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

Search: civic


The concept of the Latte Factor is one of the most divisive issues in personal finance. Money gurus get so worked up over whether the Latte Factor is a valuable lesson in money management that one might think the issue were as important as war, the national debt, or capital punishment. Most of the time, passionate responses pertaining the the Latte Factor is based more on book sales and pageviews than any rational consideration of the issue.

The Latte Factor, a term coined and trademarked by financial author and guru David Bach, posits that small, repeated savings, of which people can make habits, can aid the growth of wealth over time. The math bears this out to be true: Assume you spend five dollars every weekday on a fancy coffee-related drink on the way to your office. If you cut out the coffee or replace it with a $1.50 less-fancy drink, you save at least $20 a week or maybe a $1,000 a year. Put that money in a bank or invest it, and assume you can earn a return from interest, dividends, or investment gains, and over the next ten years you’ll have $11,000 to $16,000 more to your name than you would have, had you continued buying your daily gourmet drink.

Latte Factor CoffeeThis concept isn’t limited to expensive coffee-related drinks. Any habits that result in spending money that could be deemed unnecessary can qualify for elimination due to the Latte Factor. Cook your own food rather than dine out once a week, and you could save just as much money or more over the same period.

Most people, however, don’t bridge the gulf between reducing spending in one area and increasing savings with the difference. Unless there’s a concerted, conscious effort to transfer money from a checking account to a savings account or an investment, the money formerly spent on lattes or other repeatable expense will just be spent on something else.

Furthermore, families that have already reduced their spending due to tough economic conditions that have become personally relevant may not have much room left to scrape the barrel to find additional savings.

Yet another criticism of the Latte Factor is that it minimizes the importance of reducing large expenses. If a family gets into the habit of saving money ordinarily spent on lattes and uses that attitude to justify buying a more expensive car, all the work will have been for nothing.

Well — the work would have been for a more expensive car. All spending is a choice. It’s easy to remember this when a friend refuses to spend time with you, citing the expense of the activity, while they continue to purchase unnecessary electronics equipment, for example. You can identify someone’s priorities by looking at how they choose to spend the money they have and the time they have available. If you look at your own priorities, your budget should match.

Whether you realize it or not, you’re broadcasting your priorities to the world, but mostly to yourself, by spending money and time in one area of your life at the expense of another area. If there’s incongruence between the priorities you think you should have and how you spend your time and money, consider changing something or accepting the idea that your priorities may not be what you expect. Your real priorities are evidenced by how you spend your limited resources.

If the pick-me-up and self-esteem you receive by drinking a latte in the morning is important to you, and you realize your habit results in a hypothetical “loss” of $10,000 or more over the course of ten years, spend the money. Buying a practical car that requires little care, uses fuel efficiently, and will last a long time can save money over the course of several decades, but if buying a less practical car makes you feel happy and won’t be a financial hardship, even if it means leasing a new car every three years, then go ahead. Your spending reflects your priorities.

I see this in my own spending. I still drive my old Honda Civic. In one respect, I haven’t purchased a new car because I see it as an unnecessary expense and I’m comfortable with keeping the money I would need to buy a new car in my savings account. Meanwhile, I spend money on things other people would see as frivolous, such as photography classes and equipment, hiring a maid service for my apartment on a bi-weekly schedule, coin collecting (though not much recently), and travel.

Is the Latte Factor relevant to your personal finance experience? What does your spending say about your priorities? Relevant responses to this article are worth twice as many points as usual. If you are a registered Consumerism Commentary visitor, you can earn points by participating in discussions to redeem for Amazon.com gift cards.

Photo: RaeAllen

{ 5 comments }

Do you reward your children with money for performing well in school? Do you use the promise of an allowance to ancourage appropriate behavior in the family? These are big issues, because they take appropriate behavior and can turn the incentive to financial gain. Children growing up believing that financial gain is the reward for correct social behavior rather than seeing the intrinsic benefit.

The idea that everything has a financial value seems to have become more prevalent over the last two decades, according to a new book. In What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets by Michael J. Sandel, the author argues that our trend of attributing market thinking to an increasing array of behavior could be detrimental to society.

The book has not yet been released as of the time of writing this article, so I haven’t read it yet. A review in Fortune Magazine is inspiring me to pre-order the book before its release.

The author notes how Americans are now more comfortable with marketing or selling things they might have not in the past. Selling ad space on foreheads, accepting money for branded tattoos, and paying students for each book they read are a few examples of things that might have been unthinkable a few years ago. I would add that the pervasiveness of the Internet has made some of this possible, when it comes to selling ourselves. Through the democratized ability to self-publish, people can easily market themselves without much effort. If you get enough attention, some company also looking for attention would be happy to pay you to do something newsworthy, like slapping a brand on your car for a year.

With the popularity reality television, the idea that anyone can become famous — not just for fifteen minutes but for an entire television season — and wealthy (think: Kardashians) is enticing.

Here are some thoughts from the Fortune Magazine review of the book:

The price we pay for this behavior plays out in several ways, Sandel argues. First off, poorer people are impacted disproportionately by the commercialization of personal space. How many affluent people are lining up to turn their houses or bodies into billboards? In this way, the decision to sell isn’t necessarily as independent and free as it may look. In a society increasingly driven by financial power, moreover, the wealthy hold even better hands than they would otherwise. Why bother encouraging your kid to study hard if you can simply grease his path into Harvard or Yale with the promise of a massive donation?

The more emphasis we place on money in society, the more power society gives to those who have it. I don’t think that today’s plutocratic oligarchy is too much different than western society in most of recent history, however. Those with money have always had the power. We like to think of government in the United States as “of the people, for the people, by the people,” but the Founding Fathers were mostly wealthy and mostly represented the wealthy, though several did their best to be sympathetic to those who were not as fortunate.

It was difficult to leave all old-world philosophies behind; property owners were afforded more rights than those who did not own property. A subtle class distinction still persists between homeowners and renters today.

Political and societal power has always been focused on an elite group of people who have the most money. This is why social change — giving the right to vote to all adults rather than a select few, extending human rights to all citizens rather than a select few, etc. — is only successful through revolution. Those with power and money aren’t much interested in sharing.

At times, market principles put in place to make an altruistic act look even more attractive do just the opposite. Sandel cites the case of a small village in the Swiss mountains called Wolfenschiessen that was once a candidate to house a nuclear waste site. When surveyed by economists, a majority of residents said they’d accept the site as an act of civic duty. The economists then added money to the equation, offering the residents as much as $8,700 each to accept the waste site. At this point, support for the deal plummeted among the villagers. From their perspective, the cash turned a sacrifice for the greater good into a plain old bribe.

Money changes the equation, whether used to encourage someone to do the right thing — who then learns that doing the right thing should always be rewarded the compensation — or to encourage someone to do something that would otherwise give him or her pause.

Fortune Magazine laments that the book does not offer any alternatives for a way of living that does not suffer from over-commercialization. Were wealth not to provide an individual so much power, it couldn’t be used as an effective incentive for changing someone’s behavior. Is there a way for the United States to hold onto the capitalism that’s such an important piece of the success of its individuals and the nation as a whole while taking money out of the power equation?

Also, how far will you go for money? Everyone has his price. Would you sell your body parts? Your kidney for $1,000? Your foot for $100,000? Your arm for $1 million? Would you kill someone for $100,000? For $50 million? For $1 billion? Morals may stand in the way to an extent — but that extent is most likely broken at some level.

Fortune Magazine

{ 9 comments }

I mentioned a few months ago with my year-end balance sheet that I would soon be changing the way I report my finances publicly. These monthly reports have been a relatively consistent part of Consumerism Commentary since I founded this website in July 2003. One of the original purposes of this website was to help myself take control of my finances and learn more about managing my own money.

After a while, though, the net worth reports, which include not much more than an accounting of my bank account and credit card balances, became less meaningful. At the same time, I stopped myself from reporting my income figures due to the complexities with dealing with a private transaction. I’ve decided to turn back to basics with the monthly reporting in order to focus once again on reducing my expenses.

The report below includes the last six months of my expenses after taxes and not including a few items like charitable contributions and business expenses. It will provide a good baseline for moving forward and determining where I can reduce my expenses and where I can compromise and allow myself more leeway. I’ve already done a good job of eliminating unnecessary expenses in order for me to enjoy certain things without stretching my budget, so reducing expenses might not be as important right now as monitoring my spending to ensure I’m not being wasteful. Continue reading to see my expenses.

{ 14 comments }

When I write about the unbanked, the vast majority of this category of consumer avoids the financial industry due to lack of trust in the industry or a belief that living paycheck to paycheck doesn’t necessitate the fees and hassles of including a third party in financial transactions. Cash, in some respects, keeps you off the map. Also, it’s more likely that those avoiding the mainstream financial industry and opting for alternative financial products like payday loans and check cashing services live within lower socio-economic status communities.

That isn’t always the case, though. Here’s an interesting question I received from a reader:

I read your article on how to buy a house with cash. I will be in that situation in another year or two, moving out of state. But my question is, how do you buy a house using actual cash money and not checks or wire transfers? All the cash was obtained legally, but if I deposit it all at the same time into a financial institution, then write a check at closing, would that not sound all kinds of bells and whistles at the bank and IRS?

I understand that any transaction of ten thousand dollars or more and the bank is obligated to contact the IRS. I’ve already paid tax on this money and don’t want or need the IRS hounding me. So, what are your thoughts and ideas?

CashThis is an interesting question. Usually, when people talk about buying a car or a house with cash — I bought my car with cash — they’re usually referring to paying by check or bank transfer. Carrying thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills is not only inconvenient, it’s risky. If you lose your checkbook, you can cancel your checks. If you lose a briefcase full of cash, good luck.

But before we get to the logistics of paying for a house with cold, hard cash, it might be good to address the reader’s assumptions.

Banks are required to report some transactions to the government. Transactions over $10,000 — or multiple smaller transactions that add up to over $10,000, or a transaction for $9,999 when you change your deposit amount when the teller mentions your transactions over $10,000 will be reported — are reported on a Currency Transaction Report and filed with the IRS. Another form is required if the money travels into or out of the United States, to or from a foreign country. If the bank has some reason to believe the transaction is related to something illegal, they would need to file a Suspicious Activity Report for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a division of the Treasury Department.

You can download the Currency Transaction Report here, directly from the FinCEN. I am neither a lawyer nor a tax expert, but depositing a large amount of cash for later withdrawal is not an uncommon practice at banks. If you’re not trying to hide anything from the IRS, if you’re not doing anything else illegal, if you don’t have a suspicious appearance, and if the teller doesn’t have any reason to think you’re trying to hide something, you shouldn’t have any problems.

I believe that process is much easier than showing up to a house contract closing with a briefcase or sack full of cash. In my opinion, that’s more suspicious than showing up at a bank for a large deposit. This would require everyone to count the money, bill by bill, at least twice.

Seeking some advice from a professional, I asked Barbara Friedberg for her thoughts on the matter. Barb has been working in the real estate industry for decades, and is currently the chief financial officer and portfolio manager of a real estate holding company. She also finds the time to be the writer behind Barbara Friedberg Personal Finance. Bringing her experience with real estate deals to Consumerism Commentary, here is what Barb suggests:

Yikes, a suitcase full of cash, I assume you mean “real money.” The reader needs to deposit the cash in a bank. Then she needs to check with the bank to find out how long they need to hold it before she can withdraw it. At the real estate closing she needs to bring a cashiers check or arrange with the bank for a wire transfer. I suppose bringing cash to a closing is possible, but… I checked with my real estate experts, and my own experience suggests that this is infrequent at best and at worst, quite dangerous.

There is the problem of malfeasance on several fronts without using the security of a cashier’s check or wire transfer. The realtors and closing agents are given free reign with tens of thousands of dollars. Your proof of ever paying the cash is limited to a flimsy receipt.

My advice, deposit the cash, and schedule the closing for a date when the reader is certain she can have full access to the cash.

It sounds like bringing cash to a real estate closing is a bad idea.

I’d love for more Consumerism Commentary readers to weigh in. If you’ve worked as a bank teller, how did you handle large cash deposits? If you’ve been involved with real estate transactions, has any party ever brought a bag full of cash to the closing?

JMR_Photography

{ 29 comments }

Year-End Personal Balance Sheet, December 2011

by Flexo
Net worth balance sheet, December 2011

I’ve spent the last decade of my life focused on my finances. I started because I had no money and a job that was taking more from me than it was providing in income. I knew I had to make some changes if I wanted to build any kind of future for myself. Soon into ... Continue reading this article…

18 comments Read the full article →

Personal Balance Sheet, October 2011 ($373,552, +9.2%)

by Flexo
Net Worth Balance Sheet, October 2011

I’ve been tracking my net worth and keeping my finances updated in personal finance management software since July 2003. I’ve done this mainly for myself. Posting my finances online helps make the numbers real. I use these monthly reports to hold myself accountable. If I write publicly about spending more in a budget category than ... Continue reading this article…

15 comments Read the full article →

Personal Balance Sheet, September 2011 ($342,242, -7.1%)

by Flexo

Each month, I publish a financial report to help me track the progress along my path to gain financial independence. This is a long-standing tradition at Consumerism Commentary, with relatively significant updates going all the way back to July 2003. I have made some changes over the years in how these numbers, including the net ... Continue reading this article…

17 comments Read the full article →

Honda Recalls One Million Cars

by Flexo
Honda CR-V

As an owner of a Honda Civic, I was concerned with the car maker’s latest round of recalls. My 2004 Honda Civic manual transmission LX sedan was not affected by the recall, but it wasn’t too long ago that both Honda and Toyota were issuing recalls. At the time, I reacted by buying shares in ... Continue reading this article…

5 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 1512345···Last »