Friday, January 15, 2010

Smart Shopping for Auto Insurance

Unlike what many people seem to think, the purpose of auto insurance is not to reimburse your expenses next time you ding your car pulling out of a parking spot or get into a minor fender bender. The purpose of all insurance - car insurance included - is to shield you from the worst of catastrophic financial damages in the event that something goes horribly wrong.

Here is a tragic but appropriate example to illustrate this point. About three years ago one of my colleagues at work had a terrible accident while trying to drive his car across an intersection while the light changed from yellow to red. He escaped with some minor injuries but the elderly driver of the other car was not as lucky. He was severely injured, hospitalized for a long time and eventually died of his injuries. A horrible story no doubt. My colleague was understandably distraught over the incident. As if the emotional and physical toll of the accident were not enough, my colleague also had to deal with the legal and financial consequences of his mistake.

In most cases the real financial costs associated with such major accidents are not the property damage - unless you completely destroy a Lamborghini the costs of buying new cars are relatively manageable. The real costs are the medical and financial losses potentially incurred by anyone injured in the accident. These can mount into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and sometimes even more, more than enough to bankrupt the average family.

All this leads me to the main point of this post. If you accept the proposition that the purpose of insurance is to shield you from large, catastrophic costs, the correct strategy in buying car insurance is to go with those policies that offer you high coverage limits. Of course such policies can be expensive, and a way to mitigate these costs is to accept higher deductibles which will reduce your coverage in the event of minor accidents which you can afford to handle without reimbursement from your insurance company.

If, like me, you dislike shopping for car insurance and have been using the same car insurance company for a long time (in my case it's AAA), you may want to do some shopping before you next renew your policy. If you are looking for a place to start, you can take a look at this list of car insurance companies. Safe driving to you!

Enjoyed this post? Please consider subscribing to Money and Such by free RSS Feed or by email. You can also follow me on Twitter.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

More Ways to Reduce Your Cable Bill

Almost two years ago I wrote a post advising my readers who wanted to reduce their cable TV bills to call their cable company, ask for the disconnection department and threaten to disconnect their service if their bills were not reduced. A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to use the same strategy again. Still works. I got our cable bill reduced by $30 per month for 12 months. Not bad for a 5 minute call.

But there is more interesting news. My brother-in-law recently drew my attention to the high cost of renting a DVR from the Comcast. We were paying $16 per month for the device. When I spoke to the customer service agent at Comcast I also discovered that we were paying $5 per month for our cable modem, all for a total equipment rental charge of $21 per month... that's a lot of money.

This inspired me to make a move I have been thinking about for a long time. I ditched the Comcast DVR in favor of a top of the line TiVo HD XL. While the TiVo cost us $389 (there are much cheaper TiVo models available on Amazon), on an ongoing basis the service is cheaper. The TiVo service costs $10 per month when paid annually, and the cable card needed to connect the TiVo to cable service costs $1.7 per month. At the end of the day, our cost is reduced by $4 per month compared to what we were paying for the Comcast DVR. To be honest, savings of $4 month would ordinarily not be sufficient incentive for me to take action, but I have had my eye on a TiVo for a long time. The reasons:

1. Much bigger disk - our TiVo can store 150 hours of HD recordings with its build-in drive, and the disk can be expanded using an external drive. This compared to the miserly 15 hours our Comcast DVR could store.

2. Access to Netflix Streaming - I am a big fan of streaming Netflix movies on my computer and have been thinking about a way to get that content to the TV for a long time. TiVo makes that connection for you. Hello Netflix on demand.

3. Transfer Content to your Computer - we have one TV in the house. While Alpaca watches her shows on the TV (Idol, Survivor... urgh...), I can now watch mine on the computer at the same time. Whatever is recorded by the DVD can be instantaneously viewed on the computer.

4. Stream music, home videos and picture to the TV - as easy as pie. One exception, the TiVo can't read Apple's music file format, so no luck with my iTunes bought music. As always, there is some barrier put up by some company (with Apple always a prime candidate for evil).

Alas, there is also one draw back, and it's big. If you use TiVo you lose access to Comcast's own free OnDemand content, and there is a lot of good, free content there. I asked both TiVo and Comcast representatives about this problem and they told me this would never be fixed and that the problem was the navigation system for TiVo could not be used with Comcast content. A complete crock if I ever heard one.

Still the content on Netflix is superior and the Comcast content and the other advantages offered by TiVo make the switch worth the sacrifice.

One more thing, I also got rid of our Comcast Cable Modem and bought my own on Amazon for $80. With a monthly reduction of $5 per on my Comcast bill, this transaction has a break-even time horizon of 16 months. Good enough, I guess.

Did I previously mention my gadget addiction?


Enjoyed this post? Please consider subscribing to Money and Such by free RSS Feed or by email. You can also follow me on Twitter.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Alpaca's 401K - More Developments

Two days ago I wrote a post about Alpaca's new 401K plan and about how we chose the ROTH 401K option for her. A comment by one of my anonymous readers changed my mind. He directed me to this post by the Finance Buff, which is extremely informative and well written. I thought that most of the arguments offered against ROTH 401K, while valid, did not apply to Alpaca and I. However, one specific argument hit right home: AMT...

The darn stealth tax. I didn't think about that when we looked at the ROTH 401K option. In 2008 we were caught by its nasty snare. In 2009 I think we will narrowly escape its grasp since Alpaca was unemployed for much of the year and worked as a part time contractor for much of the rest. However, if both Alpaca and I remain employed this year (keep those fingers crossed, people), AMT is pretty much assured. We have 3 kids, make a decent living and live in California - a high tax state. These are all crimes and misdemeanors that justify a fat fine under the American tax code. Damn it. I knew I should have opened an investment bank or mortgage company. That way we could have been getting all that taxpayer money instead of being actual... taxpayers...

Anyway, no more ROTH 401K. This morning Alpaca switched her contributions to a traditional 401K. This anonymous reader probably saved us a nice chunk of change. Thank you, anonymous. Watch the skies for that Bat Signal, in case we need you again! I guess writing this blog has some value after all... :-)

In other (good) news, Alpaca received notice today that her 401K plan was changing its fund line-up, and will from now on include an international index fund (FSIIX) with an impressively low expense ratio of 0.2%. Consequently, Alpaca will dump her previous international fund choice (allocated at 10%), reduce her Total Market Index contribution from 70% to 50% of her allocation, and will allocate 30% of her contributions to the new international index fund. This will bring Alpaca's 401K contributions more or less inline with our overall portfolio asset allocation.

Next week my own Fidelity 401K representative will be visiting our office, and I intend to make a vocal case for the inclusion of the same international index fund in our own plan.

Enjoyed this post? Please consider subscribing to Money and Such by free RSS Feed or by email. You can also follow me on Twitter.

Monday, January 11, 2010

New Job, New 401K & Benefits

My readers know that after several months of searching for a job in a horrible job market, Alpaca has recently landed a new job. With a new job, comes a new 401K and other benefits. Here's a quick run down:

401K - like my own company's 401K, Alpaca's company uses Fidelity to run their 401K plan. One of the benefits of this is that Fidelity is one of a few providers out there that is Quicken friendly, something which I appreciate very much. The plan offers no matching - is it just me or are employers completely walking away from the whole matching thing? And it offers only a small number of investment options, most of which are dismal. The only good option, as in my own plan, is a low cost total market index fund. No other index options whatsoever. Because of this severe lack of desirable options, 70% of Alpaca's retirement savings will go into that index fund, with the rest split evenly between mediocre and expensive international, bond and real-estate funds. Readers take-heart, I will make the necessary adjustments to the rest of our portfolio to ensure that our asset allocation remain appropriate.

The biggest benefit in Alpaca's new 401K plan is that it offers a ROTH 401K option, which is the option that Alpaca and I chose for her. Our adjusted gross income is too high to allow us to invest in a ROTH-IRA, but through the stupidity of the government a ROTH 401K has no income limits.

Can someone explain to me why it is that the government is only choosing to give certain tax benefits to employees whose employers choose to offer a ROTH 401K option? Why should this option not be available to me just because my employer has crappy benefits?

ESPP - Alpaca's new company is publicly traded and offers an employee stock purchase plan. Alpaca signed up for this free money at the maximum amount permitted by her company, which is 10% of salary. As I previously wrote in this blog, we treat ESPP as a short term savings plan with excellent guaranteed results. We sell the stock immediately after it is purchased (once every 6 months) and pocket the minimum 15% guaranteed return.

Flex Accounts Galore - childcare flex accounts, medical flex accounts, we signed up for both at the maximum level. Once again, my gripe with the government remains. Why would the government give a tax advantage only to those employees whose employers offer flex accounts?

Generally speaking decent benefits. Regardless, it's great that Alpaca has a well paying job and even better that so far things seem to be going well for her in her new position. It's all about happiness at the end of the day.

Enjoyed this post? Please consider subscribing to Money and Such by free RSS Feed or by email. You can also follow me on Twitter.

Friday, January 08, 2010

Thoughts of Airline Security

My family and I were in Costa Rica during the failed Christmas Day terrorist bombing attempt on the Delta flight. When I heard that no one was killed or injured, my next thought was "Oh my god. They're gonna start searching our underwear now." Yes, I was seriously contemplating this. In fact, I wrote about explosive underwear on this very blog back in April 2007... No, I'm not a fortune teller or a seer of the future, it was just a matter of time, I guess.

In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attempt I read all sorts of insane reports online. Supposedly the TSA was not allowing blankets on flights anymore (good luck finding those on any US carrier even before the attack); the TSA was not allowing people to read books or listen to iPods on flights; entertainment systems were being switched off on international flights and no one was permitted out of their seats in the last hour of the flight. All insane measures and absolutely believable since the TSA is involved. I don't know if any of these actually happened, but when my family was headed to the airport for our flight back home, we were expecting the worst.

Amazingly, we experienced none of that particular brand of idiocy. Did we completely avoid stupidity? Absolutely not. Our 3 small sons (and of course Alpaca and I) were patted down. Our four year old twins and 7 year old son were amused by this. I was not. We were also only allowed to take one carry on bag each - compared to a carry on and "personal item" which was previously permitted. That measure makes sense, since everyone knows that explosives are always placed in the second carry on bag. Bold and insightful move TSA! Over all though, it seems like we avoided the worst of government blind panic and reflex responses designed to lull the masses into a perception that their government is actually doing something.

My real problem is that the government (and in this case the TSA) is always insisting on learning the wrong lesson for some reason. I am not one of those who engages in 20:20 hindsight and analysis of how the terrorist should have been caught given all the information that the government had. It's always easy to see things in retrospect. My problem is that rather than trying to do things that would be effective, the government is doing things that it thinks look good or is just doing things for the sake of doing something.

Here's one thing that is guaranteed to work: profiling. Enough with political correctness. We know who the vast majority of terrorists and would be terrorists are: they are overwhelmingly male, between the ages of 18 and 35 and Muslim. You might not like it, but this is reality. Yes, there is a minority of terrorists that don't fall into this category, but if you want your security measures to be more effective, you need to focus them on where the threat is most likely to come from, not on 4 year old boys or 75 year old grandmothers.

Profiling, or call it focused measures, are used in every walk of life. Doctors give people vaccines and recommend preventative action based on patient risk factors. Military commanders concentrate their forces on the areas where military threats are likely to come from. Businesses focus their marketing dollars on those segments of the population who are most likely to buy their product. The government's security measures? In the interest of political correctness we insist on wasting our scarce resources on searching 4 year old boys and making sure no one brings hand cream on a flight.

Can we have some sanity in this process please?

Enjoyed this post? Please consider subscribing to Money and Such by free RSS Feed or by email. You can also follow me on Twitter.