Prepaid Phone Phrenzy

Recently, the arena of prepaid cell phone service has really been heating up. T-Mobile has spun off a separate prepaid service called GoSmart, and MVNO's are cropping up everywhere.

What's an MVNO, you ask? Well, it's short for Mobile Virtual Network Operator, and the key here is the Virtual part: they sell phone service on other networks. Each of the major telcos has MVNOs running on its network, and they generally sell the same services, only at a steep discount.

In our case, we are making a switch from Verizon to LycaMobile, a new entrant to the US market but an established player in Europe and Australia. Here's how the math works for us:

Usage:
We average just under 800 minutes of voice per month, including some nights/weekends and mobile-to-mobile. No texting currently, since our Verizon plan charges $.20 a pop for them!

Current, Verizon cost:
With 22% corporate discount provided by my day job, the 450-minute plan is $32, and taxes and surcharges bring it up to $40 each month. Any overage of 'peak' minutes is viciously overcharged, at 45 cents apiece.

New, LycaMobile cost:
LycaMobile charges a flat two cents per minute of voice. Texts are four cents, but only outgoing; incoming texts are free. Assuming we keep our present usage, it will run only $16, a savings of just about $25 each and every month!

Now when I called Verizon to make the shift, they helpfully informed me of the contract we signed a bit over a year ago. The early termination fee for it would run $100. Worth it? With nine months to go, it should pay off indeed; $225 less in monthly fees.

(Incidentally, one of the great things about having a cash reserve is taking advantage of opportunities where you pay today to save tomorrow.)

Wish us luck!

True break-even point of a refinance

I mentioned in an earlier post that a decision to refinance often involves a calculation of the "break-even" point. A much-simplified version of this calculation is to take the cost of the loan and divide it by the amount each monthly payment is lowered. However, this fails to take into account the loan term: refinancing a 15-year loan into a 30-year one will drop your payments considerably, but at substantial cost in the long run. Even just refinancing from a partially-paid-off 30-year loan to a new full-term loan will drop the payment while extending the payoff.

A better indicator of true value here is the interest paid each month. This is entirely dependent on the interest rate and the outstanding balance on the loan.

Using this metric makes a 15-year loan look much better, which (let's face it) it is. The main draw is that the interest rates on 15-year loans are tons lower (over half a percentage point) than 30-year rates. On a large (200K) mortgage balance, this can mean a difference of eighty dollars or more in interest each month, no small change. The monthly payment is still higher (ours was 40% bigger when we switched), but it's because you're paying off your loan instead of paying basically only interest.

If you can afford a 15-year repayment schedule, it sure is worth a look in our current interest rate environment.

The thousand-dollar e-mail

We recently started the process of refinancing our house, due to the drop in interest rates since we took out our current loan. As part of that process, I obtained some quotes from different lenders. One lender came back offering a lot more in "lender credits" (money they'd pay toward the loan) than their nearest competitor. So we went with them.

Unfortunately, when they pulled our credit score, it came back a bit lower than anticipated. Nothing catastrophic, but it did make them drop the level of the lender credit by a thousand dollars. With this new knowledge (including my current credit score), I decided it would make sense to inquire at the other lender, too, and find out the lay of the land.

First, though, I decided to make lender #1 aware of this fact. I sent them a simple e-mail message saying that the more accurate quote was quite a bit lower, and I would therefore be asking for other quotes.

Within minutes, I had a phone call: it was my representative from lender #1, who informed me that he had spoken to his manager, and they would be willing to extend me the original quote (as if I'd had the higher credit score) if I stayed with them.

I accepted; it's not every day you can make a thousand dollars with an e-mail.

Stepping down the ladder

We're refinancing again. Even though it's only been a year since our last refinance. Why?

Mortgage rates are down. Even more than they were last time. And that spells opportunity.

Imagine a hypothetical couple, in a situation similar to ours was, but with arbitrary numbers:

$200,000 15-year mortgage at 3.25%
Credit score: 800

According to the lovely rate quote machine at mtgprofessor.com, such a couple could sign up for a 2.625% loan with zero lenders' points and fees. Of course, for that loan, they'd have to pay out of pocket for the miscellaneous costs involved in closing the loan. Thus, a refinance decision usually involves calculating a "break-even period", like this:

The closing costs for the loan will be four thousand dollars, but we're paying two hundred dollars less in each month's payment, so after 20 months (4000/200), we'll have paid less in monthly payments than we paid to refinance. As long as we keep the loan longer than that, it will be worth it.

The decision is essentially whether you'll have the loan longer than the break-even period.

However, just like you can pay "points" for a lower rate loan, the lender will pay you "negative points" to take a higher rate loan. As of a few days ago when I checked, a 2.875% loan will include almost four thousand dollars' worth of negative points. That is enough to cover all the costs of appraisal, closing, and lenders'  fees with room to spare. Any extra funds will be applied to the couple's escrow account, to pay for property taxes and insurance. Such a loan is called a "no-cost" loan---that is, even though there may be money required at closing, all the lender's fees and third-party fees are covered.

Even though 2.875% is higher than the "going rate", it's lower than the couple's current rate. Also, since the negative points pay for the loan and more, the typical "break-even" calculation isn't even applicable: our hypothetical couple is ahead of the game right from the start! If rates drop next month, and they want to refinance again, they can do it again, and again, without losing anything except possibly some credit score points after applying for all those loans.

This technique of serial, no-cost refinancing is sometimes referred to as "stepping down the ladder", and it has the benefit that you can refinance continually as long as it's advantageous. If rates go up, though, you just stick with the last loan you took: though it's not the lowest you could have got, it's pretty close, and you don't have to keep "bottom-calling" on the way. (I would have called the bottom on mortgage rates a couple years ago, but they still keep getting cheaper!)

"Stepping down the ladder" is a viable strategy for today's market of falling mortgage rates, and anyone can do it.

Further reference:

http://thefinancebuff.com/cost-mortgage-refinance-stepping-down.html

Helpful chart at http://thefinancebuff.com/mortage-refinance-fixed-rate-or-adjustable.html

Tax efficiency: a working definition

The other week, I watched (almost; I read the transcript) a little informational video at Vanguard, where I keep some investments. It was tax season, and so I was interested in what they had to say about tax planning, and I happened across this video. I was perusing through, when one of the characters said this:

...tax efficiency is not about minimizing taxes. It's about maximizing after-tax return.

And my mind expanded.

And he's totally right. See, when tax season is imminent, it's tempting to think about minimizing the amount of tax you're paying. After all, paying out that money hurts!

But the right way to think about it is, instead, to maximize the amount of money you're keeping.

Exhibit A: Mortgages. Mortgages are too often touted in the press as entitling one to the "lucrative" mortgage interest deduction. And it's true: for every dollar you pay in mortgage interest, you can reduce the amount of money you're taxed on by a dollar. Sweet, right?

Well, look at the big picture. For those in the 15% tax bracket, you save fifteen cents of income taxes for every dollar in mortgage interest you pay. While this certainly reduces the burden of mortgage payments somewhat, giving away a dollar to get fifteen cents is hardly a winning strategy. (*)

Conversely, if you pay off your mortgage, you do "lose" the mortgage interest deduction, but you also don't have to pay any mortgage interest. Certainly there's still an argument for keeping a mortgage alive when you can afford to pay it off, but it's not the slam dunk often portrayed in the media. Instead, think about it clearly and run the numbers.

Is tax efficiency around minimizing your taxes? It shouldn't be. Think instead about maximizing returns instead, and that will point you in the right direction.

----
* The real impact of the deduction is to lower the effective interest rate of the mortgage, from, say, 4.0% to 3.4%, assuming that (a) you itemize more than the standard deduction already, (b) you aren't in any credit phaseout ranges, and (c) ignoring air resistance.

My mortgage refinance

A few months ago, we decided to refinance our mortgage. So with the help of the Internet, we quickly identified the going rates at a few different firms. The lowest one by far was First Financial Services, Inc., based in Charlotte, NC. In fact, they undercut their nearest competitor's offer by $1,600, and that offer was already about $10,000 better than those from the big banks.

Nevertheless, I did some sleuthing around and contacted some other lenders. All their salesmen asked what other offers I had, and when I shared FFS's numbers, most of them warned me that "with rates like that, something's up", and that it was "too good to be true". And I admit that I did have my doubts. But after doing some research online, I couldn't find any bad reviews of FFS, so I went ahead and filled out the paperwork.

A month later, we had successfully refinanced our loan, and the total out-of-pocket closing cost was under $1,000. With the interest included in the loan payoff and other "hidden" items, the actual cost was under $500. Keep in mind, this for a loan modification that will save us tens of thousands of dollars in interest over the life of the loan.

I've been meaning for some time to post a positive review online, but hadn't got around to it. So here it is.

First Financial Services really did a bang-up job of addressing my concerns through the whole process. They were relatively responsive to my inquiries, and when there was schedule slippage past the end of the rate lock period (due to high volume at their end), they honorably held to the rate they'd promised. Their e-signing system was convenient and efficient, and they even sent a notary over to our house so we could sign the paperwork at home. Oh yeah, and they saved us a ton of money.

Thanks, guys!

Avoiding double taxation on ESPPs

Ah, tax season. Every year, it seems like I'm affected by some new little trick or trap. This year it's my company's ESPP—employee stock purchase plan. It's an incentive provided by the employer to induce employees to purchase stock of the company itself. An example ESPP plan might let its employees put up to 10% of each paycheck directly into company stock, bought at a 10% discount.

One interesting aspect of these plans is the complex taxation mechanisms surrounding it. In the specific case that you sell the purchased stock within a year after acquiring it, you might end up being double taxed on some of the money you earn! Here's how:

Bill is an employee of the infamous XYZ Corp. He sets aside 10% of his $4,500 monthly paycheck, or $450, to participate in the company's ESPP. On the day the shares are purchased (e.g., March 31), the stock is trading at a price of $10. After the 10% discount, employees are buying at $9. Bill's $450 goes to purchase 50 shares of XYZ corp. (My, what nice round numbers!)

Here, we must take a brief aside into the Land of Arcane Calculations. For tax purposes, we must compute just how much of a benefit the ESPP gave the employee, or the "bargain element". This is the difference between the fair market value (FMV) of the stocks at purchase (50 * $10 = $500) and the actual price paid for them ($450). For Bill, the bargain element is $50. (This will be important later, like next February.)

All right, so now Bill holds the XYZ shares for six months, during which time XYZ Corp. does great, and the share price skyrockets to $12. (Whoo!) Bills sells his 50 shares at a healthy gain, for $600. All's well, right? (Side note: The IRS argot calls any such sale after less than a year a "disqualifying disposition".)

Early next year, Bill starts receiving his tax reporting forms. First comes the W-2. As per the IRS guidelines, XYZ Corp. monitors the sale of the shares given in its ESPP plan, and it includes the bargain element of the sale (that $50 we computed earlier) as part of his gross income. (If XYZ is like my employer, it's not itemized, either, so Bill will have to be diligent to notice it.)

Next, Bill gets a 1099-B statement from his brokerage. The brokerage reports that since Bill bought 50 shares at $9, then sold them at $12 within a year, he has $150 of short-term gains.

Okay, notice the sneaky double taxation? The bargain element has been included as income on both the W-2 and the brokerage statement. (Also, note that if this is a semi-monthly occurrence, the double-reported income for the year will total $1,200—no small chunk of change.)

After introducing the problem, I won't endeavor to solve it here, as it's already been done excellently by Fairmark.com(*). But if you participate in an ESPP (and if you can, you should), be aware of this little taxation trap.

(*) Short version: alter the basis reported by the brokerage to reflect FMV, then tell the IRS that you did so.

Playing Fair in the Free Markets

I recently bought ink for my fountain pen from a company called Noodler's Ink. This slogan of theirs made me stop and think:

Why is it called "Noodler's"? The ink with the catfish on the label symbolizes a southern sport that attempts to equalize the struggle between man and animal in the quest for a sense of fair play... and thus a fair price.

This bit of corporate PR jibes with their product: the glass bottles are industry standard (therefore cheap) and full to the brim with their high-quality ink, underselling their competitors by a ridiculous margin. They also "refuse" to make profit-heavy ink cartridges because of the ridiculously wasteful aspect of those devices.

Of course, they've gained something in return: my brand allegiance. Next time I need some ink, you can bet I'll be buying from them. In fact, it was such a good value for me that I probably won't even comparison shop. (Bonus: I'm sharing this on my blog, so maybe you'll buy ink there, too!)

Anyway, there's considerable discord as to exactly what "playing fair" means in a free market. (I'll focus specifically on supplier-consumer interaction, instead of competitive relationships among suppliers.) Examples:

• Is it "fair play" to cultivate brand allegiance? It warps the free market somewhat and can be said to remove agency from consumers. (Then again, the company paid a fair price for that brand allegiance—right?)

• Is it "fair play" to market to our baser needs? Several campaigns (arguably all modern ad blitzes) attempt to bypass consumers' rational minds and access the subconscious directly. This is especially apparent with, say, spray-on deodorant positioning itself to young men as the fast track to sex. Rational economic theory certainly doesn't account for this very well.

I hypothesize that the economic surplus of our consumer-culture market is heavily producer-skewed: Most consumers don't have the time, expertise, or inclination to fully assess the transactions they make (certainly not all the time). However, corporations, since they focus on a subset of products, spend the time and effort necessary to maximize the producer surplus (often via marketing strategies to inflate perceived value on the part of consumers, and via vertical differentiation and other forms of price discrimination). Therefore, most of the economic surplus in the consumer economy ends up in the hands of producers.

Whether corporations are "playing fair" or not, I think they're winning.

Optimistic note: Savvy consumers can negate this by learning to better estimate the value of a transaction to them, and by opting out of advertising where possible. In some situations, it's viable to leave the primary market entirely: Craigslist and other secondary markets are less heavily skewed in this manner.

Corporate amorality

It's easy to anthropomorphize corporations, and if I met someone who acted like a corporation ("life goal: maximize profits"), they sure would seem greedy! (That goes for *any* corp., not just the successful ones.)

The amoral nature of corporations comes largely from the fact that publicly-traded companies are owned by investors that are removed from the day-to-day tactics of the business; "the shareholders" want higher profits, and if management has to do something unethical to get there, well, the shareholders wanted it.

As a shareholder (there, I said it), I want the companies in which I'm invested to perform well (and pay me the money!). As a citizen, I want the companies in my economy to play fairly with their employees and with the environment.

This amorality is an interesting facet of the corporate world, and makes a good argument for not granting them the legal status of "persons", even though they're conglomerations of actual people. Also germane is the subject of government regulation to enforce ethics on these otherwise amoral creatures.

Amoral corporations interact suboptimally with the moral world, and people (moral creatures) wind up feeling the pain.

(re: @Peter)

"Inky, binky, bottle of ink..."

I like writing by hand sometimes. Yes, a good keyboard is still about the fastest way for me to write, but sometimes a good pen in hand is just what the doctor ordered. Six months ago, I decided to try something a little different in my writing toolbox: a fountain pen.

I believe in starting small when pursuing a new interest, so I worked to find the cheapest way into the fountain pen world. I settled on Pilot's Varsity pens (amazon), finding a three-pack at my local Staples for seven dollars.

Well, it turned out to be a lot of fun; I like the smooth feel of the writing and the fun of having an old-school fountain pen. But going on buying disposable fountain pens to feed the addiction? I'm not so keen on that idea. And my new fountain pens were running out of ink fast!

So I started looking at buying a more permanent fountain pen. But then I found something that made my (web-browsing) ears perk up: some folks had successfully refilled the "disposable" Varsity with new ink.

I bought a 3-ounce bottle of Noodler's black ink (amazon) and tried it out. It worked! And with the new ink, my writing was smoother than before!

So that's a win. But the money side of things is pretty sweet, too: Each refill of the pen takes about 2 cc's of ink. In my $12, 3 oz bottle of ink, there are 88 cc's, giving a price per refill of 44 cents! (Far cheaper than the $2/pen price of new ones.) Refilling takes only two minutes, including setup and teardown time, and I've refilled only once in the six months I've had the pen.

Plus, having a bottle of ink hanging around is pretty awesome.

Another example of how it makes good financial sense to "go reusable", even if the product is touted as disposable.

On what's worthwhile

I read a few blogs on personal finance. And I've read more than a few books on the matter. It seems to me that there are two schools of thought in the area: the "maximize net worth" group and the "maximize happiness" group. (To be fair, I think both groups are trying to maximize happiness, but these are the terms that came to mind.)

The great thing about the "maximize net worth group" is that it has one clear objective: maximize net worth! It's really easy (with a few assumptions) to figure out how to make your net worth grow more, and so things are really pretty clear. Writers subscribing to this view have such headlines/chapter titles as "Why not to pre-pay your mortgage" (because projected returns of stocks are greater than mortgage interest rates) and "The order in which to pay back your debts" (start with the highest interest rates first). Also, this group tends to be in agreement with itself.

The second group, the "maximize happiness" folks, take all sorts of paths. Some folks espouse borrowing a little while young, on the grounds that you'll have higher income later and having fun in your youth is priceless. Others argue for living lean and retiring early later in life. This group disagrees on such factors as when you're maximizing happiness (now or later?) and how to measure it (net worth? free time?). The "maximize happiness" group is closer along the lines of the way I think most people actually approach their lives, but due to its personal nature, it suffers from a lack of unity and a lack of universality.

I think both these groups have fuzzy definitions and even fuzzier membership lines; I myself tend to a "do what works for you, but run the numbers" school of thought.

Bonus: links!

Group 1 examples: Ramit Sethi, Consumerism Commentary

Group 2 examples: Get Rich Slowly, The Simple Dollar