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

Search: prices


A new survey takes a look at the critical state of today’s recent college graduates. The survey questioned a nationally-representative sample of 444 recent college graduates between the ages of 22 and 29, about their employment situation and experiences. The questions also lightly touched upon these graduates’ financial condition. I’ve included a link to the full survey at the bottom of this article.

The necessity of choosing a major in college can put quite a bit of pressure on any student, particularly those who have either a wide variety of interests and talents as well as those who may not feel themselves pulled in any particular direction. There’s always the hope or the expectation that the bachelor’s degree will define a career path for the rest of one’s life, and that career path will follow a straight line or an exponential curve.

GraduationAn economist’s opinion is that students, who often go into debt to obtain their degrees, should simply look at the expected rate of return. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard or read that students should choose majors like engineering, physics, computer science, or applied mathematics to guarantee high salaries and easy job placement. Not everyone is interested or talented in these areas, and the pure financial approach says that those who aren’t shouldn’t bother spending money for a college education. The return on investment for an education is about more than just money, but that opinion doesn’t exactly make me popular in certain communities.

The financial reality is dire according to this survey. And as much as a college education has value beyond the expected return in the form of salary, no one can ignore the money-related part of the equation. Many decades ago, a college degree was a sign of differentiation, and gave holders the ability to market themselves well and qualify for the best jobs. At the same time, culture put such an emphasis on higher education that as it became available to more people — through grants and loans, not through lowered costs — it’s become less of a distinction. Colleges are basically unchecked in their tuition increases because they know that students will keep coming and the government will continue providing opportunities.

In good economic times, that can be ignored. With a low level of unemployment among graduates, former students can receive jobs, healthy incomes, and can pay down their student loan debt. In difficult times — when Baby Boomers aren’t retiring and there aren’t opportunities for younger workers, for example — the buy-now-pay-later model of education begins to fail. And it always fails for those with degrees in fields that take longer to recover their costs, like the arts and humanities.

Mark Cuban offered an apt analogy. College education is similar to the practice of flipping real estate. In the heyday of oversized, abnormal growth in the real estate market, any fool could make
money by buying a house relying heavily on debt, selling it to a bigger fool, and using the proceeds to repeat the process. There was a promise of success, and it worked well for a while — until the real estate market meltdown, followed by the Great Recession and credit crunch. A similar experience is happening today with the investment in a college education. Cuban argues that it used to be able to “flip” a college degree for a good starting salary and a solid opening to a life-long career, but the investment no longer performs so well.

With the run-up in real estate prices, it became very easy to access credit. Banks would give loans to as many customers as possible, with the knowledge the banks could repackage and sell those loans to reduce their apparent risk. The credit crunch required banks to tighten up their lending standards to the point where credit wasn’t available anywhere. Cuban believes this is where we are heading with student loans.

Years ago, policies were designed to ensure that everyone who wanted to become a homeowner could afford to do so. Taxpayers subsidized a great expansion in homeownership, and the real estate industry thrived. Education for all has been just as much a part of the American Dream, and taxpayers are subsidizing college educations for those who can’t afford it on their own. When it’s so easy to get an education for little money down, and everyone is taking advantage of free-flowing credit, we should have expected that making a return on that investment has become more difficult.

There is more student loan debt in aggregate in the United States than credit card debt, and Mark’s conclusion is that the economy won’t improve until this student loan bubble bursts. He promotes non-traditional universities — though not diploma mills, as he later warns — as the answer, because they can provide a better deal.

While colleges and universities are building new buildings for the English, social sciences and business schools, new high end, un-accredited, branded schools are popping up that will offer better educations for far, far less and create better job opportunities. As an employer I want the best prepared and qualified employees. I could care less if the source of their education was accredited by a bunch of old men and women who think they know what is best for the world. I want people who can do the job. I want the best and brightest. Not a piece of paper.

The competition from new forms of education is starting to appear… You would think traditional university educators would take notice. Beyond allowing some of their classes to be offered online, they haven’t. They won’t. Its the ultimate Innovators Dilemma. They don’t believe they should change and they won’t. Until its too late. Just as CEOs push for that one more penny per share in EPS, University Presidents care about nothing but getting their endowments and revenues up. If it means saddling an entire generation with obscene amounts of school debt, they could care less. This is how they get their long term contracts and raises.

It’s just a matter o[f] time until we see the same meltdown in traditional college education. Like the real estate industry, prices will rise until the market revolts. Then it will be too late. Students will stop taking out the loans traditional Universities expect them to. And when they do tuition will come down. And when prices come down universities will have to cut costs beyond what they are able to. They will have so many legacy costs, from tenured professors to construction projects to research they will be saddled with legacy costs and debt in much the same way the newspaper industry was. Which will all lead to a de-levering and a de-stabilization of the university system as we know it.

Just over half of recent college graduates have jobs. Many of those who do have jobs settled for a position for which their four-year degree was not necessary. 40 percent of recent graduates haven’t even begun paying off their student loan debt. Most recent graduates, while happy with their time in college, would have chosen a major after more consideration, taken different courses, or sought out more working or internship opportunities.

Photo: NazarethCollege
Blog Maverick, John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development

{ 13 comments }

We live in an era of cheap, disposable goods. My closet full of clothing, much of it rarely worn, even though I sort through my wardrobe about once a year to eliminate items I no longer need, is a good indicator of this situation. For a good period when I was a kid, I wore hand-me-down clothes — as the eldest child, I received clothing from a family friend — and when an item became damaged, my mother fixed it with her sewing machine.

Prices for clothes have certainly increased over the last few decades, but clothing is not expected to last. When a piece of clothing becomes damaged, it’s easier and cheap enough to replace.

Broken ToasterBroken kitchen appliances, lamps, and other household devices past their warranty periods can’t be fixed with a sewing machine. Many would need specialized care by a professional, and with today’s disposable consumer culture, many people just opt for replacement rather than finding a repair shop and paying nearly as much money as they would to buy a new item.

Additionally, retailers and manufacturers have embraced the concept of planned obsolescence. To keep manufacturing costs low and to maximize profits, there is little concern for making products that last as long as their owners. This is a primary feature of high technology — a house phone sold fifty years ago may still function properly today, but a cell phone purchased five years ago not only doesn’t keep up with the latest technology, but it likely doesn’t work at all. Furniture built in the eighteenth century was made to last in a family for generations; IKEA furniture might last a few years under regular stress of use.

In Amsterdam, there is a small movement in opposition to this disposable consumer culture. The community has come together to repair its members’ broken items. Volunteers bring their tools and sewing machines to an open building several times a month and offer to fix any broken item brought to the gathering. This Repair Café helps reduce waste by encouraging reuse of broken items, and makes fixing an affordable alternative to replacement.

The government in the Netherlands, private groups, and individual donors have helped the Repair Café Foundation raise $525,000 over the past few years, and these funds have helped the organization create these gatherings at various locations across the country. These Repair Cafés provide a chance for consumers to make better use of their goods and for volunteers, particularly those with repair skills that might no longer be in demand, use those skills for a good cause.

Would Repair Cafés; be welcome in the United States? It’s not exactly a profitable business venture, and as such, is unlikely to draw much attention. The model, however, could easily be recreated, perhaps in low socioeconomic neighborhoods, to provide a money-saving alternative for spending money to replace slightly damaged items. Strong marketing encouraging consumers to exist in a cycle of buying and replacing comes at a price to retailers and manufacturers. If these expenses were redirected towards making better, durable products without planned obsolescence, consumers might lose the desire to constantly have new items, and would be able to hold onto the same products for a longer period of time. There would be less waste. Companies and their shareholders would find they have more loyal, life-long customers. Customers would shop with a focus on the differentiation in quality rather than with their tunnel-vision focused solely on price. Companies that build their products to last would succeed while those focused on the short-term would fail.

Could Repair Cafés be an answer to the consumer culture of disposable products? Would the availability of free repairs in the United States change the way consumers buy goods, and thus force companies to build products that are made to last rather than go obsolete? Is the trend towards disposability reversible at all?

Photo: phozographer
New York Times

{ 10 comments }

A few weeks ago, a Consumerism Commentary reader asked me on Facebook whether it would be a good idea to purchase shares of Facebook at $48 a piece. I do not give stock buying advice, but I mentioned that shares had recently been sold for $44.10 on the secondary market, so if someone were to accept an offer to buy shares at $48, they’d have to believe that the value had increased since the auction.

Interest in buying shares of Facebook has increased as rumors about the company’s going public continued, and when Facebook finally filed for its initial public offering (IPO) in February, shareholders (mostly company employees and investors willing to buy in the secondary market) celebrated. The company now plans to become a public company on May 18, though that date is somewhat flexible. Also flexible is the target range for the initial share price when the company goes public.

FacebookFacebook has set its open share price to be between $28 and $35. With the shares Facebook’s famed CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, plans to sell at the opening, he will personally cash in $1 billion, while the company raises at least $12 billion through new shares. The total valuation of the company could lie anywhere between $75 and $98 billion, according to CNN Money.

There is no doubt that Facebook is the biggest success story in technology in this century so far. Those who invested early, friends of Zuckerberg since the beginnings of the company and employees who received significant amounts of stock options, stand to be able to cash in their shares and retire pleasantly wealthy. Those buying shares on or after May 18 may be able to catch a star continuing to rise.

Google continued to perform well after its IPO, for example. Investors were concerned about overpaying for Google shares at about $100 around the time of that company’s initial public offering, but today’s price is over $600. Facebook’s shares will be sold at a price-to-earnings ratio of 99, higher than almost all companies in the S&P 500 index, making the investment seem to be at a high risk for its price to fall. Both Zynga and Groupon, after going public last year, are now trading below their initial share prices.

Are you planning to invest in Facebook’s common shares once you can buy them through the stock exchange? Has Facebook seen its heyday of growth or is there more to come from the company?

Update: Although average individual investors have traditionally had limited access to initial public offerings, Facebook, following a trend of other technology companies going public, will likely be opening its IPO up to E*Trade. If you have an E*Trade account in good standing, you can indicate how many shares of Facebook you would like and the maximum price you’d like to pay. E*Trade will distribute the shares it receives among its individual investors who bid high enough.

Photo: kudumomo
CNNMoney, BusinessWeek

{ 14 comments }

Art Is Not a Good Investment

This article was written by in Investing. 10 comments.

A few months ago, art and money were connected in the news when Andreas Gursky’s “Rhein II,” a photograph depicting a still river and walkway, became the highest-valued photograph sold at auction. The buyer paid $4 million to walk away with the larger-than-life print. Art is in the news again today, with one of Edvard Munch’s renditions of “The Scream.” At a recent Sotheby’s auction, “The Scream” was sold for $119.9 million. This price set a record, making “The Scream” the most expensive work of art ever sold at auction.

For those who have the money to spare, art is a popular investment. Trading masterpieces of art among a small subsection of the population, less than 1 percent, is not without criticism, however. Many artists do not live to see their works become valuable, and do not benefit from the high prices sought for their work. I addressed both the criticisms and the benefits of giving art a significant societal value in the article about “Rhein II.”

The Scream - Edvard MunchWhile it may be good for society to value art highly, is it a good investment for any one individual who has millions of dollars to spare?

Well, first of all, there is art accessible at all levels of investment. With research, you might find works available for $50 that could certainly increase in value over time at a rate better than what financial advisers offer as typical long-term stock market returns. Art is not an investment solely for the 1 percent. And with the right buying choices, your smaller investment in living artists has a more direct effect on the artist community.

Investing in art isn’t going to be right for everyone. While some consider art to be one of the best investments outside of real estate, the economy has seen would-be real estate investors struggling when the market isn’t robust. The same is true with art. The market is subject to bubbles, the latest trends play a significant role in determining prices, and you may not be able to sell your art at the price time you need the proceeds. Artists whose work have proven to appreciate and are highly recognized as masters, like Dali and Picasso, have price appreciation almost guaranteed, but the barrier to entry for investments in proven artists is too high for investors without the desire to risk large sums of money.

Outside of artists whose works have proven worth, it’s risky to invest in art with the goal of making a killing between the purchase date and the sale date. Even the best research won’t guarantee performance. To mitigate the chance of loss, when choosing art, find something you like. As long as you enjoy looking at your art collection, you won’t mind as much holding onto it until it has the ability to fetch the price you desire — which may be never. At the auction where “The Scream” sold for $119.9 million, one fifth of the pieces on the auction block failed to sell because no investors were willing to pay the asking prices.

Another problem with investing in art is the due diligence required to avoid scammers and fraud-minded people in the industry. Even experts can be wrong about forgeries. Investments in art are not subject to the same kinds of regulation that allows investors to feel generally safe and confident when investing in stocks and mutual funds.

Unless you have the financial ability to invest in artists whose names you know from high school or your college’s Art History course, you might be better off staying away from investing in art if your purpose is finding the next Rembrandt.

Photo: br1dotcom

{ 10 comments }

Government-Reported Inflation

by Flexo
Helium balloon inflation

Over the twelve months ending with March 2012, the increase in the consumer price index (CPI-U) as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, often referred to as the inflation rate, is 2.7 percent (2.3 percent if you exclude food and energy). While these numbers are below the historically-cited norm for inflation, 3 percent, the ... Continue reading this article…

8 comments Read the full article →

Student Loan Interest Rates Set for Increase

by Flexo
College students

Unless Congress acts soon, student loans subsidized by the government will become significantly more expensive. Mandated interest rates on subsidized student loans will jump from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent for the 2012-2013 school year. With unemployment still high for recent graduates, increased interest rates will add to the debt burden. Tuition costs are still increasing as ... Continue reading this article…

10 comments Read the full article →

Sprint in $300 Million Tax Fraud Lawsuit

by Flexo

In order to offer better prices to customers, Sprint has allegedly under-collected and underpaid New York State sales taxes by $100 million. If the Attorney General’s allegations are true, Sprint could end up owing the state government as much as $300 million or more due to underpayment penalties. Sprint is denying the charges, claiming they’ve ... Continue reading this article…

4 comments Read the full article →

Citi Platinum Select / AAdvantage Visa Signature Review

by Flexo

If you travel by airplane often, and you find that the best prices for your routes center around one airline, it can often be beneficial to join that airline’s frequent flier loyalty program. In addition, many airlines also partner with credit card companies to offer travel rewards credit cards that help you accrue frequent flier ... Continue reading this article…

0 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 5712345···50···Last »