Live data from Hacker News

Why Don't People Manage Debt Better?

blogs.scientificamerican.com

71–80 of 369 posts

Re: Why Don't People Manage Debt Better?

#71
post #42

Better question: why do people buy things they can't afford and most often don't need, putting themselves in this position? So many of my peers don't make a lot of money, but then still go out and buy a new or newish/used car and put themselves on a multiyear payment plan. "Oh but it's only 200 a month, I can swing that". Repeat for like 3-4 other things and suddenly they're always complaining they have no money and…

I think it's peer pressure, every small things that urge them to be the best in their job of consumers and that trick who is: actually paycheck is only valuable when (and not how) you use it (for most people).

Re: Why Don't People Manage Debt Better?

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does sound rational though, by paying off the small debts you reduce the amount of information you have to comprehend. It may not be ideal financial advice, but it will make the remaining debt easier to manage on an emotional level. You also get the peace of mind that those smaller problems will now not spiral into larger problems. You are free to focus on a resolution to the problem.

We had a few small debts (2 student loans, credit card, car payment) and when a friend explained the debt snowball concept it was definitely the key factor in us paying off our debts faster. For me it felt like I was back in control because I actully had a plan that made sense and seemed actually doable.

And I think this is the key. Debt is a weight on people and it wears them down. You need to build that person back up even if that means not taking the absolute most efficient means to pay off the total debt.

Re: Why Don't People Manage Debt Better?

#73
post #60
post #24

Don't fall into debt. If you must fall into debt, then do so to a friend at no interest. If you still have to fall into debt, do so to a reputable bank and pay it off as quick as you can - sell whatever assets you have if you must. This of course applies to private individuals, not companies, banks or other institutions.

I would advise people not to lend money to friends and family. I have done it several times and every time it led to problems and a lot of pain.

Tread loans to family and friends as gifts. Treat any payments you receive in return as gifts of gratitude. If you're not comfortable with this idea then you are not comfortable with loaning money to your friends and family.

Re: Why Don't People Manage Debt Better?

#74
post #8

This is showing that the Dave Ramsey "debt snowball" (pay off smallest debts first to get a psychological win and some breathing room by having fewer minimum payments) is a more effective way to get people to pay off many separate debts than paying off "highest interest rate first" even if it is less optimal for a rational actor. Just another case of people aren't 100% rational that many people have known for a while…

I've used this strategy, and it's pretty awesome if you have a lot of smaller debts that snowball pretty quickly.

Re: Why Don't People Manage Debt Better?

#75
post #29
post #8

This is showing that the Dave Ramsey "debt snowball" (pay off smallest debts first to get a psychological win and some breathing room by having fewer minimum payments) is a more effective way to get people to pay off many separate debts than paying off "highest interest rate first" even if it is less optimal for a rational actor. Just another case of people aren't 100% rational that many people have known for a while…

While I agree in that it obviously is not the smartest way of doing that, if it gets people to actually feel like they have a plan for taking care of their debt and to start making progress on doing so, then it's worth it. Obviously they probably shouldn't have bought a bunch of things they didn't need, but hindsight's always 20/20.

This whole idea that "oh you have multiple creditors obviously you've made bad decisions" is misguided and naive in the extreme.

People have medical bills. People need the counsel of attorneys. You generally need a reliable car to get to work and a roof over your head. You can have huge mountains of debt and be forced to dig your way out by the skin of your teeth through no fault of your own.

Paying hundreds a month in credit card interest is not reserved for shopaholics.

Re: Why Don't People Manage Debt Better?

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I use credit, I can have utility log(5.5 / (1+r)), with r the interest rate. At 10% interest, that's 3.2. At 20% interest that's 3.0. At 50% interest that's 2.6. Correct idea, incorrect math. The optimum is found with (11+r)/(2 + 2r) consumption in year 1 and (11+r)/2 consumption in year 2, for a total utility of 2 log(11+r) - 2 log(2) - log(1+r) ; at (10%, 20%, 50%) interest rates this yields (3.33, 3.26, 3.09) t…

Good catch, I wildly oversimplified. That's what I get for doing arithmetic before coffee. Key idea is that since utility is concave, smoothing it out is a win. Now just trade off the gains from smoothing against the losses from financing, and you are golden.

Why is utility modeled concavely?

Re: Why Don't People Manage Debt Better?

#77
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Debt should be used to purchase an asset that will appreciate or otherwise provide an income in excess of the interest payment on the debt. Full stop. That is how businesses use debt and that is the only sensible strategy. Businesses use debt in all sorts of ways, they certainly don't limit it to buying assets. A common use recently is to fund share buybacks which is essentially an easy way to engineer higher earni…

> Businesses use debt in all sorts of ways, they certainly don't limit it to buying assets. A common use recently is to fund share buybacks You don't think buying a stake in a successful company (in this case one that happens to be your own) is buying an asset? The mechanations are slightly different, but you're still buying shares. An effect is rising EPS (due to retired shares), but that isn't the purpose.

Not at all, it's a giveaway to executives (who get bonuses based on EPS) and long term shareholders. Some firms also borrow money to fund a dividend which is just a literal giveaway.

Re: Why Don't People Manage Debt Better?

#78
There are a number of factors in the way that people manage debt payments that the article seems to question as illogical.

Just take a standard setup of a mortgage where we'll give a generous 7% interest rate, along with a couple of credit cards with a 15% rate and let's put some decent sized balances here for sake of comparison:

$300,000 mortgage @ 7% over 30 years $10,000 credit card @ 15% $20,000 credit card @ 15%

This is a random hypothetical with numbers made up out of thin air and without factoring in tax deductions. From a sheer cash flow perspective, say you have $4,000 to apply to your payments and the minimum payments are something like:

$2,500 for the mortgage $300 for the first credit card $500 for the second credit card

So you've got a total of $3,300 in payments with an extra $700 to use to accelerate payments that you've got to decide how to allocate between them.

If I apply it to the mortgage, this would be how the payment structure pans out over time (using Debt Repayment calculator)

$300,000 at 7% with payment $2,500 = 208 months or 11.4 years to payoff with $212,241.36 in interest (total paid $512,241.36)

$10,000 at 15% with payment $300 = 44 months or 3.5 years to payoff with $2,983.59 in interest (total paid $12,983.59)

$20,000 at 15% with payment $500 = 57 months or 4.75 years to payoff with $7,802.46 in interest (total paid $27,802.46)

Now, let's look at two strategies to applying the extra $700 cash with the mortgage vs the small debts.

First the mortgage way:

$300,000 at $3,200 = 137 months or 11.4 years to payoff with $184,138.98 in interest (total paid $484,138.98) $10,000 at $300 = 44 months or 3.5 years to payoff with $2,983.59 in interest (total paid $12,983.59) $20,000 at $500 = 57 months or 4.75 years to payoff with $7,802.46 in interest (total paid $27,802.46)

Now the smallest debt way:

$10,000 at $1000 = 12 months years to payoff with $1,354.08 in interest (total paid $11,354.08)

But now our formula changes because after 12 months, I now have $1,000 to apply to the next smallest:

$20,000 at $500 for 1 year (total interest $1,642.62, principle paid $4,357.38) $15,642.62 remaining principle then at $1,500 after one year = 12 more months to payoff (24 months total) with $2,091.00 in interest (total paid $23,733.62)

And now after 24 months I have $1,500 to apply to the mortgage.

$300,000 at $2,500 for 24 months (total interest $24,489.39, principle paid $35,510.61) and then at $4,000 after that on the remaining $264489.39 = 86 more months to payoff with $107,086.21 in interest (total paid $442,597)

When you factor in cash flow into a total debt payment allowance you end up with an increase in applied payment if you payoff the small stuff first. The result here is a total net payment of $477,684.70 and no debt after 110 months or 9.16 years vs a total net payment of $524,925.03 and continual debt payments for 11.4 years.

EDIT: I need to go back in and adjust the mortgage way to accelerate payments more when the 2 credit cards are paid off. My bad.

Re: Why Don't People Manage Debt Better?

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent was writing about "earnings per share", key word being "per share". So with fewer outstanding shares, this obviously increases.

Ahh, ok that makes sense, thanks.

And EPS is one of the big metrics for share prices (the PE ratio uses it for example). It makes sense that if there are less shares they should all be worth more, but EPS is the reason why that is the case.

Re: Why Don't People Manage Debt Better?

#80
post #38

Could someone well-versed with bankruptcy please explain the pros/cons of going that route? I have heard that credit card debt is essentially free money because filing for bankruptcy will wipe out all the debt. If you already own a home/car, and have no intention of getting a loan in the next 10 years, what is wrong with this strategy?

I guess that varies with where you live. In Europe the deal is usually e.g. if you buy a house the safety isn't just the house, it's the house AND the future lifetime income of the buyer. If you manage to buy a house in what turned out to be Detroit and its value goes from $1M to $1k, then the bank might take the house but you will also be paying off that $999k for the rest of your life. Not to mention you'll never get any credit again.

Personal bankruptcy will let you off but not easy. You'll make a plan to live att the poverty line for 5-10 years paying everything you earn to the bank, so they can get maybe 1/3 of their losses, and write off the rest. And after this of course you still won't get a loan again so you'll be a renter without credit cards for the rest of your life.

Post reply on HN