Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Credit Card Mistakes to Avoid

Whether due to confusion or carelessness, credit card mistakes are all too common. The fallout can be costly, no matter what the cause. Even a single slip-up can result in higher interest rates, lower credit limits, unwanted fees or dings to a credit score.

New rules put in place by the Credit Card Act of 2009 and the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 help, as does the formation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which monitors the credit card industry. But ultimately it’s up to you to use credit wisely.

Take a look at this slideshow on Kiplinger.com to see a detailed explanation on 11 of the most common credit card mistakes and to learn how to avoid making them.  We have also included a simple list below.

1. Paying bills late
2. Bundling balance transfers
3. Making minimum payments
4. Using up all available credit
5. Ignoring monthly statements
6. Racking up foreign transaction fees
7. Taking cash advances
8. Spending to earn rewards
9. Paying excessive annual fees
10. Chasing teaser rates
11. Neglecting credit scores

Friday, April 2, 2010

457 plans redefined

Retirement plans that include employer contributions usually fall into three categories: 401(k), which covers most people who work, 403(b), which covers those who work for non-profis, and 457 plans, which applies to many people who work for government entities. For the most part, these plans work the same way, but we thought we'd take some time here to call your attention to recent changes in 457 plans. They have some particular rules that govern how they work and you need to pay special attention to these rules if you are investing in a 457 plan, particularly if you're getting close to retirement. You can make some catch-up contributions to 457 plans, but there are certain ways it has to be done.

If you need a quick primer, here's a great article we found on Investopedia, which is a terrific resource for people who need help with financial terms.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/10/411-on-457-plans.asp

Monday, May 18, 2009

Credit card reforms could help consumers

On Mondays, we post a question and answer from a reader in this space. If you have a question you'd like to see answer, please post in the comments section.

QUESTION: There’s been a lot of talk about reforming the credit card industry. What do you think of this? Are the reforms meaningful? Is reform needed?

ANSWER: I attended a recent speech by Susan Keating who is the President and CEO of the National Foundation for Credit Counseling, likely the only national nonprofit group focused on helping consumers overcome debt problems. They have a lot of insight into various credit card issues, and have a seat at the national table addressing such things.
I see two prongs to this issue. The first is a kind of predatory activity on the part of some lending institutions. It looks a bit like loan sharking when interest rates exceed 30 percent and they truly prefer when people don't pay off their cards. If you can keep someone paying astronomical interest on a static debt, that's awfully easy money. Over time, the collective interest offsets the default rate, so those institutions keep making money without regard to their customer's misery or instability. That's evil.
The other - every bit as important - is people making really bad spending choices. A dumb choice is even dumber when it takes two years at 30 percent interest to pay for it. Especially electronic gear or other stuff that has little value on the secondary market. Check Craig's List or garage sales for a used television or game console. You paid $300 for it new, with another $50 in interest and fees, and it's worth $50 or $75 used. That's just dumb, dumb, dumb. (In fact, it might be okay with cash, but certainly not on credit.)
The worst thing is that people who make bad spending choices tend to make multiple bad spending choices. So it tends to be a combined $5,000 for new stuff, with $1,000 in interest and fees, and it's worth $250 or $500 used. It's the bad gift that keeps on giving.
It's not all bad, though. Credit cards sometimes allow us to capture good value. If your washing machine is on it's last legs and Nebraska Furniture Mart has a sale where you can save $200, then buying it now and paying for it over the next few months could be a terrific use of credit. The card saves you money and adds convenience to your life. That's the highest and best use of credit.
So, credit card reform might be a good thing if it wrings some excesses out of the marketplace. And I think it will. But the best results will happen when people start thinking before they buy, and I'm still a bit skeptical about this. But we can always hope!

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The challenge of tinkering with capitalism

By Dan Danford

A friend of mine (and a very bright guy) was recently pondering the merits of socialism. I think he’d concede that Cold War ideologies carry little influence today, and that capitalism easily won that battle (not so easy for citizens behind the Iron Curtain, however). Yet, I also think he’d like to soften capitalism, and make it friendlier and more compassionate. He’s a sensitive guy, and he likes to help as many folks as possible.

Capitalism got us here. No doubt, socialism could never create the living standards we all take for granted today. No rewards for creativity or innovation results in neither of those things, and they've been responsible for myriad advances in everything from safety to medicine.

But, he’d recognize that war as already won, and suggest that today’s world calls for a different model, somewhere between yesterday’s extremes. A different point along the capitalizm/socialism continuum.

Unfortunately, creativity and innovation swing somewhere in that balance, too. Personal recognition and reward for exceptional effort are the very essence of capitalism. I’d suggest that many Americans who aspire to creativity and innovation do so precisely because they've been freed from challenges inherent to earlier socialistic regimes.

Compare the relative accomplishments under both systems in the 40s, 50s, and 60s - especially the standards of living among middle classes. There's no real comparison where it really counts: how the typical, usual, or normal citizens live their daily lives. The human quest to see result for our efforts - in a nicely manicured lawn or a well-prepared family meal - extends into the public and workplace.

Noted financial journalist C.W. Barron once noted that "everything can be improved," and I agree with that. Society keeps evolving and the problems and solutions are increasingly complex. I don't tout capitalism because it's morally superior, but because it's done more for more folks than any other contemporary system. Certainly, it could be better, but it's just as certainly been better than socialism.

Corruption is always a problem. Corruption exists under every social system (damn it!), but capitalism stands alone as the only system that has raised so many people out of poverty and despair worldwide. It's frustrating, perhaps, but capitalism mostly works.

Personally, I’ve grown quite weary of the whole "corporate greed" theme. I suppose it is inevitable, given the situation with bank bailouts and Wall Street shenanigans. Most of us work for decent companies, though, which exist to serve customers. They are profit-making organizations, but those profits fuel our entire system.

Basic economics. At its simplest, there are just two basic types of economic activity. Producers and consumers. Producers are farmers and businesses, and maybe some professionals. They are, in essence, the people who create, grow, manufacture, or provide valuable services for a profit.

Everyone else is a consumer. All of us consume things, of course, but many people work in jobs that consume, too. Take public education, for instance. There’s no question that teachers do meaningful work, and contribute mightily to society. So do judges, and fireman, and legislators. Still, it’s important to note that they all are paid with tax money.

The same thing goes for other government workers, social agencies, non-profit and charitable groups. The money that flows to them in taxes or other support originates from society’s producers. Those groups, in turn, pay their workers who pay their taxes and consume more goods. But the spigot of money flows directly from farmers, and businesses, and other people and firms who support them.

According to a recent article on federaltimes.com, the single largest employer in Kansas City, Missouri, is (are you ready for this?) the Federal Government. Think about that for a second. Now think about this: no producers, no taxes, no money. Wages and taxes from producers and their employees cover the entire cost of education, social agencies, and government.

I don’t make excuses. I despise criminal or unethical behavior, but - although numbers in the news often seem quite large – crime is such a wee part of corporate America. Yet, some folks think every business is bad and every MBA is a crook. Often, these mistaken souls are teachers, social workers, and civil servants who live and work (one way or another) downstream from corporate profits.

No easy answers. I understand my friend’s points. There's clear need for regulatory and government activity, and unhampered capitalism can be dangerous. There’s a definite role for government and a need for balance.
But I also fear unintended consequences. Some of our most regulated activities – medicine and public education, to name just a few - display ample reasons for concern. Regulation itself can create massive barriers to entry, and monopoly status (check out the pharmaceutical industry). Consumer pricing, access, and service suffer because well-intentioned regulations favor incumbent vendors. Incentives for creativity and innovation fall idle.

Personal recognition and rewards are the very essence of capitalism. They are the key elements missing from socialism. Until those statements are reconciled, there is little hope for success in socialism.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Leveling the playing field

I am posting here a terrific article from today's Wall Street Journal about the key differences between how brokerages and fee-only financial planners are regulated. I was very much heartened to read this. Mary Schapiro was head of FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) and, in that capacity, had been an advocate for traditional brokers and regulations. There was a lot of concern when she was tapped to head the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) because she represented the traditional way of doing things; that is, traditional brokers and the "suitability" standard for serving clients. In this column, Jason Zweig does a great job of explaining the difference between suitability and fiduciary standards, and - importantly - indicates that Mary Schapiro is coming around on the issue. In truth, no client who understands the differences between these two standards would knowingly choose the lesser. Registered Investment Advisors have a higher duty to their clients and that's a good thing. The traditional brokerage world is tumbling a tiny bit at a time.

http://tinyurl.com/d5neqd