There was a fascinating story in BusinessWeek late last month about Virtual Wallet - an online banking tool aimed at Gen Yers by Pittsburgh-based PNC Financial Services.

The new service isn't very attractive, from a purely monetary point of view. But it's drawing in about 130 new users a day (4,000 a month or 47,000 a year) because of usability features designed to attract digital natives.Customers can drag money from account to account on one screen. Instead of a traditional ledger, they view balances on a calendar that displays estimated future cash flow based on when customers are paid, when they pay bills, and on their spending habits. Customers also can set various saving rules with a feature called "Savings Engine," which transfers money to savings when they receive a paycheck, say.So far PNC has over 20,000 Virtual Wallet customers. They maintain higher than average balances. They're cheaper to service. And 70% of them are Gen Yers...


Photo courtesy of iStockphoto, Image# 5222020


See full article.

Related Entries:

Generation:NEX Brings the Retro in Full Effect - 15 March 2007

Digital Photo Viewer Inside A Wallet - 29 April 2007

How to Find Virtual Assistant Opportunities Part II - 01 September 2007

Sony and NXP Jump on the Virtual Wallet Bandwagon - 15 November 2007

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

I heard an informative story on National Public Radio earlier this week about credit scores - and about how you can keep yours in tact in hard economic times.

I found out that some of my own past behavior may have hurt my FICO score a little. What's a FICO score? Good questions. And one of the things I liked best about the NPR story was that it gave me a history of FICO (an acronym for the Fair Isaac Corporation). So I'll let you find your answer at NPR.

But we all know we have a credit score. And we all know of the things that could hurt our credit score. What I didn't know was that the length of my history with a credit source was a factor in determining my score. I've had a habit over the years of paying for graduate school by opening an interest-free (introductory offer) credit card to put my tuition on. The, when the time comes to start paying interest (nine to 15 months down the road) I'd roll the balance over to a new interest-free card and close the original account. So even though I never missed a payment, my history with a lender was pretty short... And that's bad for my score.

You can listen to the story here.


Photo courtesy of iStockphoto, Marcus Clackson


See full article.

Related Entries:

How Many Credit Scores are There? - 22 February 2006

What Google has to Say with Quality Score Quandary... - 19 February 2007

Credit Score Formula Changing to Fight "Credit Renting" - 12 June 2007

FICO Relents; Credit Card Authorized Users Can Boost Their Credit Scores - 12 August 2008

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

Photo courtesy of iStockphoto, Bela Tibor Kozma I would never say "Peace out", but it sounds cool on the blog. I am leaving my perch as head of this blog, an amicable parting of ways, a way to free up time for both my regular job and to write longer pieces as a guest elsewhere versus the pressure to come up with something even when the spirit didn't quite move me.

Thanks to all of you who read and commented, even if your only comment was to tell me I didn't know what I was talking about. (Which was not news to me, by the way.)

If you're ever looking for a guest blogger on your own finance-related blog, whether for a one-shot post or a fill-in gig, e-mail me at j.mchenry@indexcreditcards.com. I'd love the chance to speak to different audiences from time to time.

With that I can only say...

Peace out, brothers & sisters. See full article.

Related Entries:

Sprint's Barry West: WiMax Will Create World Peace - 17 October 2006

Money, Peace, Freedom - 20 December 2006

Inner peace and calm - 25 April 2007

Find Your Inner Peace - 25 May 2008

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

© w.marsh Most of us have no clue how things got so bad so fast. It's like it happened in another world, a world that unfortunately holds a lot of our money via our retirement funds. Ferris Bueller's teacher is here to sort it all out: I don't know what the future will bring. If I knew the future, I would be the richest man on the planet very soon and I assure you I am very far from that.

But I now see what has happened and I can explain that, and it might give a tiny bit of insight into what will happen in the future.
Ben Stein goes on to give a generally understandable explanation of the subprimes mess and credit swaps and other financial instruments you and I will never grasp completely. It's a pretty good article, although with Ben Stein's decidedly Republican nature, it seems very glaring to have this be how he leads into it:
Start around 1995. Groups involved with civil rights issues and activities for poor people began to complain that poor people and especially non-white poor people got mortgages much less often than white well to do people. Many economists, including me, explained that it was not at all surprising that poorer, less credit worthy people were often turned down for credit. That's how credit is supposed to work: you lend to people who will pay you back.

But the advocates for poor and black people had immense political clout. Under President Bill Clinton, they passed legislation that called on banks to be required to lend to non credit worthy borrowers. The laws, including the Community Reinvestment Act, the CRA, required two large government sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to buy those lower quality mortgages from the banks, guarantee them, and sell them to the public. These were bundled into immense pools of subprime mortgages as they were called, and sold all over the world.
I don't know that I can even argue whether this is true or not, in terms of how this all started. But what I can argue is that by leading off in this way, Stein appears to argue that it's the fault of poor, black people. However, in his very next paragraph, he states:
Soon, the private sector got into the act in a vast way.
Yes, it did. And regardless of what happened with Fannie and Freddie, I don't think too many would argue that they were the main cause of what has transpired. And only Ben Stein would suggest that if advocates for the poor hadn't muscled their way in and forced the government to help poor people buy homes, everything would be fine. See full article.

Related Entries:

The technology meltdown/ boom - 31 October 2005

Wayback Wednesday #6: What Happened to Toughness? - 11 October 2006

Meltdown Chair：尼龙绳座椅 - 25 六月 2007

The Simpons Mobile Game: Minutes to Meltdown - 23 July 2007

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

Well, it looks like my long ago prediction may be coming true. Here's what I said in June of 2006: There's been a lot of hype about a newish Web site called Prosper.com that facilitates peer-to-peer lending. In short, you can go to the site and either try to secure a loan from other people that visit the site, or you can go to the site and be a lender, loaning out your money to others who need it.

Salon did a feature on it, as did BusinessWeek earlier this year (under the headline "The eBay of Loans?"), and I saw another one a few days ago. The site is run partly by the co-founder of E-Loan, Chris Larsen, so it's got some credibility in management. One person has already dedicated a whole blog to the wonders of Prosper.

It's really an exciting idea. Unfortunately, it will fail.
Well, Prosper is now not accepting new lenders. According to the New York Times, defaults were rising and:
Prosper stopped allowing lenders to make new loans, saying it needed to wait while the Securities and Exchange Commission evaluated its regulatory filings.

Monthly loan volumes at the company have been declining since the credit crisis worsened this spring. Prosper, which is unprofitable after raising $40 million in venture capital, now faces the damaging possibility that lenders may take their money off the site instead of waiting for the S.E.C. to allow lending to resume. That could take several months.
This does not mean Prosper.com is done. Read the full article & you will see that they are trying to create a secondary market that would allow people to sell the loans they make to other lenders in order to get out before the full loan period. However, it sounds like even before the lending was stopped, there were some bad signs:
Though the company says 7.9 percent more money has been lent on the site this year than last year at this time, the monthly total actually peaked in May and has been steadily declining ever since. The average loan amount on Prosper has also fallen 13 percent from last year, as lenders have become nervous about whether borrowers will repay the loan.

...

Half of the 20 largest lenders on the site have not made a new investment since August, according to the tracking site Lendingstats.com. A majority of the others have markedly decreased their lending. That might account for the declining month-to-month activity on the site during a time when Prosper needs to show that it has legs.
I don't wish for Prosper's demise, and the depth of the financial crisis makes it a bit more difficult to blame the Prosper business model for the troubles the site is having, but in the end my skeptical thoughts of 2 years ago appear correct. See full article.

Related Entries:

Why Prosper.com Will Fail - 01 June 2006

Counterpoint: Why Prosper.com Will Succeed - 02 June 2006

VC Loans for Startup Money? - 11 January 2007

Another Prosper.com Experience - 03 April 2008

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

Photo courtesy of iStockphoto, Image# 6417554 Selena Maranjian at Motley Fool had an interesting article a couple weeks back that I've been meaning to point out. It's a comparison of profit per employee at large companies.

Topping the list was ConocoPhillips at over $500,000 profit per employee. That seems like a ton, but according to her article, the whole oil industry averages over $300,000 per employee. Microsoft is only $194,000+ by comparison.

Obviously some industries are more profitable than others, in that you can make big money with far fewer employees. For examples, Maranjian checked out retailers and found Costco at $17,000+, with Wal-Mart and BJ's at only $6,000+.

These numbers are probably skewed a bit, because retailers have more part-time employees than oil companies, and a commenter also suggested that the big white-collar companies use more contractors that contribute to the profit without being employees on the books.

Nevertheless, an interesting read. See full article.

Related Entries:

The Birds and the Bees - 26 April 2006

Collecting Bees and Hornets for Immunotherapy Drugs - 20 July 2006

Offices for the Web Worker - 05 January 2007

What's bad for the humans, is bad for the bees - 17 June 2007

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

I know it's crazy. But the federal government just gave these dopes even more money to keep the company afloat, which to me says that AIG is going to survive, and my modest investment of $700 could easily net me a few thousand bucks down the road. Sure I could lose it all, but with the market the way it is right now, I really didn't see throwing $700 at AIG stock as a worse investment than any other stock I might buy. If the rest of the market recovers by 20%, I'm guessing AIG recovers by about 500%. If AIG ever touches $60 again (where it was a year ago), I'll make $20,000 off my $700 investment. It's a long shot, but I'm going to ride this one for a while - either lose all my money or make a nice return. Either way, the risk isn't all that great in my eyes.

Still looking at those small banks, but haven't jumped in yet, mostly because they're all actually up today. See full article.

Related Entries:

Chinese Finance Bloggers Pose No Threat to Government - 06 January 2006

Introducing the New Editor of Personal Finance Weblog - 02 June 2006

Will Rapid-Fire Finance Self-Destruct the Economy? - 27 July 2007

Fads, Finance, and Free: How To Really Make Money on the Web - 01 November 2007

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

© Gaetan Lee I love stuff like this. From ScienceDaily: New research by the University of Warwick reveals that many credit card customers become fixated on the level of minimum payments given on credit card bills. The mere presence of a minimum payment is enough to reduce the actual amount many people choose to pay on their bills, leading to further interest payments. The article goes on to talk about the required minimum payment being an "anchor" that makes people fixate on that number, even though the minimum payment amount is irrelevant to how much the card user can afford or how much s/he should pay on it that particular month (preferably all of it). The cardholder is then likely to pay less than s/he would have if the minimum payment didn't exist.

This is only true of those who choose to pay above the minimum payment; it doesn't suggest that people pay only the minimum payment even if they can afford more. It instead suggests that if you can't afford to pay off the whole bill, you'll pay less if a minimum payment is shown than you would if there was no minimum payment. Here's some more detail on how they carried out the experiment that came to this conclusion:
The experiment recruited 413 volunteers (54% female 46% male, with an age range of 18-68). Half were given mock credit card bills for £435.76 with a suggested minimum payment, and half the same level bill but without a suggested minimum payment. All were asked to imagine that the bill had arrived that morning and to decide, thinking about their current finances, how much they could afford to repay.

Once again the results found that the minimum payment had almost no affect on those who choose to pay their bills in full. 55% of those with minimum payments on their statement paid the bill in full. The same proportion of those without minimum payments on their statement paid the bill in full. However, the presence of a minimum payment had a large effect on those who chose to pay less than the full amount. When a suggested minimum payment was given the average repayment made by those not repaying the full amount plummeted 70% to just £99 on average (23% of the balance). Those not given any required minimum payment paid an average of £175 - 40% of the balance. Dr Stewart has calculated that, based on these data, minimum payment information could double the interest charged over the lifetime of the debt.
I find that fascinating; I wish I had taken up psychology in college. The only thing that makes me question the validity of the results is that it's a UK study, and everyone knows they're crazy over there. See full article.

Related Entries:

How to Accept Credit Card Payments - 23 October 2006

Gemalto and BASE Bring SMS-Based Mobile Payments to Belgium - 10 April 2007

Verizon Announces Mobile Payments via Partnership with Obopay - 21 June 2007

Always Have Backup, or Why Your Credit Card Company and/or Employer Treat You Like Crap - 06 March 2008

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

Via the Spending Smart Blog, "author" Kevin Trudeau, whose "Debt Cures 'They' Don't Want You to Know About" is sitting at #275 on Amazon's sales list, has been fined by the Federal Trade Commission for a bunch of false statements in his previous book The Weight Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know About. (Who do you suppose "they" are that have some vested interest in you not losing weight?)

Trudeau really got whacked:
A federal judge has banned Kevin Trudeau from infomercials in which he has an interest for three years and ordered him to pay more than $5 million in profits from his book, "The Weight Loss Cure 'They' Don't Want You to Know About." The ruling confirms an earlier contempt finding against Trudeau - the second time he has been found in contempt of court in the past four years.

In August, Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois stood by his conclusion in 2007 that Trudeau "clearly, and no doubt intentionally," violated a provision of a 2004 stipulated court order that prohibits Trudeau from misrepresenting the content of books in his infomercials. The judge stated that "the Infomercial[s] falsely and intentionally led thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of consumers to believe that the Weight Loss Book would describe an 'easy,' 'simple' protocol that, once 'finished' would allow the consumer to 'eat anything' he or she wants."
Trudeau's got a history of such things, it appears:
The FTC filed its first lawsuit against Trudeau in 1998, charging him with making false and misleading claims in infomercials for products he claimed could cause significant weight loss and cure addictions to heroin, alcohol, and cigarettes, and enable users to achieve a photographic memory. A stipulated court order resolving that case barred Trudeau from making false claims for products in the future, ordered him to pay $500,000 in consumer redress, and established a $500,000 performance bond to ensure compliance.

In 2003, the Commission charged Trudeau with violating the 1998 order by falsely claiming in infomercials that a product, Coral Calcium Supreme, could cure cancer. The court subsequently entered a preliminary injunction that ordered him not to make such claims.
When Trudeau continued to make cancer-cure claims about Coral Calcium, he was found in contempt of the injunction.

In 2004, Trudeau agreed to an order that resolved the Coral Calcium matter. The order directed him to pay $2 million in consumer redress and banned him from infomercials, except for infomercials for informational publications such as books, provided that he "must not misrepresent the content" of the books.

The most recent contempt action stems from Trudeau's misrepresentations of the contents of his weight-loss book in infomercials. In November 2007, Judge Gettleman found Trudeau in contempt, stating that he had misled thousands of consumers with false claims that were "in flagrant violation" of the court's order.

In his August ruling, the court banned Trudeau "or any person acting in concert with him, from participating in the production or publication of any infomercial for any product, including books, in which Mr. Trudeau or any related entity has an interest, for a period of three years from the date of this order." The court also imposed a judgment against Trudeau of more than $5 million dollars.
Based on the fines against him, this guy may get the chance to practice the debt cures in his new book on himself.
See full article.

Related Entries:

Downtime on Kevin, M.D. - 30 August 2005

Victoria's Secret Models Dish Out Beauty Secrets - 26 November 2007

Kevin Keegan is the king of the Toon - 08 April 2008

Kevin Kuranyi - oder wie man seinen eigenen Spieler kaputtpfeifen kann - 09 April 2008

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

Photo courtesy of iStockphoto, christine balderas Several studies & anecdotes have come out over the past year (including this one reported on by the New York Times) that suggest people are more likely to skip paying their mortgages than keeping up with their credit card payments or car payments. That is, if they don't have enough money to make all the payments, the mortgage payment is the first to go unpaid.

On the surface that doesn't make sense. After all, your mortgage represents the roof over your head, and in the big picture it is likely the place where you have the greatest monetary investment, when you look at the equity you have in your house or condo. But, as the article points out, the day-to-day sometimes wins out over the best financial decision:
But when faced with a choice of which payments to make, even those whose only mortgage is the family home will often push the housing payment aside. "They know they have to make payments on their credit card because they need that," Ms. Hart said, "and they need their car to get to work."
Yes, they need the house, too, but most of us are aware that it's a long road before a missed mortgage payment will get you thrown out of your house, while a missed car payment could get you repossessed, and a missed credit card payment could mean a reduced credit line, a jacked-up interest rate, and most definitely extra fees.

Given all that, it's easy to see why it happens. And if I was in that situation, I have a feeling I would make a similar choice. When you're in debt, you unfortunately get into a place where you have to put out today's fire before you even consider the larger picture. Of course that's why living the debt lifestyle is so dangerous.
See full article.

Related Entries:

Stinky: Credit Card Companies Pass Along Your New Card Numbers - 31 May 2006

Credit Card Reader for the Playstation 3 - 26 January 2007

CardIt Lets You Pay Your Mortgage with A Credit Card - 02 October 2007

Chase Won't Hike Your Credit Card Rates If You Screw Up On Another Bill - 19 November 2007

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

Photo courtesy of iStockphoto, Image# 4489297 Kara McGuire had a brief blog post the other day about the economic stimulus payments the guvmint handed out earlier this year, and though her post is mainly about how to get yours if you haven't already, I was more interested in her opening paragraph: Remember the economic stimulus check you received earlier this year? Barely! It feels like a long time ago since I fretted over whether to buy a flat screen TV or save the money. We bought grocery gift cards with $1200, which we're still using, and frittered away the other $600, probably spending part of it on the new front door we purchased this summer.

It was nice to get the extra cash, but did the stimulus checks really do the job?
Good question. As we sit today in the midst of this economic bailout situation in which we are told that failing to use $700 billion to buy up bad loans is going to sink the economy of the U.S. and, by association, much of the world, it's easy to forget the "stimulus" that was supposed to do just the opposite - jumpstart the economy. Call me crazy, but the country doesn't seem stimulated.

By the way, I wanted to see how much money each person in the country would get if the $700 billion was divided up among us, instead of going to bail out the big dummies. First, I had to see if I knew how to write out $700 billion. I think it is:

$700,000,000,000

That's a lot of zeros. Using this census clock, I got a U.S. population figure of 305,316,348. (It's already gone up since then, but you gotta choose a figure if you're going to do the math.)

So $700,000,000,000 divided by 305,316,348 = $2292.70. That's over $2000 per person, so if you're a family of 4, you could be getting an extra $9200 in your pocket instead of in AIG's (for example).

Many of us would be willing to take the bet that an extra $9000 for our family would be better spent than buying up bad mortgages with it. I thought we were an "ownership society" now. How about letting the finance companies own their bad decisions, and we'll take back ownership of the $700 billion. Who's with me? See full article.

Related Entries:

Microsensors can sniff out money - 05 July 2006

Big Money - 27 May 2007

Web 2.0 : How money is made - 05 August 2007

The Patriot, Chrysler's Hoped-For LeMans Winner - 04 July 2008

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

Photo courtesy of iStockphoto, Image# 7292192 Like everyone, I remember where I was on September 11, 2001. I was working out of my house in a suburb of Chicago, and it just so happens my kitchen was being remodeled. I watched the events of 9/11 with the guys who were tearing apart my kitchen. Normally I wouldn't specifically remember those guys, but now I do.

Anyway... although the events of 9/11 started in New York, it was soon D.C, and then a plane going down in a field in Pennsylvania. Irrational as this may have been, I had the feeling a plane could come crashing down on my home at that moment, so surreal and inexplicable were these events. Who knew what might happen next? Suddenly, nowhere felt safe.

Maybe it's wrong to make a connection between 9/11 and the current "credit crisis", and I do it with the full knowledge that the events of 9/11 were life-and-death events filled with horror for those who experienced them first-hand. My point isn't to say that they are at all the same - it's to say that for those of us who weren't directly affected, those events began as a curiosity on television when the first plane hit, then grew to a fear that these events really could show up on our doorstep.

As we've watched this credit crisis unfold, there's a similar feeling. Not that this crisis could actually extinguish our lives, but a growing realization that what began as us shaking our heads from afar at the greed of Wall Street and the stupidity of willy-nilly subprime mortgages could now morph into a financial crisis that will personally touch us, that really could change our way of life for the worse.

Maybe it's too dramatic of a connection. I don't believe anything in my lifetime will touch our collective lives in the way that September 11th did. But in the way that distant events suddenly feel like they could come crashing through your door, I see a similarity. See full article.

Related Entries:

The credit crunch - worst still ahead - 12 July 2008

Credit crisis: views from the inside - 18 September 2008

Oil prices and the credit crisis - 18 September 2008

Indian Outsourcing During the Credit Crunch - 28 September 2008

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

Photo courtesy of iStockphoto, Image# 7292192 Like everyone, I remember where I was on September 11, 2001. I was working out of my house in a suburb of Chicago, and it just so happens my kitchen was being remodeled. I watched the events of 9/11 with the guys who were tearing apart my kitchen. Normally I wouldn't specifically remember those guys, but now I do.

Anyway... although the events of 9/11 started in New York, it was soon D.C, and then a plane going down in a field in Pennsylvania. Irrational as this may have been, I had the feeling a plane could come crashing down on my home at that moment, so surreal and inexplicable were these events. Who knew what might happen next? Suddenly, nowhere felt safe.

Maybe it's wrong to make a connection between 9/11 and the current "credit crisis", and I do it with the full knowledge that the events of 9/11 were life-and-death events filled with horror for those who experienced them first-hand. My point isn't to say that they are at all the same - it's to say that for those of us who weren't directly affected, those events began as a curiosity on television when the first plane hit, then grew to a fear that these events really could show up on our doorstep.

As we've watched this credit crisis unfold, there's a similar feeling. Not that this crisis could actually extinguish our lives, but a growing realization that what began as us shaking our heads from afar at the greed of Wall Street and the stupidity of willy-nilly subprime mortgages could now morph into a financial crisis that will personally touch us, that really could change our way of life for the worse.

Maybe it's too dramatic of a connection. I don't believe anything in my lifetime will touch our collective lives in the way that September 11th did. But in the way that distant events suddenly feel like they could come crashing through your door, I see a similarity. See full article.

Related Entries:

The credit crunch - worst still ahead - 12 July 2008

Credit crisis: views from the inside - 18 September 2008

Oil prices and the credit crisis - 18 September 2008

Indian Outsourcing During the Credit Crunch - 28 September 2008

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

I know we're headed into the 2nd Great Depression and all, but darn it if I'm not tempted to buy in to some of the public regional banks that haven't yet been swallowed up. Here's my theory...

Sovereign Bank - SOV - Trading at $4.14 as I write this. Was $10.23 on September 19th.

National City - NCC - Trading at $1.86. Was $5.61 on September 19th.

Fifth Third Bank - FITB - Trading at $11.12. Was $18.88 on September 19th.

We've seen some crazy things, but has the world REALLY changed that much in in the last 10 days?

Take a wad of cash, say $10,000 (or less depending on how much of a thrill you want), and invest it evenly in those three stocks. Unless all three completely crash and burn, you probably come out ahead. If two out of three fail, you probably come out even, because at least one will survive and return to former glory. If two succeed and one fails, you make out pretty good, because you could easily see a double and a triple happening in short order. If all three survive, you could potentially double your investment in the next couple of months.

Yes it's risky. But by spreading it 3 ways, I see it as a real opportunity to make some big profits in a short time. (If you had bought these three stocks near the close yesterday, you could've woken up this morning and taken your 30% profit and moved on.) I think this market crash is overblown, and not every small bank is going to eaten alive.

DISCLAIMER: I don't know nothing about nothing. If you follow anything I say based on thinking that I'm some sort of financial expert, you're out of your mind. No one has a clue what the stock market will do in the future, so if you're going to invest, don't blame me or anyone else if it doesn't work out.
See full article.

Related Entries:

Banks want to change accounting rules - 22 May 2008

Banks: trouble ahead - 27 August 2008

The Difference Between Chinese Banks and American Banks - 18 September 2008

The fall of the investment banks - 22 September 2008

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

I know we're headed into the 2nd Great Depression and all, but darn it if I'm not tempted to buy in to some of the public regional banks that haven't yet been swallowed up. Here's my theory...

Sovereign Bank - SOV - Trading at $4.14 as I write this. Was $10.23 on September 19th.

National City - NCC - Trading at $1.86. Was $5.61 on September 19th.

Fifth Third Bank - FITB - Trading at $11.12. Was $18.88 on September 19th.

We've seen some crazy things, but has the world REALLY changed that much in in the last 10 days?

Take a wad of cash, say $10,000 (or less depending on how much of a thrill you want), and invest it evenly in those three stocks. Unless all three completely crash and burn, you probably come out ahead. If two out of three fail, you probably come out even, because at least one will survive and return to former glory. If two succeed and one fails, you make out pretty good, because you could easily see a double and a triple happening in short order. If all three survive, you could potentially double your investment in the next couple of months.

Yes it's risky. But by spreading it 3 ways, I see it as a real opportunity to make some big profits in a short time. (If you had bought these three stocks near the close yesterday, you could've woken up this morning and taken your 30% profit and moved on.) I think this market crash is overblown, and not every small bank is going to eaten alive.

DISCLAIMER: I don't know nothing about nothing. If you follow anything I say based on thinking that I'm some sort of financial expert, you're out of your mind. No one has a clue what the stock market will do in the future, so if you're going to invest, don't blame me or anyone else if it doesn't work out.
See full article.

Related Entries:

Banks want to change accounting rules - 22 May 2008

Banks: trouble ahead - 27 August 2008

The Difference Between Chinese Banks and American Banks - 18 September 2008

The fall of the investment banks - 22 September 2008

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

© Sofia Brightsea I once dreamed of early retirement, then I woke up today and watched the stock market plunge once again. Certainly not the first plunge it's taken, and given the fact that this bailout is uncertain, and is not any guaranteed elixir anyway, it may not be the last plunge.

For those of us who feel like we've played the financial game the right way, it's more than a little disheartening. Yes, history tells us to ride it out and eventually the market rebounds, but this has been a long downturn. And there has never been more money in the markets, as the rise of mutual funds has made more and more people every year into stock market investors, even if it's only passive investing as far as they are concerned. Either way, prices go down, their nest eggs go down.

While I recalculate the chances of me retiring before age 84, my heart goes out to those in their late 50s or early 60s who hoped to use the stock market as their means to grow their money before riding off into the sunset. Many of them will be working at Walgreen's at age 70 instead of relaxing beachside.

Not sure of the point of this post other than using it as a frustrated, long-winded way to say "This really sucks!" See full article.

Related Entries:

Rails To Bring Java's Early Retirement From Web Appilcations - 03 March 2006

"MY Retirement!" "No, MY Retirement!" - 25 July 2006

Zecco Launches Zero Commission IRAs - 15 February 2007

Retirement Planning: Are You Ready? - 16 July 2007

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

© Sofia Brightsea I once dreamed of early retirement, then I woke up today and watched the stock market plunge once again. Certainly not the first plunge it's taken, and given the fact that this bailout is uncertain, and is not any guaranteed elixir anyway, it may not be the last plunge.

For those of us who feel like we've played the financial game the right way, it's more than a little disheartening. Yes, history tells us to ride it out and eventually the market rebounds, but this has been a long downturn. And there has never been more money in the markets, as the rise of mutual funds has made more and more people every year into stock market investors, even if it's only passive investing as far as they are concerned. Either way, prices go down, their nest eggs go down.

While I recalculate the chances of me retiring before age 84, my heart goes out to those in their late 50s or early 60s who hoped to use the stock market as their means to grow their money before riding off into the sunset. Many of them will be working at Walgreen's at age 70 instead of relaxing beachside.

Not sure of the point of this post other than using it as a frustrated, long-winded way to say "This really sucks!" See full article.

Related Entries:

Rails To Bring Java's Early Retirement From Web Appilcations - 03 March 2006

"MY Retirement!" "No, MY Retirement!" - 25 July 2006

Zecco Launches Zero Commission IRAs - 15 February 2007

Retirement Planning: Are You Ready? - 16 July 2007

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

Despite a push to help people understand that they are entitled to get their credit report for free, many people are still confused because there are so many offers that say "free" but are only free when you buy some sort of credit monitoring service. So, here's the deal...

AnnualCreditReport.com is the only site where you can get your credit report for free without any further obligation.

That said, here are some points to understand, and a little advice:

* There are three credit reporting agencies: TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax. You are entitled a free credit report from EACH AGENCY one time per year. (When you request your report at AnnualCreditReport.com it will ask which report(s) you want.)

* Advice: Don't get your report from all three agencies at the same time. Stagger them. For example, get one report in January, one in May and one in September. That way, you'll be able to keep as running tab on what's happening with your credit, without having to pay anything.

* A credit report is NOT THE SAME as a credit score. A credit report will show you all of your open credit accounts, loans, etc., including information such as who the creditor is, how much you owe, any history of late or non-payments, etc. This is what you get for free. If you find a problem, you can dispute it with the creditor and/or the credit reporting agency in question. A credit score (also known as a FICO score) is a number that the credit reporting agencies attach to you, based on your past use of credit - whether you pay your bills on time, how much credit you have available, etc. This credit score is then offered to lenders to help them decide if they should loan money to you. Unlike the free credit report, there is no free credit score for you. If you want to know what score the agencies have pegged you with, you'll have to buy a score. In summary, credit report is free, credit score you pay.

Easy enough. Don't get taken by shysters! See full article.

Related Entries:

Business Credit Cards - Yes or No - 25 September 2006

New Year's Resolution: Get Your Free Credit Report - 04 January 2008

TransUnion Settlement Means Free Credit Scores for Everyone - 30 May 2008

FreeCreditReport.com Gives You Free Credit Report Only If You Buy Something Else - 04 August 2008

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

If you've always wondered what I sound like (and you know you have), I talked with Kimberly Palmer of U.S. News & World Report for this week's Alpha Consumer podcast. We talked mainly about credit cards and the credit crunch, but also a bit about other personal finance topics, including my big blue box (you'll have to listen).

Kimberly was nice enough to edit my rambling and make me sound fairly sane. She also generously left out the parts where I recommended buying AIG at $20, my inside scoop that Merrill Lynch would be buying Bank of America, and my contrarian "buy high, sell low" stock market theory.

If you're in the mood, go listen to me. See full article.

Related Entries:

Why men don't listen to women - 08 August 2005

Do You Wait To Talk Or Do You Listen? - 10 August 2005

Noch heute bei kinkaa listen! - 07 November 2006

Are You a Good Listener? - 13 September 2007

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.

© Brent and MariLynn Many, many, many of us now have to think about investing and mutual funds these days. If you're not an individual investor, there's still a good chance that you have a 401(k) or IRA to deal with. If you're like most people, you have a hazy idea of what to do - diversify, have a balance between stocks and bonds that correlates to your age/years to retirement. Most of us don't want to think too hard about this, so we buy our mutual funds based on their names - growth fund, income fund, bond fund, international fund, balanced fund.

This post is about that last one - the balanced mutual fund. It sounds so safe, so secure, offering a little market exposure but balanced off with a little... well, we usually don't know, we just know that "balanced" sounds less risky.

And usually it is. But this article by Gail MarksJarvis tells us that balanced fund managers have plenty of leeway when it comes to how much balancing they actually do:
...investors can no longer hunt through a 401(k) and figure that the fund they see marked "balanced" will deliver that classic portfolio or buffer them against the risks in stocks. During the four years before housing problems started pulling the stock market down, many balanced-fund managers started taking greater chances by buying more stocks than usual, selecting riskier stocks than balanced funds had in the past and selecting riskier bonds.

That gave their funds extra return then but has worked against them recently. In addition, even the balanced-fund managers who have continued to operate as they have in the past have been caught in snares. A favorite investment for some balanced managers is financial stocks, but they are at the center of the current stock market storm - some falling more than 90 percent.

Consequently, respected funds such as Dodge and Cox Balanced have disappointed shareholders. Dodge and Cox was recently down about 17 percent for the year.

...

In addition, Culloton notes that the fund took a larger stake in stocks at a time when they have been dropping sharply. Rather than the more common 60 percent stake, it was holding 70 percent in stocks recently.
The article goes on to cite some other balanced funds that performed more poorly than an investor would expect.

This is not to say the fund managers had evil intentions. It's just to say that as investors we need to keep our eyes open and not invest blindly based on the labels that the fund companies use to guide us. See full article.

Related Entries:

How I Find Good Mutual Funds - 03 July 2006

Mutual Funds, Advisors Go Pay-for-Performance - 05 July 2006

School ties and investing - 27 June 2007

The Rise of the Mutual Fund in China - 10 January 2008

Contents of this feed are a property of Creative Weblogging Limited and are protected by copyright laws. Violations will be prosecuted. Please email us if you'd like to use this feed for non-commercial activities at feeds - at - creative-weblogging.com.