Debt Free

The prevailing opinion in this country seems to be that the economy is crap. In a CNN/USA Today poll taken last week, 55% of those surveyed felt the economy rated a “fair” or “poor”. In addition, almost as many, 54% think the economy is actually getting worse. Are these amateur economists right? Does the average American know enough about the economy to give a qualified answer? Let's look at the Economy Stupid.

First up, the economic statistic that's probably nearest and dearest to most American's heart; per capita personal disposable income, (in 2000 dollars, to compensate for inflation) is up slightly, from $27,254 in 2004 to $27,986 in Q3 2006 (source - US Department of Economic Indicators). Total employer compensation (wages and benefits) in dollars / hr for certain groups is interesting (source - US Department of Labor):

Q2, 2004 Q2, 2006

Teachers 33.58 35.45

RNs 27.04 29.25

Construction 27.28 29.11

Manufacturing 17.77 19.39

Retail Sales 11.00 11.73

Home ownership has remained constant from Q3 2004 to Q3 2006, at approximately 69.0%. It is, however, up from Q3 2000 (67.7%), and Q3 1996(65.6%). The preceding homeownership data was compiled and reported by the U.S. Census Department. Another home ownership statistic that bears noting, between Q3, 2004, and Q3, 2006 the loan to price ratio of residential mortgages actually dropped from 77.9% to 75%. Americans are needing to borrow less as a percentage of the purchase price of their homes, even as the price of those homes continues to climb, in many markets. In others, the long awaited correction may bring homeownership back into reach of the common man without resorting to some of those, uh, creative mortgages.

How are we paying for all these homes? Are Americans working? The unemployment rate for September, 2006, was 4.6%. That's significantly better than we were experiencing in September of 2004, when unemployment was 5.4%. For all you naysayers out there that are saying “That's because they've been unemployed so long they've stopped looking” I can direct you to the statistic for average weeks unemployed. This statistic is thoughtfully provided by the D.O.L., one of the countless statistics they bring to us (It's really an insane mass of numbers over there). In September of this year, the average unemployed person had been out of work for 17.4 weeks. In the same month of 2004, it was 19.6.

The stock market is in rarefied territory, cresting 12,000 for the first time ever. Lest you think the DOW is the province of only the rich, check your 401k or 403b plan. Chances are it's substantially invested in DOW equities.

How about violent crime? While not economic news, this statistic does help to reflect the quality of life in America today. According to DOJ statistics, the violent crime rate (unless you're unfortunate enough to live in St. Louis or Detroit) has been trending down for years. In 2005, it was .21%, down slightly from .211% in 2004. In 2000, the rate was .274%, down substantially from the .416% in 1996.

So, per capita income is up, home ownership is steady, unemployment is down, those that are unemployed are out of work for less time, and the stock market is at a record high. While everything economic may not be hunk dory, it does show that approximately 55% of the American public don't know what they're talking about when it comes to the general economic situation. Where did they get that idea? So much for an unbiased media.

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 07:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

My post entitled "Opportunity" is the featured post of the week in the Young Politics Carnival over at efipo.com. Check out the carnival here:

Young Politics Carnival

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 03:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The 401k is the de facto replacement for the pension plan. When our fathers were working, not only could they buy a brand, new '65 Goat with a 389 tri-power, there was at least the expectation that their company or union pension plan would fund their retirement. Most workers today are under no such illusions. Enter the 401k plan. The 401k is an example of a defined contribution plan, while traditional corporate pension plans are of the defined benefit variety. According to the Profit Sharing / 401k Council of America, about 440,000 U.S. businesses offer 401k retirement plans to their employees. Chances are good your employer is one of them, and you're a participant.

The good news is that you've got a much greater degree of control over your destiny with a 401k than with the old pension plan. For some workers, that's also the bad news. There a few mistakes you can make when aiming for a cushy, 401k-funded, retirement. The big mistakes, and the ones that get the most ink, are failing to contribute and starting too late. By failing to contribute at all, not only are you completely missing the boat on funding your retirement plan, in most cases, you're committing the cardinal sin of leaving free money on the table. The free money is your employer's matching contribution. Much has been written on this error. Suffice to say; don't make this mistake.

Staring too late will case you to miss the boat on the much of the power of compounding. If you invest early, even if you can only manage to set aside a small amount, you'll come out way ahead when it comes time to take the gold watch. It can be the difference between putting that watch in a glass case on your travertine and walnut mantle or heading to Larry's Guns and Loans with it.

The 401k mistake that doesn't make nearly as many lists of 401k mistakes to avoid is choosing 401k accounts with excessive fees. Make no mistake, the 401k is just an automatic investment in a fund, usually a mutual fund. These funds often have fees used to pay various expenses incurred by the fund, such as advertising, and the fund manager's salary. These fees vary widely by fund. You'll find them in the different fund's prospectus your HR manager passes around when you sign up for the plan. It's up to you to use some due diligence to determine which of the choices your firm offers has the best return after the fees are accounted for.

By some estimates, you could lose over 20% of your funds return due to excessive fees. Obviously that can derail your dreams of trips to Europe and that little sports car you've always wanted. What should you look for? Well, when you're examining the prospectus or perusing the Internet, you'll notice three main fees and expenses associated with your fund(s). Before you even get to those, you'll probably have to pay a set up fee to get the ball rolling. Then, you 'll have to deal with these three gems. The load, which your fund may or may not have, is the expense the fund incurs by paying the broker to sell you shares in the fund. They're also known as disbursement fees and commissions. You'll probably also see advertising and promotion fees. These pay for all those really neat ads you see between watching Maria Sharapova'a cute, little ass bounce around as she tries to intercept that passing shot. The advertising fees for your fund(s) should be as low as possible, hopefully around a quarter of a percent.

There'll be another fee you'll be paying. That's the fund manager's salary. Yep, he's got to eat too, and he or she wants to send their kids to the best schools, naturally. So how much of your retirement should you contribute to help theirs? That number varies widely, and it's not always a case of you get what you pay for, either. According to 1998 study by the U.S. Department of Labor, the investment management fee can be up to 90% of the total fees levied against the account. On some plans you may see what are known as wrap fees. These are most often seen on plans offered by insurance companies, and most commonly with annuities. The wrap fee looks at the total asset values of the account and levies a fee based upon that value.

You need to examine the expense ratio to determine how the fees will impact your retirement plan's growth. You can find that listed in the prospectus as well. Take a good look, and compare the different funds you're offered before deciding upon your asset allocation. It may be a good idea to get some professional help. After all, the results of decision you make when choosing the different funds to make up your 401k, could be with you far into the future.

One last note – Do not over invest in your company's stock. You're already tied to them with your job. You don't want to have all your future eggs in one basket.

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 02:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 01:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

With few exceptions, we all have debt. It sucks, but it's true. How you manage that debt is one of the primary determinants for your financial success or failure. You can even use your debt to contribute to your financial success, if you do it correctly. For most people, the goal is to become debt free, and not have to worry about debt ever again. The piece of mind you get from being out from under your debt is worth not using debt sourced capital for investing.

According to the U.S. Treasury Department, at the end of August, 2006 there was approximately $2,351.9 Billion (prelim.) in outstanding consumer credit held in the U.S.. That's almost $2.5 trillion! You can max out alot of Visa cards with that much money. The amount of outstanding consumer credit has been steadily increasing for the last five years, rising from $1,876B in 2001, to its present figure.

Every category has been increasing, although we've actually been financing less, in terms of loan to value, of our auto purchases. According to U.S. Federal Reserve statistics, loan to value ratio on auto purchases has receded form a high of 95% in 2003, down to 87% in mid 2006. This is not a one time decrease, as the figure has declined every quarter since the end of 2003. During the same time period, however, the interest rate we're paying on our auto loans (48 month average term) has increased from under 7% to almost 8% at commercial banks, while actually decreasing at auto finance companies, such as GMAC and FoMoCo. In 2001, consumers payed an average 5.65% new car interest. This dropped to a low of 3.4% in 2003, and is currently sitting at around 5.2%. Much of the decrease at auto finance companies can be accounted for by the proliferation of 0% financing offers major automakers have resorted to in an effort to speed up inventory turns. In addition, in loans obtained through auto financing companies, the term of the average new car loan has increased from 55.1 months at the end of 2001, to 61.9 months.

Revolving debt, such as credit cards and store charge accounts, actually comprises a smaller portion of our consumer debt now than it did in 2001, dropping from approximately 64% to 56%. Looking at the amount of credit card debt held by so many people, you'd think that would not be the case. However, much of the change can be attributed to the disproportionate increase in non-revolving debt from the proliferation of mortgages. To a great extent, the increase has been driven by favorable interest rates. So, even though people are paying lower interest rates on home and car loans, they're paying more in total interest, because the loan terms and amounts financed are increasing.

Back to actually managing your debt. What can you do to ensure you can get rid of most or all of your outstanding debt? What about proper debt management, to enable you to use some of your debt for investing and other purposes? First of all, don't think you're going to use money from credit cards to purchase investments and come out ahead. If you're using 0% cards, maybe. If not, there's virtually no chance you'll come out ahead with this strategy. The average credit card interest rate this quarter is over 14.5%. You'll have to be a pretty astute investor to maintain that rate of return. If you fail to, you'll be heading backwards.

Here are some important things you can do to manage your debt.

1- Pay all your debts on time, especially credit cards, car loans, and most importantly, your mortgage. This is huge. One of the primary ways credit card companies make money is by keeping your interest rate high. By paying your card late, you're playing right into their hands. In your credit card agreement, there are all sorts of terms and stipulations. In case you missed it, there is one that states they can raise your interest rate if you're are late on your payments. The actual terms vary by agreement, but the increase is most likely substantial, and can kick in almost immediately in many cases. If your rates do increase, you'll be stuck paying them on your entire card balance for at least 6 months.

2- Budget carefully and stick to it. It may well require a lifestyle change. Change it. Getting over extended is a sure way to violate rule number one. You'll also make more purchases than necessary using credit if you fail to maintain your budget. Put a line item in your budget for debt payment beyond the minimum payments, even if it is only $25. I, and many other PF bloggers, have made numerous posts on how to cut the fat from the budget and save money on your required purchases. Start using these methods to stay within your budget. You may not have to cut back your lifestyle as much as you think.

3- Roll up the stick, just like the airborne troops do. Start with the highest interest rate debt, pay it off, then take all the money you were paying on that debt and roll into paying debt number two. When debt two is gone as well, use the money from that one towards debt three, and so on, until all your debt is rolled up.

4- Pay off your debts first, then start your emergency funds or other general savings. You may not have an emergency, but you will definitely have to pay interest on your credit cards and other debt. Pay off the debt first, stop paying all that interest, and then put some away for emergencies. Many experts recommend at least 6 months expenses, but for many, that is much easier said than done. You can get a million people to argue with you on the question of paying off debt versus emergency savings accounts. If your credit balance is relatively low, they may be correct. However, if you've got substantial debt, your monthly interest payment is going to sabotage your efforts to save any money anyway. You need to get to the point where you're able to retain some of your funds, not give it to the finance company or bank for interest payments. Get that debt paid off ASAP.

5- View debt consolidation loans with skepticism. For some, they may be the correct solution. You must be in a position in which you absolutely can not lose your primary source of income, however. It's sad to say, but if things ever got really bad, you could default on your credit cards and revolving accounts. Your credit wouldn't be worth a damn, but as long as kept paying your mortgage, you'd be warm and dry. If you take out a large debt consolidation loan and default on it, you're shopping for an apartment. Good luck getting one too, because they'll require a credit check.

6- If you are going to have debt, use it to your advantage. Use the principle of leverage to make your debt work for you. This is not the best plan for everyone. Some people are far more comfortable simply being debt free. If you are a little less risk averse, the money you have in your home is the cheapest you'll ever have, in most cases.

You can use this cheap money to grow into more money. Some financial experts advise using the money in your mortgage by making only the minimum payments and stretching the mortgage out to it's full, 30 year term. If you have enough to pay extra on the mortgage, don't. Use that money to contribute to your investment accounts, start a business (can be extremely risky) or invest in real estate (ditto, but not quite as). You'll benefit from this money as long as your investment return rate consistently exceeds your mortgage interest rate. You'll be getting the mortgage interest tax deduction at the same time, further extending the benefit of this strategy.

Again, this is not the best plan for everyone. Some are better served or more comfortable simply paying off the mortgage early. Do this and you'll have piece of mind, and save substantially in total interest payments.

Remember, manage your debt. You can either make it work for you, or just get rid of it. It's up to you.

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 11:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

There are at least a couple areas that you need examine to get a better picture of the equity that you're considering.

1 - Government regulation. Look at proposed government regulations that may affect your industry, and company in particular, in the future. This is a very broad area that can have huge repercussions. If for example, the firm owns a large piece of real estate that is about to be impacted by land use regulations, that can make a difference in the firm's future profitability. Government regulations can encompass different areas such as; environmental, land use, health and safety, financial, licensing, and more.

In many states (27, mostly in the west), there is a popular initiative and/or referendum process that can give you an additional source of legislation beyond the state legislature. A popular referendum or initiative is legislation that is initiated by private citizens and placed on the ballot for popular vote. You can look on the Internet in most states to find pending or proposed legislation, either from the state's legislative bodies or from the state's citizens. In many states, you'll be able to find bills that are in committee or about to be voted on. A little knowledge here could really help your portfolio. The cost of compliance with certain legislation definitely affects corporate profits and impacts their lines of business. Many industry associations have watchdog groups that are keep an eye on state and federal legislators to be aware of any pending legislation that could affect their industry.

2- The supply chain. Take a look at vendors that supply the industry that you're considering, and their suppliers. For example, if you want to get a better picture of the future of natural gas production, take a look at the production and future orders of companies that produce drilling equipment. See the trends. In addition, you'd want to look at the firms that produce the component parts for drilling equipment. Is demand strong for their component parts? That will give you a picture of what the drilling equipment business will be producing in the future.

If you were evaluating the broadcast industry, you'd want to take a look at orders for production equipment. If a company that made HDTV production equipment, such as Grass Valley (a firm that makes HDTV production equipment), for instance, had reported a large order, you can be pretty sure the company that placed the order is undergoing, or will soon undergo, expansion in it's business. There are places you can look to find information besides the Internet, although that is a key resource. Most industries have trade publications that get you inside information not usually found in the business sections of the newspaper or in general business magazines. Even better, many of these trades are available for free. All you need do is obtain a business license and indicate you have a business need for the publication and many of these trade journals will be sent to you for nothing. I currently receive about 6 that provide a wealth of information on production orders, personnel changes, pending legislation, and other pertinent facts.

In short, make sure you're well informed about not just the company in which you considering tying your future to, but any other area that could affect that company, for it too is affecting your future.

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 01:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Your home; for most people it's the largest asset they have. It's also the largest single contributor to their net worth and their largest single debt, especially early in their mortgage. The majority of people use the equity in their existing home as the down payment for their next. You want the ability to extract the maximum amount of that equity when you sell your home. These three mistakes can prevent you from achieving your goal.

1- Not maximizing the tax basis in your existing home when you sell. It's not just how much profit you make when you sell your home, It's how much of that profit you keep. Failing to maximize your tax basis can cause you to owe federal, and in some cases, state and local taxes when you sell your property. If you will owe taxes, it can inflate the amount you owe. No one likes to be in a position to owe The Man more money, do they. What is meant by maximizing the tax basis of your home?

When you sell your home, if you've lived in it full time for two of the past five years (five years: date of purchase to date of sale) , it's known as your “principal residence”. As such, you can exclude $250,000 of the profit from your federal capital gains taxes if you file singly, or $500,000 if you file jointly. This applies on homes sold after May 7^th, 1997.

To minimize the tax you owe, or make sure you'll owe none, you want to increase the tax basis, that is, the amount that Uncle Sam uses to calculate that profit. Profit is the difference between the amount you purchased the property for and the amount you sell it for, minus any capital improvement costs. It is defined as your total investment in the property. The tax basis is basically the amount you can subtract from the selling price to calculate your profit. Note that regular maintenance cannot be used as an expense in these calculations. If you remodeled the bathroom or added an addition, you should use the cost of those in the calculations. If you replaced the water heater or fixed the window when Johnny threw a baseball through it, no dice.

There are two things many people forget to include when calculating their tax basis. The first is any fees they paid when they purchased the property. Obviously the greater the expenses at the time of the sale, the greater the actual cost of the property, and the lower the realized profit. The second is the aforementioned costs associated with any improvements to the property. To maximize your tax basis, and thus lower the profit used to calculate your taxes, you must maximize the expense side of the equation.

2- Mistake number two is related to mistake number one. If you use a competent tax accountant, you'll probably not have to worry about this one. This tax increasing mistake is incorrect calculation of your taxes if you only lived in your home for a portion of the 2 years. You can claim a deduction proportional to the time you actually lived in the home in the five year period. If, for example, you file singly, and only lived in your home for 18 months in that five years, and sold your home for a $100,000 profit, you might think your deduction would be 75% of the $100,000. If you thought that way, you'd have cost yourself a chunk of money. You actually may deduct 75% of the maximum allowed amount of $250,000, or $187,500. So, your entire $100,000 gain would be exempt from taxes, not just $75,000. See IRS tax topic 701 for more information.

3- This mistake is common, and so avoidable. It is the failure to make your home look like one someone would want to buy. All too often people fail to do what's known as staging their homes. Staging involves cleaning up everything around your home and ridding the property of anything that might be detrimental to the selling price. You want to maximize curb appeal, and make the interior of your home have the maximum amount of appeal to the greatest number of people. The cleaning you give your property should include far more than the average little scrub down. First get rid of anything that might be defined as garbage; not by you, but by the prospective buyer. Many people have tons of crap lying around their home they fail to recognize as such. Sorry, it really is, and you should get rid of it. If you can't bear to throw it away, at least get it away from your home while you're trying to sell it.

You're trying to de-clutter your home. Get rid pictures and family photos covering the walls, and shelves full of nick-nacks. If you've got storage tubs visible, except in the garage or store room, hide them. Many rooms tend to have too much furniture. Get rid of some of it, especially if it's worn or shabby.

After taking out the trash, really clean your home. Not just spring clean, but much deeper. If you can't get stains off the walls, repaint them. While you're repainting, be sure you use a color that will make your home sell. Stay away from colors with limited appeal, even if you think they look just great. If you have what the majority of people would consider strange colors, like purple and gold, walls, repaint them into something neutral, even if they're spotless.

It may be a good investment to hire a staging firm. As the value this type of pre-sale preparation becomes more apparent, an industry has sprung up to provide these services. They are experts in maximizing your home's value for a minimum of expenditure. As an added bonus, staged homes usually sell faster too.

One last tip from those that sell multi-million dollar homes. Have some soft jazz or classical music playing throughout your home. Don't use the radio, use commercial free music from your cable company, satellite radio, or put your CD player on random. Having this type background music playing when showing your home is a technique used in model homes and higher end properties that you can incorporate for nothing, even if your home is far less expensive.

Avoiding these mistakes should help you make, and keep, more money when you sell your home. 

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 01:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

More is great if you're talking about money, sex, Ferraris, or football, but not for how much you use when it comes to consumer products. Okay, so the title of this post is slightly misleading, but there is a way you can get a 50%, or even greater discount on many consumer products you use everyday.

It may seem self evident, but you only need use less of them. Many people tend to use way more than the manufacturer's recommended amount, and sometimes even the recommended amount is too much. Every time you use two dryer sheets instead of one, or use twice the amount of toothpaste, it is exactly the same as if you paid twice the store price for that item. You don't need to make the toothpaste look on your brush like it does on that pretty picture on the outside of the tube. Shampoo is another product people tend to use way too much of. If you're trying to provide jobs to those at the factories that make this stuff, well, more power to you.

Many products don't work any better when you increase the quantity you use past the effective amount. In fact, there are some that actually don't work as well. So, you're really not saving any money. If your floor cleaner says 4 ounces per gallon of water, follow the directions. Don't use eight ounces because you think it'll get your floor twice as clean in half the time! In fact, maybe you should try two ounces first. Many times, using less than the recommended amount works great for certain applications. Some of the people that complain the loudest about the price of things at the supermarket are the worst offenders when it comes to over using them in the home. I know some of these consumers well. These types of consumer products don't constitute anywhere near the largest budget category for most people, but they are significant nonetheless.

Medicine is another area where overuse is not only far more expensive, it can actually be dangerous. Acetaminophen, the pain reliever in Tylenol, is actually highly toxic to the liver if taken in excessive doses. Lest you think that's not very easy to do, the number of cases of Acetaminophen poisoning is actually on the rise. As a safety note, it is especially important to avoid overdosing small children and infants with the drug. If your asthma inhaler says one puff, it doesn't mean you should cause yourself arrhythmia by taking three. In addition, over use of medicines could cause you to run out before your insurance plan will cover a new prescription, and you know how expensive medicines can be these days if you're not covered by insurance, or on the Wal-Mart $4.00 medicine plan.

In addition to the financial cost to over use of various products, there is an environmental cost. You are using more, and thus throwing away more, and at a more rapid rate. Beyond that, you are causing greater quantities of resources to be consumed in the production of these products than is necessary. Let the Green Party member in you reflect on that for just a moment. Earlier this year, a California Air Resources Board (Yes, those same people that require special, California emissions standards for your cars) study done at UC Berkeley, found that the over use of household cleaning products and air fresheners posed a health risk. The study examined products containing ethylene-based glycol ethers, found in many cleaning products. It found the ethers reacted with the ozone to produce toxic materials. I could reprint the study for your edification, but it's 330 pages of abject boredom.

So, let your frugality kick in, even if it goes against your nature. Crack yourself in the hand with a ruler next time you catch yourself pouring, dumping, or popping in too much of something, and start saving more money.

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 01:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As we drift ever more to the left each year, driven by undeserved guilt and misplaced social conscience, the fabric of a unified society that built the nation is slowly being dissolved into a morass of differing cultures. Differing cultures are one of the key factors that built our nation, but these cultures were melded into the nation we call America. This drive to come together and form a single, great nation is gradually dissolving. Those who come here today have less desire to assimilate and haven't the opportunity for immersion in American culture that immigrants had in the past. We are losing our national identity, to the glee of the amateur social engineers who fancy themselves the architects of America's future.

Every nation, no matter how great, has always fallen. Never before in history has there been one that has offered it's citizens the wide range of opportunities that are arrayed before Americans. Let's make sure the offer is always on the table. It's up to us.

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

J.P. Morgan Chase, the nation’s third largest financial institution, calls Jamie Dimon CEO. Mr. Dimon doesn’t throw too much at political campaigns, but what he does give goes exclusively to Democrats. In 2005 & 2006 he made two Democratic campaign contributions. Both were to Melissa Bean for congress. They totaled $3,900. These were the extent of his political contributions.

On the other hand, Bill Weldon, head of consumer products conglomerate Johnson and Johnson has a penchant for Republican giving. He’s given exclusively to Republican causes the past 4 years (and before). Since 2002, Mr. Weldon has contributed $14,500, spread among the RNC, the Bush presidential campaign and, Mike Furgeson’s (R, NJ) congressional campaign.

As befitting his title of World’s Richest Man, Bill Gates of Microsoft is a huge donor. His political contributions trended Republican, but he really spread it around pretty well to both parties. He donated a little over $25,000 to various Democratic candidates’ campaigns between 2002 and the present. Not wanting to leave Republicans out, he gave a shade over $23,000 to numerous Republican campaigns. So far, a win for the Democrats, but Mr. Gates gave the Republicans the lead by giving liberally (??) to the Republican Joint State Victory Committee, to the tune of $25 K. He also gave a nice sum to his company’s PAC, as is the norm for CEO’s. The Microsoft PAC rated $15,000 from Bill since 2002.

Next time you’re popin’ a Viagra for a swingin’ time with the wife, you should know that it was all made possible by Jeffery Kindler, CEO of Pfizer Corp. Appropriately enough, Kindler is a Democratic donor. With the exception of a $1,000 he gave in 2003 to help Orin Hatch get reelected, he’s given only to the Donkey party. Since his 2003 Hatch contribution, he’s given a little over $10,000 to various Democratic candidates. He also gave, again, to his company’s PAC, although they must not rate very highly with him, as his contribution only amounted to $583.

Another CEO who believes giving is good, George David, United Technologies CEO, spreads it around quite a bit. He even gave more than Bill Gates to various campaigns and committees, but unlike Gates, he trended Republican with his campaign contributions. He donated $22,000 directly to Republican candidate’s campaigns, while giving Democrats and additional $21,000. His largest donations were to PACs and committees, however, with $25,000 going to United technologies PAC and a hefty $50,000 going to the RNC. He must want a few Democrats to remain in Congress however, because he gave a token $1,000 to the Committee for a Democratic Future in 2002.

So there you have it. The latest installment in “How the Hell Do the Big CEOs Think Anyway?” I’ll finish all this up in a later post, hopefully still in time for the mid-term elections.

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 01:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

You’d not be surprised to find that Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon-Mobil, gave exclusively to Republican candidates and causes. Well, he did. Tillerson, over the last four years, donated $15,000 to Republican candidates or committees. He slid another 10Gs to the Exxon-Mobil CORP. PAC, which you’d have to believe was heavy on the Republican side of the aisle.

Jeffery Immelt, top dog a General Electric was definitely a Elephant rider, but he was more balanced than Rex. Throughout the last 4 years, Jeff saw fit to shower Republican candidates with a shade over $10,000 in contributions. During the same time period, he slid some the Democrat’s way too, but almost always to Democrat big-wigs. He gave Senator Daschele’s campaign $1,000 in 2004 and Harry Reid another $1,000 in 2003. Also in 2003 he gave Patrick Leahy $1,000. Additional contributions to Democratic candidates totaled $2,250. Where Mr. Immelt really shined, however, was in his generosity toward various PACs, most notably the Bluegrass Committee and the GE PAC. His total giving for all PACs during the period was over $65,000.

I haven’t penetrated the inner workings of the General Motors PAC, so I can’t say what way they may point politically. Rick Wagoner, Chairman of GM must be fan though, as he donated about $25,000 to them between 2002 and the present. His direct contributions were fairly well balanced, but tended to slightly favor Democrats, $6,500 to $6,000 to Republicans. He also gave the RNC $1,000 in 2004.

He must have a special affinity for Max Cleland (D), to whom he gave $1,480. The rest of his contributions however went entirely to Republicans and Republican committees. The “He” in this case is Bob Nardelli, top of the heap at Home Depot.  He’s donated a little over $14,000 to Republican candidates for office since 2002. He gave much larger donations to the RNC, $20,000 in 2004 and $25,000 in 2003.

David Cote, main man at Honeywell Inc., isn’t a huge donor, but what does give directly to candidates campaigns goes exclusively to Republicans. He gave $2,000 to the Bush / Cheney campaign in 2000 and $5,000 to Annie Northrup [R] for congress between 2000 and 2006. As seems to be typical of large business executives, he also donated to his firm’s PAC, with $5,000 donations in both 2003 and 2002.
 

He gave $1,000 to Diane Fienstein in 1999, but hey, nobody’s perfect! That would be Paul Otellini, for the last year CEO of Intel Corp. Other than that, he has made Republican donations, but not many. He donated $2,000 to Orin Hatch’s campaign this May and $1,000 to John Ensign’s campaign in 2004. Other than that, all of Mr. Otellini’s donations and contributions have been to either the Intel PAC or the Technology Network PAC, the combined total of which have been $14,000 over the last four years.

Next up is Sam Palmisano, CEO of computer giant IBM.  He’s another CEO who believes in giving a little to both parties, but making the donations count. On the Democrat side, he gave to Nancy Pelosi ($1,000) and Chuck Schumer ($3,000) from 2002 until the present. To Republican candidates he’s given $5,000 over the same period, including $2,000 to the Bush presidential campaign in late 2003.

There is a trend emerging, but we'll wait and see what the other firm's CEOs tell us in a later post. 

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 08:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

To check this out, I examined campaign contributions given by leaders of the Dow Jones Industrial Average component firms. Information was not forthcoming regarding all CEO's or presidents contributions, however what was available turned up some interesting facts. Fist was that most of the corporate CEO's, presidents and other leaders were not so partisan as you might expect. While they tended to give a majority of their political campaign contributions to one party or another, most spread them around. In addition, most corporate leaders gave a significant amount to PACs and other special interest groups, instead of giving all their donations to one party or another.

They gave quite a bit to both parties, and from many states besides their home states. This leads one to a few conclusions.

1. They freely donate to those candidates where important issues can impact their firms. More research should be done on this subject to back up the conclusion.

2. They know where their bread is buttered. If you want to get things done in Washington, you've got to get someone's attention. More often than not, that someone will be from the party in power, but they'll not stay there forever, and the CEO's know that. They've got to be sure the grease doesn't wear off as the congressional makeup changes.
   

Dow Jones Component Company Leaders

Altria Group Inc. (formerly Phillip Morris) CEO – Louis Camilleri
He really spread it around. In the space of 24 months between the end of 2003, and the beginning of 2005, Mr. Camilleri donated liberally to both Democrats and Republicans.

Nov, 2005 Max Baucus (D) $2,500

Oct, 2005 Chuck Hagel [R] $1,000

Sept, 2005 Bill Thomas [R] $2,500

June 2005 Trent Lott [R] $1,000

May, 2005 Sue Myrick [R] $1,000

Oct, 2004 Altria Group PAC $5,000

July, 2004 Federal Victory Fund $2,000

May, 2004 Every Republican Is Crucial PAC $2,000

Mar, 2004 Bill Jennings (D) $2,000

Chris Shays [R] $1,000

Feb, 2004 Chuck Schumer (D) $1,000

Volunteer PAC $600

Jan, 2004 Mike McIntyre (D) $2,000

Dec, 2003 Steny Hoyer (D) $2,000

Eric Cantor [R] $2,000

Roy Blunt [R] $2,000

John Spratt (D) $2,000

Davis Thomas [R] $2,000

Ron Lewis [R] $2,000

Mr. Camilleri's donations trended Republican, but he also gave significant amounts to Democratic campaigns.

Martin Sullivan, CEO of insurance giant AIG, is a somewhat different matter. Between Mar of 2003 and 2006 he donated almost exclusively to Republican candidates, with the exception of multiple donations to Democrat Thomas Carper from Delaware, totaling $2,000. His total donations for the period were just over $21,000.

Ken Chenault, CEO of American Express, was almost exactly the opposite of Mr. Sullivan. Between 2006 and 2002, his donations were almost exclusively to Democratic candidates with the exception of $2,000 to Rick Santorum and $1,000 to Peter King, both Republicans. He also gave $25,000 to the American Express PAC during this time. His total donations to candidate's campaigns from 2002 – 2006 totaled $24,000.

Ed Whitacre of AT&T must not be the giving type, or he camouflages his donations well. He gave a single donation, $1,000 to Republican candidate for Congress, Mike McCaul in 2004.

Tractor maker James Owen, of Caterpillar Inc. is an exclusive Republican donor. Between 2003 and 2006, he gave a total of $7,000 to Republican candidates, and a further $1,000 to the RNC. He also slid a grand to the Cat Employees Ass'n. PAC.

Charles Prince, CEO of Citigroup was another equal opportunity political donor. Between 2003 and 2006 he gave substantial donations to candidates from both parties, with an edge to the Democrat candidates, but more contributions to Republican organizations. The total donations were the same to both political parties. He contributed $2,000 to the Bush presidential campaign in June of 2003, but that followed a Kerry contribution of an equal amount in May of the same year. From 2003 -2006, he gave $10,000 to Republican congressional candidates while donating $15,000 to Democrats. The CitiGroup PAC was given a little over $8,000. The largest single beneficiary of his largess, however, were the Senatoral committees both parties. Both the RSC and DSC, benefited to the tune of $15,000. The RNC got an additional $5,000.

Long time Coca-Cola CEO E. Neville Isdell donated almost exclusively to the Coca Cola Nonpartisan Committee for Good Government. To they extent they are either for good government, or non partisan, I have no idea. His only direct political contributions were $2,000 to Democrats in the mid '90s.

Charles Holliday, CEO of DuPont, tended more toward the Republican side of the isle, but gave to both parties candidates. He donated $3,400 directly to Republican candidates and $4,000 to Democratic ones. When it came to Party Committee giving however, he was exclusively Republican, dropping a total of $5,500 in the laps of the RNC and Republican State Committee of Delaware.

In a following post, I'll examine more Dow CEO's political tendencies.

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 02:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

First, pause to take this in for just a minute. Wal-Mart is positively huge. It's annual sales are more than Target, Sears, Kmart, J.C. Penney, Safeway, and Kroger combined! In 2003, Wal-Mart sold more worldwide than IBM, HP, Dell, Microsoft, and Cisco Systems combined, by over $2 billion! Until this year's high fuel prices boosted the revenues of Exxon-Mobil, Wal-Mart had more revenues than any other company in the world, and had for three consecutive years. Almost 15% of our trade deficit with China can be attributed directly to Wal-Mart's purchases of Chinese made products. As a contrast, in 1995, Wal-Mart imported only about 6% of its merchandise from overseas. Wal-Mart, by itself, comprises about 3% of the U.S. GDP. You can bet they have the power to affect our economy!

Wal-Mart does have equal hiring practices, despite what you may have read. It hires both U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants. In 2003, the U.S. (then) INS raided 61 Wal-Mart stores in 21 states. They ended up arresting 250 illegal immigrant Wal-Mart employees, although, of the around 1 million people employed by the retail giant at the time, 250 is a very tiny percentage.

Number of Wal-Marts in the U.S.
2006 - 1,123 Wal-Mart stores, 2,142 Supercenters, 570 Sam’s Clubs, 108 Wal-Mart Neighborhood Markets

1995 - 1,995 Wal-Mart stores, 239 Supercenters, 433 Sam's Clubs, 0 Wal-Mart Neighborhood Markets

1985 – 859 Wal-Mart Stores, 0 Supercenters, 11 Sam's Clubs, 0 Wal-Mart Neighborhood Markets

Number of U.S. Wal-Mart Employees
2005 – 1.1 million

1995 – 600,000

1985 – 104,000

U.S. trade deficit with China (U.S. Dep't. of Commerce) -
All dollar figures in MILLIONS!
2005 $ -201,544.8

1995 $ -33,789.5

1985 $ 6.0

U.S. per Capita Personal Income (U.S. Dep't. of Commerce)-
2005 - $34,495

1995 - $23,076

1985 - $14,427

It can be convincingly argued that Wal-Mart has a significant effect on U.S. economic statistics as a whole. There is a direct correlation between the size of Wal-Mart and both the Chinese trade deficit and U.S. per capita income. It's analogous to how the mass of the land displacement that caused the 2004 tsunami was so massive, and in the direction of the earth's rotation, that it actually caused that rotation to slow, lengthening the earth's day.

Now, for the other side of the coin. Wal-Mart has a probably deserved reputation for cutthroat business and employment practices. No other retailer is resisted so fiercely by local citizens and businesses when they attempt to enter a new geographic market. But, for all the hubbub generated by the Butcher of Bentonville, no one seems to realize that, like many other addictions, if you live by them, you'll die by them.

People don't have to shop at Wal-Mart, yet so many do. If the American consumer didn't stampede through the doors to the tune of over 100 million a year, Wal-Mart wouldn't show up in every neighborhood. People choose to shop there, Wal-Mart continues opening Supercenters. It's pretty simple math.

Manufacturers don't have to sell to Wal-Mart, yet they trip over themselves lining up at Wal-Mart buyer's offices in Bentonville, hoping to land the Wal-mart account. Once companies get a taste of massive, Wal-mart generated sales, they have a hard time turning their back on them, even if they should. They're like a heroin addict. Wal-Mart, consequently, is in a position to demand all sorts of concessions, because the firms have now come to depend on the Wal-Mart sales. They make much higher sales figures, yet, in some cases, actually make lower profit, because their profit per unit is so eroded. A classic case of both blessing and curse. They're now in a position to be led around like a dog on a string. Companies need to weigh that before they sign on. In some cases, however, businesses have actually improved because of the demands of the giant. Efficiencies and operations must be improved, or the Wal-Mart suppliers simply can not keep up. This, then, helps the rest of their business.

Thousands complain about the way Wal-Mart treats its employees. The simple solution is: Don't Work There! No one demands you work at Wal-Mart. There is no federal or state statute that compels every citizen to serve 2 years of service at Wal-Mart (just wait 25 years). Potential employees flock to the retailer, despite its reputation for unfair treatment, and the number of lawsuits and governmental actions against it. They don't have to. If people weren't so eager to draw a paycheck from them, they wouldn't be able to pay such low wages or flaunt employment law as they do. Wal-Mart averages 12 applications for every job opening. People have personal choice and responsibility, although too often these days they would rather not avail themselves of it and just complain.

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 02:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

168 hours. It's all you get. No matter how far behind you are, or how you badly may need them, 168 is the maximum number of hours you can cram into a week. Come to think of it, it's the minimum number of hours in a week as well. How you use each of the 168 is up to you. In theory, you'll have a healthy balance of work and family, office and fun. Too many people are not only trying to cram more into those 168 hours than is humanly possible, they're failing miserably at it.

Here is one place where it's possible to be too frugal. There, I said it; “Too Frugal”. It's too often the other way around. Most of us aren't frugal enough, and consequently, waste money. In this case though, you've got to include the value of your time. It seems, in this all-to-busy modern life we find ourselves in, some of us tend to undervalue our time. To wit, they spend hours fixing, restoring, or recovering things that, while they may be technically reusable or repairable, are not really worth the salvage effort. In this day and age, when you can get more for your money in many product categories than at any point in history, some things are just not worth the trouble.

If you enjoy the thrill of taking something that was once a fine example of whatever, and restoring it to it's former glory, that's different. If your idea of a fantastic Saturday evening is reclaiming something that they “just don't make it like” anymore, go for it! That's a great hobby, and everybody should have at least one. If you've found a way to turn a handsome profit on eBay polishing, scrubbing or repairing other's junk, that's a business. Everyone should have a profitable one of those, if only for the tax benefits. However, if you're caught in the trap of spending countless hours making something serviceable that was never all that great to begin with, and doing it only in the name of saving the few dollars it would cost to buy a new or good used one, you're wasting your time.

Time and family are the two resources that can never be replaced. No matter how smart, clever, or resourceful you may be, time is like real estate; they're just not makin' any more of the stuff. You should value your time, each and every second of it. If seen friends and family work all weekend, forsaking family, business, and good football games, to reclaim a total P.O.S. that was dime store garbage to begin with. It's just not worth it. They trumpet the savings, but after spending 9 hours to repair something that only cost $14.95 to replace, one can see they did, in fact, throw their time into the black hole of despair. Even if you work at Mickey D's, that's just not a good trade. Work a couple of extra hours and then spend the other 7 hours doing something that will bring your family closer together, help you blow off some steam, or prove more profitable in the end.

Money does not grow on trees, it's true (unless your investments are producing a good positive cash flow, or your business has a nice recurring revenue stream). But, money can be earned or replaced. You can always earn more of it, often at a higher rate by being more efficient. Time, on the other hand, is a one-shot deal. Once it's gone, there it goes. Kiss it goodbye. So, make sure you use it wisely. For some, repair or replace is a question they may need help answering.

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 01:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Let’s get one thing straight right up front. Saving money and spending money are opposite sides of the same coin. One is your money flowing out to someone else in exchange for goods or services. The other is your money staying at home, in one of your accounts, or being converted to an investment vehicle.

The trap is letting yourself be convinced that by spending money, you’re actually saving it. You’re not. Unless you’re buying something you needed to purchase anyway, you’re just wasting your money. It just requires a shift in perception. Spending is spending and saving is contributing to an actual monetary fund, hopefully yours. Saving is not spending, just spending less.

So, the next time you hear those ads come flying out of your speakers, or see them jumping off the page while you’re reading the newspaper, don’t fall for it. Your finances will thank you for it. Spending isn’t saving.

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 07:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

 To decide how to allocate your retirement assets, you can try countless options; pick amongst the choices yourself, solicit help from your friend that knows everything about money, seek real professional help, hang out at the Starbucks in the financial district and hope to overhear the latest investment tips, or just let your employer take out the maximum allowable contribution from your pay each pay period.  There are nearly as many methods to determine where to put your retirement investments as there are places to put them. How are you supposed to even decide how to decide?

Thankfully, there is more information than ever available at your fingertips. You should be able to find the vehicle or combination of vehicles that will meet your personal criteria. It should generate the return you need while staying within appropriate guidelines for risk and expenses. In my post on June 12^th, I opined why “Boring Stocks Can Be Oh, So, Sexy”. That post dealt with using solid, dividend paying stocks and continually reinvesting those dividends. It turns out that’s a fairly safe way, as investment vehicles go, to generate a healthy retirement fund. Investors such Warren Buffet favor these types of equities. To further sweeten the pot, this method can ensure you have a steady cash flow with which to enjoy your declining years.

 So, how are you supposed to find these healthy, dividend paying stocks? There are some guidelines you can look to for assistance.

1.                  Corporate Health - This is a must. If the company isn’t fundamentally sound, it may pay dividends today, but you may not be able to count on them for the long term. Obviously, counting on an investment for the long term is key if you are looking to them to provide a stable, retirement income. The company should have a history of delivering actual products or services and making a regular profit while doing so. Two important components; a solid free cash flow history and consistent, sustainable growth.

2.                  Value - Look for undervalued companies. These are companies that have solid fundamentals, yet are trading below what expectations would dictate after evaluation of the fundamentals. Often these firms are sequestered away in boring, unexciting industries, yet are extremely solid businesses.

3.                  Realistic Dividend Payouts – If the company in question is paying out dividends way out of line with others industry, you should dig deeper. If they’ve done so for years, while maintaining profitability, this could possibly continue. However, if these payouts are a more recent development, it may signal trouble.

4.                  Solid Executive Team – Take a good look at who’s running the ship. If those at the helm have a history of good decision making and strategy over the years, this has a good chance to continue. Pay close attention to firms they managed before their current tenure. How did those businesses perform before they arrived, and did they improve when the executives in question took over? In this day and age, when executive management seems to have the lifespan of  a snowflake in Miami, you should have a management history to examine that encompasses a previous position or two. If the CEO and other top brass has been in place for many years, and the company has performed well, including dividend payouts, you have less to be concerned about.

5.                  Consistent Stock Price Appreciation – If other investors have smiled on this company in the past, maybe you should too. Obviously, Wall Street has seen something it likes. That’s important, because it shows perceived corporate health, and because the stock price must show consistent improvement in order to maximize your retirement fund. You’re looking for the powerful combination of consistent dividend payments you can reinvest, and stock price appreciation.

If you’re of a mind to roll your own investments, remember, stay solid and look for consistent dividends. As an added bonus, you’ll save on payments to Uncle Sam, as the IRS has relaxed tax rates on dividends down to 15%. You’re most likely paying more than this on your other sources of income. Regular contributions to such investments could allow you to retire in a style beyond what you’ve become accustomed.

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 12:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When will the Bush administration learn that such barbaric practices can not be allowed to continue? We can not, as a nation, continue to sanction such unethical treatment of those that are incarcerated at the military base commonly referred to as “Gitmo”. Why do those in this regime fail to understand that such treatment will only engender hard feelings among our Muslim neighbors? The detainees, often held for years without trial, in many cases only because they happened to be herding goats in a region rife with conflict, carrying only a Kalashnikov for personal protection, have done little to deserve this obscene treatment.

Why must we continue to foist our morays on such innocents? Why must we, the United States of America, for God's sake, put these detainees in such an untenable position? How can we call ourselves a nation when we allow our government to set forth before the detainees such bounty as to cause them to consume, on average, 4,200 calories each and every day? Do we not realize the harm that may befall them if such temptations continue to be dangled before them? The detainees, to protest such inhumane treatment, are on hunger strikes.

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 01:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

“How do you make a small fortune in racing? Start with a large fortune.” Unknown

In yesterday's post there were three things many people do that can cost them a fortune. Well, maybe not a fortune, but they could get pretty expensive. Here are some more behaviors that can contribute to your financial decline.

1. Excessive brand loyalty. Marketing mavens everywhere are cursing my name right now, but it's true. Despite scads of marketing dollars spent throughout the world to influence consumers to exhibit loyalty to a particular brand, in many cases it makes no sense. Are Del Monte stewed tomatoes really better than the store brand? Are they're canned peas any better than Bird's Eye's? Maybe, maybe not, but you should at least find out. Buy what's on sale.

   There are some cases where brand loyalty makes sense, but in most cases you should thoroughly research a product before you buy, and then buy according to the results of your research, at the best price. Many times, service will enter into the equation as well, with good reason. Service is valuable and important, especially if it keeps you from making a purchasing mistake. You may have other reasons for choosing a particular product too, such as support for a local merchant. Perhaps it's worth it to you to buy brand 'X' because that's what they recommend at your local, family owned establishment you're trying to support. You may have many reasons for making a particular purchase, just make sure the label isn't your primary reason.

2. Neglecting to make major purchases where there is a good return policy. Perhaps, despite your diligent research, the product sucks. It happens. Even top rated products can have lemons or be unsuitable for a particular application. You should be able to correct the mistake within a reasonable amount of time (this varies according to the product) buy receiving an in-store credit, refund or exchange. Better stores will facilitate this, requiring only a receipt, a smile, and the product in it's original packaging.

3. Related to #1 above, not researching your purchases. It happens thousands of times every day. People make impulse purchases on products they should have checked on first. Now, impulse purchases should be kept in check in any case, but this really holds true on larger purchases. Good sales people notwithstanding, there is little reason to walk into a store for five pounds of 6d nails, and leave with a new DeWalt 36 volt, lithium drill, even if it is on introductory special.

   You don't need to make this type of mistake too many times a year to end up with a shed full of really cool stuff, and a $5k balance on your credit card (at 12%). Even if you did need the particular item in question, you should check it out before you buy in order to ensure you're making the best purchase. Re; the drill: Was that the best price available on that drill? Is that the top rated drill in the category? Is it really the best item for the particular need? Does the store have a good return policy?

4. Related to #3 above, making any impulse purchases at all. Sit down for just a minute, my quick spending friend, and think about this for just a bit. All those P.O.P displays on the end cap of the check stand are designed for one purpose; to separate you from your money in exchange for something you didn't need when you entered the store. These additional purchases can add up in a huge way. For example, if you purchased a candy bar for $.79 and a magazine for $3.99 only once a week, that would be, including the tax you've got to shell out in many states, over $5.00 a week. That's $260.00 a year in little purchases you barely realized you were making. At 8%, compounded and invested over 30 years, that $260/yr is over $20,500! And you thought it didn't amount to anything. For the sake of argument, say you go to the store 4 times a week, earned 9% in your investments throughout your life, and made $3.00 in impulse purchases every time you went through the checkout line. In the same 30 years, you'd have potentially squandered $49,268!
   

May these few little things to watch for actually cause you to do just that. Next time before you do something, spend something or buy something, take a deep breath first. Now, let it out. Ok! Now you can pull out your wallet, just keep that Visa inside it.

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 01:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Carnival of Personal Finance is being hosted over at Puny Money this week. Check it out...This guy's good!

The Carnival of Personal Finance

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 06:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

1. Caring too much about what your friends think. It's true. Far too many people place a lot of weight on what their friends think. This sentiment comes back to haunt them when they make purchasing decisions. Do you want that new Lexus because it is a well built car, has great resale value, performs well and cradles you in luxury? Or, is it more because a new Camry just doesn't make the same statement in your driveway? Are you more than a bit concerned with how the other parents think when you show up for soccer or to pick the kids up from Taekwondo class?

   I've actually witnessed someone cost themselves several thousand dollars because, in her words, “What would my friends think?” about the brand name on her new plasma TV. She was perfectly happy with the image and aesthetics of the first set, but the brand name was another story entirely. The original TV was a major brand name too, not one of those special, no name, mass merchandise units. Now the more expensive unit did have a better picture and connectivity options, however, that meant nothing to this person. She didn't even notice the improved performance. It all came down to what her friends thought about the name emblazoned on that new flat screen TV on her wall. This is a perfect example of how placing too much emphasis on your friend's sentiments can cost you plenty of money.

2. Paying your taxes with a credit card. Don't laugh, people actually do this. So many people in this country gripe about their tax bill being too high, and then some Americans actually make it even higher with this ill-advised strategy. You'll fork over a credit card premium to use this method, to say nothing of the added cash you'll waste paying the interest on the credit card balance. If it will keep you form paying hefty interest and fees to the IRS, and it's the only way you can avoid paying them, use a credit card. If however, you just spent the money, that's kind of a problem, isn't it. File an extension and put some of your stuff on eBay. Don't run up your credit card balance merely for the convenience of putting your tax bill on your already overburdened Visa.

3. Not contributing to your company 401k plan when your firm offers matching. This mistake is repeated throughout the U.S. on a daily basis. It's most prevalent among younger employees. It's free money. If I set $500 on a table in front of you, would you snap it up? You bet you would. That's what your employer is doing for you, and you should treat it the same way. To see how much this little slip up could cost you, take a look at this example. If you earn $40,000/year, and your employer will give you a 1:1, matching contribution up to 2.5%, you can chip in $1,000 to your 401k throughout the year and your employer will do likewise. If you're 28 yrs old and plan to begin withdrawing money from your 401k at 65, here's what the difference would be from just that first year, assuming a 6%, compounded return.

   That first year's contribution, without company matching, would be worth $8,636 when you began withdrawing at age 65. Had you availed yourself of your company's offer to match your contribution, it would be worth $17,272. If you contributed nothing at all, you'd have zip! So the decision not to contribute that $1,000 and grab the match along with it, cost you over $17,000. If you managed to get an 8% return, you'd have lost almost $35,000 at retirement. If you were fortunate enough to earn a 10% return for the life of the investment, that initial $2,000 would have ballooned into $68,008! That illustrates the power of compounding, how much a small increase in the rate of return will add to your investment, and the stupidity of leaving the employer's match on the table.

   May you avoid making these crazy money mistakes. Your account balance will thank you for it.

Subscribe to Debt Free With Feedburner

Posted by debtblog at 01:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)