Beating Broke

Personal Finance from the Broke Perspective

401(k) Loans as Recession Insurance?

By Leave a Comment

With a recession (depending on whom you ask) upon us, would it have been wise for us to have taken a loan from our 401(k)s before it started?  Bear with me here for a second.  A loan from your 401(k) is pretty simple.  You borrow the money from yourself and then repay it to the 401(k) with interest.  The interest is usually something low.  Normally, it’s a bad idea, as the market usually performs as well, if not better, than the interest on the loan.

But, if (and that’s a big if) you were able to time the market relatively well to know there was going to be a downturn, you could loan the money to yourself.  Because the money would not be in the account, it wouldn’t suffer from the loss of value in your investments.  And instead, you’d gain whatever the interest rate was that you loaned the money for.  Instead of a double digit loss, you could have a relatively decent gain.  In theory it could work.

In theory.  The catch here is that you would have to time the market correctly.  If you missed it by a day, you could cost yourself some money.  If you were totally wrong and the market rallied, you’d end up missing out on possible gains.  But, if it worked, it could work out pretty well.  In the end, the more I look at it, it’s really a form of gambling.  You’re gambling that you can time the market and save your money.

Gambling is never a safe bet when it comes to your retirement.  It’s always tempting though.  It’s important to remember that a fall like we had over the last few years almost always comes back up.  You haven’t really lost money so much as lost value.  There’s a big difference there.  And if you keep contributing, which you should, you’re buying the very same investments at a bargain price.  So, instead of trying to minimize your losses by pulling your money out, you should be increasing your investment to maximize your return when the account finally bounces back up.

Ethics and Morality in Personal Finance

By 6 Comments

Personal finance isn’t all just about the best ways to save money and live frugally.  There are other things to consider; other rules that should be followed.  Some have absolutely nothing to do with saving money.Many of the posts here at Beating Broke deal with saving money, budgeting, and living frugally.  On many occasions I have drummed on the amount of debt that we all take on and the ways that we can go about budgeting to make that debt go away.  Deep in the root of that is a moral standard.  I believe we have a moral responsibility to not spend more than we earn.  And, because each dollar of debt, holds some risk of default, I believe we also have an ethical responsibility to budget so that we don’t default on our debt.

In the process of paying off our debt and saving money, many of us will be faced with a moral or ethical dilemma.  Perhaps you bought a bunch of things at a department store and the teller didn’t notice that one of the items rang up for less than it was supposed to be.  Or maybe the teller only rang up one item when there were really two.  Many of us have been faced with just such a situation.  And many of us, in our struggle to reduce our spending and debt, probably didn’t say a thing.  I know I have.  And I felt guilty about it.  Morally, and ethically, we have a responsibility to pay the correct price for an item, and to pay for the correct amount of items.  Even though I admit to not doing anything, I do try to keep myself honest.  Ill gotten gains are gains you’re likely to lose.  Call it karma, or whatever you like, you’ll feel the reverberations of your acts.

Perhaps more-so than in paying off debt and saving money, ethical and moral dilemmas can arise after we’ve paid it all off.  Suddenly, we find ourselves with an abundance of spendable money that we can save or do what we want with.  It’s not earmarked for any debt, and we’ve already paid ourselves.  The situation has changed, but we still have a moral and ethical obligation to do what is right.  If you’re investing your money, do you invest in so-called “sin stocks”?  The stocks of cigarette and alcohol and other indiscretions.  Again, I know I have.  I am still a shareholder in the parent companies of both Marlboro and Camel.  I’ve owned others in the past.  Depending on how you feel about those companies, a ethical dilemma could come up.  As a generality, those companies have rather solid stock and usually pay dividends.  If you feel that those companies are responsible for cancer and death, can you ethically allow yourself to support them by becoming a share owner of that company?

As debtors, we all despise the credit card companies who charge double digit interest rates and hide fees around every corner.  Banks too.  As someone who can now invest money rather than paying those credit card companies and banks, deciding how we feel about those rates and fees can be another dilemma.  If you’re one of the lucky ones  whose state has allowed access to the peer-to-peer lending companies, you have the ability to invest in loans that carry rates that are very much the same as what a credit card company or bank would charge.  The table has turned.  If you were against it when you were paying the rates and fees, can you ethically charge them?  Morally, should you?

I think that many of us look too closely at the technical aspects of personal finance.  We study amortizations schedules and debt snowballs.  We talk endlessly about our retirement funds and the ways that we are going to build them up.  And, while it is there as an undercurrent, we sometimes fail to see the moral and ethical currents that run in the background.  And sometimes, we allow our technical expertise and know-how overcome our moral and ethical compasses in order to make our debt snowball roll a bit faster.

If you truly want to win at personal finance, you have to find your moral and ethical limits and remain steadfast in their direction.  We all fail to do that occasionally, but, as the old saying goes, you’ve got to get back up and try again.

Is CD Laddering Worth the Trouble?

By 11 Comments

I’ve been thinking about this for quite some time, but today’s post from DoughRoller with A Dead Simple Alternative to CD Laddering was the icing on the proverbial cake.  And I think that DoughRoller is right.  Or at least, what DR says is in line with what I’ve been thinking too.

Here’s the basics.  A CD Ladder typically is made of several 1 YR  CD’s whose maturity dates has been staggered such that a new one is maturing about every 3 months or so.  Depending on the variation, some may even have one maturing every month.  It’s all in how you stagger the CDs.  Because you have them staggered, your money is never completely locked away and you can always get to some of it every month or three months.  So, any non-emergency expenditure can be planned for and the money from the most recent maturing CD can be used to pay for the expenditure.  At some point, you replace the CD and all is back to where it was.

My problem with all of that is that if you split $10,000 over 4 CDs, you get 4 $2500 CDs.  If you split it over 12, you get 12 $833 CDs.  That’s great, but what if you need to spend more than that?  You have to cash more than one CD.  Or you have to wait even longer until more of the money is freed up.  It’s not a catastrophe.  But it’s inconvenient.  On top of all that, you’ll likely pay a penalty on any extra CDs that you decide to cash out.  Again, not a catastrophe.

The solution, as DR and I see it, is to take that $10,000 and dump it into a long term CD.  Say a 5 year CD.  Yes, if you need the money before that 5 years is up, you will still pay a penalty.  But, the penalty is generally something like 3 months interest.  So, as long as you’ve held the CD for longer than 3 months, the worst you can do is break even.  If you cash it out in less than 3 months, you either didn’t plan well in the first place or you really have an emergency and you probably won’t notice a few months interest.  The main advantage of this method is that all of your money is available to you at all times.  A secondary, but nearly as important advantage, is that the long term CDs generally pay higher interest.  So, if you leave the money for the full 5 years, you will have made significantly more interest than you would have with 4-12 1 YR CDs.

Rate examples (as of March 31, 2010)

  • ING Direct: 1YR CD = 1%, 5 YR CD = 1.25%
  • HSBC Advance: 1 YR CD = 0.40%, 4* YR CD =1.70%
  • Ally: 1 YR CD = 1.54%, 5 YR CD = 2.99%

As you can see, there are some pretty significant differences in rates between a 1 year CD and a 5 year CD.  Ally only has a 60 day early withdrawal penalty.  HSBC only has a 30 day penalty.  ING has, by far, the worst penalties for early withdrawal.  Any CD over 12 months term will incur a 6 month penalty and any CD 12 months and under will incur a 3 month penalty. Looks like Ally is the place to go.

I think the strongest point for this type of CD investing is that I don’t like losing that extra interest because of a “maybe”.  Yes,  “maybe” I’ll need that money before that 5 years is up.  But, I may not need it at all.  And if that’s the case, I’d rather be earning the higher rate.  And if that “maybe” comes around?  Well, hopefully I’ll have had the CD long enough to override any penalty that comes with that.  At worst, with those examples above, I would only need to hold the CD for 6 months before it would be an even transaction.  Sure, I lose that interest.  But, again, that’s only a “maybe”.