1. Quicken Users: What Do Tags Do For You?

    Reader Kelsey emailed me with a Quicken-related comment a few days ago. Buried in the middle of it was a question that intrigued me:

    Categories I get, but there’s these tag things … what would anybody even do with those?

    Personally, for my household, I haven’t really come up with a good use for tags in Quicken. To this point, categories have taken me everywhere I need to go. (I’m currently using Quicken 2010 Deluxe, and have reviewed it previously.)

    Quicken Tags: What’s the Point?

    Basically, tags give Quicken users a way to “categorize” transactions outside of, and across, categories. I guess you could call tags a “second level” of categorizing goodness.

    Suppose you wanted to sort of “sub-track” your grocery spending so that you could see how much of your grocery spending was attributable to unhealthy food. You could do something like this…

    … and then run a report as necessary to see how much you’ve been spending on foods that will kill you. But in reality, such a usage of tags wouldn’t be all that novel. After all, you could do the same thing with categories. Simply have a subcategory of “Junk Food” in your main “Grocery” category, and you’d be set.

    However, say you wanted to track all your “Nonessential” spending. That’s a “tag” that could span across categories because, after all, “nonessential” could apply to Groceries, Entertainment, House Repair & Remodel, and just about any other category you could think of.

    So keeping an eye on “Nonessential” spending, via a tag named “Nonessential” or something similar, is more along the lines of what Quicken intended tags to accomplish.

    Possible Use of Tags: Tracking Your BMF

    One “big picture” idea for tag-use that comes to mind — but which I’d be way too lazy to implement — would apply to anyone who wanted to follow Elizabeth Warren’s Balanced Money Formula, as described in her book All Your Worth (review).

    Warren advocates that folks classify their outflows as one of three types: “Must-Haves,” “Savings,” and “Wants.” Then track where your money’s going, and aim for the following percentages:

    BMF Targets: 50% Must-Haves, 20% Savings, 30% Wants

    I’m good with using those three “types” to track spending and saving, and to create a plan for such, but I’m a Certified Data Dork, too. I would also want to know what I was spending on, say, groceries, household consummables, mortgage debt, and so on.

    So, in Quicken, I’d categorize my spending normally as regards the groceries, dining, and so on. But then I’d also give my spending “tags” of Must-Haves, Savings, and Wants as applicable. That way, I could quickly generate a Quicken report (utilizing those tags) to show me how my BMF-style money plan was working out.

    Possible Use of Tags: Monitoring Use-Tax Expense

    For a while, I really thought I could make great use of Quicken’s tagging feature by assigning specific tags to my use-taxable online purchases throughout the year. By assigning a tag of something like “Use Tax” to all my online purchases on which I hadn’t paid sales tax at the time of purchase, I could, at tax time, fire up a simple report and see how much I needed to remit in use taxes to my state’s taxing authority.

    In the end, though, I decided to treat my use-tax liability as what it really is — an ongoing “debt” that I owe to the state, and which I pay off in April of each year. So I accrue for it in its own Quicken liability account, as detailed in my Quicken: Handling Use Tax tutorial.

    What Have You Made Tags Do?

    I’m sure lots of people have put Quicken tags to work for them — I’m just not one of those folks. To date, I’ve been able to make categories do ALL my heavy lifting.

    So what about you? Have you come up with a great use for Quicken tags that I’ve overlooked?




     

     

  2. Rewards Checking Loses Some Lustre

    Well, there I was, practically giddy about the 4.38% APY our new-ish rewards checking account was paying us on our savings … and whaddaya know? Two months in, and the credit union is about to lower its cap.

    From the very top of my August statement:

    Effective October 1, 2010, there will be two changes to the Rewards Checking program. The cap will change from $25,000 to $15,000. For qualifying accounts, 4.38% APY will be paid on balances of $15,000 or less and .50% APY will be paid on amounts greater than $15,000. The dividend rate for non-qualifying accounts will change from 0.35% APY to 0.10% APY.

    “Boooo … hiss!” says the gallery. The change in the dividend rate for non-qualifying accounts doesn’t bother me, because unless I pull a complete brainfart, we should easily manage to hit all the rewards qualifications each month.

    The lowered cap for high-interest earnings, however, is another story. It means I’ll be moving a chunk of our savings right back to ING Direct’s Orange Savings (my review) account, from whence it came. ING’s current 1.10% APY is nothing special, but it’s better than the 0.50% APY that my greater-than-$15k funds would be getting at the credit union.

    At this point, it’s kinda silly to complain too much about the lowered cap, I suppose. Being able to get four-plus percent interest on ANY kind (or amount) of insured liquid savings is, in this environment, pretty much like stealing.




     

     

  3. Quicken’s Register Calculator

    As readers probably know, I’m a big fan of Quicken. It’s my finance-tracking tool of choice, and has been since the mid-1990s.

    Last week, I received an email from reader Dennis, who apparently has caught on to something of a shortfall in Quicken’s internal register calculator. For those of you who aren’t sure what that is, here’s a screenshot:

    Quicken's internal register calculator

    If you have numbers to add or subtract, you can do it inside the SPEND and RECEIVE columns in Quicken’s register. Anyhow, here’s what Dennis had to say:

    In your review of Quicken 2010 you revealed that you have been a Quicken user for a number of years. Personally, I’ve been using it since the second release.

    I’d like to alert you to a bug in Quicken that has been for many years. I submit a bug report on this issue with every new release, but apparently one user isn’t enough to promote change. Maybe you would have better luck.

    The Quicken Register Calculator does not perform calculations in the mathematically standard priority sequence of Parenthetical, Exponential, Multiplication, Division, Addition and Subtraction operations. Using the Register Calculator, the key strokes “2+3*3+5*3” are evaluated as “(((2 + 3) * 3) + 5) * 3” resulting in 60 (the wrong answer) instead of “2 + (3 * 3) + (3 * 5)” which results in the right answer of 26. Anyone accustomed to using any standard calculator will experience this error.

    To avoid this error, it’s necessary to add repetitive values individually when using the Register Calculator (2+3+3+3+5+5+5 = 26). It’s a lot easier (and more accurate) to use any external calculator and copy the result into Quicken; however, since that last step creates an opportunity for transcription error, so it would be better if Intuit would simply fix the Register Calculator. Of course they could rename it to “Register Adding Machine” which would at least alert the user that it doesn’t function as a ‘Calculator’.

    Dennis’ note caused me to think: I can’t remember the last time I used any Quicken calculator. I almost always have Excel open, so it’s kind of become my default “quickie” calculator. And now that the calculator in Windows 7 shows you all the numbers you’ve entered …

    Windows 7 Calculator

    … as you input your formula, I have even less reason to utilize any “calc-ability” inside Quicken.

    I spent some time trying to think of a situation where having Quicken calculate this way — computing what is effectively a formula, and doing it without standard mathematical priorities — would be an issue for me, but I couldn’t come up with one. Again, I’ve grown accustomed to using Excel as my calculator for pretty much everything.

    I suspect that Intuit programmers never really intended this feature to do much more than add or subtract a string of numbers. Don’t guess I can really fault them for that, either. It’s awfully tough to program software that can do everything for everybody!




     

     

  4. Survey: Americans Want Mortgage Subsidies

    Fun new survey data out from Rasmussen, regarding Americans and how they currently feel about government participation in the mortgage market:

    Rasmussen: Mortgage Survey

    See the glaring disconnect in the first two items? If fifty-six percent of Americans think the government should stay “altogether” out of the mortgage market, but seventy-nine percent want the mortgage-interest deduction to continue, then an awful lot of people have an awfully shallow view of what “government participation” means.

    If you don’t think that the mortgage-interest deduction amounts to a subsidy for homeowners, and therefore, is the very essence of “government participation” in the market, then you’re nuts. Take away that deduction, and see what happens to home prices. Mortgage qualification standards are based upon that federal tax deduction being there, effectively “helping” people make their house payments. If the deduction were to go away, qualification standards would necessarily tighten. Joe and Jane Sixpack wouldn’t be able to qualify for as high a mortgage payment as they could previously, as more of their gross income would now be going to taxes. Thus, over time, home prices would decline.

    For this survey to mean much, someone really ought to define “altogether.” Because to me, that’d mean the dissolution of Fannie, Freddie, and the FHA, as well as the removal of the mortgage-interest tax deduction. But that wasn’t what the Rasmussen respondents inferred, or were told. Obviously.

    What an idea, huh? Get rid of Fannie, Freddie, the FHA — who between them control 90 percent of the mortgage market these days — and the sacrosanct mortgage-interest deduction. You want to talk about a full-on house price collapse? That’d do it!




     

     

  5. Business Credit Cards: Avoiding the CARD Act

    I imagine most IYM and Money Musings readers are seeing what I’m seeing: After a drop-off in 2008 and 2009, credit-card applications are hitting my mailbox with a vengeance these days.

    As a rule, such applications have a date with my shredder pretty quickly. I don’t really pay much attention to the type of credit-card application it is (personal or business). As a family who uses cards only for convenience and cash rewards, and with no debt other than our mortgage, we have no real need for more plastic in our wallets and/or purses. (‘Tis better to keep wallets as barren as possible, anyway, just in case of loss or theft.)

    According to the Wall Street Journal, though, our beloved credit-card companies have found at least one loophole in the Credit Card Act of 2009:

    WSJ.com: Beware That New Credit-Card Offer

    Yep — small-business (i.e. “professional”) cards aren’t covered by the Card Act and its restrictions. Therefore, card companies are now flinging these offers hither and yon.

    While the companies outwardly state that they’re not doing this to circumvent the Card Act, and that they’re not sending out more professional-card apps than they did prior to the Act’s passage, you and I both know the likelihood of bankers to not exploit a revenue-enhancing loophole is pretty much nil.

    According to the WSJ:

    Until recently, professional cards largely had been reserved for small-business owners or corporate executives. But since the Card Act was passed in March 2009, companies have been inundating ordinary consumers with applications. In the first quarter of 2010, issuers mailed out 47 million professional offers, a 256% increase from the same period last year, according to research firm Synovate.

    Wow. What a coincidence.

    And here’s a bit of contractual balderdash you’d never expect to see from a TBTF bank: Card issuers have “simplified” the professional-card applications so that just about anybody can be a “small business owner.” Yes. Really and for-true.

    Card issuers are easing their application requirements for professional cards, too. In July, for example, Chase sent out an offer for an Ink From Chase Cash Business Card that required much less information than earlier offers.

    In January, mailings for the card asked prospective cardholders to provide the name of their company, the nature of the business, its address and its federal employer identification number. In the July mailing, cardholders merely had to check a box that said “Yes, I am a business owner” or “Yes, I am a business professional with business expenses.”

    “We are always looking for ways to simplify our application,” says Ms. Rossi, the Chase spokeswoman. “All applicants are required to confirm they are a small-business owner or someone who is authorized to charge expenses to the business.”

    Whatever. I’m surprised the checkbox isn’t negatively geared, with text like “No, I am not a small business owner” or “No, I am not a business professional with business expenses.” That way, by NOT checking the box (which is what most in-a-hurry folks would do), you’d be saying that you were, in fact, a small-biz operator looking for more plasti-cash.

    Which your sneaky TBTF bank would be only too happy to provide.

    Watch Those Applications Closely!

    The moral of the story, of course, is that consumers will have to be just as vigilant about their post-CARD-Act credit applications as they were about their pre-CARD-Act apps. Big surprise, right?

    As the kids would say, D/N/T (Do Never Test) the willingess of a card company to backdoor its way to profits. If you haven’t learned that by now . . ..




     

     

  6. FedReserve: Credit Conditions Reports

    The stats junkies out there will undoubtedly want to take a look at this new website, courtesy of the Federal Reserve:

    New York Fed: U.S. Credit Conditions and Quarterly Report

    Look for the New York Fed to update its nifty Report on Household Debt and Credit every quarter. As of this writing, the first (and latest) report is for 2010 Quarter 2.

    Lots of charts there (viewable as JPEG or PDF) for the economics dorks among us!




     

     

  7. Home (Free) on the Range

    You want stimulus? Well, how ’bout the chance to go almost 15 months without a house payment?

    Thanks to cottony-soft (and FedGov encouraged) accounting standards, banks are loathe to foreclose on underwater properties. As a bank, realizing five- and six-digit losses is no fun. It tends to leave ouchies on your balance sheet, and more importantly, has a negative effect on management bonuses.

    Cause, meet effect:

    Defaulted borrowers were spending an average of 469 days in their home after ceasing to make payments as of July 31, so the financial attraction of strategic defaults increases.

    Four hundred days with no house payment? A fellow could save up quite a stash in his piggy bank, going that long without sending a check to the mortgage company.

    In any case, that tantalizing little snippet comes from an article at AmericanBanker.com.

    And speaking of homeowner savings, just imagine all the dutiful home care and maintenance being performed by all these “living free for now” borrowers — borrowers who know that one day the bank will be coming to throw their La-Z-Boy on the lawn and Master Lock all the doors. The question isn’t if, but when.

    Oh, I’m sure that leaky roof will get fixed. Any day now.

    Yes, indeed. Delaying foreclosures (most econ-types refer to it as “extend and pretend”) with schemes like relaxed accounting standards and FedGov-initiated can-kickings (HAMP much?) should work out just fine.




     

     

  8. DTIs of HAMP Modification Recipients

    Because I have become very much a financial hardass in my old age, I’ve been against FedGov’s HAMP program from Day One. (To show that I am an Equal Opportunity Hardass, I am virulently against taxpayer funds going to banks or other corporate entities, as well.)

    Still, I keep up with HAMP results (or lack thereof) because train wrecks this large are just hard to ignore. And also because watching FedGov throw piles of good money after bad is better entertainment than most primetime TV (which isn’t saying much).

    So here we go with the July batch of HAMP results:

    Financialstability.gov: HAMP Servicer Report — July 2010

    In particular, I’d like to call reader attention to a chart on page three:

    Aside from the inherent irony in finding numbers like this at a site called “financialstability.gov,” and ignoring the brazen injustice done by allowing any U.S. dot-gov entity to even use said domain, you have to be amazed — really amazed — at the financial condition of HAMPsters at large.

    With Numbers This Bad…

    What we see here is that for folks who’ve had their mortgages modified via HAMP, the median debt-to-income (DTI) ratios are downright scary.

    Think about this: The median back-end DTI for successful HAMP applicants, before their mortgages were modified, was almost 80 percent.

    After mod, the median back-end DTI is still almost 64 percent.

    So, at the median, having 64 percent of their pre-tax income going to debt payments is an improvement.

    And since part of HAMP qualification is supposed to focus on whether or not the borrower actually has a shot at staying in the house, presumably making payments to the bank from now until pigs fly, then you have to wonder just how bad the non-approved applicants’ DTIs are. (Almost half of the people who’ve applied to HAMP have been bounced from the program, for various reasons.)

    If having a 60+ percent back-end DTI after a modification is seen as “affordable,” then I probably don’t want to what “unaffordable” is.

    Yeah. Mortgage modifications or not, these are still defaults looking for a place to happen.

    Get Ya Some

    I’d step up to the trough and request a modification for myself — hey, who doesn’t want a “more affordable” mortgage PLUS the opportunity to stick somebody else with the bill? — but somehow I doubt that my front- and back-end DTIs of roughly ten percent would allow me to qualify for any sweet HAMP action. (Since I have no non-mortgage debt, both of my DTIs are equal.)

    Darn the bad luck, anyway. Savers and responsible folk? Shut out from reaping taxpayer largesse once again.

    Instead, we just get to pay for it.




     

     

  9. Dave Ramsey and 12 Percent

    This, friends, is easily the one thing about Dave Ramsey that pisses me off the most. This particular table comes from Dave’s Total Money Makeover Workbook, page 229:

    Twelve Percent ... HOW?

    The point of that data is pretty simple: If you’re not making payments to anyone other than yourself, AND if you’re willing to work hard, you can accumulate a lot of money in a pretty short amount of time.

    Now, I agree with that premise wholeheartedly. Heck — I’m seeing it play out in my own life. Our only debt payments go to the mortgage company, and further, those same mortgage payments (15-year, fixed-rate loan) take up less than 15 percent of our monthly take-home income. (For those who care, Dave’s recommended upper boundary for mortgage payments is 25 percent of take-home pay.)

    So, because there aren’t any car payments or student loans or credit-card debts sucking cash out of our accounts, we have a lot of leeway in directing our money where we want it to go.

    No, my problem is with the “12 percent returns” Dave loves to talk about SO VERY OFTEN. And, as noted by the chart above, use as a reference point in his books.

    Here’s the text that accompanies the chart:

    Exercise #69

    Consult the chart below.

    • Determine how many years you have to retirement … or to the place you’d like to set as your Pinnacle Point.
    • Determine how much you have to invest each month to get there.

    At your current rate of investing, how long will it be before you reach the Pinnacle Point? Are you willing to invest more each month?

    Oy.

    “Invest your money in good growth-stock mutual funds,” Dave always tells radio listeners, “and in twenty years, earning twelve percent a year, you’ll be a fobzillionaire!” Or something along those lines.

    Well, yeah. At annual earnings of 12 percent, the math works.

    But it’s getting that “average 12 percent per year” return that might cause some consternation.

    Like It’s a Given

    Dave throws this figure out there constantly. Like it’s inevitable. Like it’s a given.

    That, at least, is how I hear it.

    And it never fails to make me cringe. (As I’ve mentioned before.)

    It seems to me that when you’ve had a few decades of economic “growth” built upon declining and/or stagant wages for the lower and middle classes, coupled with repeated injections of massive debt at every level of society — how else to make up the difference and still keep asset prices high? — then it’s at least worth considering that maybe investment returns going forward will come with a level of risk that’s not conducive to double-digit expectations.

    Am I alone in this thinking?

    Because some days — like when I come across the chart above — it sure feels like it.




     

     

  10. School Supplies, 2010 Edition

    It’s been a while since I discussed the economics of school supplies. In fact, the last time I covered the subject was in 2006. In “Back to School Adventures,” I mentioned that a whole lot about the school-supply-buying process seemed to have changed since my wife and I were kids.

    Now that we have a daughter in elementary school, my perspective has shifted a bit. And this piece from the New York Times sort of touches on what many folks are seeing:

    NYT: Budgets Tight, School Supply Lists Grow…

    From the article:

    Pre-kindergartners in the Joshua school district in Texas have to track down Dixie cups and paper plates, while students at New Central Elementary in Havana, Ill., and Mesa Middle School in Castle Rock, Colo., must come to class with a pack of printer paper. Wet Swiffer refills and plastic cutlery are among the requests from St. Joseph School in Seattle. And at Pauoa Elementary School in Honolulu, every student must show up with a four-pack of toilet paper.

    For the retailers, back-to-school season is second only to the holidays, and parents’ longer school-supply lists are a bonus — especially at a time when shoppers are reluctant to spend. While the impact is not enormous, retailers are looking for anything to lift sales.

    Yeah. That’s one way to temporarily goose the economy, I suppose.

    Our List This Year

    The Times article notes that many back-to-school lists this year include items like cleaning supplies and packages of typing paper. Due to budget constraints, schools are now passing such expenses on to parents directly.

    Not that I’d care all that much, but there weren’t any such items on our daughter’s list:

    • Qty 1: 5-subject notebook
    • Qty 1: Wide-ruled notebook paper
    • Qty 2: School glue 4oz
    • Qty 3: Kleenex
    • Qty 2: Crayola Crayons (24ct)
    • Qty 2: Crayola Markers (10ct)
    • Qty 1: School box (small plastic)
    • Qty 1: Box gallon zip lock bags
    • Qty 1: Box bandaids

    And, because we must make every effort to ensure that “all are equal,” there’s this admonition at the bottom:

    NO NAMES ON SUPPLIES PLEASE

    You’ll note that the list doesn’t contain pencils or scissors. I’m not sure why scissors aren’t on there, but for my daughter’s grade level, pencils are supplied by teachers. (They’re some funky mechanical variety, or something.)

    And yes, the “No names on supplies” message bugs me. A lot. If I’m willing to send my kid to school with a nicer-than-average notebook, or at least one that’s better than what I’m willing to donate to the Community Stash, then all such a message is going to do is make me resent the “We’re all equal” implications it carries.

    Yes, I understand why the note is there. However, life isn’t about everyone being equal. And it never will be, no matter what agenda our public schools and federal authorities promote.

    I’ll leave my comments at that. (While I’ve considered starting a political-rant blog, this one ain’t it.)

    Supply-List Differences

    In my 2006 blog post linked above, several commenters mentioned that the supply lists you get straight from teachers can differ greatly from those provided by retailers.

    As for our experience (well, my wife’s experience, as she does the supply shopping), last year’s teacher-provided list differed from the retailer-provided list by only one item. And the difference was negligible. The teacher’s list asked for “washable markers,” while the retailer’s list specified only “markers.”

    This year, my wife tells me, there were no differences between the two lists. (Well, at least not from the list provided by Target. We didn’t check any other retailers’ lists.)

    Teachers Forking Over

    Another bit from the NYT article that I’d like to comment on:

    Ms. Cooper, the Alabama mother, spent her summer making the most of the school-supply stores’ new interest in classroom supplies. “Each week I go to the stores’ Web sites — Staples, OfficeMax, Office Depot,” she said, and posts the deals on a blog for fellow bargain hunters. “All three of these major stores are offering jaw-dropping deals every week,” she said.

    And as overwhelming as it might seem to some parents, she would rather buy the goods than expect Emily’s teacher to do so, she said.

    “We don’t expect Wal-Mart cashiers to buy the plastic bags for our groceries, or the mailman to pay for the gas to deliver our mail,” Ms. Cooper said.

    As a guy with two teachers in my immediate family, I’m sympathetic to this. I don’t want my child’s teacher paying for my child’s supplies, certainly, because that’s my responsibility as a parent.

    I also don’t want my child’s teacher forking over her own cash for other kid’s supplies, if I can help it, though I know this is going to occur. The standing order with whomever teaches my child’s class in any given year is to let me or my wife know what’s needed, if supplies run low. We’ll do our best to get it handled. (Hey — I have a Sam’s Club membership. I can get stuff. And as long as I’m just supplying for a single class, my monthly budget can handle it.)

    Anyone else have thoughts they’d like to share? I’m interested to hear others’ opinions!