PhilMur's thoughts on biz/tech/money/life

Ah, forget the mortgage… but I HAVE to pay my credit card!?

Posted in Personal Finance by phil938 on February 6, 2010

This recent article highlighted the irony in the credit crisis and the home mortgage crisis.  There has been almost endless talk over the past couple of years about mortgage re-works, government assistance to struggling homeowners, and a variety of efforts to reduce foreclosures.

Not that any of these things are bad in and of themselves, but I think it may have planted some ideas in the minds of mortgage-burdened homeowners that were likely not intended.

As explained by this article in the San Francisco Business Times, a TransUnion study found that the percentage of homeowners deliquent on their mortgages but were current on credit card obligations increased, while the percentage of individuals in the opposite scenario (current on their mortgages but delinquent on credit card obligations) increased.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom that individuals will tend to favor secured loans/credit (such as debt secured by a home or a car) over unsecured debt (credit card debt, for example) when it comes to staying current on payments. But this new evidence suggests that the trend is reversing.

Why? There are a few reasons this could be occuring:

  1. The speed of creditor retribution is much slower and much less dramatic with a mortgage than with a credit card.  A deliquent mortgage payment may result in phone calls, but the ultimate penalty (foreclosure and the eviction that comes with it) is literally months away from the first missed payment, and with banks eager to avoid foreclosure in many cases, homeowners know they will likely have many opportunities to make things right.  On the other hand, credit card companies quickly hit cardholders with late fees for missed payments, not to mention the ongoing interest charges on their balance, often which are at a very high percentage.
  2. Credit cards are “helpful” to meet ongoing living expenses.  If their ability to spend via credit cards is cut off, desperate consumers may be unable to buy groceries or put gas in their vehicles.  It makes a lot of sense in the short-term to make a minimum credit card payment and keep the card open for ongoing spending if they are struggling to meet base-level needs such as food for the family.
  3. Homeowners deliquent on their mortgages are beginning to “call the bluff” of the banks.  As mentioned a moment ago, all of the press coverage on the issue of mortgages gone bad and looming foreclosures may have made many homeowners disbelieving that their bank will ever actually foreclose on THEM.
  4. Homeowners have lost hope.  With home price depreciation not reversing any time soon in many markets, recent owners of highly-leveraged homes don’t see any path to getting into positive equity territory any time soon.  It could be argued that many homeowners consider foreclosure inevitable, so why continue to make payments?

As much as I loathe and discourage consumer (credit card) debt, vehicle debt, and highly-leveraged home ownership, the trend indicated by the TransUnion study is not surprising.

Creditors and consumers alike would be wise to think through the implications of this trend on their current and future practices.

Tagged with: ,

Intriguing quote from Adam Smith

Posted in Personal Finance by phil938 on January 15, 2010

I’m reading Going Broke: Why Americans Can’t Hold on to Their Money by Stuart Vyse.  I have just started the book but I suppose I will eventually write a summary/review of the book here on my blog, but in the second chapter today, I encountered Vyse’s quoting this famous passage from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.  Vyse provides some supplemental explanation with it — I thought it would be worth reproducing here:

“The man who borrows in order to spend will soon be ruined, and he who lends to him will generally have occasion to repent of his folly.  To borrow or to lend for such a purpose, therefore, is in all cases, where gross usury is out of the question, contrary to the interest of both parties.”

Loans for the purchase of durable goods or investment in business or production, on the other hand, had the potential to produce wealth, so these forms of lending were acceptable.

As Vyse goes on to explain, in Smith’s view of a healthy economy lending was permitted, but was only considered ideal in cases where the lending was done for the purposes of enabling production.

It is fairly ironic the Adam Smith’s thoughts and economic theories are widely referenced and his advice followed by many free market capitalists in the United States and elsewhere, and yet clearly business leaders nor the general population has taken his advice in this matter.  He calls the habit of lending for the purpose of spending “contrary to the interest of both parties”.  BOTH parties!  The recent economic meltdown, featuring headlines chronicling past years of mortgages gone bad and credit card debt handed out flippantly shows us what happens when both parties ignore this advice.  Not only are consumers’ finances ruined, but ultimately the lenders are affected as well.

Share

Tagged with:

Own a credit card for that favorite store of yours in the mall? Be careful…

Posted in Personal Finance by phil938 on December 12, 2009

There’s a great story in the NY Times today about the potential pitfalls of store-branded cards, exposing the unsavory terms attached to their cards.

All of us have been asked when checking out at Dillards, the Gap, Lowes Hardware, or any number of other stores if we would “like to sign up for a store credit card and save 15% on today’s purchase??”

If you are in the store to purchase a large item, such a proposition may be tempting, but it appears that the unimpressive terms of the typical store credit card makes the chances of such a discount later being wiped away with just one missed or late payment.

Tara Siegel Bernard’s article yesterday in the NY Times has a lot of good factual and wise nuggets, including this:

…if you strip away the store discounts and brand names that come with these cards, many are essentially the same products marketed to subprime borrowers, or individuals with tarnished or fairly new credit histories. Would you really chose a card with an interest rate of say, 25 percent, or about 9 percentage points higher on average than many other credit cards? …you should also be considering the card’s terms along with the possible effect on your credit score.

She goes on to quote a consumer debt specialist who discusses the negative impact on your credit score that often occurs with the addition of a credit card, and what the reduction of your credit score below certain critical limits can do to you.

We would be wise to heed her warning.

Share

Tagged with: ,

More C4C fallout

Posted in Personal Finance by phil938 on September 2, 2009

Hate to keep beating up on Cash-for-Clunkers, but I couldn’t resist pointing out these articles to people…

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1053/cash-for-clunkers-success-limited-by-program-flaws/

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1063/clunkers-aid-ford-toyota-sales-gm-chrysler-fall/

Tagged with: , ,

The Cash for Clunkers “bubble”

Posted in Personal Finance by phil938 on August 26, 2009

clunker

As an update to my post a couple of days ago….

Despite an overall positive tone spun in this AP article today about the Cash for Clunkers program, note the comments about it from an analyst within the industry (emphasis mine):

Jeremy Anwyl, CEO of the auto Web site Edmunds.com, said dealers and automakers clearly gained from the big boost in sales. But while the incentives helped consumers, average prices for vehicles went up as buyers less concerned about prices rushed to take advantage of the rebates.

Inventory shortages from the popular program could keep prices high and drive down new vehicle sales. “We have created a sales bubble and now that bubble has burst,” Anwyl said.

So, it’s clear that buyers didn’t get such great deals after all, given their lessened concern about sticker prices in light of the rebates… and the bubble created by the program will now burst!

Also, you will also note commentary in the article that indicates dealerships are having difficulty trying to claim the rebate.  No big surprise there- it’s a government program!  :)

Share

Tagged with: , ,

“My small business should lease its vehicles, because there’s tax advantages… right?”

Posted in Business Finance, Personal Finance by phil938 on August 25, 2009

DISCLAIMER:  My opinions and advice presented here should be interpreted to apply to only the smallest of businesses — sole proprietorships and and businesses with no more than a couple of million in annual revenues.  Larger businesses very well may take an asset use or purchase strategy that makes use of leasing.  I have worked in financial management in businesses where leases were used and they are often appropriate.  The target audience of this post is so-called micro-businesses made up of minimal revenues and a small handful of employees.

“My small business should lease its vehicles, because there’s tax advantages… right?”

A friend recently made this comment to me — a guy with a successful small business, a good head for his trade and even a good business head on his shoulders.

My response? NO. WRONG. NO.   (Note: If you want to skip all of this and want the analysis spreadsheet, click here).

Leasing vehicles for small business use is a bad idea 99% of the time (if you’re dying to know about that 1% exception, send me an email).  I hope to explain why this myth exists, however, in this post. Leasing vehicles for personal use is ALWAYS a bad idea. Plenty has been written about that by Dave Ramsey and others, so I won’t elaborate, as I want to focus here on the misinformation related to use of leasing in a small business.

I have witnessed a number of friends and arms-length acquaintances function very differently (financially speaking) in their newly incorporated or organized start-up business than they functioned just weeks earlier as an individual or maybe even as a sole proprietor at the time. This happens because they subscribe into the thinking out there that goes something like this:

Running your own business is a big responsibility. Sure, what I do comes easy for me. And yes, I am just a 2-employee company. But now that I am running a business, I have to shun simplicity and do what “sophisticated” business people do – things like leasing my vehicles and equipment because it will help my tax bill, and taking my clients out for expensive lunches (because I can write off the expense, after all!).

The thinking that running your own business is a big responsibility is right-on.  But the big responsibility, in large part, has little to do with changing behaviors but more to do with staying even-headed and controlling your spending and purchases, especially early on — and so, as tempting as it is to tackle that second issue (about meal write-offs), I will restrain myself for now and focus on the leasing issue.

The core of my argument is this: financially stable people and families are usually that way because they spend less than they make by living according to a budget that allows for and even provides for some flexibility due to unexpected events through conservative estimates and short-term savings.  A business that wants to remain financially stable should essentially do the same.  In other words, you should make financial decisions in your small business in the very same, prudent way in which an individual who wishes to remain financially solvent and stable, personally, would do.

When tax or credit considerations and ramifications, whether legitimate or not, become the primary driving force behind your business decisions, you are losing focus in your business.  What is fun about discussing the particular issue at hand is that the tax consideration here is not even legitimate, as I said, 99% of the time.  (A quick note: any lease characterized as a “Capital Lease”, with a bargain purchase price at the end of the lease, for example, is treated just like a cash or financed purchase, not a lease.  The leases discussed here are Operating Leases, which would be the most common type of lease incurred at an automobile dealership).

So, let’s briefly dig into the details of this issue.

Point #1: If your business is not generating enough cash to allow you to save up and purchase the needed vehicle or asset in short order, then wait until you can, don’t lease or finance it!

Before we even talk about the tax issues involved, I feel it is important to point out that if your company cannot generate enough profits and cash on a monthly basis to buy one straight out, then I would not instead just buy a new vehicle on credit.  By avoiding the credit trap, you will keep the monthly expense burden your company has fairly low–which will keep things from getting stressful too quickly if your business drops off, even temporarily.  Consider buying a used one for an amount of money you can write a check for.  Besides, as you’ll see below, you do not lose any tax advantages by buying a used vehicle as compared to a new vehicle.

Point #2: Any time a seller of anything — furniture, real estate, vehicles, electronics, clothing, etc. — attaches special payment terms or credit advantages to a purchase, then BUYER BEWARE!

I don’t mean to imply that just because credit is being offered alongside a product, the product is somehow inferior or of poor quality.  Rather, I am warning you that you will probably pay too much for that item — definitely, if you take advantage of the “special terms”, and probably even if you don’t.  This is one reason that even if I have the cash to buy a new car personally or in a business setting, I am unlikely to do so unless I can buy it at a price that strips out most of the “instant” loss of value that typically would occur when you drive a new vehicle off of the dealer’s lot.

Car manufacturers and dealerships that push you hard towards a leasing arrangement almost certainly have a financial incentive to do so, or they believe that the leasing financing structure will be the easiest way to sell you the car – persuasively and financially speaking.

Unfortunately, as alluded to above, even if you turn away the offer of financing and can come up with the cash to buy the vehicle or asset on the spot, you will likely “pay” for the financing anyway, because the prices of items are naturally going to be higher when they are losing money or breaking even on a fancy financing arrangement.  So, keep that in mind as you negotiate even on a cash deal.

Point #3: Yes, you can deduct lease payments, thereby lowering your taxable income, but with a financed purchase or cash purchase situation, your deduction will often be significantly larger!

If you lease a vehicle, typically the lease payments will be a constant amount for some period of time, like 36 months.  If you purchase a vehicle on credit, the loan payments will likewise be constant for the term of the loan.  However, these costs are deducted from your income in different ways.

With a lease payment, your total payments for the year would be a deductible expense, i.e. if your lease payments are $300/month, then your total deductible lease costs for the year would be $3,600.

With a purchased vehicle, however, the interest expense on loan payments is deductible, and most importantly, you also deduct depreciation on the vehicle per the IRS’ defined depreciation rates.

As an example, let’s say you purchase a $20,000 vehicle with cash.  The first year, the IRS will let you deduct 20% of the value of the vehicle, and the second year you depreciate 32%.  The percentage goes down in the later years, and ultimately the vehicle is “fully depreciated” from a tax perspective at the end of its fifth year.  So, in our example your depreciation in year 1 would be $4,000, and then $6,400 in year two.  And, if you have chosen to finance it, those additional interest expense dollars during each year would be deductible as well.

And last but not least, there are special “accelerated” depreciation provisions in the tax code which allow a small business to write-off (deduct from its income) 100% of a purchased asset’s value in its first year, within certain limits.  This provision in the tax code is referred to as Section 179 Depreciation. So, just to be clear, if your small business purchases two assets during the year, for $20,000 each or for a total of $40,000, in most cases you are able to write off that entire amount from your taxes in the very first year! How’s that for a write-off!  You will never experience such a significant tax benefit in year 1 of a leasing structure!

Point #4: You are probably not in the habit of typically paying much more for something than necessary just to obtain a possible small tax benefit

Let’s think of a hypothetical scenario to illustrate what can often happen with vehicle purchases.  Imagine you go to Radio Shack (now just “The Shack”, have you heard??), looking to purchase an LCD TV and get out of the store having spent less than $500. They have the perfect unit for you– it’s $450 + sales tax of course, and it meets all of your criteria for what you want in a new TV. But before you can tell sales representative that you want it, they immediately point you to another unit for $600, identical in every way — the same features, quality, warranty, etc. However, they claim that due to a special loophole in sales tax law (I told you this was hypothetical), you would owe no sales tax on the $600 unit and so they claim that would be a better financial decision for you to make. So let’s do the math… $450 plus 8% sales tax, let’s say, so that would be about $486 in total… or you could select the $600 unit and pay $600 even.

Anyone knows that there is no reason to spend more than budgeted and more than was required to buy an identical unit just so you can escape some tax– it just doesn’t make up for the higher price of the tax-free unit!  And yet this is what many people have done recently thanks to the miserable “Cash for Clunkers” program–they bought new vehicles because it was “a good deal”, when their budgets and original plans may have been to buy a lower-end car, or a reliable used car.  Their decision was driven by the tax benefits they expected to realize.

A small business owner who leases a vehicle because of the supposed tax advantages associated with that lease is making no wiser of a decision than one who would buy the $600 TV, and no wiser a decision than the person who threw out their planned budget in order to take advantage of a tax credit via Cash for Clunkers.

Point #5: Do the Math and see for yourself!

So, here’s the nitty-gritty… we need to get into the math to prove my point.  But first, let’s understand exactly what happens with a lease offering made to you by a dealership:

1)  They entice you with small monthly lease payments, and a short term that lets you get a new vehicle only 36 months later!

2)  Because of the small monthly lease payment, they often require a substantial down payment of several thousand dollars– or your old vehicle as a trade-in to satisfy that up-front cost

3)  The dealership protects themselves against any excessive devaluation of the leased vehicle by tacking on hefty mileage fees over certain annual or lease-term mileage limits — after all, why would they want you to come out ahead in this deal, when they will own the vehicle the entire time and will want it worth as much as possible when it comes back to them?

4)  At the end of the day, the total cost of leasing a vehicle on a per-mile basis over 36 months, barring unforeseen drops in vehicle values or other unusual scenarios, will ALWAYS be more than the cost of owning the vehicle for that same period of time

So, even in cases where there is small tax advantage to be realized, the total net dollars you will spend at the end of the day in a lease arrangement will be higher. The proof is definitely in the numbers — but therein lies the problem: how does one compare the cost of leasing to the cost of buying with cash, or how does one compare the cost of leasing to the cost of buying with financing?

It requires a really fair, objective financial calculator that takes into account all costs incurred in a lease.  And unfortunately, there are few out there that are trustworthy and that accurately take into account lease down payments, the cost of mileage overages, and who take into account the loss of accelerated depreciation deductions when you instead opt for a lease.

One full-blown calculator I found is available only for purchase at a price of $129! That shows how out-of-reach these tools are to the average person about to purchase a vehicle.  (Keep reading, however, because I have created a tool you can download to help you run this analysis properly).

In fact, in my search to find a complete, accurate calculator online, I found more calculators designed specifically to promote leases than I found calculators with a fair, objective approach.  One example is the calculator found at http://www.leaseguide.com/leasevsbuy.htm .  Note that I’ve pasted a screenshot of the sample calculation image from their website below — you will see how even in their sample calculation they are deceiving consumers.

leasevsbuycalc

Note that they show a comparison of a 36-month lease to a 48-month car loan.  There are several problems with this– first of all, they should continue the lease to 48 months, or even more accurately, add another lease down payment and 12 months of a new lease to the first 36 months of cost, since presumably you would have to start another lease at the end of those 36 months.  Now, if you were using the calculator yourself you could rig it to analyze that issue properly, but by design the calculator would have you compare a shorter lease to a longer vehicle loan.  This is also one of the reasons why vehicle leases are only 36 months — they are more difficult to compare to a 4 or 5 year auto loan, and it stops the lease at a point where there is still some value for the dealer to recoup on their used car lot.

The second major issue with this calculator, and one that is built into the design of it, is that they do not take into account any initial lease down payment, which is required in practically every scenario.

Thirdly, you will notice they show a “lease residual of $15,300″ that would be owed at the end of the 36 months if you wished to keep the vehicle, however they do not include that in the total cost shown at the bottom.  If they did, you would see that the total cost of the leased vehicle would be more than the cost of the same vehicle if purchased.

Because of the lack of fair, complete calculators out there on the web, I have created a simple-to-use spreadsheet for small business owners to run the analysis on themselves.  Click here to download Phil’s Small Business Vehicle Lease vs. Buy Analysis Spreadsheet.

Or, if you don’t believe me or this spreadsheet, take it from true consumer advocate organizations like Consumer Reports or Dave Ramsey– in fact, the business vehicle leasing myth is one Dave highlights in his article entitled “Two Costly Tax Deduction Mistakes”.

In Conclusion, my point is this:  in the rare cases where a lease may give you a slight edge from a tax perspective for a year or two, you have still paid more for the right to lease the vehicle over the course of the lease than you would to have purchased it at a fair price.

Do NOT be fooled by the supposed tax advantages of leasing that are toted by vehicle manufacturers, dealerships, and in some cases, even your CPA or tax preparer.  In particular, if you do not understand the math behind each scenario, take the safe, tried-and-true route of saving up your money and buying a vehicle in cash.  And if you are set on purchasing before you have the cash for whatever reason, then please, please steer clear of the lease route, and instead do a straight purchase with traditional financing at the best purchase price and lowest interest rate possible.

Share

<embed src=”/resources/FP-08_20_09__19_23_46-PF-IP-08_21_09__19_24_34-PI//static/flash//widget_player.swf” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” FlashVars=”subString=folderId=qcigbd0v99,color=0C5C98,title=PhilMur’s Shared Files” wmode=”transparent” width=”289″ height=”300″></embed>
Tagged with: , , ,

Rich by Debt??

Posted in Personal Finance by phil938 on August 24, 2009

What a lie.

Recently I saw a television commercial for a local retailer in which a limosine, laden down with newly purchased merchandise tied down to the top of the limo roof, was pulling out of the retailer’s parking lot.  As the limo pulled away, the store owner or manager’s young son asked his father, “How do rich people get their money?”  The father responded with a response of “Credit, my son; credit.”

Remember, the child in the retailer’s commercial was impressed by the “rich person” he saw.  But many of the symbols of wealth we see around us today are financed on credit cards, 90 days-same-as-cash, and home equity lines — clear examples of where the desire to possess or belong have led people into poor decision making.  Juliet Schor in The Overspent American says that Americans become obsessed with the symbols of success (nice car, house, etc.) more than they care about the success or money in and of itself.  In other words, if you can’t flaunt it, what’s the use?  This type of thinking creates a minefield for those who hold tightly to those symbols of success who also have access to easy credit.

I hope I’m not the only one out there upset by the sad truth communicated by this TV commercial.

Tagged with: ,

Cash for Clunkers breaks down for good

Posted in Personal Finance by phil938 on August 21, 2009

clunkerWell, I must say it is with great relief that I learned about the end of the Cash for Clunkers program, as reported yesterday and today in practically every major news organization, including this simple article on the topic in the San Jose Business Journal.

Rather than writing out a detailed explanation of my thoughts on the program, I will say in short that I REALLY didn’t like it.  You may find it interesting to read a recent transcript of a conversation I had with a few people on a Facebook comment thread recently, that pretty much summarizes my thoughts on the issue.  Note that the names have been changed to protect the innocent (or guilty!) except for my own; also, no grammar or spelling errors were corrected.  I’ve pasted the conversation below– enjoy!

Darren cash for clunkers bad bad idea.

August 11 at 9:43am

Phil Murray

have you been reading my posts?? :)

August 11 at 9:57am • Delete

Jon

Couldn’t disagree more.

August 11 at 10:02am

Ike

curious to why you feel it is a bad idea?

August 11 at 10:19am

Phil Murray

Jon/Ike, guess you haven’t read these articles yet – http://online.barrons.com/article/SB124931671451601915.html and http://seekingalpha.com/article/152909-cash-for-clunkers-may-cost-up-to-45-354-per-vehicle

August 11 at 10:29am • Delete

Phil Murray

DESTROYING perfectly good vehicles (that could, for example be donated to someone in need) while rewarding people financially for their past vehicle purchasing mistakes and rewarding them for, in most cases, going in debt through the purchase of a new vehicle. What about that sounds good?

August 11 at 10:31am • Delete

Darren

why I think it is a bad idea- or maybe bad implementation- the standards are too low. People aren’t turning in “clunkers” per se, but just cars with bad gas milegae (eg, CNN editorial about writer who traded in their 2000 SUV for a new VW). That’s not a car with terrible emissions, its was just a bad decision 9 years ago. So the gov’t is shelling out 4.5k to help purchase a 26k new car? Furthermore, with the current state of the economy, people are being encouraged to take on more debt. If people can’t pay their car notes in 2 years, then the banks will be jacked up again, and the cycle continues. I know the car industry is huting, but this is just a bandaid for a bullet wound.

August 11 at 10:34am

Darren

story I’m referring to http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/autos/0908/gallery.cash_for_clunker_trade_in/index.html

August 11 at 10:36am

Brett

Not only are we junking cars that could be used by someone else, but we’re setting up a mini “market crash” similar to what happened in the housing market where folks will buy more car than they can afford and end up in hopeless debt a year or two from now. If you want to buy a new car, wait a year or so…you’ll get a much better deal on a nearly new car than you would get using the clunkers program right now.

August 11 at 10:38am

Ike

Unfortunately Phil, I don’t agree with the concept of giving it to someone “who needs’ it, to justify a stance against the program. The program is designed to get the economy flowing.More people will be in need, then the ones that should be “given a hand out”, if the economy is not jumpstarted..the views your sharing seem to be a limited mindset and internal justifications of what is right and wrong , and not aligned with a global mindset. Capitalism in its truest form is designed to keep poor people in debt. Who is poor? If your cashflow cannot regenerate itself, without you going to work, you are poor and in debt. The system is designed 4 that.
Darren, I can see your point, about the standards being too low, and it does seem like a temporary fix, to a deeper problem. However, what would you do differently, if you could share with the administration, a different way to do it?internal justifications of what is right and wrong , and not aligned with a global mindset. Capitalism in its truest form is designed to keep poor people in debt. Who is poor? If your cashflow cannot regenerate itself, without you going to work, you are poor and in debt. The system is designed 4 that.

Darren , I can see your point, about the standards being too low, and it does seem like a temporary fix, to a Darrenper problem. However, what would you do differently, if you could share with the administration, a different way to do it?

August 11 at 10:52am

Carrie

Totally agree – thinking about running out and buying some Lincolns and cashing them in so that I can make some money! Kidding – but seriously – we have a credit crunch so why wouldn’t we encourage people to go out and buy cars they don’t need and can’t afford and just junk the rest. Actually read an article that said it was one of Obama’s best ideas – seriously!?

August 11 at 10:56am

Phil Murray

Yeah, that quote from the people trading in the old Lincoln is crazy – “I mourned a bit for the old cars that might have some useful life left. But we would’ve never been able to sell the Town Car for as much as the trade-in. It had already cost us $500 in maintenance for this year.” Who doesn’t spend $500 a year in maintenance, or close, on a newer or older car? Besides, he’ll burn through $500 in a couple of months of car payments on his new vehicle. Why don’t more people believe www.daveramsey.com ?

August 11 at 11:00am • Delete

Carrie

I have actually donated old cars to charity so that someone can use them to get to a job – now THAT makes sense and is a win for everyone.

August 11 at 11:01am

Darren

I’m a sociologist, we critique, not solve ;) Let’s see, some of what I would do differently would be more strictly defining the term, “clunker,” to include age of car, overall safety, emissions, cost for repair, etc. Secondly, I would regulate against price gauging. There is a lot of speculation out there that car companies are double-dipping by jacking up the price of the car AND receiving the gov’t rebate. If true, I believe that should be a criminal offense. Lastly, I think that with all of these bailouts, more money should be invested in family debt (like forgiving college debt or something). Part of the big problem for families is that they are suffering under debt, and instead of getting relief, more debt is being encouraged! OK, I’m getting way off topic here.

August 11 at 11:10am

Darren

For the record, Carrie, that car you used to drive in Germany was definitely a clunker. When you see the road passing under your feet at the floorboard, it should qualify for change!

August 11 at 11:12am

Carrie

Ha – that is funny. I thought it was a clunker b/c I had to climb in through the Driver Side Window – the hole in the floor didn’t really bother me! Great car for learning how to use a stick shift and teaching people to drive!!

August 11 at 11:24am

Phil Murray

Sorry I can’t join in the fun re: the old car in Germany.. but I will say, Darren, your comments were not off topic. It’s all about debt – the US govt increasing their international debt through these programs, and in the meantime encouraging more debt. Ike, I agree that the capitalist system does allow debt and unfortunately many people are taken advantage of in the process. But personal debt at the levels we see now is a relatively new phenomenon that would be unbelievable to people 50 years ago. I believe one reason for the public uprising and clamoring for the govt to do more for them is because the privileged in this country (and by that I mean probably everyone of us in this comment thread) aren’t doing enough ourselves. Robert Reich, who ideologically I disagree with on pretty much everything, nonetheless wrote a good book a few years ago called Supercapitalism that explores this in more detail.

August 11 at 12:58pm • Delete

Phil Murray

My concern is that investment of tax and internationally-borrowed dollars into a program like this does not help stimulate innovation that would lead to long-term economic improvement in this country. It’s a band-aid to the US auto mess that relies on US residents to go buy new cars, and in most cases, incur new debts along with those new cars.

August 11 at 12:59pm • Delete

Brad

I know this whole debate is over, but I was wondering why, if it’s good that car dealers and manufacturers are selling cars, and they’re selling them because of this “free” money from the government (meaning, because there’s $4500 off the price of the car), couldn’t the car dealers and manufacturers simply either A) offered a discount themselves to move more product, or B) lowered the prices of their cars in the first place. When most businesses start losing money because demand drops they try to generate more business by lowering prices. It’s basic economics. Or, do the manufacturers know they don’t need to do that since they can get a nice fat bailout whenever they need one?

August 12 at 9:10am

Phil Murray

Brad, first of all, I do agree there is always more than one solution to just about any problem. As far as the higher volume/lower cost strategy goes, however, the automakers are in a Catch 22 (and one of their own making) – the fixed costs are their big problem– note that the bankruptcies took a lot of them away. But automobile manufacturing is inherently capital-intensive and so these issues will always be a threat as sales volume fluctuates. The only way for the automakers to deal with it is to scale their business to a size that assume slighly lower sales volume than they would expect. This helps them ensure their fixed costs will be covered even in a downturn. Not dissimilar to an individual putting money in savings in the event of a personal financial crisis.. more in my next post.

August 12 at 11:31am • Delete

Phil Murray

As a simple example of the fixed cost issue automakers and other capital-intensive businesses face:

A company has $10million of fixed costs monthly (overhead, salaries, benefits, facility costs, etc.), and their variable cost to manufacture a unit is $7,000 per unit (var. costs would be things like assembly line labor and parts/materials used in vehicles).

If they sell 1,000 units in the month @ $20k each, that’s $20 million in revenue. After they pay their $10mil in fixed costs and $7mil in variable costs (1,000 units x $7k each) they are left with a $3 million profit.

But if all of the sudden demand drops for whatever reason and their sales revenue drops to 700 units, or $14mil, ten they incur $10mil in fixed costs, and $4.9mil in variable costs to manufacture those 700 vehicles.. so they make $14mil but spend $14.9mil… uh-oh, they say, well let’s lower prices so we can sell more.

(cont’d on next post)

August 12 at 11:38am • Delete

Phil Murray

If they have to lower prices to $15k per vehicle to get back up to their 1,000 unit per month volume, then they incur $10mil in fixed costs and $7mil in variable costs, so they are now losing even more money. So dropping prices is a slippery slope when you can’t simultaneously cut fixed costs– which is why the Chrysler & GM bankruptcies were necessary and what they were designed to do. My point is this: the balancing of capacity, price levels, predicting demand, etc. is harder than most assume it would be. Going forward, shareholders need to hold the companies accountable to conservative business plans that keep fixed (and variable!) costs under control and business plans that assume the worst. Also, they have to keep what should be variable costs (i.e. assembly labor) from becoming fixed cost obligations in terms of high-cost layoff costs and high-cost benefit plans.

August 12 at 11:40am • Delete

Brad

Phil- I am not quite the economist you are. Thanks for the detail. And three posts shows that, you are dedicated! I still don’t like the idea of the government selling cars, though.

August 12 at 3:15pm

Phil Murray

Yep- and please hear me loud and clear- I do NOT want the govt involved either. Automakers as private businesses may have to suffer at times due to poor decision-making and economic changes – whether expected or unexpected. And when those companies suffer, that obviously means a lot of people will suffer – shareholders, vendors, employees, etc. So that’s the hard pill about all of this.

August 12 at 3:31pm • Delete

Tagged with: , ,

“Credit Amnesty Week”

Posted in Personal Finance by phil938 on December 28, 2008

I’m with extended family in central Texas for the Christmas break right now, and I was out running some errands yesterday when I heard a radio commercial from a local car dealership advertising “Credit Amnesty Week”.

The ad claimed that anyone with a job and who could afford a $155/month payment could qualify for a new car from their dealership.  They encouraged listeners to put away concerns about their credit, and assured them that they could qualify regardless of their credit score.

Some searches online revealed to me that this marketing banner of a supposed “Credit Amnesty Week” is employed by a variety of auto sales and auto financing companies around the country.  One place said all you had to show to buy a car was that you had $350/week of income, “proof of roof”, and a telephone line.  Another dealer using the same marketing phrase online insisted that interested individuals shoud bring their driver license and “whatever your down payment is.”  It claims that “everyone is approved and driving out today”.

These companies are certainly free to market to potential customers as they wish, just as they can make any type of internal decision or arrangement with external banks and financing sources to make low payment arrangements possible.  What I have a problem with, however, is the the implication in their advertising that individuals can truly experience “credit amnesty” in any way, shape, or form for any time period whatsoever.  Merriam-Webster defines “the act of authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted t0 a large group of individuals”.  The idea or even the impression that not only will your past credit mistakes not affect your ability to buy a new car, but also the idea that you can escape or be pardoned for your credit problems for a week is a dangerous message to be sending consumers.  All another purchase will do will be to add to your debt load, and give you another payment to fall behind on.  For someone already struggling financially, the last thing they need to do is to incur more debt.  And the dealership certainly possesses no type of authority to do any type of long-term wipe out or “pardon” on your credit report.  The dealer may or may not take a look at your credit, but I can assure that your purchase and subsequent consistency or inconsistency of payments on this new car will hit your credit record.

Obviously, there are extreme situations and sometimes we borrow money to get through a tough time–but the trend over the long-term of a financially responsible person should be LESS debt, more savings, more giving, and less stress.  These types of aggressive marketing approaches do NOT move us, as individuals or as a society, in that direction.  When we learn to digest these types of ads with discerning minds and ears, we can avoid falling into these credit traps that so many companies set around us.

Tagged with: ,

Bluefield, WV: A personal finance model for America?

Posted in Personal Finance by phil938 on December 26, 2008

bluefieldWith all of the talk about people over-leveraged, and in homes too large for them, it’s interesting to find that many of Bluefield, West Virginia’s residents are quite a bit different. Unless you’ve been skiing up in West Virginia, or taken Interstate 77 up through the state, you probably know very little about the town of Bluefield. But there is an interesting fact about the city’s residents that has everything to do with personal financial management. Read what USA Today recently reported about them:

In 17 locations around the U.S., many made up of small cities surrounded by large rural areas, 50% or more of home owners own their homes outright and therefore don’t have to worry about rising monthly payments or owing more than their home is worth, according to a USA Today analysis of Census data. In 123 areas, 40% or more don’t have a mortgage, and nationwide the average is almost a third. The analysis shows that areas containing higher percentages of zero-mortgage home owners are scattered across the country, from Somerset and Johnstown, Pa., to Lumberton, N.C., Sebring, Fla., and Lufkin, Texas. Most have a central city of fewer than 50,000 people. Higher percentages of mortgage-free home owners are less likely in rapidly growing areas such as Washington, D.C. (17%), Atlanta (19%) and Las Vegas (20%). Many of the places that have a high share of no-mortgage home owners never enjoyed the boom that sent housing prices soaring across much of the nation. As a result, there was no bubble to burst. “Not always do we have the best of times, nor the worst of times,” says Mark Henne, city manager in Bluefield, W.Va., a coal country town that ranks at the top with 57% of its home owners mortgage-free. “We’re not experiencing the defaults that the rest of the country is.” [Emphasis added]

- USA Today (“Some Parts of U.S. Escape Housing Mess”, 11/17/08)

In order to have paid down mortgage balances without maxing the equity right back out for merchandise, cars, or home improvements, Bluefield’s residents have undoubtedly done without some of the things others wouldn’t dream of living without. In fact, the path to financial stability is costly, particularly in the short run. But, as I will continue to argue in this blog, well worth the cost.

Tagged with: ,