenging the 25% fee limit specified in the Credit CARD Act
[06:00] Will application fees be more pervasive now?
[07:14] Are these fees limited to those with bad credit?
[09:18] A very high interest rate is worse than almost any other option
[12:34] The CFPB is still hearing public comments on this decision
[13:41] Application fees aren’t refundable and don’t guarantee credit
[14:21] The CFPB is trying to get more done before a possible Executive Branch change (addressing Republican criticisms of the bureau)
[18:33] Reduction in debt is part frugality and part banks reducing credit
[20:02] End

Update:

We were mistaken during the recording regarding whether First Premiere refunds its application fee. Here’s what the terms and conditions say:

“Right to Reject: You may still reject this plan, provided you have not used the Credit Account or paid a fee after receiving a billing statement. If you do reject the plan, you are not responsible for any fees or charges, including any Processing Fee(s) paid prior to receipt of your Account Opening Disclosures. Any such Processing Fee(s) previously paid will be refunded upon rejection of the plan.”

It also says this:

“Refund Disclosure: We will refund your Processing Fee and initial fees (those fees that are billed at the time of account opening) if (1) you have not used your Card for a Purchase or Cash Advance; and (2) you have not paid a fee after receiving a billing statement. We will refund any partial payment of the Processing Fee if you do not open your Credit Account within 85 days of approval. We will refund any Credit Limit Increase Fee charged to your Credit Account if you notify us, within 30 days of the date of the Periodic Statement on which it appears, that you do not wish to have the credit limit increase. This will result in a reversal of the credit limit increase. Except as described in this paragraph, these fees are non-refundable.”

Here are the link for the terms and conditions.

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.

Theme music by Mindcube.

{ 1 comment }

When we think of predatory lending practices, the first thought that often comes to mind is the payday loan industry, catering to people barely, if at all, living paycheck to paycheck. Payday loans service communities with an aversion or without a need for or trust of the mainstream financial industry. Offering short-term loans designed to help people survive until the next paycheck arrives, payday lenders charge fees, $16 per $100 borrowed on average, that would be considered usurious if measured by annual percentage rate standards.

Eager not to let non-banking lenders take all the best opportunities for profiting off families struggling the most, mainstream banks are in the payday loan business as well. They don’t call them “payday loans,” though. The name has a negative connotation. Instead, they use names like Wells Fargo’s Direct Deposit Advance, and tout their lower fees. The average fee for a mainstream payday loan is $10 per $100 borrowed, and the average duration of the loan is 10 days; the result is an annual percentage rate equivalent of 365%.

Despite the slightly lower fees, these products are likely more profitable for banks than payday loans are for independent lenders. With the bank-based products, borrowers are required to have direct deposit service enabled on their checking accounts. When the loan is due, the bank takes the money, including fees, out of the account without a separate authorization from the customer.

According to a recent study, borrowers tend to find themselves trapped in a payday loan cycle, continuing to borrow money to aid cash flow until yet another paycheck arrives after using the prior paycheck to pay off the previous loan. Banking customers end up owing money to the bank for an average of 175 days each year, slightly better than the average days in debt for a customer of an independent payday loan service, who owes money for an average of 212 days in the year.

One important distinction between payday loans and the equivalent products offered by banks is that the banks can report your credit profile to the reporting bureaus, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. There is no outcome where this is a significant advantage for the customer, though. Even if the borrower pays back the loan in full and on time, having this type of loan on your credit report could lower your score. A pattern of payday loans, paid back, can look worse on your report. The situation can only get worse from there, with patterns of late payment or non-payment drastically reducing creditworthiness.

According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has made studying payday loans a priority, 19 million households in the United States use payday loans. That’s a huge, profitable market that banks want to tap, and customers seem to be willing to pay the price.

Have you ever borrowed money from your bank using a direct deposit advance loan or other payday-like loan product? Should these products be banned? Better regulated? I’ve often considered financial products to be like tools. For example, a credit card is like a hammer; it can be used to build when used properly or to destroy. Is the same true of payday loans and similar products?

Photo: bigburpsx3
CNN Money

{ 14 comments }

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to Streamline Regulations

by Flexo

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is seeking suggestions from the public about how the government organization can streamline the variety of regulatory responsibilities they’ve inherited from other oversight groups. leave your comments with the CFPB here. The industry and much of the public are never fans of over-regulation, and the CFPB intends to reduce regulations ... Continue reading this article…

2 comments Read the full article →

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Wants Payday Loan Feedback

by Flexo
Check

While the mainstream financial industry has faced a dizzying array of government and quasi-government regulations through most of the last one hundred years, non-bank financial products have, for the most part, evaded regulations. Catering to lower-income communities, payday loan storefronts and check cashing establishments have managed to justify their business models. The more desperate you ... Continue reading this article…

8 comments Read the full article →

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Director, Richard Cordray

by Flexo
Richard Cordray

As many Presidents of the United States have done, President Obama avoided confrontation with Congress by appointing an individual to direct a government organization while lawmakers were on recess. Yesterday, the President appointed former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray to the long-delayed position of director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Now that this ... Continue reading this article…

14 comments Read the full article →

The CFPB’s New Credit Card Agreements

by Flexo

Although Congress is dragging its feet in confirming the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s potential director, the bureau has been busy developing new tools to help consumers understand agreements that are potentially damaging to a family’s finances. Last year, issuers debuted new credit card statements designed to frighten borrowers into paying off debt faster. The new ... Continue reading this article…

3 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 41234