May’s (Financial) Retard of the Month

Apparently we take requests now. A fellow blogger, who seems judicious and thus almost certainly doesn’t want us to use her name, suggested today’s Retard of the Month honoree. Her recommendation has plenty of the characteristics you’d want in a RotM:

  1. A first-person story about all the money he’s made? Of course not. How about a first-person story about all the debt he’s incurred? ($50,000 in this case. At least he claims to have paid his debt off, unlike almost all of his indistinguishable contemporaries.)
  2. “Debt” in the URL.

That’s about all you need to qualify to be RotM.

It’s a strange phenomenon, and one that might be particular to North American* society: digging oneself a hole, jumping in, then climbing out to reach level ground, is somehow nobler than never having dug the hole in the first place. It’s no different than praising fat people who undergo laparoscopic adjustable gastric band surgery (or even those who use the more ethical and lasting diet-and-exercise method) to get to a normal size, while denying accolades to the conscientious people who never descended into gluttony in the first place. For example:

Chris Christie

“Looking good, Governor Christie! Have you lost weight?”

 

John Hickenlooper

“Better keep an eye on that waistline, Governor Hickenlooper. You don’t want to start getting fat.”

 

Presenting Debt Roundup, another in the inexhaustible yet exhausting parade of debt bloggers. At least this one isn’t also a mommy blogger. This entry reads like a paid post, or at least like a public relations firm’s latest press release on its exciting new client, an up-and-coming Minneapolis-based national retailer, and let’s see if you can guess which one:

 

Target owns my wallet and my soul

That’s right, you heard me.  I shop at Target more often than I care to admit. My wife and I both are owned by Target

 

Maybe they should sponsor this blog.  Hey Target, get in touch with me if you want a sweet sponsorship deal!!

 

Target has been our store of choice ever since we moved into our house 7 years ago.

 

We shop at Target at least once a week, but probably more. (Ed. note: You can’t shop at a store more often than “at least once a week”.)

 

I always advocate shopping with a list.  We do it at Target, but for some reason that list seems to get longer as we stroll through the aisles.  Usually I wouldn’t deviate from the list, but I just can’t help myself there.  I turn into (Ed. note: HACKNEYED METAPHOR AHEAD) a little kid in a candy store and just want to grab things and throw them in the cart.

 

I joined their Pharmacy Rewards program, we have a Target Red Card (debit, not credit), and we use their coupons all of the time.

 

The Target stores around us are clean and very efficient. One of the pharmacists even knows me by name

 

One of our biggest reasons why we shop there is because is (sic) saves us time.

 

We just cut and pasted almost the entire post, but what the author was getting at (we think) is that he likes to shop at Target. First of all, guys shouldn’t like to shop anywhere. Maybe Cabela’s or Bass Pro, but that’s it.

We should have made this a chapter in the book. Fetishizing going to a department store is about the saddest activity we’ve ever heard of, even worse than playing fantasy baseball. Our subject claims that he paid his $50,000 in debt off in 4 years, which seems incompatible with making multiple weekly visits to Target (and claiming to be unable to ever buy “just…one item.”)

Our threadbare but still critical motto is Buy Assets, Sell Liabilities. Of course, clothing and groceries are exceptions in that a) they’re never going to appreciate in value, and b) if you don’t buy them you’ll starve and/or freeze to death. Consider their purchase to be the price of staying alive. But again, what is the point of telling your readers that you like to shop? And that you like to do so at Target?

Those questions weren’t rhetorical. Here’s the self-confessional epilog added a couple days after the initial post, stock in trade for today’s sensitive man:

It was pointed out to me that I didn’t provide any teaching moment with this post.  While I originally just wrote it to show my human side and how I too am tempted to spend, I am here to help out others.  That being said, My wife and I need to learn how to deal with this Target issue.  We do plan on implementing a set number of trips in order to stave off the spending urge.

Jesus H, how about growing a pair? Exactly what at Target is so tempting? Ooh, Nate Berkus sheet sets! Our hero doesn’t mention a single specific item he buys at Target, thus lending credence to our paid-post theory.

Debt Roundup guy, we’re here to help others too. Many of the others that we’re trying to help don’t see it that way, but that’s their problem. We’re going to help you by telling you to act like an adult and stop buying stuff you can’t afford. (We’re assuming you can’t afford it, otherwise you wouldn’t have moaned about buying it in the first place.) But seriously, your strategy is to restrict yourself to a fixed number of Target visits? You just said so. Time for an old-fashioned debuttal:

  1. Bull. So we’re supposed to believe the following scenario is feasible in your household? “Honey, let’s go to Target.” “Sorry, we’ve already gone 6 times this month. You remember our agreement.” Counting the number of times you visit a store is symptomatic of a far deeper problem. 
  2. Just like Earth Hour, Ramadan fasting, and No-Spend Wednesday, the result of such a stupid plan is obvious and inevitable. You’ll just end up piling up the grocery cart on your permitted visits. 
  3. Stop patting yourself on the back. This isn’t “helping others.” You want to confess something, go find a priest. 

Even with increased online taxes on the horizon (Thank you, U.S. Senate!), shopping on Amazon is superior in almost every way to shopping at Target. This isn’t an anti-Target screed, it’s an anti-retail screed. Heck, even the guy who runs Debt Roundup (his first name is “Grayson.” Of course it is) has retailers he dislikes. Or in the case of Walmart, even “hates.”

People who profess to hate Walmart always crack us up. The company sold $469 billion worth of merchandise last year. Someone must like it. But yes, pat yourself on the back for being so much more refined than the working-class slobs who patronize Walmart’s 9000 locations. We’re sure the Honey Nut Cheerios and Oral-B dental floss you buy at Target are superior to Walmart’s in every way.

Guys who enjoy shopping, we have no advice for you beyond gender reassignment surgery.

 

*Which is shorthand for “American and Canadian society.” It seems that the Mexicans, Greenlanders, and Saint-Pierrais/Miquelonnais whom we share a continent with don’t fall for that foolishness. 

April’s (Financial) Retard of the Month

No self-respecting straight man would go on camera looking like this. And fix your collar, Champ.

No self-respecting straight man would go on camera like this. Fix your collar, Champ.

We’ll lay it out for you unambiguously.

You come here to learn about finance, right? If we’re doing our jobs right, you want to get some lasting knowledge about how to get rich, or at least avoid being poor, while cutting through the contradictory and facile advice available elsewhere.

But we’re just a humble little website, run by a couple of people with nary a CPA designation nor a professional degree between us. Why not read the big players instead – Barron’s, Yahoo!, Dow Jones & Company? They have greater resources and research budgets than we do. They have far bigger reach. They’re headquartered in New York, Silicon Valley and New York respectively. We’re on the outskirts of Las Vegas. Why waste your time here?

Because the “financial journalists” at the online arms of the above are incompetent. They make stuff up as they go along, to get glazed eyeballs to read shocking and counterintuitive headlines.

MarketWatch is part of the Dow Jones family, which publishes The Wall Street Journal. Thus through the parent company of all these entities, News Corporation, MarketWatch is a sibling or at least a cousin to Fox Business Network.

The sallow chap at the top of the page is Quentin Fottrell; homosexual* Irishman, MarketWatch columnist and incompetent hack. Last week he wrote, was tasked to write, had an editor beseech him to write or in any case thought it was a good idea to put together a piece with this headline:

Buy stocks when men buy socks. Socks and underwear sales may be an economic bellwether

We’ll give him a pass on the headline, because someone else probably wrote it, but the article itself is just as bad. It’s hard to pick representative quotes from the piece because it’s pretty uniform and fungible, but we’ll try:

American men’s apparel sales remained relatively flat in 2012, rising just 1%… The exceptions were the two garments some men continue to wear even after they’re falling apart: underwear, up 13%, and socks, up 12%. “Men are updating the basics of their wardrobe,” says Marshal Cohen, chief industry analyst at NPD.

If you want to get quoted by a rotten journalist, develop a flair for wordiness and grandiosity. All this time you thought you were buying socks, when in point of fact you were updating the basics of your wardrobe. One more thing. It wouldn’t be journalism without some perverse and unwarranted speculation:

And that may be a positive sign for consumer spending overall.

Because as socks and underwear spending goes, so goes the economy? That’s the kind of chaotic allegation that’s almost too easy to disprove. The idiot author himself, 4 lines earlier, stated that the (alleged very alleged) sock-and-underwear uptick isn’t even enough to stimulate spending in the clothing sector, let alone make a perceptible difference in the economy at large.

Okay, we’ve got

  • baseless allegation
  • overblown quote

What’s next? Of course. Obligatory academic, one with enough time to answer a media request because her field of study isn’t what you’d call intellectually demanding:

“Some men’s underwear may be so worn out that they have no choice but to replace it — or to go commando,” says Vicki Morwitz, a professor of marketing at New York University. “For men who don’t care so much about underwear, during lean times, they probably made do with what they had.”

Now another quote, this one from a sad little attorney who created a vanity website during the Clinton Administration and hasn’t updated its look since:

“With the economy improving, it must be the right time for men to get rid of all that holey underwear,” says Edgar Dworsky, founder of ConsumerWorld.org.

That looks like fun! Mind if we try?

“With Hanes selling briefs for a dollar-freaking-42 apiece, men will replace their underwear regardless of national economic conditions. Also, everyone who contributed to this embarrassment of an article deserved to have Kermit Gosnell stick a scalpel in their spinal cords and twist,” says Greg McFarlane, founder of ControlYourCash.com.

If you think the connection between underwear sales and gross domestic product is tenuous, wait till you see what Quentin Fottrell’s next argument is. He thinks, or writes as if he thinks, that increased underwear sales lead to…more men buying memberships at dating sites. Because they feel confident in their new boxer briefs. We’re not joking:

“When men start to gain confidence, they do go out more and date more,” says Z. John Zhang, professor of marketing at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Romantic entanglements — as measured by online dating sites — have indeed seen an increase. The industry is now worth about $1.2 billion, up 4% from a year ago, according to research firm IbisWorld.

It’s a double-fecal column! Two marketing professor quotes, and dubious data points from two research firms! Unfortunately Fottrell stops before trying to determine how much of that 4% is attributable to the original phenomenon, men putting something between their skin and their pants.

Will Fottrell take this to a third level of absurdity? How about…another sign of economic recovery is that spending on divorce lawyers is up by (arbitrary percentage) because of wives catching their newly confident and securely boxered husbands on AshleyMadison.com? Does that work?

Now yet another brainless quote (the last one, we swear) from another quasi-intellectual:

Many men made undergarment purchases at off-price retailers and online, while fewer shopped at national chains…[This is] still a good sign, says consumer psychologist Adam Ferrier. “Post-recession, we are told the economy is improving and that people are spending again,” he says. “The first to go — items like men’s underwear — is often the first back on the shopping list.”

The first to go? Men stopped buying underwear, and now they’re collectively finding the $10 for a 7-pack that they couldn’t afford before? Fottrell can’t be dumb enough to believe his own lies. He just can’t. The entire purpose of this article was an excuse to show pictures of shirtless models and stock photos of men’s nether regions covered by novelty briefs with lipstick impressions on them. (We told you Fottrell’s homosexuality was relevant.)

“It doesn’t hurt for men to see ads with David Beckham, Mario Lopez and Tim Tebow,” Morwtiz (sic) says.

She’s got a point. If a 90%-naked pro athlete doesn’t motivate people to buy, nothing will:

EPSON scanner image

There’s more. There’s always more:

[R]ecent studies suggest men are more likely to buy eye gel, moisturizer, and other “metrosexual” products online.

Oh, for God’s sake. You’re already out of the closet, Quentin. What else is there? Spare us the residual anger directed at your father for forcing you to take boxing lessons while your more liberally parented friends were learning how to stepdance in the adjacent studio. Write Dad a letter instead.

As always, there’s a lesson to be learned here. Folks, do yourselves a favor and stay the hell away from the financial media. You will learn nothing, and that’s on a good day. On a bad day you’ll have your precious time wasted by trash like this. Underwear as economic stimulus. Good God. Just learn a few fundamentals. Buy assets, sell liabilities, look at each transaction from the other party’s perspective, don’t incur student loan debt, eliminate rather than tone down your money-sucking bad habits, and buy our book. Was that so hard?

 

*Relevant because he talks about it a lot and uses it as his stock-in-trade. We wouldn’t mention Matthew Berry without referring to him as a fantasy sports dork. This is the same thing. People who define themselves by their unconventional sexual predispositions are no more sufferable than people who can’t shut up about their imaginary baseball teams.

March’s (Financial) Retard of the Month

 

Trent Hamm bought the horns and codpiece at a yard sale. And used a Groupon.

Trent Hamm bought the horns and codpiece at a yard sale. And used a Groupon.

 

Trent Hamm, stop being the Antichrist.

Readers, think about what you love most in the world. Sex? Beer? Malasadas? However strong you think your affection for it is, whatever it may be, your love will never compare to the animalistic lust that Trent Hamm has for adverbs.

adverbs

Every damn one of those adverbs is unnecessary, particularly Trent’s ultimate go-to word: “simply”.

Referring to the old computer he plans on getting rid of:


it’s likely time to replace it, which means that I’m starting the replacement process.

It’s not that he repeats himself, although he does (oh GOD does he) but that he’s too lazy and/or illiterate to even consult a thesaurus.

The worst part of this late-term abortion or early-term post-natal infanticide of a website is his “Reader Mailbags”, which are as fake as anything Ronaiah Tuiasosopo ever concocted on a late-night chat session with a lonely and dull-witted All-American linebacker.

That’s not a big deal – all forms of publicized reader correspondence are fake – but at least most advice columnists go to the trouble of giving their ersatz letter-writers problems that the columnists themselves don’t have. Not Trent. If it doesn’t deal with potluck dinners, board games, or finding 500 uses for a single penny, our boy’s not interested. Just look at this crap:

Q4: Leftover standby
Whenever we have leftovers of pretty much anything that’s not already a dish, I usually just chop it up, mix it with pasta sauce, and serve it as “spaghetti surprise.” This works for pretty much any kind of vegetables or meats that you have left over from a dish. We have this probably once a week and we actually kind of look forward to it because it’s a little different each time. – Keiko


We actually do this, too. We tend to save every single scrap of leftover vegetables for several different purposes, and this is one of them.
In just the last few months, I recall mixing leftover beans with pasta sauce for a meal, mixing broccoli and cauliflower with pasta sauce, and mixing leftover butternut squash with pasta sauce. I know we’ve done eggplant, too, in the fairly recent past.
Like you, we’ve found it to be kind of fun because it almost always makes an interesting and distinct meal.

”Q4”? Doesn’t the “Q” stand for “question”? Where the hell was the question? This was just an observation, the equivalent of writing “Sure is a nice day here in Sioux City. Not much else to report” to Dear Abby.

Furthermore, the structure has Trent’s 23EEEEE footprints all over it. “Keiko” used “pretty much” twice in 3 lines, which even the laziest advice-seeker wouldn’t bother doing. And again with the adverbs. “Usually”, “probably”, “actually” (another Trent crutch, although not quite as overused as “simply”), all of which are unnecessary.

We’re criticizing his limited vocabulary not because Control Your Cash is a site that focuses on English usage, but rather because Trent’s shallowness betrays him as a dishonest hack of the 1st order. Here’s another example, from the same mailbag:


Q6: Frugal solitaire activities


My job leaves me with a great deal of solitaire time. Not only do I live in a very low population area, my job is on a very weird schedule, leaving me out of sync with the few people that are in the area. I don’t like watching television much. What sorts of frugal solitaire activities can I engage in? – Eric


There are lots of things you can do. Read. Get yourself into shape. Play solitaire card games, board games, or computer games. Teach yourself a new skill you’ve always wanted to learn. Make something, and if you don’t know how, teach yourself an artistic or creative skill.
Boredom doesn’t have anything to do with whether there’s something to do or not. There’s always something to do. Boredom has to do with the person who’s bored and the choices they’re making.
There are times when I really envy the kind of position you’re in. Part of me would love to occasionally have a solitaire week or so where all I had to do was my basic work and I could spend the rest of my time catching up on personal projects.

The “letter-writer” has confused the word “solitaire” with “solitary”, a distinction that most 10-year-olds should be able to make. Fine, “Eric” is a little slow, whatever.

But then Trent makes the exact same mistake in the response. This is laziness on a whole new soporific level.

In all seriousness, we think we’ve figured out Trent’s M.O. for his useless advice columns. We know the man has zero imagination, as evidenced by his repeated references to potluck dinners and board games as the only activities of choice throughout The Simple Dollar. (Use the custom search feature on his site to see how often he uses each of those terms.) Therefore he must farm out this duty to someone trustable and easy to keep tabs on: his wife. We’d bet that he asks her to come up with 10 questions every week. Once she does, he gives them the final coat of polish that only a professional writer can apply – i.e., dropping in a surfeit of adverbs (and the word “frugal”, which we’ll get to in a minute), and editing the questions haphazardly.

Wait, we were so consumed with Trent’s atrocious form that we never got around to tearing apart his content. Just read his response to “Eric”. Is there anything in there that isn’t obvious, and did “Eric” need to consult a stranger instead of figuring the answer out on his own?

It’s the inelegant phrasing that gets us every time and keeps us coming back for more of Trent’s awfulness. “What sorts of frugal solitaire (sic) activities can I engage in?”

Who talks like that? Wouldn’t you say, “What can I do?”, or “What’s there for me to do?” Only stilted Trent “engages in activities.” And no one but Trent would reduce his poor imaginary friend’s search to activities that are “frugal.”

There’s another activity beyond the potluck dinners and the board games. Trent’s 3rd-favorite is reducing the size of his DVD collection. You think we’re joking. We are not. He’s mentioned it 153 times.

How is that even possible? How does the following thought never, not once, enter his corn-fed size 8¾ head?

“Hmmm…haven’t I written about this before? Haven’t I written about it 152 times before?”


Q10: Paring down a collection


I’ve finally decided to pare down my DVD collection (1,000 strong) to a total of 100 DVDs, then adopt a “one in, one out” approach with the remaining discs. My challenge is figuring out how to pare all of these down. How do I even go about it?

This is all from a single Reader Mailbag, by the way. But the apex of stupidity, the quintessential awful Trent Hamm Reader Mailbag question, comes from a “reader” named “Monica”, earlier in this particular collection. It’s going to require an extensive breakdown. Let us:


Q9: Family vacation property


My family is composed of my parents, their six kids, and one current and probably several future children of the third generation.

Even the worst ESL student in the country doesn’t string words together this messily. You couldn’t find a more confusing way to say that your parents are together and that you have 5 siblings, one of whom has a kid.


We love getting everyone together, but are scattered throughout the country, and our parents’ house was bursting with the eight of us growing up and is now overflowing on the rare occasion we’re able to get everyone in town.

So the house is uninhabitable because it now has one more person – presumably a toddler  – than it did when you were all living there long-term?


Over the past decade, we’ve been using graduations as a great excuse to rent a house for a week

Yes, having one extra person around – a minor, no less – seems like an excellent reason for ditching your parents’ place, which is free to stay at, so that you can spend money renting a house. Trent, where did you lose your way? Aren’t you the cat who advocated not opening your oven door because you’ll waste 2¢?


and get everyone together in that town.

Here’s another trademarked Trent maneuver – going to bizarre lengths to keep his “letter-writers’” backgrounds as grey as possible. What’s the danger in saying Bemidji or Glens Falls or Apalachicola instead of “that town”? Will we forever compromise the identity of “Monica”? Well, we do know that we can narrow down the set of Monicas to the subset of Monicas with 5 siblings and one niece or nephew. Excuse us, Monicas with 5 siblings and “one current and probably several future children of the third generation.”

We’re starting to feel like David Kaczynski must have when he read Industrial Society And Its Future and deduced that its author was his brother, the Unabomber. Another Trentism is the insistence on saying “children” instead of “kids”. We’re not sure why he’s so formal, but he can’t seem to help himself. Continuing…

We’d like to continue to come together, and have been trying to craft a long-term solution to this problem.

More clumsy phrasing, but heck…how often do 9-member families “scattered throughout the country” get together, anyway? This family is doing it far more than most.

What we’ve been half-planning on is buying land as a group, parceling it up, and developing it for vacationing in

Yeah, but how?

as we see fit.

Ah. NO ONE does the superfluous coda to a sentence quite like Trent.

The idea is that we’d have a nice place to get together that could accommodate everyone and that we could form an identity with over decades and generations.

“Form an identity with”? It’s a piece of land, not a first edition copy of The Settlers of Catan. (Joke about Trent’s proclivity for board games, for those of you who are just skimming this article, which we wouldn’t blame you for.)

Sounds nice, eh?

If you’re looking for validation from Trent, you need to keep looking.

Family, enough space for personal retreat, and the outdoors.We all have slightly different ideas for what our priorities would be, and so we’re starting to sort through those in conversation and email.

From the superfluous end of a sentence to the superfluous middle of an unending paragraph. So 8 adults want to do something in common, and their opinions are not completely uniform? Also, they’re using methods of communication to get their points across? Two methods, no less? What a wacky family.

Some possible issues are the predicted future income disparity and how that would affect people’s shares, issues with shared resources, and what happens if someone doesn’t pay their taxes, wants to opt out, or doesn’t want to take part at all. It’s probable that much of this will be put down in contracts.

Nothing is used like the passive voice is by Trent. Rather than have a sentence be propelled forward by active words, getting bogged down in dull and unmoving prose is much preferred by him. Your eyes cannot be taken off the screen, can they?

I think we’re on the right path in terms of being aware of some of the concerns, but I wanted to run the idea past you and see what you generally thought about the idea.

We don’t know if Trent does this consciously, or if it even matters at this point. Unnecessary adverbs, repetition of the same phrase twice in one sentence, and – shifting back to the content side – Trent’s relentless belief that no human since the Delphic Oracle has had more answers on more topics than he.

Do you have any resources, or know of families that have arranged as a group to do something similar?

Families with 6 adult children who live in different places, plus both parents, who’ve decided en masse to buy land? Sure, who doesn’t know anyone like that?


-Monica

Finally, the end. Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Look at that monstrosity. A 301-word question.

How about this instead? Again, keep in mind that we’re cleaning up the work of a deluded man’s imaginary letter-writer:

“My 5 siblings and I all love to get together with my parents, except we’re now all scattered throughout the country and can’t do it as often as we’d like. So we’re thinking of buying a piece of land – all of us. What’s the best way to set it up?”

You’re right, that’s terrible. Way too concise. Now for the answer:


I know of one family that did something similar to this,

Oh, you stinking liar. That’s more convenient than Lennay Kekua’s FaceTime never ever working, and Manti Te’o being content staring at a black screen. (No more Manti Te’o jokes in this post, we swear. We’re already at capacity.) We’d be content staring at a black screen ourselves right now, but we’re in this far and might as well finish our demolition of this awful, awful site created by this awful, awful man.


but what they ended up doing is having one family just own the land and hold family reunions on that land.

But Monica’s is just one family, is it not? So confused.


People would come there to camp or park RVs a few times a year. I’ve heard that the family passes the hat each year to pay for a large “bunkhouse” type of cabin

You “heard” this? The Mystery Clan’s cabin-renting method is a topic of interest in Greater Metro Huxley, Iowa? “Hey Jeb, word has it the Joneses leased out the old Smith place, ya know. They did it by soliciting donations among themselves. Also, they rented a large ‘bunkhouse’ type of cabin.” That might be the most exciting news to hit Story County since The Rabid Locust Plague of 1933, or the time that the Governor ran out of gas just off Route 210 on his way to Winterset.


with just a big main room and a bunch of bedrooms, but they’ve not put together enough money to build such a thing.

I do think you’re on the right path for this, given what you want to do in the end. You’re right, though – your problem comes with situations where individuals can’t hold up their end of the bargain.
The only purchase you’d really need to make together, though, is the piece of land. I would suggest buying an appropriate piece, then breaking it up into individually-deeded pieces. You’d likely want to talk to a bank about the best way to handle that process. Then, if one person can’t hold up their end of the bargain, that piece either goes on the market or one of the other family members buys it.

 

It’s called tenancy-in-common vs. joint tenancy, and why don’t you stick to things you know about, like how to empty out your Hefty kitchen bag, turn it inside out and use it again? Or telling women that they’re wasting money by spending as much as $4 on a swimsuit?

His advice is inane. His creativity is nonexistent. He’s fat (which doesn’t stop him from giving workout advice, but we’ll hit the preposterousness of that another time.) And yet 93,238 people subscribe to his twice-daily word dumps via Feedburner. That’s not proof of God’s non-existence, but rather proof that His sense of humor is impenetrable to limited human minds.