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

Search: economics

Democrats and Republicans in Congress, not to mention the President, are battling over what to do about the debt ceiling, an arbitrary limit of government borrowing set by Congress. The government borrows money from investors in order to pay its expenses, like salaries and Social Security, and if the government is unable to borrow, eventually money will run out. That’s a consequence of spending more than you earn, a basic personal finance concept that doesn’t translate well to building what was one point, though still may be, the most powerful national or sovereign economy in the world.

The government has approached the debt ceiling before, and every time, Congress has acted to raise the debt ceiling. Today, politicians are more divided than ever, and it’s looking like a firm deal is not going to happen right away. The most likely outcome is that Congress will delay the issue with a temporary extension of the debt ceiling, moving any action to the future — and closer to the next presidential election when more citizens are ready to engage in political fights. There’s a very slim possibility that the stale mate will continue past August 2, which is when, according to the Treasury Department, the obligations require more than the government has, and some tough choices will need to be made.

If this does happen, President Obama will need to make some tough decisions about who does not get paid. The most likely option will be to furlough parts of the federal government, so military salaries and Social Security payments would not be interrupted.

Rating agencies like Standard & Poor’s will likely downgrade the official AAA rating for the United States’s debt. Even if a temporary solution raises the debt ceiling, this is still a possibility. Many investors would not lend money to the government if its credit rating slips, and interest rates may rise to compensate willing investors for the perceived risk in the system. These interest rates could affect everything from mortgage interest rates to credit cards, making the cost of borrowing higher throughout the economy. However, Japan’s rating was lowered in 2002, and the country suffered no ill effects, so it remains to be seen if rating agencies’ opinions matter as much as people believe. Even S&P has indicated the effects of a downgrade would be minimal.

I think the BBC, whose audience may not be familiar with the intricacies of the U.S. Constitution, sums up the situation interestingly:

Why can’t the Obama administration borrow more? Because it is not in their power. All government borrowing has to be approved, under the US Constitution, by Congress… Perversely, Congress also sets the government’s spending commitments and tax-raising powers. This puts the Obama administration in the impossible position of being required to spend more than it earns, while also being prevented from borrowing the difference.

Another possible consequence is the further reduction of the value of a U.S. dollar compared to other currencies around the world. The dollar’s value has been falling for years, so it may difficult to say if a continued fall is the result of a government default, but it certainly can’t help. If the dollar continues to fall, the typical reaction would be to put money into hard assets like real property.

Over the past few years, people and businesses who could qualify as borrowers have had the benefit of very low interest rates. If interest rates do increase, it would come at a bad time. The country is still trying to claw its way out of a recession, and high interest rates are bad for businesses trying to expand. The good news is only some businesses are trying to expand; most are saving their cash as is evidenced by the reluctance to hire more than the bare minimum of employees.

If the consequences of a ratings downgrade are not as dire as the media portrays, as opined by experts, the issue shouldn’t really be receiving all the attention it has. It does bring to light the issue of spending more than the government can afford, but it’s more of a political issue than an economic issue. Means that our representatives are using the debate on the debt ceiling to distract from the bigger economic problems we are facing, like unemployment, a lack of business growth, a substandard education system, endless spending on wars, and ineffective regulation of the financial industry.

Photo: o palsson
Kiplinger, New York Times, BBC, Bloomberg, NPR

{ 42 comments }

The Cost of Summer Camp

This article was written by in Family and Life. 12 comments.

While growing up, my brother and I both benefited from experiences at summer camp, both day camps and sleep-away camps, at various points in our childhood. My memories from summer camp have stayed with me, and the experiences have shaped who I am. I first heard Pink Floyd at summer camp, from a counselor playing Wish You Were Here on guitar for the campers around a campfire. I received my first lessons with darkroom photography at camp. I learned how to be a radio DJ at the same camp radio station, as I later discovered, that Bruce Warren, the program director of Philadelphia’s WXPN radio station, got his start in the business. At camp, I (barely) learned how to swim. My first real kiss was at summer camp.

Most importantly, my time at summer camp provided me experience living away from my parents, moving my outside of my comfort zone at an early age. This probably developed into my sense of independence, my comfort with making my own schedule — while there was structure within the camp, I chose my own schedule and appreciated the flexibility — and my wide variety of interests.

These experiences all came at a cost — to my parents. I am not sure what my parents paid to send me and my brother away for eight weeks during the summer, but I know it was not cheap. The camp experience is even more expensive now, more than two decades later. According to a recent article in the New York Times, it’s not uncommon for these summer sessions to exceed $9,000. Participation is dwindling, as parents have more options for their children. Costs for running camps are increasing, and so is the fear of legal action in a society that grows more litigious.

The trend seems to be moving away from the long, all-encompassing camps. Rather than doing everything, new camps are focused on one activity and provide an intensive experience over a shorter time frame, like a week or a long weekend. These camps are challenging the traditional method of attending a camp where several activities are part of the experience over a four or eight week period. More and more, parents want to see results when they spend money — and the results they like to see involve skills that would be impressive on a résumé.

Kids who remain mentally active over the summer perform better at school, so there’s definitely an incentive for keeping students involved in activities during the off-season rather than leaving them in front of the television. Summer camp is worthwhile, but the question is how much to spend. Some camps have reduced rates based on financial need, but even non-profit camps with financial assistance have rates that can turn away many interested families.

Do you or would you send your children to summer camp, either day cam or sleep-away? Do you have any similar experiences?

New York Times

{ 12 comments }

Throughout recent American history, the metals used by the U.S. Mint to create coins for circulation have increased in value relative to the currency. As a result, at certain points, the Mint changed the metal composition of coins to ensure the government would still make money on production. In 1982, when the amount of copper contained in a cent was valued over $0.01, the Mint replaced copper with zinc. Today, the copper in these pre-1982 cents is worth $0.027 by weight. The metal composition of a nickel is worth $0.062, a smaller premium over the face value. It’s safe to expect the Mint will eventually change the composition of the nickel so the government makes money on each nickel minted.

These nickels and pre-1982 cents are still in wide circulation.

Collecting — or even hoarding — these coins may seem crazy, but if your parents or grandparents held onto silver dollars, half-dollars, and quarter-dollars after the composition of these items shifted to more affordable alloys, you might have inherited coins now deemed to be valuable. The value is due not only to the value of the metal, but if the coins are in exceptional condition or are rare, they’ll have an additional value to collectors above the value of the metal.

If you have the space, consider holding onto these coins when you find them. There are a few things that could happen when you do:

  • The government will change composition on the coins to keep them more affordable, and demand among collectors will increase for the coins with the older composition. If you stay ahead of this curve, it could pay off. Supply will never increase.
  • The government will begin to allow melting of copper and nickel. This will decrease supply because many collectors will prefer to melt and cash in their investment. The coins that aren’t melted will increase in value as their rarity increases.
  • The government could decide to cease minting cents and nickels altogether, as the value of $0.05 continues to play a smaller role in everyday personal economics. Cents and nickels will be removed from circulation, increasing the value of those that remain among collectors.

It seems that in every possible future situation, it make sense to start holding onto coins whose base metal value exceeds the face value and market value. Holding onto silver coins when the government moved away from using silver in circulating coins seemed unlikely to pay off at the time. With silver at $35 an ounce today rather than $1, and with the best specimens of silver coins potentially having a much higher value to collectors than $35 an ounce, many collectors wish they had maintained a better silver collection in the 1960s.

Coinflation lists the base metal values for coins. Here they are, as of June 2, 2011:

Description Denomination Metal Value Metal % of Denomination
1909-1982 Cent (95% copper) $0.01 $0.0270840 270.84%
1946-2011 Nickel $0.05 $0.0623513 124.70%
1982-2011 Cent (97.5% zinc) $0.01 $0.0059563 59.56%
1965-2011 Dime $0.10 $0.0231098 23.10%
1965-2011 Quarter $0.25 $0.0577769 23.11%
1971-2011 Half Dollar $0.50 $0.1155549 23.11%
1971-1978 Eisenhower Dollar $1.00 $0.2311110 23.11%
1979-1981, 1999 SBA Dollar $1.00 $0.0825388 8.25%
2000-2011 Sacagawea Dollar $1.00 $0.0706778 7.06%
2007-2011 Presidential Dollar $1.00 $0.0706778 7.06%

Any coin with a metal percent of denomination over 100% is worth more as a metal than as a coin. If you have the space, consider holding onto the pre-1982 copper cents, and perhaps nickels, to take advantage of what time will do to their values if silver’s history is any indication.

Photo: stevendepolo

{ 18 comments }

The Saver’s Dilemma

This article was written by in Banking, Saving. 27 comments.

At Consumerism Commentary, I’ve been writing about putting money into high-yield savings accounts for as long as this website has been around. Just as people started getting the message, banks pulled the rug out from under their customers. The Federal Reserve made cash easy and cheap from banks to access, and since the low federal rates were announced, there has been no incentive for banks to pay those high yields.

High yield savings and money market accounts, alternatives to the typical savings accounts offered by primarily brick-and-mortar banks, helped savers keep their money safe while beating the average rate of inflation. You could put your money in the bank and not have to worry about your cash losing value over time or losing your deposit when a bank closes, thanks to FDIC protection.

More people than ever may be saving money. The recession coincided with a “new era of thrift,” with reports in the media about the savings rate — the amount of income saved by Americans, not the interest rate — at long-time highs. This good news came at a time when the reward for doing so wasn’t much of a benefit. To spur the economy, the Federal Reserve cut the interest rate on the money it loaned to banks, and the banks in turn didn’t seek money from depositors like you and me. The low interest rates reflect the fact that banks don’t need to attract depositors when the Federal Reserve is a better source of low-cost cash.

While high-yield savings once helped savers maintain their purchasing power and liquidity at the same time, that’s not the case today. Even with a lower-than-average official rate of inflation, the real costs of living that people experience continues to rise. The money in high-yield savings accounts isn’t going to keep pace with increasing costs.

Once the public feels more confident in other investments — and it could be years before this occurs — people will take money out of savings. When money is invested in businesses, the economy will be seen as improving enough for the government to raise the federal funds rate. Banks will want to attract more depositors and savings interest rates will increase. This may be a simplified view of saving economics, but the result is what is expected: fewer people need to be saving in order for interest rates to make saving worthwhile.

It’s easy to say that keeping a portion of your wealth liquid in a saving account is a good idea even though there’s a bigger chance of losing purchasing power, and it is true. It’s becoming a more difficult argument, though, as people are tired of supposed high yields that for the most part have a maximum of 1.5% APY.

Any alternative to high-yield savings accounts are compromises, usually in the form of risk or liquidity.

  • Certificates of deposit don’t offer rates much better than savings accounts today, and when they do, they require locking your money away.
  • A common choice is investing in municipal bonds, generally considered safer, but even Vanguard is warning investors to be wary when investing in bonds. “… Yields aren’t likely to go significantly lower, and at some point when the economy does strengthen, they’re likely to push higher. When that happens, you’ll actually have principal depreciation that will at least partially, and perhaps entirely, offset some of your yield.”
  • Peer-to-peer lending is touted online as an alternative to high-yield savings accounts but that is a bad comparison. There is a significant amount of risk when you lend money to an individual who may not be fully vetted, and you don’t have access to your money until it gets paid back.

Don’t forget the benefits of savings accounts, even if the interest rate isn’t high:

  • You have almost immediate access to all of your money at any time.
  • Your deposits are fully insured up to the FDIC limit. No one has ever lost any money in a savings account, even when their bank has failed.
  • Savings accounts simplify better financial habits like automatic transfers from checking or paycheck accounts to an account not used for spending.

Saving is a dilemma because when the practice is adopted, particularly in an economic downturn when business lending and investment slows, the interest rates are lower. As the economy improves and more money is invested in businesses, interest rates are higher but fewer people are interested in leaving money in a savings account. Those who want to use a savings account regardless of the economy are subject to the interest rates defined by the whim of the economy. When interest rates are higher, people will save less money.

{ 27 comments }

Working With a Financial Adviser: Demystifying Certifications

by Flexo

This is a series on finding, selecting, and working with financial advisers or planners. Recently, I evaluated the types of financial professionals to help readers start on the right track. This article looks at the varied professional designations and certifications. With a number of organizations granting different types of financial certifications, it’s easy to get ... Continue reading this article…

16 comments Read the full article →

Podcast 100: National Financial Capability Challenge

by Flexo

Today’s guest on the Consumerism Commentary Podcast is Carrie Schwab-Pomerantz, President of The Charles Schwab Foundation, which is sponsoring the National Financial Capability Challenge as well as the Make Change Count program. Consumerism Commentary Podcast #100 National Financial Capability Challenge: S04E22 / 124 Adobe Flash required Download – RSS – iTunes Table of contents [00:00] ... Continue reading this article…

7 comments Read the full article →

Financial Motivation to Get in Shape

by Flexo

I started the year out right. I didn’t join a gym for my exercise, but I signed up for a “class” using RunKeeper, a mobile application that tracks my progress as I run, walk, or get any physical exercise, and posts my results publicly. It ties into my philosophy well, using the same tricks I ... Continue reading this article…

15 comments Read the full article →

Podcast 94: The Ten Commandments of Money, Liz Weston

by Flexo

Today’s guest on the Consumerism Commentary Podcast is Liz Weston, author of The 10 Commandments of Money: Survive and Thrive in the New Economy, and the most-read personal finance columnist on the Internet. Liz, Flexo and Bryan discuss each of the ten commandments in the book. The 10 Commandments of Money is available in the ... Continue reading this article…

4 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 712345···Last »