(Financial) Retard of the Month. Already? Yes.

Goes perfectly with a board game

 

There’s still a measurable chunk of 2012 left, but we have a Man of the Year to name and a Carnival of Wealth to host, so here we are on what the Commonwealthers call Boxing Day. With a new (F)RotM.

We couldn’t keep him down for long. History’s dominant (Financial) Retard of the Month saw that a couple of upstarts had temporarily usurped his crown, and has returned with a vengeance, stomping on every pretender in his path and leaving their jellied remains coagulating on the ground. Sorry to ruin the ending for you, but Trent Hamm at The Simple Dollar has done it again.

It’s hard to pick just one, but our favorite feature on The Simple Dollar is his frequent “Reader Mailbags”. These consist entirely of questions seeking counsel, which are obviously formulated by the author but nevertheless passed off as legitimate. This isn’t necessarily Mr. Hamm’s fault, as every question posed to every advice column in the history of the universe has been fake. But his stunning lack of creativity (as evidenced by his awful website) shines its brightest in these laughable questions.

My wife and I had satellite radio in our car for several years. We really liked the commercial-free radio, but we decided it cost too much and cut the service. Regular radio is terrible as it’s loaded down with ads. Any suggestions on a cheap alternative?
– Rodney

What would a normal person recommend here? (Please, suspend disbelief for the rest of today’s post and assume that Rodney is a real person and not a construct of Trent Hamm’s elephantine head.) You’d tell Rodney to use Pandora. Or Rhapsody. Or Last.fm, or something. But not Trent. He suggests that Rodney go back in time:

One option is to take your CD collection, convert them (sic) to mp3 on your computer, and use an inexpensive mp3 player to play them through the stereo in your car. That would be the option I would use.

Classic Trent, in that he considers time to be free and infinite. If you own enough music, converting CDs to mp3s is an interminable pain, which we all know because we’ve all done it already. Most of us did it several years ago, even before digital media supplanted physical as the delivery system of choice for music. Trent, however, plays by different rules. While converting a collection of decent size to mp3 takes hours upon hours, that means little to a man who would rather burn an evening shopping for the composite parts of toothpaste and mixing up a batch than just buying a tube of Crest.

Here’s the next line, with nothing omitted between it and the previous one:

You could also play CDs if your car has a CD player, assuming you have any CDs.

If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs. (Also, wasn’t the previous paragraph the time to have questioned whether “Rodney” owns CDs? But we digress. It’s impossible to lambaste the haphazard cesspool of drivel that is The Simple Dollar in a linear fashion. You attack at the points of weakness, wherever and whenever they are. And they’re everywhere.)

“Honey, what’s this thin slot in the car stereo, right above the radio buttons?”

“CD player.”

“See what?”

“You put CDs in it. You know those CDs you own? That’s where they go, if you want to hear them.”

Please let the story that Trent sold his blog for a million dollars be an urban legend. Please let the story that Trent sold his blog for a million dollars be an urban legend. Please let the story that Trent sold his blog for a million dollars be an urban legend.

Ah, where were we? Of course. Deconstructing this dilation and curettage of a personal finance blog. Trent continues:

There are a lot of options for commercial free audio on the cheap if you think outside the box a bit.

USING THE CD PLAYER THAT COMES WITH THE CAR, TO PLAY YOUR CDs IN, IS “THINK(ING) OUTSIDE THE BOX”? Trent should do a post in which he types the exact same keystrokes in the same order, but on a Dvorak keyboard. It couldn’t be worse and wouldn’t make less sense than any of the balderdash that makes it through his current QWERTY setup.

Also, we can add “options” to his list of favorite words that Trent overuses to the point that they’ve lost all meaning. The current power rankings:

  1. Simply
  2. Wonderful
  3. Options

The late Steven Covey wrote about the importance of striking a balance between preparation and execution. What he meant was, while the person who attempts to succeed professionally without any training is going to fail, it’s easy to ignore the flip side of the equation: too much preparation can be as fatal as too little. Just ask the overeducated and indebted college graduates polluting our society.

Trent’s not an indebted college graduate, at least not anymore, but damn does he love to plan things. If half the fun for most of us is in the journey, not the destination, then for Trent the fun breakdown is as follows:

Destination                           0%
Journey                                  4%
Planning the journey         96%

From earlier this month, a post titled “Do Your Own Travel Planning”:

When Sarah and I were talking about our honeymoon in 2003, we were a little intimidated by setting up our travel plans. It was the first major trip either one of us had taken where we would be responsible for all of the planning, and it seemed like a ton of confusing work.

Where was said honeymoon, Trent?

We went on a wonderful honeymoon to England when we were first married

  1. Wonderful. Of course it was.
  2. When did you go on the honeymoon? Oh, when you were first married. Thanks.
  3. Freaking England. A country where the Hamms know the language, and to where flights from America are plentiful. International travel to England is like international cuisine at Panda Express. Technically it qualifies, but come on. This seriously intimidated Hamm & Wife. You really can’t take the cornfield out of the boy, can you?

For our tenth anniversary, Sarah and I are planning a trip to Norway. Sarah’s family ancestry is heavily Norwegian, so a big reason we want to go there is to find her ancestral villages and possibly look up a few distant relatives.

We could use a travel agency to plan this trip, but instead Sarah and I have been carefully studying many different internet sites and books as we plan our trip.

There are 9 things to make fun of in that paragraph, not the least of which is Trent’s new fascination with superfluous words that derive from “ancestor”, but let’s start with an easy one.

Stephen King: “The adverb is not your friend.”

Trent Hamm: “The adverb is my friend, my lover, my boss, my mentor, my patriarch, my pastor, the girl I see on the side, and my rock in a sea of madness when I’m feeling blue. I love adverbs more than I love butter, and I love butter a lot.” The man has a gift for wordiness that mere mortals can only stare agape at.

                             We’re going to Norway and booking everything ourselves.

How difficult was that?

If you have a trip that you’d like to take, planning it yourself really isn’t that hard. There are many resources that will help you with planning your flights and planning your hotel stays and finding things to do in the area. All you have to do is start with a Google search and you’ll soon find yourself with tons of resources.

He’s slipping. The old Trent would have explained how a Google search works.

Remember, the more time you spend planning a trip, the better you’ll understand what’s available and the better the trip will match what you want out of it.

Therefore, the ultimate trip would be one for which you spent 24 hours a day reading Lonely Planet books, followed by 4 seconds of actual travel. Which still wouldn’t be enough to get you out of the nonentity that is Huxley, Iowa. This is the same mental patient who wrote “How We Plan For A Summer Vacation”, in which he explains his strategy of mandating a designated “peak experience” and “end experience” for every sojourn, no matter how pedestrian. Literally pedestrian – that’s the same post in which he brags about walking around collecting bricks, rocks and used baseballs.

Norway. May Trent Hamm eat some lutefisk that was soaked in too much lye.

(Financial) Retard of the Month for November

 

Don’t worry, we’re pretty sure she’ll be wiping herself by 30.

 

A message for previous, subsequent, and the current (Financial) Retards of the Month:

Stop the charade, and admit it. You want to be poor. Because God knows you’re not making the necessary effort to avoid doing so. And all the introspection and public lamentation in the world isn’t going to make a difference to your financial situation, unless you count the time involved in doing so, which will make things worse. It doesn’t matter how old you are, either. A losing attitude in one’s 20s will extend into one’s 60s and well beyond.

We’d gladly wager that the unemployed, recently bankrupted woman behind Deal(ing) With Money will be just as destitute 4 decades from now, except a) we’d require a huge payoff for having to tie up our money for that long and b) no one except the principal herself, and probably not even her, would dare take the other side of that bet.

(Financial) Retard of the Month. A monthly (no, really) feature in which we showcase a self-styled finance enthusiast who doesn’t have a clue about how money works, assails society instead of taking care of business at home, and shares her inane worldview with anyone who knows her URL.

Our latest honoree is an unnamed woman who’s as generic a personal finance blogger as you’re ever going to see:

  • In debt.
  • Most of the debt is student loans.
  • Studied something impractical in college.
  • Gets uncomfortably personal (the use of the 1st-person pronoun on this site is overwhelming).
  • Writes blog posts in the rote manner of the unimaginative. (“Wait, it’s the end of the post? Time to add a couple of boldface questions, posed to the readers. You see, because that’s how you facilitate dialogue. And by ‘dialogue’ I mean a bunch of other similar people nodding their empty heads in the comments.”)

Granted, we live in a society in which a plurality of TV shows now involve looking into what should be the private vapid lives of losers – the morbidly obese, the chemically dependent, the vacuously ostentatious, the teenagely pregnant. But does that mean that every deficient person’s life now has to be broadcast to the masses?

To recap, our heroine is 28, yet graduated from college 2 years ago. No word on whether, or why, it took her 8 years. She certainly didn’t start late because of any service in the Marines. Being deep into adulthood doesn’t preclude her from using sad-face emoticons non-ironically, either. Our collective suspended adolescence continues unabated.

She didn’t work during college. In fact,

[My mom] is not allowing me to work a job to pay my debts and move out of her house.

Twenty-freaking-eight. (Mom has $66,000 in student loans of her own, too. And hasn’t worked in 32 years, nor paid a power bill in 9. There’s also a sister who has $60,000 in student loans, not to mention a brother with $60,000. This is just too perfect. On second thought, maybe we will tie up our money to cash in on that bet and its all-but-guaranteed payout.)

Unnamed woman “wants to make a living as a freelance writer”, as if that’s something easy to do for a person with no history of commitment or responsibility.

The best part is the obligatory disclaimer, as derivative and redundant as the boldface questions ending each post. Really? You’re “not a financial advisor”? You’re “not a finance professional”? You’re “not qualified to give financial advice”? We had no idea. But thanks for pointing out that we should “find a qualified, trained financial expert” for any “financial issues [we] need addressed.”

Honorees, a question: Do you folks consciously try to suck? Is that the idea?

Despite her stunning lack of qualifications – and we’re not talking about her not being a financial professional, but rather her life in general up to this point – she sure has a lot to say about people who have made something of themselves.

Case in point, “Papa” John Schnatter, the pizza guy. Mr. Schnatter is an American citizen, and thus subject to the blatantly unconstitutional ObamaCare law that not only requires citizens to purchase a service, but orders employers to provide a means for acquiring said service. The Deal With Money woman excoriates him for having determined that adding a cost to his operations will require him to transfer that cost elsewhere. He could raise prices (and thus sell fewer pizzas.) His franchisees could pay workers less, not that pizza chain employee is a particularly lucrative gig in the first place. Or, they could cut those employees’ hours. Mr. Schnatter obviously doesn’t want them to, or he wouldn’t have sold the franchises and indirectly hired these people in the first place, but the RotM has trouble grasping such higher-level concepts. From her incisive analysis:

He states that his company cannot afford to insure workers under Obamacare, and he would have to pass the costs on to customer (sic) by raising the cost of a pizza by $.14.

I suppose it doesn’t matter that this man lives in a 40,000 square foot castle, or gave away 2 million free (sic) pizzas. He just can’t afford to provide employees with affordable health care! He can’t do it!

That’s a logical jump that Mike Powell couldn’t clear, without even addressing the question of why Mr. Schnatter giving food away should subject him to derision. Why is the size of his house relevant, other than that it classifies him as a rich guy who’s keeping the proletariat down?

Mr. Schnatter didn’t wake up one morning and have gold bullion fall out of the sky and hit him on the head. His father died $60,000 in debt, a number that Ms. Deal With Money is three-quarters of the way to. Schnatter fils started building his company when he was 5 years younger than Ms. Deal With Money is now, and unlike her, indeed worked through college. And then raised 3 kids, one with cerebral palsy.

But he could have been born rich and it wouldn’t matter. On at least two levels, it’s juvenile to believe that the relationship between Papa John’s franchisee (or founder) and worker is analogous to that of parent and child. Schnatter is obligated to provide checks that don’t bounce, and a clearly stated list of work requirements. In return, Papa John’s employees have to show up on time and keep the customers happy. The idea that by Schnatter bringing these workers on board, he’s now responsible for getting them to the doctor on time, stands up to no scrutiny. Why must an employer provide anything beyond the standard remuneration of a job – money? Should he set Papa John’s drivers and cooks up with affordable housing and clothing, too? Or should those workers buy such goods in the marketplace, just like everyone else in the world does?

This is part of a new feature on Deal With Money, “Rich People Behaving Badly”. Mr. Schnatter had the misfortune of seeing the inevitable economic harm that would accrue to his business under the new law, and now must live out his days knowing that he incurred the criticism of an idle blogger whose claim to recognition is her staggering negative net worth.

If you think she can’t get any more simplistic in her view of the world:

Health care is something that every person deserves.

That would sound great coming out of the mouth of an indoctrinated kindergartener, but let’s examine it on the surface. What does it even mean? Employers are required to provide a service that has nothing to do with the business of, in this case, selling pizzas? Or is she saying that no matter how much labor and capital go into the provision of health care, that whoever wants some deserves it – and that person’s willingness to pay for the service is irrelevant?

If you allow people to become sick…you are…violating the rules of common decency

Allow people to become sick. Unless Schnatter or a franchisee is running around spraying swine flu virus in employees’ faces, exactly how is anyone “allowing” anyone else to become sick? The argument here is clear, if idiotic – your employer is your mentor, superior, benefactor, wet nurse and mommy.

In The Greatest Personal Finance Book Ever Written we take the opposite, correct point of view. Your employer is your partner in a particular transaction, one that lasts a little longer than most others do. Sure, your employer can still boss you around and cut you loose, but you have the right to walk away too. Unless you have a contract, in which case you both have to honor it. But we’re getting away from the core truth here, which is this: Your employer gets your labor. You get money. Expecting either party to offer up anything beyond that is not only immature but redefines a pretty easily understandable social contract.

See her reactionary, off-topic arguments in the comments, too. “Aren’t healthy employees better than sick ones?” Which is a loaded question that has nothing to do with anything. No one’s preventing Papa John’s employees from finding health care of their own, nor from them taking active steps to be healthy in the first place (not drinking, not smoking, exercising, eating intelligently, etc.)

Furthermore, as if Schnatter and the franchisees haven’t thought this through. “Damn, our workforce has been decimated! We can’t keep the doors open, because everyone has HIV and/or lupus! There goes the stock price! Why didn’t we listen to that unemployed 28-year-old liberal arts major when we had the chance? This could all have been avoided! Stupid, stupid us!”

On the other hand, her political opinions are very layered and nuanced, if unsurprising. Also, make sure you find the places on her blog where she complains about not getting hired for several retail jobs, then explains it away by saying that she’s probably overqualified. This woman is overqualified for nothing. Oh, and she complains about her weight, as if you didn’t see that coming.

Folks, keep at it. Keep baring your soul for the voyeuristic to see, whining about your situation, never growing up, and finding other losers to commiserate with. You won’t get rich, of course, but you might get some notoriety. After all, we’re 31 days away from naming another (Financial) Retard of the Month.

October’s (Financial) Retard(s) of the Month

This is a standup comic named Matt Krantz, rather than the USA Today columnist of the same name. Gannett has a legal department that would crush us like a bug.

 

Multiple winners this time. If the Nobel Committee can give a prize to the European Union, we can give one to a readership.

October’s honorees are the people who pose questions to USA Today money columnist Matt Krantz. That’s instead of giving the award to Mr. Krantz himself, who’s only issuing pat answers to fill column inches. (By the way, USA Today, why did you make your paper harder to read? Is it so you can more easily kill your print edition? And aren’t leading questions great?)

It’s fine when someone like Dear Abby dispenses advice via a newspaper column. The answers are obvious, the advice is straightforward, following it probably won’t result in any lasting damage, and most of the questions are of dubiously concocted origin anyway. But Mr. Krantz’s advice is predicated on incorrect or overly general assumptions. Here’s what we mean.

Q: Is it best to avoid investing in China since the economy seems to be slowing?

China’s economy might not be as robust as a fully developed First World one, especially on a per capita basis, but the Chinese are getting there. More importantly, when your economy involves 1.2 billion people, it can’t help but be diverse. “Investing in China” is a phrase as vague as “attending a college” or “drinking something”. Are we talking about a glass of skim milk, or a double shot of Everclear?

That doesn’t prevent Mr. Krantz from offering universal answers. Why he responded to the reader’s question with anything other than “You have to be more specific”, we have no idea.

The iShares FTSE China 25 index exchange traded fund has fallen nearly 30% from its two-year high set in November 2010.

So what? At the very least, it sounds like the iShares FTSE China 25 is having a sale. A legitimate answer would require our columnist to examine the iShares FTSE China 25’s components. These include China Mobile, the world’s biggest telecommunications concern. (Calling a business a “concern” is funny for some reason, as The Simpsons has shown to great effect.) They also include Petrochina and Bank of China, 2 other state-owned enterprises that enjoy oligopolistic power in what’s supposed to be a burgeoning economy. But no, evaluating even a couple of the 25’s components would take some fundamental analysis. Which consumes time. That won’t do, not when there are easy and unhelpful answers to deliver.

But “Should I invest in China?” is amazingly detailed compared to some of the other questions Matt Krantz fields.

What investment is the riskiest bet?

If you restrict yourself to securities, the riskiest bet is a 500-way tie among penny stocks on the Canadian Venture Exchange and the Pink Sheets. Mr. Krantz explains that small-cap stocks are bad, then contrasts the percentage return of that entire asset class with that of larger stocks.

But people don’t buy “small-cap stocks” en masse, unless they’re buying a small-cap stock mutual fund, a point of differentiation that Mr. Krantz should have mentioned. (If all this jargon is confusing to you, and you don’t know where to start, behold this plug for our book. We’re not the only ones to call it the Greatest Personal Finance Book Ever Written. We start off by assuming you know next to nothing, and by about the halfway point you’ll already be far better versed in personal finance than any of Mr. Krantz’s alleged questioners.)

How frequently are changes made to the Dow Jones industrial average?

Never mind that a 5-second visit to Wikipedia can give a more detailed answer than Mr. Krantz can. Can we stop the charade of writers passing their own topics of interest off as “reader questions”?

It’s not that the advice in this column is necessarily bad, it’s just unbelievably simple. No one’s ever accused USA Today readers of being overly sophisticated, but come on. One “reader” “asked” “How risky is investing in bonds?” Mr. Krantz responded by explaining that bond and stock prices often move in opposite directions, bonds are less volatile than stocks, etc. True as far as it goes, but not exactly groundbreaking and of no help to the investor who needs data more pertinent than

the worst year for large U.S. stocks [was] 1931, when the Standard and Poor’s 500 index lost 43.3%.

Like a good lawyer, Mr. Krantz (nor any of his alleged readers) doesn’t ask any question he doesn’t already know the answer to. Such as “How can investors benefit if the housing market is truly recovering?” It takes almost no effort to Google the names of some prominent home builders, then barely more effort to examine their financials on Yahoo! Finance. (Again, if you don’t know what to look for here, buy our book. Heck, there’s a link at the top of this page.)

Ask Matt:

How do you live with yourself, calling this advice? You do realize that at least a few of your readers are gullible enough to act on your recommendations, right? Just because you’re not telling people to load up on specific overpriced stocks doesn’t mean that you’re providing an honorable reader service here. And look what you just made us do – a double negative.

For the 5th grader in your family who enjoys reading the financial section, Mr. Krantz’s column is fantastic. For those of you who require more detail…well, pick a random article from our archives.