Posts Tagged ‘GoalSpring’

Getting Into Debt

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

We were asked today by a reporter why people get into debt and some of the reasons why people get into debt and some of the more toxic spending / debt combinations.  Here was our response:

 

There are a few different reasons people get into debt. 

  1. Structural:  cost structure out of alignment with income.  This is a situation that doesn’t persist for long–eventually the consumer fixes this or goes bankrupt.  This can be the result of bad housing choices (as evidenced by the current housing crisis) or bad educational decisions (recent college grads are the fasted growing bankruptcy segment).  But it’s also driven by a permanent shock such as job loss, death of a wage earner, or disability.  Sometimes it’s the accumulation of bad consumption / debt choices.
  2. Emergency:  This is generally a one-time spending event that has to be taken on credit since the consumer doesn’t have a buffer Emergency Savings Fund.  New tires, new roof, medical, etc. put people over the edge.
  3. Discretionary:  consumer spending on autos, electronics, travel, other consumables. 
  4. Investment:  schooling, home.  Ideally these are “good debt” that are essentially an investment in the future.  However, you see areas where these are not. 
    1. Housing:  38% of mortgage holders pay over 30% of income to mortgage payments.  As this is the lending guideline where customers become a real default risk, this means a surprisingly high percentage of mortgage holders took out mortgages that were too big for their means. 
    2. Education debt:  According to benchmarks from a survey by student lender Nellie Mae, borrowers who devoted less than 7% of their gross monthly income to repaying education loans generally didn’t experience any difficulty making their payments. Those with an education debt-to-income ratio of 7% to 11% felt more of a burden, which increased once the ratio reached 12% to 16% or higher. The median ratio for all borrowers was 8%.

 

 

  1. OK, with that said, here are some incredibly toxic purchase / debt combinations along with alternatives:
  2. Rent-to-own:  simply one of the worst decisions you can make.  You’ll two to five times the department store cost of the item, giving you an annual APR of 100-300%.  As an added bonus, since it’s correlated with poor credit behavior, showing a financing loan on your credit report automatically drops your score even if you make your payments on time.  A better option is to buy used or simply save to get the item
  3. Financing for cosmetic medical procedures–Botox, liposuction, etc.  This is much more common than you’d think.  Most strip mall cosmetic shops offer in-house credit to customers who can’t pay cash.  You have to question whether going into debt for elective surgery is a smart purchase, but financing through the on-site financing will reflect negatively on your credit report, pushing up future borrowing costs.
  4. Refund anticipation loans:  Frequently pitched as a quick way to get access to your refund, these loans have become a major profit driver for Tax Prep firms.  But they are roughly equivalent to a payday loan in terms of interest rates. 
  5. Buying a new car:  It takes guts to put this in the list of the top 5 bad purchases, but for many Americans carrying debt it’s simply an incredibly bad move.  By buying a new car instead of used, they’re essentially paying twice for the asset:  they’ll pay interest and they’ll pay depreciation when they sell.  Further, they’ll pay more in insurance and licensing fees.  Most consumers will find it 50-60% less expensive to buy a 3-4 year old car.  If you can save and buy it with cash, the cost differential will be even greater.
  6. Student loans for non-accredited schools with poor placement offices:  Although not outrageous, this just isn’t a good investment for most people.  Many find that they’ve gone into debt for an education that doesn’t increase their earnings and with a school that doesn’t have a good placement record. 
  7. Student debt in general:  Even for accredited schools, students and parents make some shockingly bad choices.  Up to 40% of students eligible for federally subsidized debt actually opt for a loan through a private lender at a higher rate.  Given the large amount of debt that students take out, this can really set them back.

 

At GoalSpring, we’ve built our software specifically to help people avoid these pitfalls, and make paying down debt as easy and efficient as possible.   We  help users understand  the “true cost” of any purchase, show them how interest rates effect  them over time, help them negotiate effectively with their creditors , and put them into a plan to get themselves out of debt.  Our users can save an average of $40,000 in interest over the lifetime of their debt without paying any more per month than they do today.    

Is a bailout appropriate?

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

Debt is a huge problem for “Main Street” today

Can Thrift Make A Comeback?

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

The New York Times published an article today (“Full of Doubts, U.S. Shoppers Cut Spending“) where they predict that consumer spending will fall 3% in the third quarter compared to the preceeding three months, the first quarterly decline in consumer spending since 1990.   This reflects the shocks to consumer confidence brough on by the bursting of the housing market bubble, stock market declines, and financial market turmoil.  Simply put, our houses and stockholdings are worth less, and these feelings of reduced wealth translate into reduced spending.

The last time this happened, the first President Bush made a famous public appearance where he purchased socks and encouraged Americans to go out and spend to restore the economy to strenght.  Since that time, we’ve embraced spending as a patriotic duty with predicatbale consequences.  Our national savings rate has fallen from ~10% in the early ’80s to ~1% today.  We’ve also expanded aggregate consumer debt, pushing household debt from ~60% of disposable income in the ’80s to nearly 130% today. 

Against this backdrop, the American view of thrift had begun to look quaint.  Indeed, the Boy Scouts may have been the only organization to consistently promote thrift as a virtue.  But times appear to be changing–with reduced household wealth, and financial and employement security we’ve started to save again out of necessity.   

Will we see a new generation embrace thrift?  At GoalSpring, we hope so.  Only by promoting trhift, can we begin to make reduce our consumer and governmental debt and put ourselves on a long-term sustainable economic path.  We hope you join us by reducing debt and encouraging others to do the same.

Do you think we’re on to something or perhaps flat out wrong?  Either way, leave a comment, forward to a friend, or email us.  Make a difference.

Hope for Homeowners Program

Thursday, October 2nd, 2008

On October 1, the government kicked off an element of a housing relief bill passed last summer termed “Hope for Homeowners”.  The program allows borrowers who are currently owe more than their home is worth and who are spending more than 31% of their income on mortgage to swap their mortgage for a more affordable loan.  To qualify, borrowers must have completed their loan on or before 1/1/08 and have made 6 payments in 2008.

Unfortunately, the program puts participation in the hands of lenders, not borrowers, with the lenders deciding to participate.  In a sense, this puts them diametrically opposed broader trends and the intent of the broader bailout package.  The incentive as a profit-maximizing lender in this situation is to maximize the value of the loan by withholding concessions until the borrower manifests that they are at immenant risk of default, at which point the lender should offer the minimum conscession necessary to keep the borrower from defaulting.  To the extent that negotiating with one borrower establishes prescedent, the cost to the lender of negotiating with a borrower extend beyond the individual question to their broader protfolio who could ask for consessions, further reducing the incentive to negotiate peicemeal.

On the other hand, the lending industry has pushed for a bailout package that essentially lets them offload troubled mortages as quickly as possible without the same value extraction mechanism.  This approach does have merit in terms of restoring some stability to the market as quickly as possible, but it does reflect a fundamentally different approach.

Unfortunately, for all their merits, both programs fail at one of the key criteria necessary to putting the crisis behind us–finding the market bottom in housing prices.  One thing that is clear at this point is that there is a massive overhang of customers who are in houses that they cannot afford under most interest rate scenarios, with recent US Census housing studies putting this rate at 38% of mortgage holders spending more than 30% of income on mortgage servicing.  If this guidline proves accurate as an indicator of future default, the prospect for future defaults and housing price declines is great.  For this reason, discussions of propping up housing prices are potentially the most misguided policy suggestions of all as this would preserve a situation where many buyers cannot afford the homes they live in, a fact that was revealed as the bubble’s pop laid bare the unreasonable appreciation expectations that formed the basis for many purchases.

Therefore, the fundamental policy question is not how to price troubled bonds in the secondary market or even how to let lenders negotiate individually with borrowers, but how to get to a market-clearing price as efficiently as possible (without the high transaction cost of foreclosures).  Only once the bottom has been reached will the housing market normalize with consumers able to once again afford the homes they live in. 

Let us hope that this point does not get lost on policy makers as they work through current and future solutions and that they expand their view of “bailout” to include a broader mechanism for helping housing prices find a bottom and passing this value through to the homeowner.

What’s a homeowner to do in a housing-led financial crisis?

Wednesday, October 1st, 2008
Congress today refused to pass a comprehensive bailout package of the US financial industry and the stock market responded by dropping 778 points, the largest percentage drop since October 1987.  I watched people’s reaction on my commute home and was surprised at the lack of emotion displayed by my fellow commuters.  This is in stark contrast to my recollection of the response in 1987, where the panic was palpable and pundits talked of suicides.  I’m not sure why there’s a difference this time around–perhaps because this drop has been a slow-motion train wreck since the housing bubble started to bust in 2006.  Or maybe it’s because we all secretly suspect that regardless of what the government, there may be worse to come.  Consider the facts:
  • Experts predict that housing prices could decline by an additional 25% just to come back in line with where they would be had they followed the traditional price appreciation path.
  • The US Census released a study of housing affordability last week revealing that 38% of American homeowners with a mortgage (19 million households) spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs, and 15% spend over 50%.  30% of income is generally considered the point beyond which consumers begin to have difficulty paying their mortgage.
  • 10 million homeowners owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, according to economy.com
  • More than 4 million homeowners were at least one month behind on their loans at the end of June, and almost 500,000 had started the foreclosure process, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association
  • Consumer debt is at an all time high
Simply put, as a country we’re riding a razor’s edge.  Because of high consumer debt loads, we have less money available to pay their mortgages at the same we’re paying more in housing than ever before.  It’s too early to say how this will ultimately play out for the economy at large.  The worst case scenario is that the strain on family finances drives the economy further along a vicious cycle of increased delinquencies and foreclosures, declining housing prices, abandonment of under-water homes, and further declining values.
 
That may be the worst case, but you can take individual action to open up some breathing room and begin to make some progress.  Stay positive, focus on your family, and take action now to strengthen your finances.