Pensions: are pensioners adults?

 

There has been a lot about pensions since the budget bombshell, particularly in the financial press.

 

George Osborne plans to allow savers to take their entire pension pot as cash when they reach age 55.  

 

He also said that the Government is consulting on proposals to introduce a face-to-face at-retirement guidance service for all Defined Contribution (where the pension depends on how much you put in, rather than on your salary) pension scheme members.

 

One of the things being said (and it wasn’t a prank, although it came out on 1st April) was that there would be a “skills gap” in providing advice, particularly if that “face-to-face” idea is actually implemented.

 

So Brooks Newmark, the Conservative MP for Braintree said, “It still seems to me there is going to be a gap in terms of the number of people and the quality of advice that is going to be needed, and which could leave the potential for errors and abuses.

 

MPs were apparently “grilling”, the Director General of the Association of Professional Financial Advisers, Chris Hannant.

 

There were lots of reasonable points made, which is pretty unusual for a group of MPs.  

 

Hannant said that if “everyone who is retiring next year was to seek full advice there would be a challenge on capacity.”

 

Which is almost certainly true. Of course, he added that this was a challenge for “the advice sector to become more efficient, and that advice could be delivered more cost effectively through the use of junior staff who are overseen by fully trained advisers.”

 

That, on the basis of 30 years or so of experience a couple of degrees, a couple of post-graduate degrees, financial planning qualifications, being a registered supervisor etc. is a pretty good plan for causing chaos and giving some awful advice. 

 

But surprisingly, to me anyway, Newmark said: “It still seems to me there is going to be a gap in terms of the number of people and the quality of advice that is going to be needed, and which could leave the potential for errors and abuses.”

 

Very sensible, as was the enquiry from Andy Love, the Labour MP for Edmonton who “asked whether lower cost advice channels could help fill the gap between advice and guidance.”

 

But my award for the best comment was, as quoted in the Money Marketing article, from Syndaxi Chartered Financial Planners managing director Robert Reid, who said, “At long last people are being treated as adults – we just have to hope they behave as adults.”

 

And that’s the point.  We don’t have to hope they act like adults – if we did it’s a forlorn hope because people don’t behave like adults about money (at least, they don’t behave logically, maximise their resources, prioritise sensibly, behave in accordance with their goals and plans or behave in a way even remotely resembling how we imagine adults do).

 

The emphasis in all these ideas is on the money, the question posed being, how can you maximise post tax income? 

 

And that might be important.  But what people choose to do is now more open.  It used to be that you had to buy an annuity (basically, an annual income) and you couldn’t have the money until about sixty or older, now it’s a lot easier to take lump sums, you can take the money earlier, you’ve got a lot more options.

 

And we know that having more options makes choice harder, not easier.  We also know that faced by too much or too complex choice people won’t make a decision at all.  

 

And we know that, as Caroline Rookes, chief executive of the MAS, said about a survey they commissioned last year, ‘Millions of people could escape their spiral of debt by accessing free advice.  However, this study presents us with a fundamental challenge: the majority of people with debt difficulties do not seek advice.”

 

That rather puts paid to the apparently sensible idea of Andy Love about low cost channels.  You can give people free advice (let alone low cost) and they won’t use it.

 

Because the real problem is that it’s the wrong sort of advice.  Not that the financial advisers are bad, I used to be one, and I know the majority work very hard to help their clients and to give them the best advice they can.  

 

The problem is that what everybody is focussed on is the technical stuff about the money, maximisation of income.  That’s useful, but it’s not really much help unless somebody knows what the person actually wants from their money.  

 

You can try to sort out different ways of getting the pension out and maximise what they’ve got at a given age, but what if they really don’t need that because they’re going to do part time consultancy, or if they want to have a big holiday while they are young enough to enjoy it rather than maximising their income for the next 20 years?

 

What people actually want is to get the life they want.  But nobody seems to be concerned about how to help them to work out exactly what that is, and what money, when, would best help them achieve it.  

 

The money side of pensions is pretty complicated.  But compared to the human brain, the single most complex thing in the known universe, pensions are laughably simple.

 

So what we could do is to train the “junior” staff that Hannant mentions, the “low cost channels” that Love suggests, the MAS staff that Rookes manages to help people behave like we fondly imagine adults behave.  

 

That would mean that people would know what they actually wanted, and they’d be able to be relatively specific about the way that they wanted their retirement income to go, and they’d have a good idea of what “maximising” the value of their post tax income would be for them.  And that would make the job of the advisers a lot easier, they’d be using their technical skills to aim at a defined target, rather than trying to produce some sort of magical answer that would work for everybody.

 

And we could even try to educate people about retirement and pensions.  Not about the technical details, tax and so on, but about lifestyles, choices, happiness, fulfilment  - things that are actually important to people and that you may be able to use money to help with (or may not).  Because if they know about those, they know what they want from their money.

 

It’s pretty simple, are the people to be the servants of the money, or do the people make the choices, and the money is used to help them implement the choices?

 

The way it is, the money rules, and the people do what the money says.  Does that sound adult to you?  It could be changed to you being in charge and the money (with technical help on tax, pensions legislation etc.) being your tool – which would you prefer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Current financial events | Leave a comment

No-nup or no brain?

There was a piece in the Evening Standard the other day about agreements for co-habiting couples, a “no-nup” (equivalent to the “pre-nuptial” agreement of married couples).

 

The theory seems to be that it’s a sensible idea.  Maybe, but I think it might well be more of a “it seemed a good idea at the time but it’s turned out expensive and divisive” idea in fact, for most couples.

 

 I talked in Taming the Pound about pre-nup ideas, and the basics still hold true for no-nups.

 

On the plus side, getting agreement is a good thing.

 

But is sitting down and detailing what each of you brought in and how you split the bills at the start (before pay rises, promotions, job changes, children, redundancy, changes of mind, retraining etc.) “getting agreement”?  

 

In the same issue of the Evening Standard (March 31st) as the no-nup article there was another piece headlined “Father sues son for return of £2m classic cars.”  Apparently the father lent four cars to the son when they had (according to the court papers), a “good relationship”. Three or four years later there are mutual accusations and a court case.  

 

What do you think, is the problem that they hadn’t paid a lawyer to draw up a cast iron contract – or is it that the relationship broke down?  Dad says he lent the cars and the son didn’t return them.  Dad claims his son sent a text and said they’d be returned if they never saw one another again.  That didn’t happen and now dad is suing for return of the cars in good condition or 3 million Euros in damages.  Son can’t be contacted but “is expected to contest the allegations”.  

 

What do you think, would a legal contract made four years before cover sending a text and cases of “he said,  (s)he said”?

 

I don’t think so, I think it would have meant paying fees for a contract, and then paying again when it all went sour.  So wouldn’t it have been a better investment to spend less on the cars and the legal side (like suing one another) and more on actually bonding so they talk, rather than text, and they have a relationship and don’t wish never to see one another again?

 

But getting back to couples, is the issue what is brought into the relationship or how things stand at one moment in time? What about changes over time, aren’t there bigger things in a relationship than who owns more of the CD collection?

 

I said in Taming the Pound:

 

I’m not talking just about practical things like wills when you have children, buy a house or get married.  I mean your ideas and values.  What do you both want from life, what would make you happy? 

Are jobs of vital importance to both, one or neither of you? 

Do either or both of you dream of doing something different, maybe travelling or conversely being centres of the local community? 

What is going to make you happy, and what is going to make your partner happy – do you know and do you ever talk about it?

 

Aren’t those more important issues and more likely to make or break the relationship?

 

Similarly, if you look into the future (whether you’re married or not), 

 

This starts to get more complicated if you have children. 

 

(and it applies to gay couples, married or not, who are adopting children)

 

What does the person who gives up more time do if they don’t have paid work because of children? 

Do they get to feel like a free-loader because they are not paying their share any more, does the one who is earning more pay them for their time, and if so, how much? 

What about if you earn different amounts to start with; do you allocate the value of the house in proportion to the amount you put in (so if one pays 2/3 of the mortgage and the bills, do they get 2/3) and what happens if the relative incomes change, one of you loses your job etc.?  

 

Also, what about cars, do you have a better car because you have more money, so your partner isn’t allowed to drive your car? 

 

What about if one of you wants to study for advanced qualifications or to get another job, and has to take a cut in salary to do it; do they give up their share while they are not earning, do they get paid a proportion that they pay back, how does it work?

 

Those are things that need to be thought about as the relationship progresses.  And they’re why I said (prophetically as it turned out).

 

That’s one reason why, when people say to me that “if we get married I’d insist on a pre-nuptial agreement” I tend to ask how many hundred pages they think it will need to cover everything.  Not that pre-nuptial agreements are a bad idea inherently, it is just that if you haven’t sorted out the values in the relationship (do you want children, what are your values that you want your money to help you achieve, how important to happiness are your jobs, etc.) you will have a hard time setting everything out.

 

You can’t rely on “we have shared values about …..,” you can’t use a shared common sense approach; you have to nail it all down in writing.  That doesn’t tend to engender trust, so if you start to write it all down, you have to write it all down.  That doesn’t just take the romance out of it, you end up with something the length of war and peace to argue about on cold winter nights! 

 

On the other hand you can make the assumption that your partner sees it all the same way that you do without even talking about it, and if you find you don’t share the values, either the sketchy pre-nuptial agreement isn’t going to give you the answer or you have to decide to rewrite it every few months.

 

So I’d suggest talking about your values in depth, then if you want to put it in writing afterwards, fine. 

 

Go into legal deals first off and you’ll probably never get as far as values, you’ll be too busy drawing up battle lines.  The only people who make money from disputes are lawyers, not the two of you.

 

And perhaps that’s the key point.  This suggestion has come from a legal firm that charges £25 per month (per month!), for unlimited legal documents (there’s never any shortage of those), a 30 minute consultation (wow, a whole 30 minutes!) and up to (which of course, includes the figure zero) off additional legal fees (which you can be sure will occur).  

 

Or, for about half the monthly fee you could buy Taming the Pound.  And for less than a year’s subscription you could get about four hours of consultation with me – and you wouldn’t be paying ever after.  I’d even help you make a list of what you brought into the relationship if you really want, but I honestly think that there are more important things to talk about with somebody that you’re serious enough about to consider sharing your home and your life with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Couples, Current financial events | Leave a comment

Mindfulness, happiness and finance.

 

It looks as if the UK military are catching up with the US marines.  According to the Sunday Times, senior military personnel are being taught “happiness” lessons and meditation.

 

The inverted commas indicate that there is still a fair amount of scepticism about it, from the journalists at least.  Which seems to contrast with what was said in a similar article about the Marines a few months ago. But it does seem that happiness, mindfulness etc. are being seen as realistic ways to improve performance by the Western world’s military.

 

So I’m quite please by the fact that Taming the Pound (which went to the publishers over three years ago) has as a key point happiness.  And it covers mindfulness as a viable way of making better decisions, defining priorities that really matter and dealing with the pressure of life without getting pushed into debt, short term thinking and risk-taking. As I mentioned in a post a while ago.

 

I’m wondering if I was really prophetic.  I did suggest that we ought to teach this stuff in schools, and that financial “experts”, like bankers (and the economists who advise on the National economy) ought to have to learn it as well.

 

Maybe that will happen – it really will be a strange world if education and finance (that are thought to go for experiments – often bizarre ones)  stay rooted in the 19th and 20th century while the military (notorious for conservatism, tradition and clinging to the past) move into the 21st.

 

Maybe I’m winning and the powers that be in finance, Government and education will actually begin to adopt methods that work – wouldn’t that be great.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Current financial events | Leave a comment

Add-ons, warranties and the like

 

The insurance “add-on” product market is apparently worth £4 billion a year.

 

And the FCA, the regulator for financial services, says that consumers are “simply not getting value for money”.

 

Mind you, Simon Burtwell the head of UK general insurance at Ernst & Young is reported as saying that rate rises would be good for the industry long-term because “currently there is a general trend of consumers paying too little for their insurance products”. 

 

I’m not bad at maths, so I can see a wee bit of a conundrum there.

 

An expert says that people are paying too little, while the regulator says they aren’t getting value for money – which by implication means that they are paying too much.”

 

Who’s right?

 

Probably, both are, but they are, like “experts” the world over, talking about different things.

 

Insurance isn’t particularly complicated, in principle.  Basically, an insurer works out the odds of something happening, works out how much they will have to pay if it happens, and multiplies one by the other.  That’s the “pure premium”.  They then add a bit for admin and profit, and that’s the premium.

 

Insurance people don’t like it (I know, I was one, I’m still qualified as an Associate of the Chartered Insurance Institute), but it’s very much like being a bookie. Turf Accountant’s (as bookies prefer to be known) do much the same, the point being to be in profit whichever horse wins the race or whichever house is flooded etc.  

 

It’s the same principle with “add ons” like extended warrantees.  If a shop (or insurer) is going to offer one, they work out the odds of the warranty being claimed on (the fridge or whatever packs up), what they have to pay if it does, multiply the two together and add admin and profit, and that’s the premium.

 

Except usually the profit margin is huge compared to the pure premium.  

 

So the FCA are probably comparing costs to other types of insurance (which are still potentially expensive, but closer to the actual pure premium) and the insurance companies are comparing them to the sort of margins that they’d like to get on all their business, and have traditionally got on add-on contracts.

 

You can understand the attitude of EY and insurers.  They are businesses, they’re trying to make money.

 

You can also understand the attitude of the FCA, they are trying to “protect” the public.

 

But what’s tricky is how the FCA go about it.  They say “there’s a clear case for us to intervene…..Firms must start putting consumers first and stop seeing them as pound signs”.

 

So what the FCA wants is for businesses not to operate like businesses, but to operate like regulators who are supposed to look after the public.

 

What they’d be better off doing is educating the public. 

 

And they could do that by buying Taming the Pound for everybody – or at least circulating and promoting the “quick reference” sheet at the end of the chapter on insurance!

 

If people followed these few principles, they wouldn’t end up with expensive add-on policies – so if you are interested in getting “value for money”, you’re best off ignoring the “experts” and the regulators and remembering:

 

  • Insurance is to cover calamity, not inconvenience.
  • The insurer will charge the “pure premium” plus admin costs and profit, so you can’t “win” on insurance.
  • Do the maths.  See if you should “self insure”.  Insure stuff that would be a calamity, not (usually) an inconvenience.
  • Do things to reduce premiums, fit locks, smoke detectors, etc. and look at the excess on the policy.
  • Work out what you want and need and buy that; don’t buy what they want to sell.
  • Protection, like life assurance and PHI should at least be considered if you have dependants or anybody who will suffer financially (or if you’d have big problems paying your bills if you were ill or injured).
  • Extended warranties are usually a waste of money.
  • But as with everything else, do the maths (or hire somebody independent to do it for you).

 

Posted in Current financial events | Leave a comment

Mindfulness and money

 

There’s a nice article about mindfulness .

 

But why is it “Over nearly four decades, Ellen Langer’s research on mindfulness has greatly influenced thinking across a range of fields, from behavioural economics to positive psychology.”?

 

As I keep saying, positive psychology, happiness, wellbeing, values, flow etc. are what we’re (in theory) aiming for.  We all want to be happy and fulfilled.  We know that money doesn’t guarantee that we’ll be happy, but if we use it right it can help.  So money is a tool that we can use to help us be happy.  Sadly, we can also use it to make no difference or even to make us unhappy.

 

Behavioural economics is psychology lite – it’s about human behaviour not as humans actually behave but as thinking machines would deal with money if they hadn’t evolved as humans.  But it’s essence is understanding how people behave and make decisions about money, like financial psychology (but with less vital behavioural context and more irrelevant economic theory).  

 

So if it’s about making decisions about money and the purpose of money is to make us happy, how is there a “range” between positive psychology and behavioural economics?  Surely they are aspects of the same thing (financial psychology).

 

And mindfulness is useful in all sorts of ways, not just as in the article, but in ways I mentioned in Taming the Pound.  Among other things, it helps us to make better decisions about what we really want to make us happy, and enables us to make better financial decisions (not ones that only make us wealthier, but ones that make us happier).

 

I do wonder when the various finance “experts” are going to understand the simple fact that there isn’t a “range” between these concepts, they are closely linked.

 

If they do understand it, they might realise that behavioural economics in isolation isn’t at all a good way to plan finances (however scientific anybody thinks it is).  They might also realise that positive psychology has some great ideas, but something like mindfulness is really handy to be able to put it those great ideas, and the principles from behavioural economics, into practice, in an integrated way.

 

 

Posted in Current financial events | Leave a comment

Tell me what you want.

 

I just went into a supermarket. As I headed for what I wanted to buy I was told, “sir, get a free mug.  When you buy these tomato soups.  It’s a really good offer”.

 

I thought, “who is it good for”?

 

Do I need a mug? No, we’ve got so many that they end up stacked.  Do I need tomato soup? No, we’ve got soup and I don’t particularly like tomato, unless it’s fresh, made with basil etc., so a cheap packet is not on the list.

 

So how is it a “really good offer”?

 

It might be quite good if you want some cheap(-ish) tomato soup.  Or if you will use the soup and want a mug – assuming that you can’t buy the mug cheaper anyway.  

 

But a “really good” – I doubt it.

 

It’s a lovely example of how wants, needs, values and costs all get mixed.  

 

I don’t need it, I don’t want it, it has no value to me.  But because it costs less than it might do, it’s alleged to be a “really good offer”.

 

It’s focussing entirely on cost, not on value, not on need, not even on want. 

 

It’s telling people to focus entirely on whether something is cheap, not on whether it is of any value, whether they need it, whether it is worth anything to  them.  

 

How many people get sucked in by this every day (hint – if it didn’t sucker enough people, supermarkets would’t do it)?

 

So they spend, say, £2.50 each day – perhaps £15 each week, £60 each month, £720 each year.  And that’s net.  If you offered them a pay rise of £1,000 they’d be really keen, but they’ll waste the equivalent amount because “it’s a really good offer”.

 

How about you – do you think it’s a good offer, or do you compare things to what you actually need, want or value before deciding whether it is any sort of offer?

 

And do you do the same thing with a new mobile phone, a cable TV deal, a new car and so on?  Do you actually think about what you value, what you need, what you want, or do you allow other people to focus you on what it costs?

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Current financial events | 2 Comments

Gambling or rent?

 

The mass media are finally catching up.  So are the “experts”.

 

We’ve started to get stories about people borrowing money from payday lenders to pay their rent, such as this in the Guardian.

 

I said a couple of months ago that the problem with payday loans was that people used them for the wrong things.  They buy things they don’t need, and then don’t have the money for things they do, one of the points I made being:

 

“having material things might temporarily make you feel one-up on the neighbours, but shortly the bill would come in and the neighbours will take out an even bigger loan to buy an even more expensive car, TV, gadget or whatever. Then we’re into a sort of purchasing arms race, with everybody spending money they don’t have to impress people they don’t like, by buying things they can’t afford.  That way lies bankruptcy and madness.”

 

Instead of an outcry about people trying to make a living (however repellent their morals might be), why not educate the population to understand what they really value and to prioritise and set goals for what is important – like their rent?

 

In the same way, we have lots of outcry about gambling in the high-street, with councils wanting to be able to stop this “urban blight“.  

 

I pointed out that it wasn’t the availability of gambling that was the problem, it was the way that people thought about it.  If people are educated about what makes them assume that gambling is a realistic way of dealing with finance, they can get some control over it, they won’t gamble so much and you won’t have masses of bookmakers and fixed-odds machines in the high-street, because there will be no profit in it.

 

As I said:

 

“The odd flutter on the Grand National, a couple of pounds a week on the lottery to give you a few hour’s pleasure thinking about what you’d do with the money etc. probably isn’t going to hurt you (but it still might, if you don’t actually have the money to gamble with).  But if you look at gambling as a way to solve problems – you probably need help.”

 

It would be so good if the charities, Government etc. stopped complaining about businesses taking advantage of people, and started to educate the people instead.  

 

They could start by buying everybody Taming the Pound – it would give everybody what they need, and would be a lot cheaper than constant litigation to prevent businesses advertising, opening shops and making loads of money!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Basic concepts, Current financial events | Leave a comment

Overspending at Christmas

 

There’s something about Christmas. It’s a time of giving, being happy etc.  

 

And of spending money.

 

There were some figures in the papers last week, from research by the Halifax.

 

They said that why we spend is:

 

Wanted a perfect Christmas           41%

Lost control of spending                16%

Last-minute panic buying               13%

Wanted to spend same as friends   4%

 

And how we paid for it

From December salary                67%

Savings                                        34%

Other                                           20%

Overdraft                                     14%

Store card                                    12%

Borrowed from friends                10%

Payday loan                                   7%

 

 

If that’s true, then 43% go into debt to pay for Christmas (I’d guess it’s higher, realistically) and exactly the same proportion wanted a “perfect” Christmas.

 

So what would be perfect?  Wouldn’t it actually be spending it with friends, rather than competing with them or borrowing from them?

 

I did a video interview about it 

 

 

You might find it interesting that I was interviewed before Christmas (hence the Remembrance Day Poppy in my button-hole).  But I made the points that came out in the research in the following January about why people spend, what they spend it on and where they get the money.

 

You might want to skip over the brief commercial break after about 23 minutes, but stay with it as we carried on the interview from 24 until the 36 minute mark.

 

Incidentally, I was on the same show a few months before, 

 

You might notice that Chrissy (the hostess) pronounced my name wrongly, and that I use my hands to emphasise points so I look like a tik-tak man at the races. We both learned from that!

 

But with newspapers and banks echoing what I say, albeit three months late, It is getting obvious that working out what you really want first (such as, what is your perfect Christmas?) is a better way than trying to spend “sensibly” when you don’t really know what on earth you want.

 

 

 

  

 

 

Posted in Basic concepts, Current financial events | Leave a comment

Positively avoiding debt.

 

I had some feedback the other day that recently I’ve been tending to focus on what people do wrong with money.  Given that I use positive psychology a lot and emphasise the value of things like hope and optimism, that was a bit of a shock.

 

But I have to face it, it’s true.  The last couple of posts have been about the idiocies of politicians, what people do that doesn’t make sense, and so on.

 

So I thought I’d put it right and talk about positive things that you can do to avoid debt, or control it if you already owe money.

 

First 

Frame things positively.  So think about what you want to do instead of being in debt.  I say more about that in Taming the Pound  but let’s take an example.  Say you’ve got a debt (or are about to run up a debt) of £500.  You can focus on that, which is pretty depressing, you’ve got to pay it off, it’s worrying etc. It probably makes you want to go for “retail therapy”!

 

So think positive. What would you like to do, what is a positive image?  Maybe you want to take a holiday.  Think about that, how much is it?  

 

If you’re in debt, think of the figure of paying off the debt (say, £500), plus the amount for the holiday.  Strange as it may seem, it’s easier to motivate yourself to pay off the bigger amount for the debt plus having the holiday than it is to pay off the debt alone, because you have the positive image of the holiday in your head.  You’ve got the motivation because the human reaction to something scary (like a debt) is run away and not deal with it.  But you’ll happily tackle something fun, like a holiday and take the debt in your stride.  Remember when you were at school, you could feel too ill to go to school, but be well enough when you were invited to a party.  

 

The same thing applies when you want to avoid spending money.  Think about the really great use of the money you could do, like the holiday.  If you focus on that, and consider how fantastic it will be, you are doing something fun to save your money up – it’s a great idea and you’re happy about it, so you save the money.  People tend to get worried about saving, feel they “ought to” save, won’t have any fun etc.  But if you turn it round to the positive image, it’s fun.  

 

There’s also the point that the human mind doesn’t do negatives.  If you try to think “don’t be in debt” you will immediately focus on debt.  That turns your thoughts to worry, depression etc.  If, instead you think about the good stuff you’re going to do, the pleasure you’ll get out of not spending money now and saving it for something you will really enjoy, you’re making it fun to control your money.

 

Second.

Work out what you really want. And think about what you need.  You might quite like a new pair of shoes or some gadget, but do you need them as much as you need to pay your rent or to buy food?  And do you really, really want them?  One good trick is to think, “how much do I want this on a scale of one to ten?”  And don’t buy it unless it’s at least an eight or it is really needed.

 

What you’ll find, if you are honest with yourself, is that the things you spend money on that you truly want and will enjoy are going to be in one of a few categories.

 

  • They’ll be experiences, like holidays, social events, parties, having a trial pilot lesson etc.  You’ll remember them when the “things” you bought are long forgotten.

 

  • They’ll be bought for others.  We’re social animals, and if you think about it you’ll find that it really is more fun to give than to receive.  The pleasure of seeing the person’s face, of the feeling that you get lasts long after the stuff you bought for yourself is thrown away.

 

  • They’ll be things you waited for. Funnily enough, although we live in an age of “instant gratification”, we get a lot more out of the “pleasurable anticipation” of things we really want, the waiting, the imagination, than we get out of the things themselves!

 

That last point might seem odd, but it’s the same principle Hitchcock used.  There’s nothing so frightening as your imagination, so Hitchcock didn’t often show the murderer, he just let people got terrified by their imaginations. In the same way if you buy everything the moment you feel you want it, you’ll almost invariably be disappointed, but if you wait and savour the anticipation you’ll find that you get far more pleasure out of it, whether you eventually buy it or not.  And, of course, you give yourself time to find out that you’re not really bothered after all, and then you’ve saved your money as well!

 

Third 

When you have decided what you really want and that will give you pleasure (which might be having a debt free Christmas and a New Year holiday), think about the things that will bring you pleasure and that don’t necessarily cost anything.  Using your skills (like art work to produce your own cards, making presents for people etc.), being sociable (in person, on Facebook, by phone, whatever), or doing things for others will all make you happy.  And they don’t usually cost much money.

 

Fourth

When you know what you want to spend your time and your money doing, plan what you’ll actually do.  You’ll probably find you have way too much to do that is fun and that you really want and need, and you don’t have time to get depressed or to spend loads of money you don’t have on things you don’t really want.

 

And then if you need to make economies, you’re doing them for a good reason, because you’re going to get more out of life. Checking your energy supplier charges, setting the thermostat down a degree or two, boiling only the water you need, resisting impulse buys and so on are actually fun little challenges to yourself when you know why you’re doing them.  You get this great feeling of being in control of yourself, and you focus on all the great things you’re going to do with the money instead of wasting it.  

 

If you are doing “responsible” tasks like that because you have to, they are boring, you won’t want to do them, you’ll give up when it get’s hard and it won’t work.  But if you know why you’re doing them and make it a game with yourself, you can have fun and develop your skills – so you get more pleasure out of the things that need doing, and have more time and money to do the things you want to do.

 

Try it – and do let me know how well it works for you, because it will work.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Basic concepts | Leave a comment

Greed isn’t good, it’s one of the 7 deadly dwarfs of the apocalypse!

 

 

Quite reasonably, people have pointed out that Boris Johnson has got it wrong  

 

That’s a good article, although it isn’t as funny as Jeremy Hardy’s brilliant comment on The News Quiz, that formed the title of this piece.

 

It’s interesting  because Boris is apparently very clever.  Apparently he talks five languages fluently, including Russian, English and nonsense.  So how can he be quite so ignorant?

 

For one thing, he talks about IQ as if it is an accurate measure of income, the higher one is, the higher the other.  There is a correlation, but it’s not that great. Intelligence (or whatever it is that IQ and similar tests measure, if you aren’t too sure they’re actually doing what they say on the tin) is the best single predictor of managerial success.  But that doesn’t necessarily correlate to income.  There are plenty of poor, unemployed high-IQ former professors etc. and I’m not sure that Premier league footballers, among the highest paid in the land, would win prizes for intellect.  

 

Boris is, as is normal in politicians of all parties, and all levels of intelligence, confusing what he thinks ought to be true, with what is true.  Like everybody (politician or decent human being) he believes himself to be a “good guy”.  Since he’s wealthy, that can’t be (he believes) because he is lucky (the most probably explanation), a money-grabbing opportunist or any description his enemies might use.  He believes he’s wealthy because he is like he is, a good guy, an intelligent guy and more worthy of money than others who are not like him.  

 

He’s wrong.  He probably is smarter than most people.  But on it’s own, that isn’t reliably going to make him more money.  Nor is he necessarily a harder worker than others, that doesn’t guarantee wealth either.  Or more deserving, or nicer or anything much else.  He’s most likely to be wealthy because lots of things came together for him (the fun way to find this out is to read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, or Bounce by Matthew Syed).

 

So he’s got that wrong.

 

He’s also got the “big picture” wrong.  Greed drives people to want material things, to “keep up with the Jones’s” to be jealous. So yes, that does drive the economy, right enough.  But what country (or world) do we want?  One that is all about having more “stuff” than other people, or one where we’re happy? There’s plenty of evidence that materialistic values lead to unhappiness.  So Boris is saying that he thinks everybody in the UK should pursue misery, but he thinks that’s OK because some (what he regards as the deserving ones, like him) will be happy.

 

Sadly, he’s wrong again.  The limited numbers of rich will be wealthy right enough, but unhappy because they don’t have as much as somebody who is slightly richer.  The person who can have a personal jet and a yacht is miserable because they can’t afford their own island as well, the person with the island can’t afford a huge art collection as well, the person with the art collection (apart from being miserable because their personal life is in the toilet) can’t afford their own planet.  The moderately rich desperately want the stuff the very rich have, and the poor would just like to have something to eat, because all their money has gone on having things that the moderately rich have.  Nobody is happy because all they think about is what they want.

 

Remember, want means not just “I’d like”, but “I’m in want of” = I don’t have.  So you can be in want of food, shelter, friendship, things that are really important. Being in want of a home cinema system or a new BMW is really not up there in the top ten in the “I want” stakes when you look at happiness.

 

And Cameron, whom I understand Boris wants to supplant, did start the promotion of “happiness” (by reinventing the wheel, ignoring all the research and appointing his own pet economist who knew nothing about it to measure the concept).  Of course, Cameron (who had the same sort of education as Boris, and who has had the same sort of opportunities to get rich – see Outliers) has messed that up by ignoring the start that he made as well as all the research that’s out there.  So obviously Boris isn’t alone in being a very limited thinker, despite having the best education that money can buy.

 

But if Boris were to have a think about it he might (if he really is smart) realise that happiness isn’t actually linked to material wealth.  And he wouldn’t even have to think too hard, just read Stumbling on Happiness by Dan Gilbert.  That gives a very nice explanation of how we keep that drive to compete going, the drive that makes us all tense, unhappy and obsessed with material goods.  But, as Dan Gilbert says (and Boris could learn, if he’d just shut up long enough), keeping on firing up the economy by encouraging greed, materialism etc. is fine if the only thing you want is a thriving capitalist economy. In fact, it’s essential. If people, in sufficient numbers, start thinking “hang on, I don’t want to do this, I’d rather enjoy my life and be happy, who cares if somebody else has a new car and I don’t, good luck to them”, the economy tends to stumble.  The people get happier, but if they are happy and content they aren’t obsessed with buying things.  And that slows the economy.

 

Personally, I’d rather people were happy, and the economy didn’t grow as fast (or at all).  And everybody I’ve ever met feels the same.  But Boris is promoting a growing economy, although that also means he’s promoting a miserable country.

 

So again, his ignorance means that what he’s saying is handy for promoting a point of view, but that point of view isn’t as self-evidently right as he thinks, and it’s actually wrong in the opinion of most people.

 

And the big impact of Boris’s mistaken understanding is on the individual.

 

A week after we had headlines about pervasive and serious debt and we’ve got record debt levels, we have headlines about Christmas shopping breaking records

 

Nobody seems to have tied these together 

 

But if people are already in debt and are spending money at record levels, what do you think is going to happen to debt?  Will it go:  

a) up,

b) down,

c) stay the same,

d) don’t know as I’m the average politician and I have no idea about finance or anything else,

e)  don’t care as I’m Boris.

 

So my advice to you, whether you’re in debt or not, is don’t spend at record levels.  Ignore Boris.  Work out whether you actually care whether somebody else has something you don’t really want anyway, can’t afford and that will cause you sleepless nights worrying about how you’ll pay for it.

 

Get your own money under control by working out what really matters to you.  Then perhaps campaign for a few politicians to start talking sense and taking an interest in the Nation’s well-being and happiness, rather than only in its economy.

 

And if you speak to Boris, tell him to stick to zip wires if he wants to pull a publicity stunt, that way, when it backfires (as everything he does appears to) it will only be him who gets hurt, not everybody else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Current financial events | Comments Off