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

Search: pdf


Senator Elizabeth Warren, the architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, introduced a bill in Congress to give student borrowers a break. The premise is that students, whose education is important to the economic growth of the United States, should receive some of the same advantages as banks, who receive preferential treatment in the form of low-interest loans from the Federal Reserve.

Since the midst of the recession, the Federal Reserve has kept its overnight lending rate low, below 1 percent, so banks could kick-start the economy by being able to afford to borrow. Overall, this strategy hasn’t worked. The financial industry instead used low-cost loans to increase their assets in their financial reports, an important move to show institutions were well capitalized, and to continue to pay executive bonuses despite upsetting short-term performance.

Money is fungible — you can’t track each dollar of business revenue and each dollar of loan and determine which dollar was used for which expense, but you should be able to expect banks to cut back on excesses during periods when the industry is being carried on the backs of taxpayers. After all, when taxpayers pay for public teacher’s salaries, newspapers publish salary tables and citizens are critical of waste in the system; you should expect the same scrutiny when taxpayers are footing the bill, at least temporarily, for financial industry CEO bonuses.

A well-educated populace is good for the economy and for this country’s competitiveness on a global stage, so it makes sense for those who have pursued a college degree to receive some benefits of economic stimulus. Students are leaving college is a low-employment environment. Half of the jobs added over the past few years have been low-paying jobs, and as a result, more people — not just recent graduates — are underemployed.

The interest rates for federally subsidized student loans is set to double to 6.8 percent this July. Every year, Congress goes through the same theatrics, and more often than not decides to lower this rate. Students who take out student loans today receive a favored rate of 3.4 percent. That’s a better deal, certainly, but not as good of a deal that banks receive, somewhere near 0.75 percent.

Elizabeth Warren sees this as an injustice. She says: “… [O]ur students are just as important to the economic recovery as our banks, and the debt they carry poses a serious risk to that recovery.” This isn’t wrong. Students saddled with high repayment obligations after college have less money to contribute to the economy right away. They’ll wait before getting married, before having children, and before moving into their own houses. Even income-based repayment plans, were your monthly student loan bill is reduced, doesn’t help in the long run.

Students bear responsibility for borrowing only what they can afford, but that depends on them having effective guidance. Student loan guidance before borrowing is completely ineffective.

Furthermore, society continues to push the idea that education is worthwhile regardless of the cost. I’m a strong believer in the importance of life-long education, which for me includes degree programs, but not in borrowing at any cost. Everyone should be able to afford a college education, but perhaps we shouldn’t subsidizing as many students who choose to attend expensive private schools rather than the more reasonable state colleges and universities.

To receive those interest rates of 0.75 percent, banks have to put up collateral. Student loans are somewhat riskier than loans to banks. First, these are overnight loans for the banks — very short term, very low risk. Student loans live for a decade or more, and students have a stronger chance of being unable to make the payments. That leads to higher interest rates — those who dutifully pay back their loans in full help subsidize those who have problems.

Yet, a student loan is the only type of borrowing that cannot be discharged in a bankruptcy, and that helps reduce the risk to lenders (while making life difficult for some borrowers).

Warren is looking for a reduction of the student loan rate to 0.75 percent for just one year, at which time Congress would need to vote again.

My gut reaction is that Warren is right — it’s not “fair” that students have to pay more to borrow money than banks. There is a solid economic for the difference in rates, though. There’s no question that a well-educated populace is better for society, so what could the government do to help students without increasing risk to lenders?

  • Perhaps there needs to be a more discriminating table of interest rates for student loans rather than one rate for everyone. Each student’s own situation, including proposed course of study and society’s need for jobs in a certain industry, should be evaluated to determine interest rates on an individual basis.
  • Perhaps there should be more student loan repayment assistance for those who graduate and take a job in a sector that is in high demand.
  • Another option is for there to be more policies that encourage private organizations to offer education grants and scholarships.

Policies for students ignore the bigger problem of the skyrocketing cost of education. You can’t control costs when society is continually making it easier for more people to afford college. Educational institutions need to control enrollment, and they can do that by raising the sticker price. The more free and low-cost credit is available to students, the more colleges can raise tuition without damaging their enrollment.

In the end, the problem of education affordability is multi-faceted, and while I would vote for a bill such as this myself, I don’t expect Congress to pass it. I expect they will continue to do what they usually do: lower the interest rate from 6.8 percent, but without going as low as 0.75 percent.

Photo: Flickr

{ 19 comments }

American culture has long promoted the idea that home ownership is key to the fulfilling middle-class lifestyle. You can be sure the National Association of Realtors will continue to do its darnedest to keep this interpretation of the American Dream alive; whether you’re buying or selling, it’s always a good time for Realtors to earn their livings.

The government wants its citizens to own houses. All recent presidents have promoted the idea of homeownership, through speeches and policies. To my memory, only Obama has said that not everybody should own a home. Nevertheless, the policies that encourage home ownership remain in place, like federal support for banks that lend money to prospective home buyers and like the mortgage interest tax deduction for owners.

Only half of all home owners claim the tax deduction either because they don’t know about it or they don’t have enough itemized deductions to be able to take the deduction. This may be because deductions reduce taxable income, and that’s more of a benefit for households with high income. A tax credit, on the other hand, would reach more homeowners, benefiting low-income home owners the same as those with higher incomes.

I can’t believe how many times I hear people suggesting that the tax deduction could be a major factor in the decision to buy a house. Even those who claim the deduction only get back a portion of their interest spent — interest they would not be paying if they were to rent instead. Say your friend wants you to let him hold $200,000 of yours, but this holding comes with a fee of $500 a month. He claims it’s worthwhile because once a year, he’ll pay you $2,100. That’s not exactly a good deal.

Renters don’t exactly have an advantage. Rents pay the owners’ interest — owners do get the deduction and renters receive nothing.

This country’s efforts to promote home ownership may drive resources towards a goal that could be harming, not helping, the economy. Several studies show that homeownership is correlated to — and may be the cause of — higher unemployment. A study in 1999 that outlined this relationship was largely ignored by economists. After all, the study was funded by the National Multi Housing Council, a trade group and lobbying organization that represents the interests of corporate landlords.

Since then, more studies, like this new study by David G. Blanchflower of Dartmouth College and Andrew J. Oswald of the University of Warwick confirms that home ownership levels determine unemployment levels. And the effect is particularly strong: an increase in home owners causes double an increase in unemployment. Because the effect is delayed by up to five years, however, it’s been easy for observers to ignore the evidence.

This doesn’t show that home owners are more likely to be unemployed themselves, but increased home ownership causes externalities that affect unemployment rates. The new study’s authors explain these externalities:

There are four main conclusions. First, we document a strong statistical link between high levels of home-ownership in a geographical area and high later levels of joblessness in that area… Second, we show that, both within states and across states, high home-ownership areas have lower labor mobility…

Third, we show that states with higher rates of home-ownership have longer commute times… Fourth, we demonstrate that states with higher rates of home-ownership have lower rates of business formation…

While this study focuses on the United States, other recent studies come to similar conclusions in Europe.

It’s easy to be skeptical of studies that show these results. We assume that home ownership encourages stable living, and stability contributes to lower crime in a region. Homeowners tend to be more involved in their communities than renters, and community involvement increases local job opportunities. The data show that these benefits aren’t enough to overcome the tendency for home ownership to cause unemployment.

A question with any study is whether the data show that there is a causation or just a correlation. For example, even though there are more large-company CEOs per capita living in Connecticut than in other states, you won’t be more likely to become a large-company CEO by moving to Connecticut. A good researcher has to wonder whether there could be some independent variables affecting both the tendency towards home ownership and the increase in unemployment.

The authors of this latest study are confident that they’ve ruled out independent variables. They show that home ownership directly causes the following:

  • Lower labor mobility. People can’t quickly move somewhere else to find a new job, and so a household that rents can follow a new job quickly while a household that is rooted to a community through home ownership is more likely to pass on the new job or not be willing to look elsewhere for new employment.
  • Longer commutes. People buy homes where they can better afford the housing for their particular job. Jobs are centered around cities, home ownership exists in higher numbers in suburbs. Commuting is expensive for both employers and employees.
  • Fewer new firms and establishments. Higher home ownership results in more space being zoned for residential living, making it difficult for potential business owners to open new business near these communities. The “not in my backyard” attitude of home owners prevents economic development, resulting in fewer available jobs and higher unemployment.

The authors of the study are confident that they’ve controlled for variables, and therefore the data show an explicit causation between home ownership and unemployment, before the housing bust, after the recession, and through the recession. They admit, however, that researchers must undertake more experiments to build off these findings. The results as they are should be troubling for policymakers that promote home ownership.

The challenge in getting this message across is that home ownership is such a core component of the middle-class American life. When studies seem to attack someone’s way of living, people take the findings very personally. The choices families have made, in this case the choice to own a house rather than rent, contribute to a weakening of the labor economy, and no one likes to be told that their choices are “bad.”

Findings that are incongruous with established culture are more often than not rejected by the public. Because there still are positive externalities associated with home ownership that one might say outweighs the effects on unemployment, and because the results are an affront to society’s drive to make as many people home owners as possible, I expect it will be a long time before we see changes to society and policies that encourage household mobility over home ownership.

Do you think home ownership causes unemployment down the road?

Photo: Flickr
New York Times, Slate

{ 7 comments }

There is a link between wealth and happiness, but it’s not that having more of the former results in more of the latter. The Journal of Consumer Research published a study involving a scientific analysis of the link between money and happiness designed and analyzed by researchers at the University of British Columbia, Harvard University, and the University of Virginia. The study indicated there is a direct link between wealth and self-reported satisfaction with one’s life, but no such correlation between wealth and a measurement of happiness.

The study looks at reasons this may be the case, and through a number of investigations, concludes the following:

This suggests that our money provides us with satisfaction when we think about it, but not when we use it. That shouldn’t happen. Money can buy many, if not most, if not all of the things that make people happy, and if it doesn’t, then the fault is ours.

I understand this. When I look at my life objectively, I see I should be happy. I’m financially independent, and I have access to anything I need and many things I want. I am in charge of my daily schedule, and I can spend my time doing whatever I like. Objectively, my life is very satisfying. So why am I not as happy on a day-to-day basis as I think I should be, given these circumstances?

According to the study, it’s because I — and, on average, everyone else — don’t spend wealth in a way that would lead to happiness. Maybe you can relate to this, too. Wealth provides access to many things that can contribute to a happy life, like better nutrition, healthcare, leisure time, and jobs, but these don’t necessarily contribute to self-reported happiness.

The analysis group of studies included in the published paper leads to eight approaches to spending money that will result in more happiness. Some of the suggestions are common-sense approaches to money management that I’ve written about on Consumerism Commentary, while others seem to oppose what financial advisers, planners, and authors present as good money advice. In the coming weeks, I’ll address each of these eight principles more in depth.

1. Buy experiences instead of things.

A few years ago, Laura Rowley, author of Money and Happiness: A Guide to Living the Good Life, was a guest on the Consumerism Commentary podcast. She pointed to an earlier study that showed that happiness plateaued at a household income of level of $75,000. There’s a lot of criticism of this study because, among other things, $75,000 in one location like New York City means something else to a family than $75,000 earned in rural Ohio. The study itself was recently debunked, but some of the conclusions still make sense with the new information.

One of these conclusions is that it’s better to to frame your financial choices in terms of experiences, as Laura Rowley mentioned in the podcast. Experiences create memories that contribute more to happiness than what you might achieve by buying products.

2. Help others instead of yourself.

Anything people due to nurture social connections with others increases happiness, and wealth can be used in such a manner. The study showed that those who spend more of their wealth on gifts for others and on charitable contributions than on bills and gifts for themselves are happier. Not only does prosocial spending affect self-reported happiness, but another experiment shows that the behavior created happiness that’s visible when observing the brain’s neurons.

3. Buy many small pleasures instead of few big ones.

The study uses this example to illustrate this point: “Eating a 12 oz cookie is not twice as pleasurable as eating a 6 oz cookie because the first X% of a cookie’s weight accounts for more than X% of its hedonic impact.” This is one of the reasons why it’s better to take your finite financial resources and spread them out over many things you find pleasurable rather than reaching for the experiences that are the most expensive. While the first principle might say it’s better to go on one $2,500 cruise than buying one $25,000 television, this principle says it’s better for your happiness to go on 50 dinners than one cruise.

4. Buy less insurance.

Most Americans are under-insured. An emergency fund is a type of self-insurance against the likelihood of a short-term financial setback, but this often needs to be supplemented with health insurance, life insurance, car insurance, and renter’s or home insurance. Many people need some form of general liability insurance, too.

These are all good uses of money, even though they might not correlate directly to happiness. But because consumers overestimate how much they’d be affected by a broken object, they’re led to extend the concept of insurance to the things they buy. Salespeople use this apprehension to sell extended warranties for products. Studies show that people are not generally affected negatively when products break without a warranty or generous return policy. If you are told that “all sales are final,” you appreciate the purchase much more.

5. Pay now and consume later.

The societal norm today is to consume now and pay later. That’s the premise of the credit card industry, and we’re lured into that spending behavior with generous cash back offers and other perks. We can delay the pain of parting with our money at the same time we advance the opportunity to consume. Shortsighted behavior results in financial problems in the future, and that’s one reason why the opposite approach increases happiness.

The other reason is that delayed gratification increases anticipation, and resolution of the feelings of anticipation inspire happiness.

6. Think about what you’re not thinking about.

When you daydream about the future, you’re more likely to think about it in abstract terms. As you get closer, whether in time or in physical space, details begin to emerge that cloud your happiness. This is apparent when you’re planning for a vacation. Six months in advance, your trip to Walt Disney World seems like a great idea, but as the time to depart gets closer and the details come into focus, you begin to think about all the frustrations you will experience. Those details, good and bad, will affect your level of happiness when the time comes, more than just the fact that you and your family are at Walt Disney World.

Thinking about those details in advance will prepare you for the future and will help you make better decisions about the future in terms of your happiness.

7. Beware of comparison shopping.

This gets interesting. Comparison shopping is a tool of the frugal consumer. It’s good to make a purchasing decision based on all data available, even if price is just one part of the comparison. Comparison shopping so so popular that there are even sections of Consumerism Commentary designed to help people make decisions about their money. Consumer Reports helps people, too, by rating products within appropriate categories to make informed decisions about spending money.

It turns out that shopping based on comparisons — which focus on how one version of a product differs from another — take focus away from attributes that are more likely to make someone happy. You can use online tools to compare a car’s specifications. Shoppers can determine what facts from among the categories will result in the best purchase, but the factors that contribute to happiness with a car purchase — perhaps the feeling of envy from friends, whether the driver’s seat fits you perfectly, or whether there’s enough room to make love in the backseat — are not listed or not really considered when shopping using a financially responsible, comparison-based approach.

8. Follow the herd instead of your head.

The best way to predict enjoyment of an experience is to see how much other people enjoyed the same experience. Going back to the Walt Disney World example, if more of my friends shared with me, more stories about their enjoyment of the vacation, the more I will enjoy my vacation there. Seeing that others are happy with their decisions increase our own happiness with the same decisions. In an experiment, women predicted how much they’d enjoy a date using two methods. The first was by photograph and biography of their date alone, the second was based solely on another woman’s previous analysis of the date. Those who received the photograph and biography made more inaccurate predictions of how they would enjoy their date.

Is your goal in life to be rich in financial terms only or do you want to be rich in happiness, as well? If you like the idea of living one happy experience after another, then it takes more than just wealth and financial independence. How you spend your money determines whether you’re happy. These principles should help you use your money in ways that are more likely to produce happy feelings.

There is much depth in these principles, so this article is just an overview. Each principle deserves its own analysis. For more information on the experiments conducted that led the researchers to these suggestions for happiness, read the study linked below.

Journal of Consumer Psychology

{ 9 comments }

Everyone starts their path to financial independence from a different position. The popular belief that everyone born in this country has an equal opportunity for financial success is a Utopian myth. It may be an ideal foremost in early European settlers’ minds as they escaped a society where wealth was determined by little more than birthright, but the playing field isn’t quite as level as some Founding Fathers would have liked. From the moment of conception, all are created equal, but after birth, we are each subject to the environment in which we live. The environment can be toxic if those around us do not place a high value on education, self-efficacy, and positive financial behaviors.

As children, we have little control over the environment and the behaviors of those around us define our attitudes in life, and as an adult, if there’s no compelling reason for change, the cycle will continue for yet another generation, embedding negative behaviors deeper into a social microculture.

If poor attitudes towards money and harmful behaviors approach the point of manifestation, it’s already beyond the point of recognizing the problem. It’s not too late, though. About a month ago, I addressed the psychological barriers to admitting there’s a problem and some thoughts for overcoming mental constructs that get in the way of financial success.

Even after admitting a problem exists — coming to terms with the idea that one is not on the road to financial independence and may in fact be approaching poverty or lifelong debt — the road ahead is a long one. Taking the first step to changing your life is daunting and frightening.

As I’m writing this, I’m reminded of a trailer for a new movie starring Will Smith and his son. I haven’t seen the movie, but the advertisement for the movie includes the actor offering the following advice when faced with difficult challenges for survival:

If we are going to survive this, you need to remember: fear is not real. It is a product of the thoughts you create. Now do not misunderstand me; danger is very real. But fear is a choice.

Now, fear isn’t exactly what prevents most people from saving a portion of their income, curbing over-shopping habits, setting up an emergency fund, and paying off debt. I would guess that the only fear might be the fear of losing one’s money deposited in a bank. The fear is irrational, and there is no real danger. But fear is a mental construct like the more specific psychological barriers that prevent people from taking the first step.

The article by James M. Olson, PhD in the Canadian Family Physician, which I referred to last month, describes these barriers.

Lack of knowledge

Education is always the first step. With “Financial Literacy Month” now concluded it’s a great reminder that learning the facts about money and the appropriate behaviors is not nearly enough to change the way people behave. I’ve written about the lack of effectiveness of financial literacy programs extensively, most recently discussing the virtues of positive financial role models. Guest author William Cowie also recently discussed four invalid excuses preventing people from investing.

On financial literacy, in the last few weeks, the chorus of agreement has gotten louder. Jason Zweig from the Wall Street Journal added his voice:

There is even some evidence that fin-lit classes can make people worse off. One study found that soldiers who had studied fin lit ended up significantly less likely to have systematic control over their household budgets. Another showed that people who had taken a fin-lit class in high school later reported that they were less thrifty, less likely to pay their credit-card bills in full and more likely to bounce a check.

After all, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing: Taking a fin-lit class might well give the least financially knowledgeable people just enough confidence to make them think they can safely take extra risks…

In one Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation survey, nearly two-thirds of banks said they participated in a fin-lit program because it was a way of “taking advantage of a good business opportunity.”

If financial education is not effective or even harmful, how can the psychological barrier of the lack of knowledge be conquered? The reason we turn to financial literacy in schools, non-profit organizations, and free seminars from for-profit entities in the financial industry is because it’s so difficult to impart skills and positive attitudes through the only effective means — being there for children during their formative years, exemplifying the positive behaviors and attitudes and being living examples of the results of these behaviors and attitudes.

I don’t know if there’s an answer to this question that has proven to be effective, but it’s something I’m interested in discovering.

Low self-efficacy

William Cowie described one of the four excuses preventing people from investing as the attitude that causes people to think, What’s the point of investing? I’ll just lose money anyway. There is some truth to this. Unless you invest enough money into a company to be part of the management team or oversight board, you don’t have much control. All shareholders can vote, but it’s rare for any one individual shareholder to dictate the operation of the company. When you invest in a company, you put your faith in management to make the right decisions. When you invest in an actively-managed mutual fund, you put faith in the fund manager to make the right investment choices. When you invest in an index mutual fund, you put your faith in the stock market. There is a lot that is out of the investor’s control.

But you do have control of certain things. You have control over the companies in which you investments. You have the ability to research your investment options, make choices for yourself, monitor your progress, and adjust as necessary. The choices you make have a direct bearing on your investment results, although that might not be apparent until later.

Low self-efficacy isn’t limited to investing. If you are convinced that paying off debt it pointless because you will just return to debt, or if you’re convinced that society has placed you in a situation like poverty or homelessness that is difficult to climb out of, you’re blocking yourself from moving forward.

The choices you make can have a profound impact on your financial health. And while external resources can help you move in the right direction, they only work when you actively pursue improvements yourself.

Dysfunctional attitudes

The Canadian Family Physician article describes two types of dysfunctional attitudes: unfavorable attitudes towards healthy behaviors and favorable attitudes towards unhealthy behaviors.

The second type is easier to describe and understand. Although people know smoking causes cancer and death, smokers do it anyway. Some will never make any attempt to quit simply because it’s a behavior they enjoy. Reasons often go deeper, but harmful behaviors are often fun and activate the brain’s pleasure centers. The idea of owning a beautiful house and driving fast cars is appealing to a lot of people, but if the financial groundwork to support those behaviors isn’t in place, these desires can lead to financial difficulty and delayed or prevented independence.

The other type of dysfunctional attitude usually consists of poor excuses:

  • Budgeting is a tedious chore.
  • Savings accounts earn paltry interest rates, so an emergency fund would actually lose value.
  • Insurance is a financial industry scam.
  • Banks are useless for people in my community.

To overcome dysfunctional attitudes, it takes an external force. When people are genuinely scared for their life, quitting smoking suddenly becomes an easier task; in fact, even the chemical barriers contributing to addiction seem to disappear, and though people speak of it being difficult to quit, the “cold turkey” method is suddenly effective. (Why? The danger, which has always been real, becomes too obvious to ignore.)

The external force for getting over dysfunction attitudes and taking the first step is most effective when it manifests as a serious problem affecting someone’s life. We can try financial education. We can write articles about diligently paying off debt until our fingers fall off, but if someone isn’t ready to hear the message, it won’t break through embedded attitudes.

Like physicians have a role in helping patients overcome their dysfunctional attitudes, financial advisers can play this role. But while everyone has — or should have — a doctor they see regularly, someone who can monitor their progress, relatively few people have a financial adviser to guide them on a personal level.

Another dysfunctional attitude is the belief that making the wrong choice with your money can be worse than making no choice at all. Financial advisers and writers like to argue about things like whether it’s better to use extra cash flow to pay a mortgage off early or invest, but in the end, either choice is better than spending too much time analyzing the possible outcomes.

The first step in the direction of financial independence can be the most difficult. This may be a long article that addresses some of the finer points of what, in a person’s brain, prevents him or her from starting a path to change, but it comes down to will power. When you want something bad enough, you make it happen. To want something bad enough, you have to see the future, one future that looks bright, and another future full of trouble. Some won’t see the future until it’s plainly in front of them. Some need help seeing the future.

The more we can communicate the physical danger of a life making one bad financial choice after another, the more effective we can help others take the first step. And for readers and those who might need to take the first step, consider that the only way to be truly free — free from debilitating stress, free to do what you want, when you want — is to be financially independent, and the only path to financial independence is making a habit of responsible choices with money.

Photo: Flickr
Canadian Family Physician [pdf]

{ 3 comments }

Financial Role Models vs. Money Classes

by Luke Landes
Financial literacy and role models

Non-profit organizations and for-profit businesses promote financial literacy education as the solution to a society of citizens unskilled with managing their own money. If only we could have mandatory money management classes in high school and earlier, advocates claim, the United States would be a nation of savers, free of most debt other than mortgages, ... Continue reading this article…

9 comments Read the full article →

What To Do If You’ve Donated to a Fraudulent Charity

by Luke Landes
Charity scam and fraud

It happened after September 11, Katrina, Sandy, the Boston Marathon, and other disasters, man-made and natural, around the world. After serious tragedies, when a compassionate public is at its most vulnerable, unscrupulous individuals find taking advantage the world’s generosity comes easy. Within hours — even minutes — of the news, new operations spring up, offering ... Continue reading this article…

5 comments Read the full article →

Psychological Barriers: Admitting There’s a Problem

by Luke Landes
Barrier

It’s difficult to get into this topic without sounding too much like a motivational speaker. I am strongly averse to most motivational training. Here’s my problem: Motivational training, in the corporate world, encourages teamwork — good — but often at the expense of personal identity and independent thinking — bad. The nuances are subtle, though; ... Continue reading this article…

8 comments Read the full article →

Are Sophisticated Producers Taking Advantage of Their Fans With Kickstarter?

by Luke Landes
Kristen Bell, Veronica Mars

I like the concept of crowdfunding. Websites like Kickstarter have been helpful to start-up businesses, sole individuals with an idea but without capital, and independent entertainers looking for support for their first project. It’s democratic capitalism; the best ideas receive necessary funding while the “investors” receive neither a financial return nor equity. It’s a great ... Continue reading this article…

6 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 1712345···Last »