(no subject)

[which_chick]

Today I went through my WinAmp playlist and fixed most of the songs that were appearing as "Joe -- Track04" or "artist -- Track12". (There were a lot of them.) Google helped with that.



The current issue of Reason magazine has a nice article on Greenspan's era as chairman of the federal reserve. We don't maybe get enough reporting on our fed chairmen, so this is kind of nice. It's also pleasing to me to note that Greenspan's legacy isn't a uniformly glowing report. The guy's only been gone since January and there are some fairly heavy hitters slamming his reign for failure to pay attention to the asset bubble problem. Good reading, folks.

Also, I note with interest (heh, heh) that online bankies have once again raised the bar. Good for them. :) My local bank (Suckme,Hannah) is paying 4.10% APY on their MMA offering. ING Direct is giving me a .3% premium over that. Emigrant is giving me a 1.05% premium over that, for which I am thankful. The folks at eLoan are offering me a 1.4% premium (Yeah. They're paying 5.50% for a 5K minimum balance.) over my local brick-n-mortar. Is it worth my time to jump through *yet another* set of hoops and secure a third damn internet bank account? (I already have accounts with ING and Emigrant -- the lower interest rate of the two has placeholder money in it just to keep the account active so that I don't have to reopen it later if/when they start offering better rates.)

Currently I have about 7K to shove in an internet bank account. About 4 of that is at emigrant and the rest is in my (bad user!) checking account because I've been remiss about shepherding the capital. BAD user! Anyway. Let's go to the videotape. How much money are we talking about, anyway? At Emigrant Direct, I can instantly (okay, three days but no paperwork and only pre-existing pointing and clickiting that I already know how to do) get $30.04 per month. If I opened an account with eLoan, I'd be getting $32.08 per month. *sigh* Not worth my time yet because I freaking hate opening new accounts. It sucks. I need a bigger premium than two bucks a month.

On a related note, how much am I losing by failing to actively manage my capital and letting 3K beyond working capital languish unoccupied in my damn checking account? $12.88 per month. I need to do a better job with that, honestly. I've made a note.

This week's Economist (we get the dead-tree edition) also had a really interesting cover article on the debt markets, should any of ya'll be interested in that. I was. And I'm sure everyone wants to read this article about the damage done by a total lack of mortgage lending standards in Ohio, from Mother Jones (online). If you haven't yet lost faith in mortgage lenders, this will help you along that road.

Finally, in three months, it's going to be RothIRA 2007 contribution time. All ya'll have got your money saved up for that, right? Contribution for 2007 is still 4K, like it was in 2006. No, I do not want to hear that you ain't got a Roth and I certainly do not want to hear how you fail to fund the Roth that you do not have. Look. The government is not going to feed you when you're old. Put some money away now or you're going to find out what Purrfect Kitty Salmon Dinner tastes like come 2050 or thereabouts. Yes, I am talking to you, you happy-go-lucky twentysomething. You. And you. And you over there hiding behind the ficus, thinking I don't see you. I see you. Put aside some money for retirement. Do it. Do it now.

Comments

[ladyivy.livejournal.com]

It is a sad, sad thing what the mortgage industry has led to. Ohio may be the worst right now, but within two years California will follow. Last year 60% of all mortgages issued in the state of CA were interest only loans, often to people who cannot afford P & I payments. When those interest only periods end, there will be a wave of foreclosures similar to what the Mother Jones article spoke about.

[not-your-real.livejournal.com]

One of the hardest things for me to wrap my head around when I quit my job in anticipation of (over a year later) becoming a mommy was that I am no longer allowed to fund IRAs. This led to the realization that I do not, in fact, bring in money, so there is nothing for me to invest and manage (DUH!). Gotta work on convincing the spouse that funding me a spousal IRA is on a par with his 401(k) contributions (cake), not with his temporarily suspended IRA contributions (icing).

[which-chick.livejournal.com]

I did not know that things such as Spousal IRAs existed. Google says that they do, though, which is good. I agree with you that funding a spousal IRA is important. Being home and making/raising babies in an unsalaried position does not excuse you from the need to plan for your own retirement.

There is an argument that you should dump your eggs in your husband's basket and trust to Him to provide for you in your old age. It's pretty to think things will work out that way. However, I know far, far too many people for whom marriage was demonstrably quite a few years short of forever. Those people, wimmins all, were left in a lurch vis a vis retirement when the divorce rolled around.

Better safe than sorry, say I... and, hey, if you're still married to the guy in your rockin' years (as you no doubt fully expect to be), the money in your spousal IRA will be there for you to spend on the two of you or for the two of you to leave to your kid(s). It's not like it's LEAVING or anything. If you stay put, so does the money. (Put that way, who is really the one who's afraid of putting eggs in baskets?)