After the Credit CARD Act of 2009 was signed into law, we saw how credit card issuers started making life tougher for their customers. In short, banks were levying fees on their customers indiscriminately, affecting both the good and the bad.

This has been going on for months. Lawmakers have publicly condemned it, and made requests to the federal reserve, but all to no avail. This week, however, an amendment to expedite the Credit CARD Act (giving it an effective date of December 1st) has passed the House of Representatives in a better-than-average bipartisan manner (only 53% of Republicans opposed it), and I’m hopeful for all of our sakes that a similar measure quickly passes in the Senate.

I read through the words in both versions, and found a few differences, which might make it take longer to work through Congress:

In the House

The House version (full text) makes an exception for depository institutions (banks) with fewer than two million credit cards in circulation. It also comes with various clarifications to make sure that the new law doesn’t apply to banks and creditors who haven’t punished their customers (many of whom continued to pay on time and remain in good standing) in advance of the new law.

It also includes new features starting at Section 6 which state that:

• if you receive notice of a new fee, and you pay off your balance in full, or cancel your account, that won’t negatively impact your credit score
• there will be a nine-month moratorium on rate increases with a start date of the enactment of the Credit CARD Act of 2009

If these amendments pass, the moratorium would start December 1, 2009, instead of nine months after the law was passed, on about February 22, 2010.

In the Senate

The Senate version (full text) includes no additional clarifications or amendments, only a date change to December 1.

Flexo and I don’t agree on everything (if everybody did, life sure would be boring), but we agree that Congress should pass each idea into law based on its own merits, and not bundle them together into a jumbled mess of unrelated ideas. In this case, if you want to expedite a law, then document the new date and move on. Now’s probably not the time to be adding new regulations.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009

When Mint and Intuit announced the latter would be acquiring the former, the Quicken team and Aaron Patzer, the CEO of Mint, now a vice president of Intuit’s personal finance division, claimed that their two similar online product offerings, Mint and Quicken Online, would continue to co-exist. This made little sense to me.

In fact, I asked, “How long will it continue to make sense to maintain two highly similar services under one roof?”

We now know the answer is, “Not long at all.” The acquisition has passed regulatory requirements and is now official. With this news, Intuit has also announced that Quicken Online will cease to exist within six to nine months. This phase out will move Quicken Online users over to the Mint software.

It makes more business sense for Intuit to consolidate these similar product offerings, and I figured that in time either this would be the case or Mint’s software would be re-branded with the “Quicken Online” name.

I am not a heavy user of either Mint or Quicken Online. I prefer the desktop software. With Patzer heading the development of the desktop software as well, I expect some improvements in a year or so with the next or subsequent yearly release.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Quicken Online Users Will Be Migrated to Mint

It’s official. Today President Obama will sign a bill into law that extends the $8,000 First Time Home Buyers’ Tax Credit, recently set to expire on November 30, until April 30 next year. The tax credit, originally part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was intended to stimulate the real estate industry, and Congress has been talking about extending the credit for months.

1.8 million home buyers have qualified for the $8,000 first time home buyers’ tax credit so far or will qualify by the end of November. According to the National Association of Realtors (who have a vested interest in seeing the credit be extended and expanded) says 335,000 of those home buyers would not have purchased a new house if not for the credit.

With house prices still lower than their highs and not much activity in the market, the industry wants more stimulation. And the industry is getting more than the $8,000 stimulus. Formerly, the tax credit was available only to home buyers who hadn’t owned a house in the past three years. The new bill adds a $6,500 tax credit for current home owners who buy a new house, and who have lived in their current house for at least five years. The extensions comes at a cost of $10.8 billion over 10 years according to the Joint Committee on Taxation

In order to qualify for either credit, the purchase contracts need to be signed by April 30, 2010 and the closing must take place by June 30, 2010. The value of the purchased house must be less than $800,000. There is an income limitation as well, but it has been increased with the passing of this bill into law. If your adjusted gross income is above $125,000 (single filers) or $225,000 (joint filers), the maximum credit you are allowed to claim is phased out.

The extension of the home buyers’ credit was included within H.R. 3548 (Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009), a bill which increases unemployment benefits for Americans for up to 20 weeks.

Do you think this extension is a good idea or with the economy beginning to improve, should we cease creating more stimuli?

Photo credit: pnwra

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

President Obama and Congress Extend the $8,000 Home Buyers’ Credit

Although it’s a little late this month, it’s now time to share my personal finances. I’ve been doing this roughly every month since Consumerism Commentary started in July 2003. I did recently make one important change — I am no longer counting my “business” bank accounts in my net worth. I’m trying to separate my business, which consists mainly of Consumerism Commentary, from my personal accounts.

October was an interesting month. I traveled to my brother’s wedding in California, so there were a number of extraordinary expenses related to the event. I do have some good news, however. The IRS has approved the reclassification of my side business from a sole proprietor LLC to an S-Corporation. this should result in a refund of over $8,000 from my 2008 tax payments.

It could take a while to receive the refund, so I’m not planning anything for it yet, but it will most likely stay in a savings account for a while.

Here are the numbers.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Personal Balance Sheet, October 2009

The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) is setting up a new division to oversee new financial products, and this group is starting with target date funds. These are mutual funds usually taking the form of baskets of other mutual funds, designed to target a certain year of retirement. As the year approaches, the fund automatically changes asset allocation, usually between stocks and bonds, to become less risky.

I’ve pointed out some of my concerns with target date funds here before. Mainly, they could be too conservative and it’s easy to hide fees. Mary Schapiro, the head of the SEC, pointed to the exchanges from stocks to bonds. The cost of the sales and purchases is buried in the daily price of the target date fund, and there is currently no good way for customers to understand how much they are being charged for the re-balancing of the portfolio they could do on their own.

Schapiro also noted that there is no standard across companies. A target date fund designed for those who plan to retire in 2050 with one fund manager may have a different allocation between stocks and bonds than a 2050 target date fund with another fund manager.

Here is a comparison of the asset allocations for the funds designed for those retiring in 2050 from Vanguard, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price.

The variation seems small but could have an significant effect on returns by retirement in 2050. If target retirement funds were standardized across companies, customers could accurately and easily compare returns between fund managers, understand the level of risk, and have the opportunity to make better investment decisions.

I am not convinced there is a need for this. Any fund’s composition is described in detail in the prospectus and in on a multitude of financial data websites like Yahoo Finance and Google Finance. What isn’t clear are the true fees. We do know that Vanguard’s fee for their 2050 fund is 0.19%, Fidelity’s is 0.82%, and T. Rowe Price’s is 0.79%, but that only tells part of the story. Whenever there is turnover — stocks are sold and other stocks, bonds, or other investments are purchases — fees are generated but wrapped tightly into the daily price of the fund so it is barely noticeable.

Asset re-allocation is the purpose of target date funds. Even if the underlying funds, those in the basket, are low-turnover index funds, the managers may be rearranging the index funds in the basket often. For those disciplined to handle the responsibility of occasional re-balancing themselves, and it’s not that difficult, I suggest avoiding target date funds.

Target date funds have lots of fans because it’s a form of automation, and automation in finances is usually a good thing. There is a danger of automation leading to complacency and a false sense of security. If you choose target date funds, familiarize yourself with the details and evaluate whether the pre-packaged re-allocation system is worth the thousands of dollars or more you could be losing in hidden fees and with a risk profile that doesn’t match your income needs and tolerance.

Would you like to see target date funds standardizes so a “2050 Fund” from one company matches a “2050 Fund” from another company? or should companies be left to determine what strategy is best for their customers?

Photo credit: viZZZual.com
‘Target Date’ Funds Get Senate Scrutiny, Daisy Maxey, Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2009
SEC to look at retirement investing risks, Marketplace, November 3, 2009

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Should Target Date Funds Be Standardized?

This is a guest article by Scott Treadwell, a long-time Consumerism Commentary reader and graduate student at the University of New Hampshire. Scott is studying finance and is conducting a study in behavioral finance. Please look for the survey below and help Scott conduct his study.

We are only a year removed from the greatest financial crisis that has been seen since the Great Depression, and many voices have vowed reform throughout the industry and have assured us that these events would never happen again. The world of academia, however, needs to catch up to reality. As our engine of intellectual innovation, they should be on the cutting edge, but the same flawed precepts that have been taught to our business and finance students over the past twenty years continue to be taught (although the smart instructors will deliver the material with a caveat).

The standard methodology has been the Efficient Market hypothesis. Since news and information is so prevalent, academics assume the massive army of savvy investors that are active in the financial markets will instantly price the stock at the appropriate value. Given that assumption, most variables in the financial markets including human error are factored out and statistics are easily utilized to measure risk.

However, factoring out the human element was a mistake. Humans are the actors who analyze stocks and choose to buy, sell, or hold, thus determining the stock price. This is true whether the investor is an individual trading in her own account or a manager of a large mutual fund or trust. Based on recent events, it became clear that these three key assumptions surrounding efficient markets were incorrect:

1. Prices DO NOT reflect all available information. Not all information that is acted upon is available to the public. Frequent and chronic insider trading nullifies this effect. The problem is not just Wall Street; corporate executives and employees with a shareholder interest in their own company can, and do, cash out before unfavorable information becomes public, although few get caught.
2. Public information IS NOT always interpreted correctly. For example, many companies’ exposure to Mortgage Backed Securities was clearly stated in their financials, however that was determined to not be a problem until default rates skyrocketed. Some in the financial community warned that the level of risk was being underestimated for years, but inertia trumped their few voices and valuations remained unchanged, and wrong.
3. Human Beings are NOT rational actors. Many precepts of economics are based on the assumption that the average human will optimize his economic interest at any given time by making the optimal decision. If this were the case, impulse consumer buying, groupthink, and stock market booms and busts would never happen. This is like saying that when there is a fire in a crowded theater, people will calmly line up in the reverse order of their seating arrangement and orderly file out of the building because they know this behavior is in their best interest. The concept sounds ludicrous in that context, so why is it applied to financial markets? People panic due to fear, they over-extend themselves due to greed, and they make foolish decisions. In other words, they behave like humans, not robots.

Enter the field of behavioral economics and finance, one that has been on the fringes of academia for many years. Once viewed as a disparate group of contrarians who analyzed strange aberrations in the market, their work was discounted by mainstream. However, in light of recent events, academics and investors are paying new attention to this field and the body of research conducted over the past several decades.

So what is behavioral economics? Essentially, it is study of trading behavior that is not rational. The trading behavior of humans is analyzed to gain insight about financial markets and to account for deviation from normal behavior. Here are some examples of these unique trading patterns:

• emotional or vested attachment to stocks
• panic selling and impulse buying
• recency effect (you are more quick to sell a stock you just bought rather than one you have owned for awhile)
• disposition effect (people are more willing to sell stocks that increase in value and hold the stocks that decrease losers)

Now the next question is, why do you care? Accepting where we went wrong is the first step, however everyone from finance professors to Wall Street professionals need to understand how the forces in play that can shape the investment environment now and in the future. If non-rational human behavior is truly a large factor in the market, we need to be aware of it and consider it as we formulate our individual investment strategies.

In order to gain some more insight about individual behavior, I have a quick survey about your trading habits. It’s quick, easy, and totally anonymous. The goal is to gain as much input as possible. Five minutes of your time will yield great results which I will be happy to share with Consumerism Commentary readers once the data and reports are available.

Please complete this anonymous survey.

Editor’s note: I completed the survey in under two minutes. Please take a moment to complete the short questionnaire and help Scott, a graduate student, complete his research study and earn his Master’s degree. ~ Flexo

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Quick Survey: What Drives Your Trading Decisions?

While I was in California this past week, I spent a few days at my brother’s new apartment before his wedding this past Saturday. Among the piles of books not yet placed into a bookcase was something familiar: I Will Teach You to Be Rich by Ramit Sethi (review here). Ramit is a colleague of mine, a personal finance blogger who published a book that quickly became a favorite.

How Ramit saved my brother

My brother, who we’ll call Stewie for the sake of anonymity, is both a systems administrator and a musician; he earned good money from a day job which he then used to help fund his band’s national tour last year. But tours are expensive and money runs out. When I asked, he credits Consumerism Commentary and Ramit’s book with helping him get his finances in order and out of debt from the tour, and I think he mentioned Consumerism Commentary only to be nice. Stewie is an avid reader and has read a number of other books about basic money management and investing but I Will Teach You to Be Rich is the only one he feels provided concrete advice and suggestions for being smart about money.

I know Stewie was truthful because when he gave me a check to pay for the restaurant hosting his wedding ceremony and reception, the check was drawn from a Schwab Bank Investor Checking account, an account recommended several times throughout Ramit Sethi’s book.

The six-week “Boot Camp”

Today Ramit Sethi is releasing a new project. He has created a “Boot Camp,” a six-week program designed to empower participants to make better financial decisions. Through the Boot Camp, Ramit places participants with similar financial goals together and provides them with the tools, information, and most importantly, the motivation to get started and the group accountability to maintain action.

Here is how it works. At the start of each week, participants receive excerpts from I Will Teach You to Be Rich with additional content and worksheets. This is followed with a webcast, a video discussion on the week’s topic, downloadable so you can watch or listen on your iPod or computer when you have time. Each week will also feature special guest speakers including Andrew Jolls (ex-executive of FICO and founder of VideoCreditScore.com), Charlie Hoehn (author of Recession-Proof Graduate), and Chris Guillebeau (traveler and author of The Art of Non-Conformity). A complete curriculum including guest speakers is included below.

If Ramit had created the Boot Camp one year ago, I would have recommended the program to my brother. And this is coming from someone who was originally a skeptic of Ramit. When he first launched his blog in August 2004, I wondered how a pompous graduate student at Stanford could teach people to be rich without a long history of personal experience being rich. But his writing is captivating, he understands people, and provides the tools for getting things done.

How much does it cost?

At $199, the program might be a bit expensive for someone who is trying to figure out how they’re going to make their next rent payment. I’m confident this program will help a participant save at least $199, recovering the cost of the program, and the tools within will provide a lifetime of benefits. Ramit is offsetting the high price by offering a 30-day money-bank guarantee, so you can participate in most of the program and back out before the end if it is not working for you.

I’m generally a critic of seminars like Rich Dad Academy and Landmark Education, but with Ramit, I know the information will be sound, specific financial advice designed to inspire and motivate, not an up-sell scheme where you have to pay more for the “deluxe” package in order qualify for the useful information.

I expect the next time the Boot Camp is offered, the price will be significantly higher as he tweaks the service to include more materials and guest speakers.

Registration for the Boot Camp is only open through Friday, November 6.

Here is a taste of the Boot Camp, a twelve minute video of Ramit Sethi talking about automating your finances with specific tips for setting up accounts and directing your funds to the right places at the right times. (If you are reading through an RSS reader, you may need to click through to view the video.)

If you want to listen to more from Ramit before signing up, listen to my interview with Ramit from earlier this year. If you opt to join the Boot Camp, come back and let us know whether you like it.

Boot camp curriculum and guest speakers

Week 1: Optimizing your credit cards
Speaker: Andy Jolls: Thursday, November 12, 10:00 pm EST

Week 2: Beat the banks and negotiate for lower bills
Speaker: Charlie Hoehn: Thursday, November 19, 10:00 pm EST

Week 3: Open 401K and Roth IRA
Speaker: Chris Guillebeau: Tuesday, November 24, 10:00 pm EST

Week 4: Conscious Spending
Speaker: Penelope Trunk: Tuesday, December 1, 10:00 pm EST

Week 5: Automation
Speaker: Shannon Sofield: Thursday, December 10, 10:00 pm EST

Week 6: Investing – setting up portfolio
Speaker: Pam Slim: Thursday, December 17, 10:00 pm EST

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

I Will Teach You to Be Rich, a Six-Week Boot Camp With Ramit Sethi

We all have power meters attached to the buildings in which we live, and the little needle keeps spinning around and around, ad nauseum, at least until solar panels become affordable. I recently read a story of a family who managed to install solar panels, and while that would normally have cost over $20,000, with various national and state rebate programs, they only spent $8,000.

Wow. Imagine having $8,000 to spend.

We’re customers of Green Mountain Energy here in Dallas, so our bill payments go toward producing more renewable energy (see the big bathtub analogy for more on how this works). But the hardware is operated by a company called Oncor, which has decided it’s time to upgrade our power meters to be smarter. Oncor worked through some calculations (Surcharge Analysis PDF) and figured that the best way to install them would be to charge the average customer $2.12. Every month. For eleven years.

That’s $291.72 for a new power meter.

Within the last month, a hundred grants were given out to companies making improvements to power meters. The company in our area was not one of them. So residents of DFW are likely stuck with the fee.

On their FAQ about the Advanced Meters, Oncor made this suggestion for dealing with the extra $2.12 per month:

How can you offset this fee? Just replace a 100W light bulb with an Energy Star CFL light bulb and you could save more than $2.30 a month.

That’s cute, and likely true, but I don’t believe we’re still using any of the old style bulbs at our house.

This entire scenario of being charged over an eleven-year period for something that won’t be available to everyone until 2012 would be supremely depressing, were it not for the fact that I’m a big data nerd. I love efficiency, and you can’t improve efficiency unless you know exactly what is being wasted. A smart meter will do that for me.

But what’s depressing again is that I could have this right now, for only $200. The Energy Detective (TED) Series 5000 is a device that attaches to the power control panel on the inside of your house, rather than the outside. Other than that, it does all the same stuff: analyze your power usage in real-time, and over regular intervals, then adjust your behavior accordingly.

I’d be excited to get a TED set up in my house, then walk around unplugging one thing at a time, finding the major offenders, maybe put some devices on a schedule; or find out exactly how much we’d save by keeping the house, say, 2 degrees warmer. Those are just a couple of examples. For all I know, more energy is being wasted when two particular devices are running together for one hour than by running both separately for one hour each. Like I said, I’m a big data nerd.

I’d be very interested to hear your story of using a smart meter. Has anybody had the pleasure, yet?

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Spend Money to Save Money: Smart Power Meters

As of this past Saturday, my brother is now a married man. He and his wife live in California, and I spent Halloween attending their wedding and the past week visiting with my family in that state. I am happy I was able to take a week off from my day job and spend it with my relatives for the occasion. It was a beautiful ceremony and a fun reception and party, and within a few weeks, the new couple will be traveling to Costa Rica for their honeymoon.

The wedding was on Halloween, but costumes were not required.

I was happy to find a great deal on airfare for the cross-country travel. Delta Airlines offered a rate of $250 including tax for the round trip travel from John F. Kennedy International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport. This rate is about $100 less than the lowest rate I have ever paid for a trip for the Philadelphia or New York area to the Los Angeles area and several hundred dollars less than the typical rate.

In order to qualify for this low rate, I had to make a few sacrifices:

• JFK is not my preferred airport. Either Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) or Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) are more convenient.
• When checking in for departure online, I was charged $15 for checking a bag in addition to my carry-on luggage.
• After arriving at the airport, checking my luggage, and proceeding through security, I was directed towards a shuttle bus to take us to our gate at a different terminal.
• On the flight, we are treated to amenities like a full-featured, personal media center but if we want a meal we would need to pay at least $8.
• The seats on the flight offer less legroom than I am used to from other airlines like JetBlue and Continental. By the time I booked the flight, exit rows and bulkhead seats were unavailable.
• LAX is not my preferred airport, either. A better choice for the Los Angeles area, where my brother lives, is Long Beach Airport (LGB). When visiting my mother, I would prefer John Wayne Airport (SNA) in Orange County.
• Unable to check in online in advance for the return trip, I was charged $20 for having a bag checked. I also left a tip for curbside check-in.

Considering the price was half of what I might otherwise pay for a trip to California, I was willing to put up with a few annoyances. Although I like JetBlue, I feel no particular loyalty to any one company. I do not travel enough for frequent flier rewards to have any impact on my purchasing behavior.

Do you have a favorite or preferred airline or airport? Do you stick to your favorites or are you willing to compromise on comfort for a great airfare?

Photo credit: Hong Kong dear Edward

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Delta Airlines: Good Airfare But Not My Favorite Airline

In today’s episode of the Consumerism Commentary Podcast, our guest is Dan Solin, author of The Smartest Retirement Book You’ll Ever Read and other books in the “Smartest Book” series.

Tom Dziubek talks with Solin about planning for retirement.

Production Number: S02E02
Segment Number: 41

To listen, use the player above (Adobe Flash required), download the podcast here, subscribe to the podcast RSS feed, or use the iTunes link. Note: open links in a new window (Ctrl-click or Command-click) to avoid interrupting the podcast.

[00:00] Introduction from Flexo
[00:32] Interview with Dan Solin, author of the “Smartest Book You’ll Ever Read” series
– [00:48] Rethinking investing
– [02:03] Index funds
– [02:50] Exchange traded funds
– [04:19] Using your 401(k)
– [05:37] The value of the dollar
– [08:20] 4% safe withdrawal rate
– [09:14] Dan’s incident with Jim Cramer
– [13:08] Dan’s Golden Rules for Retirement
– [14:35] Fee-only financial planners
– [15:37] Registered investment advisors
– [17:35] Immediate annuities
– [19:29] Setting aside two years of living expenses
[21:35] End

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.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Podcast 28: Dan Solin, Investing for Retirement

It’s not every day that I find a bank account offering more than 2% APY, but as of October 30, 2009, I’ve discovered one thanks to a reader. “Ski Naut” contacted me yesterday to ask about SFGI Direct’s offer of 2.25% APY. I had not heard of the bank, so I looked into it.

SFGI Direct is the online banking division of Summit Community Bank, based in Moorefield, West Virginia. Deposits at Summit and SFGI Direct are covered by the FDIC as you would expect for any legitimate bank in the United States. To open the online savings account at SFGI Direct, customers will need to provide the typical personal information including Social Security number and employment information. The account requires a $500 minimum balance and initial funding deposits are limited to a maximum of $25,000.

For some people, SFGI Direct may be one of the fastest bank account opening processes from application to use. Like a small number of other banks, SFGI Direct allows “Instant Verification.” Most banks still offer only “Micro-Deposit Verification,” or the even more antiquated “Check Verification.” This means that after your application for opening an account is approved, if you link your new SFGI Direct account to an outside bank that supports this feature, rather than waiting two to three days for Micro-Deposit Verification, you can provide your account access details for the linked account. SFGI Direct will securely and privately confirm your account details with the external bank and allow you to immediately initiate your initial funding deposit.

I attempted to use the Instant Verification option to fund a new SFGI Direct account from ING Direct. Unfortunately, ING Direct’s verification process requires the customer to choose ten identifying questions. I don’t believe I set up ten questions and answers at ING Direct initially, so I was relegated to the slower Micro-Deposit Verification. After the weekend, I will be able to confirm my ownership of my linked account and initiate my funding transfer.

With this generous interest rate in comparison to other savings accounts, I have added SFGI Direct to the list of high-yield savings and checking account interest rates. You can SFGI Direct here.

Update: New customers are not currently welcome at SFGI Direct. As of Friday, November 6, the bank has closed its online application and presented this message on their website:

On Friday, November 6th SFGI Direct will again remove the “Apply Now” button from our website. As many of you noticed in July we removed the “Apply Now” button for approximately 2 months. It is our philosophy to deliver a competitive product to our clients.

SFGI Direct has chosen a strategy to slow down account growth by limiting the application process for new clients instead of dramatically cutting the rates on loyal customers.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Opening an SFGI Direct Savings Account Earning 2.25% APY (Updated)

Peer-to-peer lending institution Prosper is offering a $50 bonus for new lenders who sign up for for the service and bid on two loans. Peer-to-peer lending is an interesting way for people to qualify for loans and to lend money to others. In an economy where savings account interest rates are under 3% or 2%, it’s tempting to put cash to better use through these direct loans. There is a possibility to earn much more than you would by putting cash in a savings account as long as loans are chosen carefully and you’re willing to accept risk.

There is something appealing about working outside the banking system. Peer-to-peer lending takes a specific power of the financial industry and puts in the hands of individuals.

I tried Prosper a few years ago. A friend of mine was looking to consolidate his credit card balances, but was looking for a better option that putting several thousand dollars onto one high-interest card. His plan was to apply for a loan on Prosper and use the funds to pay off his credit cards. He would then only need to worry about one payment each month with a lower total payment and a lower interest rate than what he would likely get with a credit card.

When he asked me about Propser, I offered to help him out by bidding to provide a portion of the funding for the loan. The idea of being an investor appealed to me, but unfortunately, the state of Texas prevented him from participating on Prosper at that time. It is my understanding that he would qualify only for an interest rate higher than allowed by the state.

My adventures with Prosper ended before they began. And I won’t be able to get started. As I began to research investing in a portfolio of loans at Prosper and bidding on individual loans, I was greeted by this message:

Unfortunately, at this time lenders in New Jersey are not able to bid or transfer money to Prosper. If you have portfolio plans, they have been paused. You may transfer money out of your Prosper account as they become available from loan payments.

If you reside in a state where Prosper is allowed to do business, consider signing up for an account and qualifying for the $50 bonus. What is your experience with Prosper?

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

$50 Bonus for New Prosper Lenders

Through today, GMAC has received government bailout funds totaling $12.5 billion. The company is asking the Obama administration for $5.6 billion more. One might say that in a true democracy, GMAC would need to ask permission from each taxpayer whose funds would go towards shoring up the company’s balance sheet, a move that would make GMAC appear more stable on paper. But we have a representative democracy, where Congress makes decisions that occasionally reflect the will of the members’ constituents.

GMAC might receive their third bailout. Industry analysts agree that the failure of GMAC would have a devastating ripple effect throughout the rest of the economy. If GMAC fails, so would the companies who depend on GMAC to offer loans to customers, General Motors and Chrysler. The failure of these companies in turn would result in the failures of suppliers and dealers. The government has already pumped so much taxpayer money into these companies that their failure would signal a broader failure of the entire bailout process. Also, GMAC’s total bailout is still less than the financial injections Citigroup and Bank of America have received.

In personal finance, an additional bailout for a failing company would be similar to throwing good money after bad. For example, if one makes a poor purchasing decision while buying a car, costly repairs might be necessary. Rather than cutting the losses and getting rid of the car, one might continue putting money into the black hole, and after time, the money that you spent on the purchase and repairs could have purchased a nicer car that ran without problems.

There is no guarantee that another bailout will save GMAC in the long run.

GMAC is the parent company of Ally Bank, formerly known as GMAC Bank, an online bank that has drawn in more customers with a savvy advertising campaign and high interest rates. The American Bankers Association forced the FDIC to request Ally Bank to lower its rates because other banks couldn’t compete with Ally’s new strength acquired with the help of taxpayers.

If GMAC were to fail, Ally Bank depositors should be safe as long as they have stayed within FDIC’s coverage limits.

I think it may be time to start allowing companies like GMAC, those who require funding from taxpayers to improve their balance sheets and who have little prospect for paying taxpayers back, to fail. There are signs the economy is recovering. Maybe it is time to let the market and capitalism work itself out. Those companies who remained conservative will survive and those who chased bad loans and complex derivatives without sufficiently considering risk will step aside.

Do you think GMAC should receive another bailout?

Photo credit: jim.greenhill
3rd Rescue Considered for GMAC, Eric Dash, New York Times, October 28, 2009

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

GMAC Asking for a Third Bailout From Taxpayers

Here in the Untied States, ING Direct, a banking arm of the large financial company ING Group from the Netherlands, offers more than just high-yield online savings accounts. The bank also offers investments and mortgages, and some of the latter may have been too risky, like those sold and packaged into securities by domestic banks.

ING Group received a taxpayer bailout of €10 billion ($14.9 billion) and the European Commission is forcing the financial company to restructure in order to repay this loan. Part of this deal involves taking ING’s insurance companies public and selling the United States’ ING Direct by 2013.

The effect of this sale remains to be seen. Some time between today and the end of 2013, ING Direct will be owned by another company. This bank was one of the first to operate without any brick-and-mortar branches and the first to be an unmitigated success. When I first started paying attention to my finances at the start of this decade, the recommendations for ING Direct flowed from every information channel. With the highest interest rates in the savings account business, unusually capable customer service, and a slick and functional website, the bank was a favorite among the die-hard personal finance fans at the Motley Fool discussion boards.

More recently, ING Direct has moved from excellent to very good. I still recommend this bank to people who want a hassle-free experience, but their rates are no longer as competitive and their electronic checking account is not the best in class. For those with more money to put in savings, those who would benefit from a higher interest rate, I usually offer additional options.

ING Direct’s corporate message in response to those customers concerned about recent news of the impending sale is that your money is safe. I don’t think safety is the real concern. Accounts at the bank are insured by the FDIC, so even if the bank fails safety isn’t a problem. These are the questions you should have right now:

• Who will purchase the bank and will ING Direct’s core values change?
• If the core values change, will they be for the better (more competitive interest rates, for example) or for the worse (scaled back operations and customer service, for example)?
• What new account fees will be introduced?
• ING Direct employs about 1,200 in Delaware and another thousand more across the country. Will they have jobs and for how long?

These questions will not be answered for some time.

I do not see the announcement of this sale as a reason to move money out of ING Direct now. I will be watching developments closely, however. With the bulk of my savings in ING Direct, I am very sensitive to the fact that they do not offer the highest interest rate available. For years, the bank has counted on customers like me: those who first deposited when the interest rates were high and competitive and who have stayed around as other banks consistently offer higher rates. But I do not owe my loyalty to a company and will be quick to shop around if I am no longer getting a good deal considering cost, return, and service.

Photo credit: diaper
ING to sell Delaware-based bank in [sic] 2013, Eric Ruth, The News Journal, October 27, 2009
Post-Bailout Blues as Europe Orders ING Group to Sell 2 Units, Eric Dash, New York Times, October 26, 2009

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

ING to Sell Online Bank ING Direct By 2013

This is an editorial by Smithee and a plea for your help in shaping the future of entertainment.

At our house, we enjoy some Hulu programming on occasion. Even though during the recent DVR years I’ve become accustomed to skipping commercials, I don’t mind them on Hulu, for these reasons:

1. I’ve only seen one per commercial break
2. They haven’t been suddenly, obnoxiously loud
3. Hulu is free, and so advertising makes sense

And so far, there’s no ability to skip them. I can deal with that, because in an episode of, say, “Defying Gravity” on Hulu, there are five commercial breaks, for a total of five minutes of Lipitor commercials (at first, every episode would play five of the same Lipitor commercial, it was almost funny). I can accept five minutes. That means about 9.6% of a 43-minute show is an ad. That’s fine, so long as the service is free.

But that is going to change sometime in 2010. Hulu is owned by NewsCorp (who owns roughly half of everything), and they have decided:

It’s time to start getting paid for broadcast content online. I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value. Hulu concurs with that, it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business

Anything more specific than this decision is just speculation: subscriptions for what, everything? premium channels only? groups of channels? Nobody knows.

What I propose is unacceptable is this: a subscription fee for any user, for any content, so long as the advertising remains part of the experience. In other words: unskippable ads are no problem, subscription fees for any content are no problem, but both together would be a problem.

You and I have a chance right now to help influence and inform Hulu’s decision to go forward with a subscription model, before we let ourselves get duped.

Sadly, we’ve been letting ourselves get duped for a long time.

Newspapers, Cable TV, mobile phones

Newspapers are filled with advertisements, and they also expect you to pay for each copy. The same is true of magazines. In fact you could argue that any fashion magazine is just one huge multi-part advertisement. So, I don’t read them. Oh, I look at the news online all the time, but between my banner-blindness and various browser plugins, it’s not often I see an advertisement.

TV is a different story. TV used to be just like radio: the good parts were ad-supported, and you also had a station that relied on member subscriptions. Cable messed that all up, and we were too busy with the colorful new channels to notice. A cable company would set up shop in your town and tell you all about the dozens of extra options you’d get for $X / month. We were totally psyched to get MTV and Nickelodeon at our house, but it didn’t occur to me until later than since the cable company replaced our over-the-air channels, we were now paying for something that used to be free. Thirteen free somethings, in fact (UHF was admittedly pretty empty).

There’s an argument that in the case of OTA / broadcast channels, what you’re paying the cable company for is consistent quality of signal. I’d be happy to see some proof of that, in the form of a cable company’s accounting spreadsheet. I’m sure that NBC is charging the cable companies regional monopolies a fee to include their programming, and cable is passing that cost on to the customer.

The mobile phone business model just depresses me whenever I think of it. Here’s how a phone worked since the time it was invented: if you called someone, you were expected to pay for it, but if someone called you, it was free. This makes total sense: the phone call recipient didn’t intend to have that conversation, he or she isn’t really responsible. Besides that, this seemed to work very well for decades, and phone companies never changed it. That is, until we were tooling around town with phones in our pockets and cars. Since it was new and fancy, providers decided to invent a different business model: you’d be paying for calls now whether you started it or not.

As far as I know, mobile phone companies have never had to justify this to their customers en masse.

AOL vs. World of Warcraft

Remember those CDs of AOL software? They were everywhere. It seemed like you’d get a new version in your mailbox every three months, especially if you weren’t even a customer. They were free, because AOL’s business model was a monthly fee for access, content, and software upgrades. And AOL did fine for a long time.

Everquest came along and messed that all up, charging both a monthly fee and an upfront fee for the software, and now WoW players suffer the same fate. You’re paying the company twice for the same things they were going to be doing anyway. What is wrong with us? Why do we enable companies to use more than one business model at a time?

Advertising is a replacement for subscriptions

And vice versa: subscriptions are a replacement for advertising. Advertising is one business model, and subscriptions are another. Employing both for the same product is unacceptable.

I’d like to ask for your help now in spreading this message to the managers at Hulu, so they understand the intelligent way to move forward is to either saddle us with a recurring fee and remove the commercials, or leave the commercials in an otherwise free service.

On Hulu’s discussion forum, there are already many threads decrying the decision to start charging. You could try adding your own voice there, or e-mailing feedback@hulu.com. Another less elegant method would be to add an irrelevant comment on one of the entries at the official Hulu blog. In my experience, site owners are more likely to read blog comments than they are discussion forums, but your mileage may vary.

Hulu’s Free Glory Days Are Official Numbered, John Herrman, Gizmodo, Oct. 22 2009

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Hulu and the Subscription Model

As of October 26, 2009, over 100 banks have failed this year. Most of these are smaller regional banks who, in order to compete with larger banks, offered risky loans and are now facing customer defaults. Larger banks were offered government bailouts to prevent failure, but these smaller banks whose failures are not seen as major risks to the economy are left without taxpayer assistance.

The FDIC covers savings accounts, checking accounts, and certificates of deposit to ensure that customers hardly notice when one of these smaller banks fail. As long as a bank is a member of FDIC, and most are, customers should be confident that even if a bank fails, they will be able to withdraw their deposits within the coverage limit. Predicting the increase of bank failures this year, the FDIC decided over a year ago to increase its insurance limits. In 2008, only 26 banks failed compared to 106 so far this year.

Although there is often worry in the press that FDIC is underfunded and might run out of money, that situation is highly unlikely. The FDIC is requiring banks to start paying their FDIC premiums which have largely been ignored for decades to increase its available funds. The FDIC also has an extensive line of credit with the Treasury, and because Congress will always vote to make sure the FDIC will be able to cover necessary expenses, it is in effect a limitless credit line.

Here is a full list of banks that have failed since 2000. I will update this list as necessary.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

List of Failed Banks, Updated October 26, 2009

A few years ago, I visited the Japanese Tea Garden in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. Japanese gardens are designed precisely to appear natural, resulting in an interesting collision between nature and man. There is a set of principles or aesthetics that guide the creation of Japanese gardens, including the dry gardens commonly called “Zen gardens.”

The basis for these modern Japanese aesthetics has existed for thousands of years and is rooted in Buddhist writings and teachings. However, the full concept of aesthetics relating to these ancient ideas has been discussed only within the past two centuries, as the the traditional Japanese concepts have been infused with the Western idea of art and aesthetics.

These same Japanese aesthetics, the attributes that define a Japanese garden, can be further stretched by the Western mind to relate to other areas of thought. If you are particularly interested in personal finances, as we are here at Consumerism Commentary, you might attempt to apply these concepts to attitudes and behaviors surrounding interaction with money.

Here are seven aesthetics rooted in Japanese culture that can be drawn upon to make us think about the way we live with and deal with money, from personal expenses to investing.

kanso 簡素

Keep your finances simple. The extreme limit of necessity would be to have no other financial accounts but one checking account for paying your bills. Simplifying at this level may beyond the limit of practicality even if still possible. But there is no reason I should continue to have savings accounts at seven different banks, even if seven is an odd number, compliant with other aesthetics.

In addition to utilize as few banks as possible, simplify your investment accounts. Keep your investments in one account in one index fund or target retirement fund that matches your risk profile. This also makes it much easier to evaluate your asset allocation to ensure your investments on the whole match your tolerance for risk.

There is rarely a need to have more than one credit card for your personal matters. Zero is an even better number.

Simplicity in all financial matters is an attainable goal.

seijaku 静寂

Managers of actively managed mutual funds earn their pay by buying and selling investments frequently. Index funds take the opposite approach by matching a stock index, adding or removing stocks only when the index does, which is rarely. Index funds embody this concept of stillness. Unnecessary activity, like stock trading, makes the stock broker rich while you’re adding risk and decreasing your chance of beating an index fund’s performance.

Keeping your wealth still and motionless allows time to have a chance to cultivate it. The effect of compound interest increases when you let it work for decades.

If you’ve simplified your finances down to a small number of accounts, you can further keep your money motionless by removing the necessity of transferring funds from one place to another. The 0% balance transfer game or otherwise moving your credit card balances from one card to another is in direct conflict with this aesthetic.

datsuzoku 脱俗

Break free from your possessions. We buy things because they reflect who we are or who we want to be, but no thing can be a true reflection of a self. Not only do material possessions drain you of funds that could be spent on necessities, but you will have less money for sharing with others within and outside of your family.

Break free from conventional thought and following the bandwagon. You are free to be your own person and find your own path. You should never feel trapped in a job or a career. Even a steady bi-weekly paycheck is a pattern that could be broken without fear. With creativity, draw income to you through something unexpected.

Don’t confine yourself to your budget. The ultimate way to grow wealth is to spend less than you earn, so as long as that continues, you can break free from your budget and enjoy flexibility without too much worry.

koko 考古

Focus on the bare essentials. Add something to your life only if it has a functional purpose and fills a need. This concept is a nod to frugality and sparsity. For example, do you need three televisions, one for each large room in your house? Do you even need one television when you can find entertainment, including comedy, nature, and drama — possibly even crime-focused drama — for free, by sitting in a park and watching other people interact? Wouldn’t it be more fulfilling to visit a National Park than to sit on your couch and watch a documentary about it?

Decide what in your life is not essential and eliminate it. If something does not add value more than or equal to its expense, consider it a candidate for elimination. I think immediately of the interest that you pay on a credit card balance. Once you pay interest, you’ve paid more than the value of whatever you’ve purchased with the credit card. If you decide a $1,000 television brings $1,000 worth of value into your life, then it may be worthwhile. But if you put that on a credit card and pay the balance and interest over time, the new question is whether that $1,000 television added $2,000 worth of value into your life.

shizen 自然

You should represent yourself to the world truthfully and without pretense. There is no need to purchase expensive cars and houses when necessity allows for lesser purchases. Don’t concern yourself with “keeping up with the Joneses.” Without the need to show the world you have more money than you really have, you will lose the desire to buy more than you can afford. As a result, the chances of falling into the trap of debt from unnecessary spending will diminish.

My thoughts on this are drawn to people with public-facing careers. Real estate agents, for example, often want to project an aura of success. If clients believe that the agent is rich, the clients will then believe that they are successful agents. The natural conclusion is that these agents are successful because they represent clients fairly and offer quality houses. The same is true for lawyers whose business is representing clients in court trials. Lavish spending projects an image of wealth, which indicates to prospective customers a history of successful court appearances.

This is all show and all pretense. Anyone can look wealthy or successful thanks to the availability of credit. You can’t see what lurks beneath someone else’s surface.

Do not cover up all that is natural. Do not hide money or money-related problems from your partner or spouse. Finances should be part of a communication that is open and honest, not hidden beneath layers of creative stories.

fukinsei 不均整

Create a budget, a monthly spending plan that outlines your limits for expenses in a variety of categories that make sense for you. A budget by definition starts out the same each month but will look different by the month’s final day. Life’s asymmetry is natural, and your budget should reflect this asymmetry while maintaining balance. You spend more for gifts as the December holidays approach, so you might budget more for gifts in November and December than you might in June or July. In order for this asymmetry to be balanced, an increase in one category at one time should correspond with a decrease either in another category or at another time.

This flexibility is essential for creating a workable budget. A budget should free you, not trap you.

Balanced asymmetry appears elsewhere. “Work/life balance” is a relatively new concept that is based on this idea. When my employer talks about “work/life balance,” they are not trying to imply that we should spend an equal amount of hours in our life between our career and everything else we do. It is an asymmetrical approach to living a more fulfilled life.

yugen 幽玄

Whenever your personal financial issues are public rather than private, choose subtlety over directness. Do not brag about your successes. There is no need for you to have your latest business acquisition or marriage listed in your college’s alumni magazine. If you give charitably to an organization, you do not need to publicly list your name or the amount of money you donated.

In the business world, there is a movement towards personal branding. It is good for your career to find ways make yourself stand out among your colleagues or among a sea of job applicants. While I would agree that it’s important to protect your identity, particularly online, from anything that might damage your reputation, the best way to stand out is to be the best rather than to declare you are the best.

Let others declare it for you.

A guide, not a rule

While it would be great if all of the above could apply to our interactions with money all the time, I like to look at these aesthetic concepts as a guide. Just considering these ideas and allowing yourself to think about money in a different way can be enlightening. Perhaps you can strive to achieve several of these concepts in your own life, or perhaps you can appreciate this way of living even if you choose to relate with money in a different manner.

Simplifying my finances is one way I can start applying this approach to my life. As I mentioned above, I currently use seven accounts for my savings. Many of these I open so I can review them for Consumerism Commentary, but even the purely personal bank accounts number too many. Do you or would you apply any of these aesthetics to your finances?

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in Japanese philosophy or, for that matter, in personal finance. I drew the above concepts of Japanese aesthetics from a variety of sources.

Photo credits: semihundido, laRuth, DieselDemon, 田中十洋

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Seven Zen Principles to Guide Your Money and Your Life

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast has now completed six months of broadcasts without missing one week. This is as good a place as any to declare the “First Season” of the podcast complete and begin the “Second Season.”

In the premiere of Season 2, Tom Dziubek and Flexo speak with Adam Baker, the creator of the website Man Vs. Debt. We discuss Baker’s war on debt and its origins. We also talk about a number of traveling tips collected throughout Baker’s experiences leaving Indiana and living in Australia and New Zealand.

Production Number: S02E01
Segment Number: 40

To listen, use the player above (Adobe Flash required), download the podcast here, subscribe to the podcast RSS feed, or use the iTunes link. Note: open links in a new window (Ctrl-click or Command-click) to avoid interrupting the podcast.

[00:00] Introduction from Flexo
[00:33] Interview with Adam Baker, Man vs. Debt
– [00:58] Baker’s story
– [07:30] Baker’s Declaration of War on debt
– [09:21] Using only cash for variable monthly expenses
– [10:14] Money with family and friends
– [12:00] Investing in ourselves
– [13:46] Baker’s move to Australia
– [16:34] Couchsurfing
– [19:16] WWOOFing
– [20:50] Long-term vs. short-term travel
– [21:50] Staying at hostels
[24:26] End

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.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Podcast 27: Man Vs. Debt and Frugal Travel

Depending on how you get your news, the topic of network neutrality can seem boring, or confusing, or both. Possibly you haven’t yet heard about it, or you’ve already formed an opinion. The reports I see are too often complicated, lacking reasoned arguments and full of hyperbolic guesses as to what the future might hold. Not to mention that both supporters and critics say that their side is the one promoting “freedom”. I’ve read all the boringly-written PDFs about the FCC’s new guidelines for you, and here’s what it means.

Same as it is now

Enacting an official policy of network neutrality means that the Internet you use now will not change. Broadband providers have ideas about limiting access to some content for customers who don’t pay as much, or aren’t on their networks.

As the specific FCC guideline is written:

broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications

Without Net Neutrality

For example, imagine if you needed to be a Verizon FiOS subscriber in order to access www.startrek.com. Star Trek fans who didn’t have FiOS would throw a fit (those same Star Trek fans might recall this actually happened on AOL many years ago). As an alternative, the owners of www.startrek.com work out a deal with the other big broadband companies and they say, “okay, fine, you can have access to it, but your broadband bill will be $5 more per month”. Meanwhile, FiOS subscribers aren’t paying $5 a month for the Web site. Sound fair?

Here’s another made-up example of a world without net neutrality: you have AT&T broadband at home, and a Sprint mobile phone through work. Your company uses Google Apps, but AT&T decides they don’t like Google, so you can’t get to your work e-mail from home. Does that sound like a good idea to you? If you’re against that idea, then you are in favor of net neutrality.

No reason for prices to change

The Internet was built by a bunch of nerdy scientists to be open and accessible to everyone. It isn’t free, because moving data requires paying people to do various jobs. At my house, we’re paying about $60 / month for some very fast Internet. Critics of net neutrality claim that “new rules” will force providers to raise prices. But remember, neutrality is what we have now, as it’s been regulated by the FCC in the past on a case-by-case basis, so there’s no logical reason to raise prices for anyone. Besides, $60 a month is almost highway robbery as it is.

Internet providers charge more for faster speeds, and less for slower speeds. Critics of neutrality want to invent new ways to charge people in addition to this one simple rule.

Regarding congestion and illegal activities

The FCC’s published guidelines (they’re just getting started writing the actual rules), make exceptions that give Internet providers the ability to manage network congestion and prevent illegal activities. So if you’re on cable, and you’ve got neighbors downloading (and uploading) 68 gigabytes of Star Trek movies, providers can find a way to stop your speeds from being negatively affected. The new rules do not prevent throttling, and they do not encourage illegal activities.

Avoiding an ugly fight

I’m speculating here, but ensuring network neutrality will also mean side-stepping huge Public Relations nightmares for broadband companies. I think a provider has the right to consider limiting access to certain content or applications, and I think it would be massively stupid of them to go through with it. Millions of people would be instantly enraged.

Back when you needed to be an AOL subscriber to access www.startrek.com, they got complaint after complaint, and it was less than a year before access was returned to everyone. Why would anyone want to go through with that again?

Preserving a Free and Open Internet, at the FCC’s OpenInternet.gov web site (which is accessible to everyone)

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Net Neutrality Simplified

The executives of these companies had to see this coming. When a company is “too big to fail,” it becomes a public institution in senses of the phrase but the most literal. And for a number of banks and other financial companies in the past year, the public has become a partial owner thanks to infusion of cash from the government bailouts.

A company has a responsibility to do what is in the best interest of its stakeholders. For these bailed-out companies, taxpayers hold more of that stake than ever before. Those who own shares of stock in these companies want nothing more than the companies to be self-sustaining and profitable, but taxpayers, all who have lent money to the companies to help prop up their balance sheets and create liquidity, just want these loans paid back regardless of profit.

The government officially represents the taxpayers, not the shareholders, but you can be sure the government wants to see these companies profit, too. The Obama administration’s “pay czar,” Ken Feinberg, is going to determine the compensation for the highest 25 paid individuals in each of the companies that have not yet repaid government funds. The new compensation plans would reduce total pay by an average of 50% per individual and would reduce the cash portion of pay by an average of 90%.

This could benefit both taxpayers and shareholders in the short term:

• Pay reductions create an incentive for companies to pay back the taxpayers and become fully private.
• Lowering pay lowers companies’ expenses so they can report bigger profits in their quarterly an annual financial statements.

The challenge with government-mandated compensation restriction is that executives and boards of directors believe that bailed-out companies will be less appealing to the best and brightest talent. Corporate leaders who find they can only earn $40 million at Company A but could earn $80 million or more by moving to a company not partially controlled by the public might defect for greener pastures.

That sounds like a solid threat, but it’s not likely on a large scale. There are enough talented and qualified senior-level executives out there who would be happy to take the reins of a company partially owned by the government. At least, that is what Ken Feinberg is hoping.

It’s unlikely taxpayers will see bailed-out companies repay all of the money that they received. The government’s job right now is to get back as much of those funds as possible while still, to a point, preventing the companies from failing.

Photo credit: epicharmus
Wall Street Pay Cuts Stoke Debate About Washington’s Reach, Julianna Goldman, Ian Katz and Robert Schmidt, Bloomberg, October 22, 2009

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Pay Czar Ordering Bailed Out Companies to Reduce Pay

Investors make better decisions when they separate emotions from the thought process, but it’s practically impossible to achieve the goal in perfection. Regardless of how hard one tries, emotions will always be present. The best an investor, or anyone who makes decisions about finances, can achieve is awareness of the ways psychology prevents optimal decision making.

I took Kiplinger’s new investor psychology quiz, which focuses on the ways investors’ brains work against us as we try to make solid investment decisions. I answered seven of the eight questions correctly. The quiz was a good reminder of the brain’s subtle ways of changing perception and understanding of a situation.

Here are some interesting aspects of psychology that hinder the best decision-making.

Recency effect

We tend to remember better events that happened most recently. While at the peak of a bubble, like we’ve seen in real estate and stocks, several years of increases hide the reality that bubbles burst when high prices are not supported with fundamental value. Likewise, if you are asked to review your experiences at a restaurant, even if you have visit that restaurant for decades, your most recent experience at that venue will have the most weight.

Here’s how this can damage you: In the midst of a recession, it seems like the stock market keeps getting lower. All we see is bad news like financial scandals and corruption. We forget that over the long term, the stock market has been the best way to grow your money. So we abandon the stock market and miss out on those gains when the economy rebounds.

Confirmation bias

There are certain things we want to believe. Several years ago, a friend told me that “real estate always goes up.” There’s the recency effect again. Also, to believe that any investment can’t fail, we must ignore information that does not fit in with that philosophy. We seek out the studies or opinions that match our own as we look for confirmation.

Here’s how this can damage you: If you are looking to buy a house, it would be smart to look for reasons that the purchase will be financially sound over the long term. You will cite the usual positive aspects of home purchasing, including the fact that it’s an asset likely to appreciate and you receive a small tax break on mortgage interest, but you’ll likely ignore the fact that you’re likely to move out of the house before buying gains its advantage over renting.

Losing money is painful

The brain reacts to losing money the same way it reacts to pain. As pain is something we are built to avoid, we also try to avoid any potential for losing money. On the surface, this sounds like it would be a good thing, producing decisions that are more likely to side with gaining rather than losing. What really happens is that if we are presented with a situation where we have an even chance of winning $150 or losing $100, we won’t take the chance.

Here’s how this can damage you: The fear of losing money and experiencing the associated pain will keep us from taking risks. For people invested in the stock market, the pain experienced when reading those quarterly statements with negative returns causes many to sell at the wrong moment. They’ll miss out on the market’s rebound. While the stock market has a great track record over long periods of time, if you’re only invested when the market is decreasing, your performance will never match the stock market.

Want more? Here’s a list of cognitive biases. Just about everything pertains to financial decisions in some manner.

Photo credit: Martin Pettitt

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Investor Psychology: Why We Fail to Make Good Financial Decisions

We told you last month about banks deciding to let customers opt out of overdraft fees, first announced by Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase, and then the next day by Wells Fargo (and Wachovia, which it owns).

These big banks made the changes very soon after lawmakers announced an intention to try to regulate the extent to which customers are punished for spending money they don’t have.

Here’s a summary of the changes already made:

* Fee will also be charged for overdrafts maintained longer than 5 days, regardless of balance.

Not satisfied, Senator Chris Dodd is still pursuing a new law that will enforce some limits on all banks.

Proposed legislation

The law introduced yesterday aims to prevent:

• more than one overdraft fee per month;
• more than six overdraft fees per year;
• fees that are more expensive than the cost of processing an overdraft;
• banks from manipulating the order in which they post transactions in order to rack up extra fees;
• fees if an overdraft is due solely to a bank hold, such as the hold placed on funds when reserving a hotel, if the hold is greater than the actual amount of the transaction; and,
• enabling overdraft protection on customers who don’t explicitly sign up for it.

In addition, automated bank systems (SMS, e-mail, etc.), ATMs and bank tellers would be obligated to warn a customer if they were in danger of going negative (presumably with the current transaction), and be given the option to avoid that result.

Analysis

Opt-in

I am all in favor of “opt-in”. I want opt-in everything, but as we saw when Windows Vista was new, it’s maddening to be asked for your permission after initiating every single activity. Some things are perfectly innocent and should be opt-out instead. Frankly, I find it thrilling that for the first time, customers can opt out of overdraft fees. Apparently, it took the threat of new legislation to prod banks into introducing this, so sure, let’s make it all consistent.

Fee instances per year, and per month

One overdraft fee per month and six per year seems arbitrary to me. If I had to guess, I’d say this is related to the fact that banks stand to earn over $38 billion this year on overdraft fees, and they weren’t in danger of losing anywhere near that much from accounts which went negative and then stayed that way.

But I’m enough of a capitalist to admit that it seems wrong to limit profits just because it can be done, which this seems to smack of. When the full text of the bill is available, I’ll try to find more about where these numbers came from.

Fees more expensive than the cost of processing

To be sure, it’s part of a bank’s operation to process an overdraft, deal with a negative account, and pay the salaries of people who write the software and maintain the literal and figurative machinery.

But as was explained to me while working the phones at Bank of America, part of the fee is also meant to dissuade the customer from going negative, and failing that, to encourage the customer to bank elsewhere. Clearly, the fees are adding up to lavish profits at the expense of probably-well-meaning customers. In my opinion, it’s simply not right to profit because someone else fails, especially when that someone is your customer.

Manipulating the order of posting items to create extra fees

This should be obvious as a disgusting practice performed by a heartless behemoth of a corporation.

Overdraft fees because of a bank hold

This also seems like common sense. If a hotel has reduced your available balance by $250 when you’re only going to be paying $110, it’s unreasonably for the bank to punish you for being overdrawn. You had no intention of spending more than you have.

The same is true if there’s a hold placed on a deposit. I’m sure the vast majority of deposits that have holds placed on them end up being legitimate, probably at least 98%. A check made out to you isn’t the same as cash, but why not give your customers the benefit of the doubt, or at least avoid punishing them when you don’t and you end up being wrong?

Warning customers who are in danger of going negative

This just seems like excellent customer service. If a bank truly finds it inconvenient to process overdraft fees, they’d all be doing this today.

Sources

Dodd Introduces Legislation to Curtail Overdraft Fees, Jeff Plungis, Bloomberg, Oct. 19, 2009
Dodd Unveils Bill to Protect Customers From Abusive Checking Account Overdraft Fees, Sen. Dodd’s Official Web site, Oct. 19, 2009
Photo Credit: Tom T

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Senator Dodd Going Ahead With Overdraft Legislation

The unemployment rate for young workers between the ages of 16 and 23 is 18%, and that is an increase of five points from a year ago. That age group includes high school drop-outs as well as college graduates, and for these people the future looks bleak. Adults are taking the minimum-wage jobs teenagers might be offered in other economic situations. Older workers, otherwise approaching retirement, are not leaving the workforce as quickly. The openings for younger workers aren’t there.

The bad news is starting your career in a recession is one of the worst things you can do for your long-term financial security. More bad news is that there is little any one person can do about the economy at large. Here are the numbers, from a study at Yale quoted in the cover story in today’s BusinessWeek:

For each percentage-point rise in the unemployment rate, those who graduated during the recession earned 6% to 7% less in their first year of employment than their more fortunate counterparts. Even 15 years out of school, the recession graduates earned 2.5% less than those who began working in more prosperous times.

Young adults might be destined to be a “lost generation.” Here are some suggestions for 16-to-23-year-olds who find themselves having a difficult time starting their career in this recession and want to mitigate its effects on long-term income.

1. Finish your education

It’s an issue of supply and demand. First, if you have not done so, completing your Bachelor’s degree will have two important effects. First, it will improve your marketability among entry-level employees when fewer open positions will create a competitiveness that ensures that the best qualified candidates will win. A Bachelor’s degree is a gateway to at least the middle class, and that’s going to be more important than ever.

Second, finishing college now will keep you out of the worst of the recession. This will allow you to stay out of the worst fight for jobs, but it has some drawbacks. Delaying the start of full-time income can also have detrimental effects on your long-term income — but if you wouldn’t be working anyway, this isn’t much of a disadvantage. Also, if you are relying on student loans, you will be amassing more debt that will require payoff down the road, perhaps shacking you to a job or career that is not best for you. New student loans have higher interest rates than they have in the past, adding to the pain of debt.

If you have your Bachelor’s degree, consider spending a few years to earn your Master’s or Doctorate degree. Are you worried about being overqualified? Don’t be. As we’re seeing in the recession where many workers are competing for few jobs, anything that helps you stand above the rest will be an advantage rather than a disadvantage. You might want to consider adapting your desired career to one better suited for an advanced degree, however.

2. Become an apprentice

In general, apprentices earn more throughout their careers than those who don’t hone their skills in a formal training program. Traditionally, apprenticeships are common for certain crafts and trades. Electricians, plumbers, and carpenters often get their starts through apprenticeship and there is significant income potential in these fields.

One creative answer is to become an apprentice for a career that does not traditionally fit this profile. For example, if you have musical talent and would normally consider performing or teaching in a better economy, consider composing music for films or television. You can contact a professional currently in the field and contact them about becoming an apprentice. One key to successfully finding an apprenticeship is the willingness and the ability to work for free.

3. Start your own business

I’m not talking about selling your possessions on eBay, but padding your savings account with cash rather than padding your home with useless objects is never a bad idea. Everyone has at least one marketable skill. It may require some time brainstorming to determine exactly how you can turn your skills into a service you can offer people or other businesses.

A recession is perfect timing to start a business, particularly if you can dedicate all your time to making it work (that is, you are otherwise unemployed). Many new businesses suffer because the owner needs to devote his or her time to the day job, a spouse, and perhaps even children. For young workers, the time will likely never be better for starting a business with the ability of giving it your full attention.

4. Save money

As a recent graduate or drop-out, you may have the option to move back in with your parents for a short time. After all, there is a recession and being able to save money on rent or a house payment is worth the temporary shame you might feel for going home with your tail between your legs. This is most likely the biggest opportunity for savings, but you don’t want to take advantage of the situation. Show your parents that you’re working hard to make the recession work for you, and they’re more likely to give you a break. And don’t forget to express gratitude.

Consider frugality as a way of life. In an economy where you have less control over your income thanks to fewer employment options, you can still control your expenses to a point. Take the extra time to determine what you are willing to cut back in order to help your money go farther. Occasionally, generic brands and store brands are good compromises.

Creativity leads to success

Surviving in a recession where it’s difficult to find a job relies on creative thinking. Use the opportunity to rethink your career path. If the acquisition of money has been your ultimate goal, realize that money by itself is not a goal. You may use the opportunity to break into a less popular field with a lower income potential but with a greater satisfaction potential.

Accept that the odds are against you if you want to compare yourself and your bank account against people who began their careers in the height of the economy, people who, on average, will out-earn those entering the workforce right now.

Photo credits: CarbonNYC, roland
The Lost Generation, Peter Coy, BusinessWeek, October 8, 2009

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

New Graduates Facing Unemployment May Never Reach Income Potential

In an effort to attract more new deposits, ING Direct is offering a new savings product with a high interest rate, the “Added Value” certificate of deposit (CD). If you are willing to deposit new money to ING Direct and let the bank hold that money for one year without any withdrawals, ING Direct will pay you a rate of 2.25% APY (as of October 18, 2009). This is the highest rate ING Direct is currently offering; the rate on the “non-Added Value” CD is 2.10% APY.

The interest rate offered on the “Added Value” CD is currently the best rate in the country for 12-month CDs among major national and regional banks. Is this a sign that ING Direct is returning to its roots as the bank that tops the charts for customers who are interested in having their money earn as much as possible while in mostly liquid accounts? I don’t think that’s going to happen; the interest rate on the bank’s flagship Orange Savings Account is currently 1.30%, ranking ING in the middle of the banks who claim to offer “high-yield” savings.

Customers tend to glow about ING Direct’s customer service, which shows that the bottom line is not always the primary, or at least not the only, concern for consumers.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

ING Direct Offers “Added Value” Certificate of Deposit

Tom Dziubek and Flexo speak with Mark Frauenfelder, the creator of Boing Boing and the editor-in-chief of the MAKE magazine. Frauenfelder also writes for Credit.com, and within this interview he shares details about some of this website’s new services including the Credit Report Card (reviewed here).

Frauenfelder is a proponent of the do-it-yourself (DIY) lifestyle, and he explains the source of his interest in this lifestyle as well as details about a forthcoming book on the subject.

To listen, use the player above (Adobe Flash required), download the podcast here, subscribe to the podcast RSS feed, or use the iTunes link. Note: open links in a new window (Ctrl-click or Command-click) to avoid interrupting the podcast.

[00:00] Introduction from Flexo
[00:32] Interview with Mark Frauenfelder
– [00:55] Boing Boing
– [01:50] Mark’s move to the Cook Islands
– [03:59] MAKE magazine
– [05:15] Mark’s involvement with Credit.com
– [08:12] Services offered by Credit.com
– [09:05] Credit.com vs. credit reporting bureaus
– [10:12] Personal information on Credit.com
– [11:21] Improving your credit with the Credit Report Card
– [13:57] Building cigar box guitars
– [15:45] Beekeeping
– [19:21] Upcoming book on do-it-yourself (DIY) experiences
[23:42] End

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.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Podcast 26: Mark Frauenfelder, Creator of Boing Boing