On a quarterly basis, things are definitely looking up--13% up as movement on my home values and my 401(K) funds gives my net worth an increase of $66,542.21. This means I now have a total net worth of $573,722.21.
Not bad. Not up to the June, 2008 high of almost $600,000, but still fine by me.
On the monthly side of things, it's much less exciting. In fact, after all is said and done, I reduced my total indebtedness this month by a decidedly anemic $66.37.
However, I do have my excuses! September is when I have to pay in full for my transit pass, which I then recover from my flex funds over the next six pay periods. I also pay in full for my secretary, who pays me back out of her flex funds. We save several hundred dollars a year by doing it this way, but it does temporarily impact my debt reduction.
I'm going to track my spending down to the penny in October--I want to see where I'm dribbling away my funds. [Yeah, I could make some good guesses, but nothing like a few facts to make me face my own spending habits.]
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
More From the Social Security Administration
I'm not one of the doomsayers who believes in the imminent or eventual collapse of Social Security. Nor is this story from Wallet Pop intended to panic anyone.
There IS money to cover the deficit, and no eligible retiree will go unserved or unpaid. Not for the first time, Social Security's income will be exceeded by its outgo--a rerun from the '80's. As happened then, the current shortage will be covered within a year or two.
But in the meantime, the Social Security Administration is doublely hammered--job losses equal less money from FICA while increased early retirements mean more demand for their funds.
What saddens me the most are the human stories behind the surge of early retirements.
It's one thing to retire by choice.
Another to have to retire due to disability or the need to care for a loved one.
By far the worst is to be capable mentally and physically of working, to WANT to work, and yet to have nothing available.
I suppose that folks 62 and over are lucky to have the choice to retire, given the large numbers of youthful and middle-aged jobseekers out there. But I doubt it feels very lucky to those taking their retirement years before they needed to, wanted to or ever intended to do so.
There IS money to cover the deficit, and no eligible retiree will go unserved or unpaid. Not for the first time, Social Security's income will be exceeded by its outgo--a rerun from the '80's. As happened then, the current shortage will be covered within a year or two.
But in the meantime, the Social Security Administration is doublely hammered--job losses equal less money from FICA while increased early retirements mean more demand for their funds.
What saddens me the most are the human stories behind the surge of early retirements.
It's one thing to retire by choice.
Another to have to retire due to disability or the need to care for a loved one.
By far the worst is to be capable mentally and physically of working, to WANT to work, and yet to have nothing available.
I suppose that folks 62 and over are lucky to have the choice to retire, given the large numbers of youthful and middle-aged jobseekers out there. But I doubt it feels very lucky to those taking their retirement years before they needed to, wanted to or ever intended to do so.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Scammed & Crammed
I got my telephone bill online yesterday and nearly fell off my chair.
My landline costs $27 a month give or take the occasional call to directory assistance. My latest bill was for $67! Excuuuuse me???
When I checked the billing, there were my usual monthly charges plus two $19.99 charges by Transaction Clearing ETS for Access Voice, some sort of answering service. Since I already have an answering machine, I would hardly be signing up for voicemail.
And in fact, I hadn't.
When I called my telephone carrier, they agreed to remove the charges, though they said they had had no choice but to initially add them to my bill. (Clark Howard says this is entirely incorrect.)
I also called Transaction Clearing ETS where a cheerful operator agreed to remove the charges. She asked so few questions, and was so immediately willing to help that I asked if this happened often. "Oh Yes," she replied. "We're told to take off the charges for Access Voice whenever anyone complains."
The Rip-Off Report says I'm hardly the first consumer to be targeted by Access Voice.
OK, my problem is solved. But I'm the kind of person who checks every bill. What if I wasn't? What if I was used to much higher bills, such that an extra $40 wouldn't surprise me? What if I was a business person and just automatically paid every bill as it came in?
It must be easy money for these crooks.
My landline costs $27 a month give or take the occasional call to directory assistance. My latest bill was for $67! Excuuuuse me???
When I checked the billing, there were my usual monthly charges plus two $19.99 charges by Transaction Clearing ETS for Access Voice, some sort of answering service. Since I already have an answering machine, I would hardly be signing up for voicemail.
And in fact, I hadn't.
When I called my telephone carrier, they agreed to remove the charges, though they said they had had no choice but to initially add them to my bill. (Clark Howard says this is entirely incorrect.)
I also called Transaction Clearing ETS where a cheerful operator agreed to remove the charges. She asked so few questions, and was so immediately willing to help that I asked if this happened often. "Oh Yes," she replied. "We're told to take off the charges for Access Voice whenever anyone complains."
The Rip-Off Report says I'm hardly the first consumer to be targeted by Access Voice.
OK, my problem is solved. But I'm the kind of person who checks every bill. What if I wasn't? What if I was used to much higher bills, such that an extra $40 wouldn't surprise me? What if I was a business person and just automatically paid every bill as it came in?
It must be easy money for these crooks.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Today's Carnival
Emily at Taking Charge handled this week's Carnival of Personal Finance. Grace is there, with the post about Bernie Madoff. Lots of other good reading as well.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Naming Names
Dave Ramsey famously tells us to "give every dollar a name" when we budget.
I tried that this month.
My problem is that other names kept intruding into my budget.
Which makes me want to use a lot of names that one shouldn't in a family-oriented blog!
I went the extra mile to delineate every expense I could think of--the "every six weeks" haircut, a grandchild's birthday, stamps, etc.
I even hauled out my envelopes to carefully keep all the expenses separate.
Good plan, except there was no envelope when my 16 year old grandson called to say he failed his driver's license exam and needed $20 to take it again. I failed to name the dollars needed to buy a baby shower gift for a colleague at work--heck, I didn't even know she was pregnant. And why is it that water bills are handed out quarterly, not monthly, so that I'm always surprised when the bill comes? Neither a name nor an envelope for that, either.
So, of course, I purloined the named dollars from the food budget and the gas budget, all of which explains why I'm pretty much out of names but the month still has another 9 days till payday.
Expect some major whining to ensue!
I tried that this month.
My problem is that other names kept intruding into my budget.
Which makes me want to use a lot of names that one shouldn't in a family-oriented blog!
I went the extra mile to delineate every expense I could think of--the "every six weeks" haircut, a grandchild's birthday, stamps, etc.
I even hauled out my envelopes to carefully keep all the expenses separate.
Good plan, except there was no envelope when my 16 year old grandson called to say he failed his driver's license exam and needed $20 to take it again. I failed to name the dollars needed to buy a baby shower gift for a colleague at work--heck, I didn't even know she was pregnant. And why is it that water bills are handed out quarterly, not monthly, so that I'm always surprised when the bill comes? Neither a name nor an envelope for that, either.
So, of course, I purloined the named dollars from the food budget and the gas budget, all of which explains why I'm pretty much out of names but the month still has another 9 days till payday.
Expect some major whining to ensue!
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Childfree, Childless, or Children Everywhere
I graduated high school in 1967.
I feel like I'm part of the first generation that didn't automatically assume that becoming a parent was the be-all, end-all purpose of our lives. Whether it was the feminist movement that suggested there was more out there for women than being mothers, the advent of free love that brought with it STDs which impacted our ability to give birth, or hedonistic boomer lifestyles that made children a burden as much as a blessing, it was suddenly OK not to want or have children. In fact, in some circles, it was environmentally correct to not add to the population bomb.
I'm sixty. My sister is 59. Neither of us has given birth. However, I did become a parent to five wonderful daughters through adoption.
At some point I discovered that when I initially said I didn't want children, what I really meant was that I didn't want babies and I had no particular desire to give birth. As far as passing my genes along, there are already enough chubby white women in the pool. But over time, I realized I really did want to parent. So I found a way.
Still, let there be no equivocation about the financial consequences of my decision. Even with Medicaid and monthly Adoption Assistance (all five of my adoptions were through the state foster care system), KIDS ARE EXPENSIVE! And it doesn't end with childhood. All five of my children are now adults. Adults who continue to cost their mother money!
There's an interesting discussion going on over at Voluntary Simplicity on this subject. The comments include a great deal of ambivalence as well as accusations of selfishness (though, interestingly, both lifestyles with and without children, are described as selfish).
Having children has greatly impacted my finances. Yet I don't regret my decision to parent.
Then, again, neither does my sister regret her decision to remain childfree.
I feel like I'm part of the first generation that didn't automatically assume that becoming a parent was the be-all, end-all purpose of our lives. Whether it was the feminist movement that suggested there was more out there for women than being mothers, the advent of free love that brought with it STDs which impacted our ability to give birth, or hedonistic boomer lifestyles that made children a burden as much as a blessing, it was suddenly OK not to want or have children. In fact, in some circles, it was environmentally correct to not add to the population bomb.
I'm sixty. My sister is 59. Neither of us has given birth. However, I did become a parent to five wonderful daughters through adoption.
At some point I discovered that when I initially said I didn't want children, what I really meant was that I didn't want babies and I had no particular desire to give birth. As far as passing my genes along, there are already enough chubby white women in the pool. But over time, I realized I really did want to parent. So I found a way.
Still, let there be no equivocation about the financial consequences of my decision. Even with Medicaid and monthly Adoption Assistance (all five of my adoptions were through the state foster care system), KIDS ARE EXPENSIVE! And it doesn't end with childhood. All five of my children are now adults. Adults who continue to cost their mother money!
There's an interesting discussion going on over at Voluntary Simplicity on this subject. The comments include a great deal of ambivalence as well as accusations of selfishness (though, interestingly, both lifestyles with and without children, are described as selfish).
Having children has greatly impacted my finances. Yet I don't regret my decision to parent.
Then, again, neither does my sister regret her decision to remain childfree.
Monday, September 14, 2009
A Fool By Any Other Name. . .
I had lunch on Saturday with a couple, two longtime friends from the east coast. We hadn't gotten together in over five years but at one point in our lives, we had been very close. It's the kind of friendship where even after five years, no subject is taboo. So after catching up, we started talking finances. She works in fashion; he's a research physician. Both of them were caught up in the Bernie Madoff scandal, and both of them were furious at the havoc wrecked upon their finances by Madoff.
The last time we got together, five years ago, we had laughed hysterically at the small town city council in my state who had actually used city funds to participate in what turned out to be a Nigerian scam. We marveled at idiots who were foolish enough to put their faith in an e-mail that promised them millions.
But my friends weren't laughing about Madoff. They "lost" over $600,000 in Bernie's New York version of Nigeria. I put quotations around the words "lost" because they didn't actually invest that much, but they understood that the investments they HAD made were increasing rapidly. Sadly, when the dust cleared, they were out $600,000 they thought they could count on, plus the hit that their other funds took during the current recession.
They just could not believe that people of their caliber could be scammed. The physician acknowledged that the most successful large-scale cons were usually aimed at doctors, actors, and Mormons. But though he is a physician, he's in research. Plus, he's not a member of the Latter Day Saints; he's Jewish. Plus, he's really, really smart, as is his wife.
Somehow, he expected that all of those traits would protect him from the Madoffs of this world.
I have to wonder if those attributes actually made him more vulnerable--that he felt so protected by his intelligence that he didn't question where his wonderful returns were coming from. Why was everyone else hurting as the economy slid into recession but Bernie kept their money coming?
My friends are hardly out on the street though neither one will be retiring quite as soon as they had hoped. They got rid of their Manhattan co-op (bringing a check for $22,000 to the table to do so) and moved to Park Slope. For folks familiar with NYC real estate, Park Slope is not exactly the poor side of town.
But the greatest damage was done to their sense of their innate ability to manage their money. They would never have fallen prey to the e-mail plea of a Nigerian general's widow but when the scammer comes clothed in your own religion, speaks your language and projects an air of financial sophistication?
Then, almost everyone is capable of playing the fool.
The last time we got together, five years ago, we had laughed hysterically at the small town city council in my state who had actually used city funds to participate in what turned out to be a Nigerian scam. We marveled at idiots who were foolish enough to put their faith in an e-mail that promised them millions.
But my friends weren't laughing about Madoff. They "lost" over $600,000 in Bernie's New York version of Nigeria. I put quotations around the words "lost" because they didn't actually invest that much, but they understood that the investments they HAD made were increasing rapidly. Sadly, when the dust cleared, they were out $600,000 they thought they could count on, plus the hit that their other funds took during the current recession.
They just could not believe that people of their caliber could be scammed. The physician acknowledged that the most successful large-scale cons were usually aimed at doctors, actors, and Mormons. But though he is a physician, he's in research. Plus, he's not a member of the Latter Day Saints; he's Jewish. Plus, he's really, really smart, as is his wife.
Somehow, he expected that all of those traits would protect him from the Madoffs of this world.
I have to wonder if those attributes actually made him more vulnerable--that he felt so protected by his intelligence that he didn't question where his wonderful returns were coming from. Why was everyone else hurting as the economy slid into recession but Bernie kept their money coming?
My friends are hardly out on the street though neither one will be retiring quite as soon as they had hoped. They got rid of their Manhattan co-op (bringing a check for $22,000 to the table to do so) and moved to Park Slope. For folks familiar with NYC real estate, Park Slope is not exactly the poor side of town.
But the greatest damage was done to their sense of their innate ability to manage their money. They would never have fallen prey to the e-mail plea of a Nigerian general's widow but when the scammer comes clothed in your own religion, speaks your language and projects an air of financial sophistication?
Then, almost everyone is capable of playing the fool.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
The Law of Unintended Consequences hits Young Workers
Who'a thunk that MY saving money in my 401(k) would work to the detriment of young workers?
As Catherine Rampell and Matthew Saltmarsh write in Thursday's New York Times, the losses that prospective retirees see in their 401(k)s are keeping them on the job longer, which means fewer positions opening to new employees.
This is less true in other recession-hit countries (those with--OH NO!--SOCIALIST agendas!) where government pensions ARE intended to cover all costs, unlike the United States, where Social Security is intended merely to supplement employer pensions (which are, of course, going the way of the Dodo!) and employee savings. According to the article, last year in the United States, almost a third of people ages 65 to 69 were still in the labor force; in France, just 4 percent of people this age were still working or looking for work.
This is the point where some folks sneer "Then, move to France if you want to!" Or they correctly point out the higher taxes that French citizens pay. I wonder why we can't take some lessons from countries who are handling issues like health care and retirement more effectively than we do in the US. I wonder why, instead, we so often resort to jingoistic responses that get nothing changed, and nothing solved.
As it happens, I will NOT have an employer-paid pension when I retire. As it also happens, I really like my current job. So Grace is definitely one of the old geezers standing in the way of recent college grads. I can't afford to retire "on time," (for me, age 65 and four months) But I probably wouldn't, anyway.
As Catherine Rampell and Matthew Saltmarsh write in Thursday's New York Times, the losses that prospective retirees see in their 401(k)s are keeping them on the job longer, which means fewer positions opening to new employees.
This is less true in other recession-hit countries (those with--OH NO!--SOCIALIST agendas!) where government pensions ARE intended to cover all costs, unlike the United States, where Social Security is intended merely to supplement employer pensions (which are, of course, going the way of the Dodo!) and employee savings. According to the article, last year in the United States, almost a third of people ages 65 to 69 were still in the labor force; in France, just 4 percent of people this age were still working or looking for work.
This is the point where some folks sneer "Then, move to France if you want to!" Or they correctly point out the higher taxes that French citizens pay. I wonder why we can't take some lessons from countries who are handling issues like health care and retirement more effectively than we do in the US. I wonder why, instead, we so often resort to jingoistic responses that get nothing changed, and nothing solved.
As it happens, I will NOT have an employer-paid pension when I retire. As it also happens, I really like my current job. So Grace is definitely one of the old geezers standing in the way of recent college grads. I can't afford to retire "on time," (for me, age 65 and four months) But I probably wouldn't, anyway.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Grandma Goes In Debt
More (depressing!) food for thought in USA Today's story "Credit Card Debt Rises Faster for Those 65 and older."
The great bugaboos of old age--medical bills and adult children--appear to be the culprits.
The rate of increase in debt among seniors is breathtaking. The study quoted in the article shows that low- and middle-income consumers 65 and older carried $10,235 in average card debt last year, up a whopping 26% from 2005. Compare this to credit card debt for all borrowers surveyed which rose 3% during that time, to $9,827.
Much of the increase is attributed to the cost of living, combined with reductions in available retirement funds.
According to an associate director of Demos, the organization that conducted the study, "The frivolous spending idea, that's not what's driving families into crazy debt. The expense that most affects families is the cost of living."
I dunno about you, but these statistics worry me even more than the increasing debt load being accrued by young adults in college--at least our younger citizens have another forty plus years to earn money and tame the debt.
Not helping matters was the survey's finding that older folks are not only borrowing more, but they are paying higher interest rates for the privilege.
It's stories like this that make me more determined than ever to get rid of my debts BEFORE I head into retirement.
The great bugaboos of old age--medical bills and adult children--appear to be the culprits.
The rate of increase in debt among seniors is breathtaking. The study quoted in the article shows that low- and middle-income consumers 65 and older carried $10,235 in average card debt last year, up a whopping 26% from 2005. Compare this to credit card debt for all borrowers surveyed which rose 3% during that time, to $9,827.
Much of the increase is attributed to the cost of living, combined with reductions in available retirement funds.
According to an associate director of Demos, the organization that conducted the study, "The frivolous spending idea, that's not what's driving families into crazy debt. The expense that most affects families is the cost of living."
I dunno about you, but these statistics worry me even more than the increasing debt load being accrued by young adults in college--at least our younger citizens have another forty plus years to earn money and tame the debt.
Not helping matters was the survey's finding that older folks are not only borrowing more, but they are paying higher interest rates for the privilege.
It's stories like this that make me more determined than ever to get rid of my debts BEFORE I head into retirement.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Just a Typo Away From Retirement
I was trying to figure out what Sharon from "Musings of a Midlife Mom" was talking about when she commented on my last post.
What? Me retire at age 59? How does that work when I'm already 60 years old?
OK, so I made a typo. After sixty years on this planet, I'm entitled to a typo or two. Or five.
69 years old, NOT 59! 69!
That's the current plan, God and my health willing. Of course, I'd be happy to retire sooner.
Maybe I could win the lottery?
God, are you paying attention?
I wonder if I have to buy a ticket first?
What? Me retire at age 59? How does that work when I'm already 60 years old?
OK, so I made a typo. After sixty years on this planet, I'm entitled to a typo or two. Or five.
69 years old, NOT 59! 69!
That's the current plan, God and my health willing. Of course, I'd be happy to retire sooner.
Maybe I could win the lottery?
God, are you paying attention?
I wonder if I have to buy a ticket first?
Thursday, August 27, 2009
August Update
August turned out much better than I anticipated, helped along by the fact that neither my TV purchase nor my van repairs (the second set) have yet registered. I reduced my total indebtedness by $737.06. Not exactly an amazing amount, but I'm just grateful it is headed in the right direction.
In the meantime, it's getting exciting watching my 401(k) recover. I now have $8000 more in my retirement savings than I had last month, and only $1025 of that comes from new contributions. According to Financial Engines (my favorite website when it comes to figuring out what I need for retirement and how I currently stand in my effort to get there), I have a 72% chance of retiring at age 59 with an income of at least $43,000. (My retirement goal is to have at least $40,000 per year, but preferably $50,000.)
So August turned out OK, if not spectacular.
On the other hand, with September comes school clothes and tuition for the grandkids.
I'm going to follow AA's example, and just take it one day and one month at a time.
In the meantime, it's getting exciting watching my 401(k) recover. I now have $8000 more in my retirement savings than I had last month, and only $1025 of that comes from new contributions. According to Financial Engines (my favorite website when it comes to figuring out what I need for retirement and how I currently stand in my effort to get there), I have a 72% chance of retiring at age 59 with an income of at least $43,000. (My retirement goal is to have at least $40,000 per year, but preferably $50,000.)
So August turned out OK, if not spectacular.
On the other hand, with September comes school clothes and tuition for the grandkids.
I'm going to follow AA's example, and just take it one day and one month at a time.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Tweaking My Bloglist
I went through my bloglist and checked that all the links work. I also removed anyone who hadn't posted to their blog in the last six months. And, since I'm always finding new personal finance blogs to read, I added a few new ones to my mix.
If you think I missed a good blog, or you want to know where YOUR blog is, leave a comment.
If you think I missed a good blog, or you want to know where YOUR blog is, leave a comment.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The Van Lives!
What do you know!
Apparently my van's transmission is nothing to write home about, but neither does it need to be rebuilt. A $220 repair, and I'll be good to go tomorrow.
You have no idea how relieved I am, even though I have been reading the auto ads and fantasizing about a new car. I haven't had a car payment in five years, and I'm really not in a financial place to have one now.
Murphy, of course, watched my adventures in auto mechanics, and finding only disappointment there, decided to move on to my ten-year-old TV set.
Poof! One minute I'm watching it and the next, the picture is gone.
Some would point out that this might be a good time to learn to live without a TV, but that ain't gonna happen. (Um, yeah, Ole Grace is a video addict.)
But, hey! I'd just dodged an $6000 bullet, so what's $206 for a 22 inch flat screen TV, right?
Did I read Consumer Reports? Did I check for the most quality at best price? Or did I run out in a panic and buy the first reasonably priced TV set I saw? (No prizes for figuring out the answer to that one!)
This is NOT going to be one of my better months for debt reduction.
But dang! I still have my not-so-trusty Dodge Caravan, and a brand new TV. Color Grace happy!
Apparently my van's transmission is nothing to write home about, but neither does it need to be rebuilt. A $220 repair, and I'll be good to go tomorrow.
You have no idea how relieved I am, even though I have been reading the auto ads and fantasizing about a new car. I haven't had a car payment in five years, and I'm really not in a financial place to have one now.
Murphy, of course, watched my adventures in auto mechanics, and finding only disappointment there, decided to move on to my ten-year-old TV set.
Poof! One minute I'm watching it and the next, the picture is gone.
Some would point out that this might be a good time to learn to live without a TV, but that ain't gonna happen. (Um, yeah, Ole Grace is a video addict.)
But, hey! I'd just dodged an $6000 bullet, so what's $206 for a 22 inch flat screen TV, right?
Did I read Consumer Reports? Did I check for the most quality at best price? Or did I run out in a panic and buy the first reasonably priced TV set I saw? (No prizes for figuring out the answer to that one!)
This is NOT going to be one of my better months for debt reduction.
But dang! I still have my not-so-trusty Dodge Caravan, and a brand new TV. Color Grace happy!
Friday, August 21, 2009
Bi-Polar Finances
With apologies to those truly suffering from Bi-Polar Disorder (a mental illness I wouldn't wish on anyone), I sometimes wonder if I'm financially bi-polar. Keep in mind that in the rest of my life, I am a pretty steady, optimistic person. But when it comes to money, particularly MY MONEY, my emotions go all over the map--not always rationally.
Take today. For several weeks, I've been waiting for a $75 check to come through my account. I dutifully subtract it from my balance each time I view my account online. Then the bank notifies me that they made an error, and that the check was actually cashed back in June, and that it has been subtracted from the account already.
Which means I have $75 more than I thought.
Which means I'm ecstatic.
Over $75?
I have to get out more!
But just a week ago, I was depressed because I may well have to get a new (to me) car. The vehicle issue has not resolved, so I should still be depressed, right? But, no--I've got $75 that is new money to me!
It bothers me that I can be so thoughtful, so rational, in other aspects of my life, but not with my finances. I flow emotionally in whatever direction the financial wind is blowing.
Yesterday was down. Today is up. God only knows how I'll feel tomorrow.
Take today. For several weeks, I've been waiting for a $75 check to come through my account. I dutifully subtract it from my balance each time I view my account online. Then the bank notifies me that they made an error, and that the check was actually cashed back in June, and that it has been subtracted from the account already.
Which means I have $75 more than I thought.
Which means I'm ecstatic.
Over $75?
I have to get out more!
But just a week ago, I was depressed because I may well have to get a new (to me) car. The vehicle issue has not resolved, so I should still be depressed, right? But, no--I've got $75 that is new money to me!
It bothers me that I can be so thoughtful, so rational, in other aspects of my life, but not with my finances. I flow emotionally in whatever direction the financial wind is blowing.
Yesterday was down. Today is up. God only knows how I'll feel tomorrow.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
More than I Financially Wanted to Know
Only once in my life have I cared enough about a photograph to check out who took the picture.
It was a photograph in Rolling Stone many years ago. It was, of course, by Annie Leibovitz.
Since that time, I've attended exhibitions of her photos in New York City, Paris and Seattle. And I always look for her work in Vanity Fair.
I marvel at how she looks at people. And how she gets them to look back at us.
But great artists are not always great at managing their money. Instead, greatness brings its own issues, including in Annie's case, addiction, perfectionism, and no one to put the brakes on when necessary.
New York Magazine takes a long look at Annie Leibovitz's finances and gives us a scary portrait of a sixty year old artist just past her zenith as well as an older parent of an eight year old daughter and four year old twins, who is now near bankruptcy.
It saddens me to see the real life warts on people whose art I admire. Not that I don't think Leibovitz brought her financial ills upon herself--clearly she did. But it gives me no joy to see her brought down financially.
It was a photograph in Rolling Stone many years ago. It was, of course, by Annie Leibovitz.
Since that time, I've attended exhibitions of her photos in New York City, Paris and Seattle. And I always look for her work in Vanity Fair.
I marvel at how she looks at people. And how she gets them to look back at us.
But great artists are not always great at managing their money. Instead, greatness brings its own issues, including in Annie's case, addiction, perfectionism, and no one to put the brakes on when necessary.
New York Magazine takes a long look at Annie Leibovitz's finances and gives us a scary portrait of a sixty year old artist just past her zenith as well as an older parent of an eight year old daughter and four year old twins, who is now near bankruptcy.
It saddens me to see the real life warts on people whose art I admire. Not that I don't think Leibovitz brought her financial ills upon herself--clearly she did. But it gives me no joy to see her brought down financially.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Snarky Television
I have a new favorite TV show--HGTV's "Real Estate Intervention."
It features totally deluded homeowners who have yet to face the fact that their homes are not worth what they want for them in what is decidely a buyer's market.
Mike Aubrey is the host. While he is a hulk-like presence (complete with bald head and Hitlerish moustache), he is gentle with these idiots as he takes them around to comparable homes that have sold for or are listed at many thousands less than the featured homeowners expect to get for their own houses.
In one case, he takes his charges to a home that is an exact duplicate of their house, except that it has a fireplace, which theirs does not. He points out the much lower selling price, at which point, they tell him, with straight faces, "Well, we think some buyers won't like the fireplace and will pay more not to have one."
Say what? Are they kidding? Personally, I never use my fireplace and wouldn't care if my home didn't have one, but even so, I'm aware that having the fireplace increases the value.
Some of the homeowners are just in sad situations fostered by a foundering economy. One older woman is selling her Georgetown home (which actually is NOT in Georgetown--something she keeps forgetting) because she lost her job and hasn't been able to find a new one. Unlike most of the featured sellers, she does wind up making about $100,000 on her eventual sale--I, for one, was happy that she did.
Which brings up another point. Several of the homeowners seemed to have been using their houses as their personal piggy bank. One family purchased their home for $120,000 but now owed over $200,000.
I purchased my home in 1993 for $95,300--a 1929 barn of a house in an iffy but thriving neighborhood. In 1999, I refinanced the home at a lower interest rate, reduced the term of the mortgage to 15 years, and pulled out $20,000 for some much-needed deferred maintainance. In 2006, I took out a second mortgage through my credit union in the amount of $30,000 to put on a new roof and add a basement waterproofing system (also much-needed in that each winter my basement doubled as a murky swimming pool!). Today, I owe a little over $45,000 on my mortgage and $28,000 on the second. The first mortgage will be fully paid off in 4.5 years. The second in 10 years, though my plan is to throw the first mortgage payments at it once I have those funds available, so it should be paid in 6 years.
The most important steps are the ones I didn't take--I did not get upside down with regard to my home. It is currently worth at least $300,000. So if push ever comes to shove, and I had to sell, I would make a considerable amount of money from the sale.
Oddly enough, since Zillow once valued my home at over $400,000 a couple of years ago, I often still feel as though I've LOST money on my house--one's personal feelings and reality are not always the same!
Reality is what most of the homeowners on "Real Estate Intervention" don't want to face. Sadly, by the end of each show, most of them are still hanging onto their dreams and refusing to price their homes in line with the market. In their minds, their homes are worth more, never mind that the comparable homes sold for less, have more amenities, more space, and better lay-outs. By the end of each show, most have failed to sell their homes, or have taken them off the market entirely.
Which, of course, allows viewers like Grace to write snarky posts like this one!
It features totally deluded homeowners who have yet to face the fact that their homes are not worth what they want for them in what is decidely a buyer's market.
Mike Aubrey is the host. While he is a hulk-like presence (complete with bald head and Hitlerish moustache), he is gentle with these idiots as he takes them around to comparable homes that have sold for or are listed at many thousands less than the featured homeowners expect to get for their own houses.
In one case, he takes his charges to a home that is an exact duplicate of their house, except that it has a fireplace, which theirs does not. He points out the much lower selling price, at which point, they tell him, with straight faces, "Well, we think some buyers won't like the fireplace and will pay more not to have one."
Say what? Are they kidding? Personally, I never use my fireplace and wouldn't care if my home didn't have one, but even so, I'm aware that having the fireplace increases the value.
Some of the homeowners are just in sad situations fostered by a foundering economy. One older woman is selling her Georgetown home (which actually is NOT in Georgetown--something she keeps forgetting) because she lost her job and hasn't been able to find a new one. Unlike most of the featured sellers, she does wind up making about $100,000 on her eventual sale--I, for one, was happy that she did.
Which brings up another point. Several of the homeowners seemed to have been using their houses as their personal piggy bank. One family purchased their home for $120,000 but now owed over $200,000.
I purchased my home in 1993 for $95,300--a 1929 barn of a house in an iffy but thriving neighborhood. In 1999, I refinanced the home at a lower interest rate, reduced the term of the mortgage to 15 years, and pulled out $20,000 for some much-needed deferred maintainance. In 2006, I took out a second mortgage through my credit union in the amount of $30,000 to put on a new roof and add a basement waterproofing system (also much-needed in that each winter my basement doubled as a murky swimming pool!). Today, I owe a little over $45,000 on my mortgage and $28,000 on the second. The first mortgage will be fully paid off in 4.5 years. The second in 10 years, though my plan is to throw the first mortgage payments at it once I have those funds available, so it should be paid in 6 years.
The most important steps are the ones I didn't take--I did not get upside down with regard to my home. It is currently worth at least $300,000. So if push ever comes to shove, and I had to sell, I would make a considerable amount of money from the sale.
Oddly enough, since Zillow once valued my home at over $400,000 a couple of years ago, I often still feel as though I've LOST money on my house--one's personal feelings and reality are not always the same!
Reality is what most of the homeowners on "Real Estate Intervention" don't want to face. Sadly, by the end of each show, most of them are still hanging onto their dreams and refusing to price their homes in line with the market. In their minds, their homes are worth more, never mind that the comparable homes sold for less, have more amenities, more space, and better lay-outs. By the end of each show, most have failed to sell their homes, or have taken them off the market entirely.
Which, of course, allows viewers like Grace to write snarky posts like this one!
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Singing the No Vehicle Blues
Remember when I paid (OK, charged!) $500+ to put in a new water pump and timing belt in my 1999 Dodge Caravan a couple of weeks ago?
Well, shortly thereafter, the van started to make weird squealing noises. I took it back to Firestone to see if they had done something wrong but they told me it sounded like a transmission problem and suggested I take it to a shop that specialized in transmissions.
So, after a week and a half without a vehicle (I was afraid to drive it), I took it into a neighborhood transmission shop yesterday. Apparently, it will either be something easy to fix or it will need a rebuilt transmission, which will run $1400. No way am I going to have the latter--my whole vehicle is only worth $1600 according to Kelly Blue Book. I'm awaiting a phone call from the shop as I type.
Dang!
Not only will I have wasted the $500 (which it looks like I will be able to pay off before incurring any interest), but I will have to get another vehicle about a year earlier than I intended to.
More debt.
More monthly payments.
And a budget that can stand neither.
Grace is NOT a happy camper!
And here's the kicker! I checked out the eligibility guidelines for the "Cash for Clunkers" program. Apparently a 1999 Dodge Caravan got 19 mpg in city and highway driving when new, which puts it one mile OVER the guidelines. So no help there when it comes to purchasing a new (to me) vehicle.
Honestly, I feel like crying. I know this will all work itself out, but the thought of having to shop for another car and to incur even more debt puts me in a very whiney mood.
I do know that this time around I want a small, high-mileage car, preferably under $12,000. Beyond that? Who knows?
Well, shortly thereafter, the van started to make weird squealing noises. I took it back to Firestone to see if they had done something wrong but they told me it sounded like a transmission problem and suggested I take it to a shop that specialized in transmissions.
So, after a week and a half without a vehicle (I was afraid to drive it), I took it into a neighborhood transmission shop yesterday. Apparently, it will either be something easy to fix or it will need a rebuilt transmission, which will run $1400. No way am I going to have the latter--my whole vehicle is only worth $1600 according to Kelly Blue Book. I'm awaiting a phone call from the shop as I type.
Dang!
Not only will I have wasted the $500 (which it looks like I will be able to pay off before incurring any interest), but I will have to get another vehicle about a year earlier than I intended to.
More debt.
More monthly payments.
And a budget that can stand neither.
Grace is NOT a happy camper!
And here's the kicker! I checked out the eligibility guidelines for the "Cash for Clunkers" program. Apparently a 1999 Dodge Caravan got 19 mpg in city and highway driving when new, which puts it one mile OVER the guidelines. So no help there when it comes to purchasing a new (to me) vehicle.
Honestly, I feel like crying. I know this will all work itself out, but the thought of having to shop for another car and to incur even more debt puts me in a very whiney mood.
I do know that this time around I want a small, high-mileage car, preferably under $12,000. Beyond that? Who knows?
Thursday, August 6, 2009
And I thought I Was Starting Late. . .
Just when I was thinking that I was one of the the worst of the late-bloomers (that's what I get for reading all those wonderful blogs out there by twenty-somethings who are already saving up for retirement--not to mention for weddings, homes, and kids), along comes Sarah.
Sarah was profiled on Monday's Dallas News. (Thanks to Boston Gal for pointing me toward Sarah's story.)
Sarah is 57 and has NO retirement savings. Never mind that her employer would match up to 6% of her salary (meaning, she has left substantial dollars on the table every year) or that in addition to her base salary of $58,000, she apparently makes good money from a family oil well lease.
The article is a tad cagey about just what her annual income is, at one time saying that the amount of oil-well income varies, and at another, quoting the financial advisor as saying that her total income is "very respectable." I can't tell if she's making about the same $75,000 a year I make, or not.
One comment that I don't understand is her financial planner's concern that she may wind up in bankruptcy if the oil money goes away--overall, her debt doesn't seem to me to be that substantial. She owes around $26,000. Maybe it's because I owe about $21,000 so her debt doesn't seem so far off from mine. I've never considered bankruptcy, and wouldn't unless I owed far more than I do. (I do realize that Sarah has fewer concerns about assets, which I would have to consider--she doesn't have much equity in her home.)
The article doesn't mention prior marriages, so I'm assuming that Sarah, like myself, has always been single.
What IS she thinking????
Is she planning to inherit from her parents? I know of several people whose retirements are based largely on what they expect to get from their parents' estates.
Sarah says she is an optimist and has always believed it will all work out. I understand this; I think of myself as optimistic as well.
But late as I am to the world of retirement saving or planning, at least I got there before age 58!
Sarah was profiled on Monday's Dallas News. (Thanks to Boston Gal for pointing me toward Sarah's story.)
Sarah is 57 and has NO retirement savings. Never mind that her employer would match up to 6% of her salary (meaning, she has left substantial dollars on the table every year) or that in addition to her base salary of $58,000, she apparently makes good money from a family oil well lease.
The article is a tad cagey about just what her annual income is, at one time saying that the amount of oil-well income varies, and at another, quoting the financial advisor as saying that her total income is "very respectable." I can't tell if she's making about the same $75,000 a year I make, or not.
One comment that I don't understand is her financial planner's concern that she may wind up in bankruptcy if the oil money goes away--overall, her debt doesn't seem to me to be that substantial. She owes around $26,000. Maybe it's because I owe about $21,000 so her debt doesn't seem so far off from mine. I've never considered bankruptcy, and wouldn't unless I owed far more than I do. (I do realize that Sarah has fewer concerns about assets, which I would have to consider--she doesn't have much equity in her home.)
The article doesn't mention prior marriages, so I'm assuming that Sarah, like myself, has always been single.
What IS she thinking????
Is she planning to inherit from her parents? I know of several people whose retirements are based largely on what they expect to get from their parents' estates.
Sarah says she is an optimist and has always believed it will all work out. I understand this; I think of myself as optimistic as well.
But late as I am to the world of retirement saving or planning, at least I got there before age 58!
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Festival of Frugality
Every Tuesday brings a new Festival of Frugality. This week, it is hosted by "Modern Tightwad" and Grace's post on her (accidentally) frugal week-end is among the offerings.
And, yes, I really did get through the entire week-end for a measly three bucks!
And, yes, I really did get through the entire week-end for a measly three bucks!
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Freebie Weekend
It started accidentally.
First, I stopped at the library after work and picked up the two movies I'd reserved ("Charlie's War" and "Angels and Insects") for free weekend viewing.
Then Friday evening, a neighbor who was headed out to a local park for a free blues concert, invited me to share a picnic dinner with her family. I'd won a free six-pack of "Mike's Hard Lemonade" in a grocery store drawing earlier in the week, so I brought that along as my contribution, along with a bag of potato chips that had remained miraculously unopened. The weather was warm, the music cool, and the company, great.
On Saturday, a friend and I used our Bank of America debit cards for free entry to a local historical mansion and our local art museum. This is a program available on the first Saturday and Sunday of each month, wherein any proof of a Bank of America account will get one into various city attractions. It's too bad I live nowhere near New York City, because the Bronz Zoo is on the list.
Lunch was another picnic, this time on the grounds of the mansion, with a terrific view of my city, including the mountains in the background. Salami sandwiches and leftover hummus never tasted so good. Then we went to an IMAX movie with the two free tickets I'd gotten a couple of months ago when the projector ate the film I'd gone to see. (I'd only purchased one ticket, but the theatre gave out two tickets to each of us as compensation for the inconvenience.)
Today I went to an office brunch to honor our summer interns.
So here it is, not quite noon on Sunday, and I've spent exactly $3.00 for the entire week-end. (If you must know where the $3 went, consider that Grace NEVER watches a movie without popcorn!)
Now that I see what a cheap weekend it has been, I think I will deliberately not spend anything for the rest of the day just so I can say I had a $3 weekend! And I didn't skimp on a thing!
First, I stopped at the library after work and picked up the two movies I'd reserved ("Charlie's War" and "Angels and Insects") for free weekend viewing.
Then Friday evening, a neighbor who was headed out to a local park for a free blues concert, invited me to share a picnic dinner with her family. I'd won a free six-pack of "Mike's Hard Lemonade" in a grocery store drawing earlier in the week, so I brought that along as my contribution, along with a bag of potato chips that had remained miraculously unopened. The weather was warm, the music cool, and the company, great.
On Saturday, a friend and I used our Bank of America debit cards for free entry to a local historical mansion and our local art museum. This is a program available on the first Saturday and Sunday of each month, wherein any proof of a Bank of America account will get one into various city attractions. It's too bad I live nowhere near New York City, because the Bronz Zoo is on the list.
Lunch was another picnic, this time on the grounds of the mansion, with a terrific view of my city, including the mountains in the background. Salami sandwiches and leftover hummus never tasted so good. Then we went to an IMAX movie with the two free tickets I'd gotten a couple of months ago when the projector ate the film I'd gone to see. (I'd only purchased one ticket, but the theatre gave out two tickets to each of us as compensation for the inconvenience.)
Today I went to an office brunch to honor our summer interns.
So here it is, not quite noon on Sunday, and I've spent exactly $3.00 for the entire week-end. (If you must know where the $3 went, consider that Grace NEVER watches a movie without popcorn!)
Now that I see what a cheap weekend it has been, I think I will deliberately not spend anything for the rest of the day just so I can say I had a $3 weekend! And I didn't skimp on a thing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
