Simply Junior

Even though there are some reports that fuel and food prices have actually started to drop during September 2008, the doom and gloom of recession is still hanging over the UK economy, forcing most to review their spending habits and devise novel, new ways of saving money.

Books extolling the rediscovered virtue of thrift and even one on ‘how to survive on a pound a day’ are being rushed into print as publishers seek to benefit from the UK public’s new found eagerness to cut their spending habits. Internet lifestyle sites are also turning their editorial towards ‘how to survive a recession’, and suggesting that the only way to get through the next few years is for the country’s populous to collectively tighten their belts.

As fuel, food, utility and housing costs have all risen sharply since the beginning of 2007 many UK citizens are struggling to stand still. Pay increases have been pegged at or below inflation for many workers and in real terms that makes them considerably worse off. As a result many in the UK are either cutting back spending on their supermarket shopping or moving to less expensive stores or brands, in order to get more value for their money.

Because gas and electricity prices have risen so rapidly over the last twelve months many householders are cutting down the time they heat water and once winter hits will be turning the thermostat down a degree or two, in another attempt to keep bills down.

But, as well as cutting expenditure and changing habits it would also be beneficial for most people to carry out a full financial review. A definite good move for anyone holding outstanding debt is to review whether they are getting the best deal available on their current loans and credit card balances. Many finance companies have imposed interest rate rises for existing customers, even though the Bank of England base rate has remained constant. But, as always it pays to shop around and compare loans to ensure that any deal is the best on the market.

Similarly, those with savings balances should review whether they are getting the highest rate on their deposits. Many financial organisations are desperate to attract new funds to help improve their liquidity ratios, and are willing to pay top rates.

The upshot of the advice that is being dispensed by all and sundry is to review all spending and analyse whether it is necessary and if so, can the cost be reduced? Also, ensure that you carry out a full review of your current financial situation and make sure that you have the best deals available. Follow that advice, so say the sages and you will be better placed to survive any possible recession.

The game played by politicians is to take an idea from their own agenda and then frame it in a way that sells it to the other side. When the politicians meet in the middle, bipartisan solutions to problems emerge. This reflects the fact there is no monopoly on good ideas, only simple good solutions to difficult problems. In the healthcare debate, one of the solutions proposed by the GOP was to allow people to buy their insurance across state lines. This sounds a good idea. As the law stands, every state regulates the sale of insurance within its own borders. This limits the size of the market. If insurers had to compete with each other on a regional or national level, the premium rates would fall and every citizen would get a better deal. Well, let’s look a little more closely at how it would actually work.

At present, every state has a Department of Insurance to regulate the insurance companies licensed to sell policies. This is a reasonably effective system for consumer protection. But if regional or national insurers could sell policies into many states, it would break the regulatory system. It would no longer be local supervision of local companies. Insurers would decide where to establish and would, of course, choose the states which had the weakest consumer protection regulations, i.e. where they could make the most profit. Think banks and finance companies. These companies broke the US economy and produced the recession because their sales of subprime mortgages and associated derivatives were unregulated. Now apply the same thing to interstate insurance. As a final thought on this issue, remember all US states have different laws and one state cannot enforce another’s laws. That is sovereignty for you. So the state where an insurer is based cannot protect consumers under another state’s laws.

Secondly, opening the market across state lines allows insurers to cherry pick the best people to insure. Without regulations to limit the right to discriminate against people for pre-existing conditions and to increase premiums as people get older and fall ill more often, insurers will just take their profit from all the healthy people and forget about the rest. Thus, instead of increasing consumer choice, it would have the reverse effect. Most insurance companies would close their branches in individual states. Those that remained would keep all the aging and less healthy people. As their claims rise, the companies will make a loss and close. Without a law to mandate regional or national companies to offer some health coverage, it is likely the number of uninsured people would rise.

When you add all this up, it is a good thing the GOP’s proposal was rejected. Health insurance plans are complicated enough without having to change a whole mass of federal and state laws to allow interstate sales. This is not to say that consumers might benefit if there was more competition in the insurance market generally. With a real free market, properly regulated, consumers would get a better deal both in the terms of coverage and in the premium rates they pay. As it is, you must get multiple quotes to find cheap health insurance. Anticipating their profits will take a hit following this reform, insurers have been raising their premium rates. You must shop around to find the most affordable policy.

One of the quotes seeming to run forever is, “Never give a sucker an even break.” Coming from the movie of the same name, starring and written by W.C. Fields, it’s supposed to be a comic line but, first used as an ad-lib by Fields in 1923, it accurately represents the ruthless streak in US business. So, over the last eighteen months or so, banks and finance companies have been playing to packed houses, always trying to portray themselves as caring and sympathetic but, more often than not, coming over as the heartless mortgage-holders in potboiling melodramas who throw the heroine out on the streets when there’s six foot of snow on the ground. The evidence for this? Walk through any suburb or exurb and count the empty properties and their weather-beaten “For sale” signs as the foreclosures cut into the neighborhoods. Property values everywhere have been dropping like stones. We were all suckers, it seems, and no bank is ever going to give us an even break.

One of the “systems” supposed to help us navigate through all this negative equity is the joint package of Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) and Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). These run through http://makinghomeaffordable.gov/ and they help some people either refinance their existing loans or modify the terms to make them more affordable. If you run through the questionnaires, you can find out whether you are eligible. It would be fair to say this pair of programs has been controversial. With the politics so polarized, you hear whichever song you want to hear. From one side comes the attack that the plans are another example of “big government”. If folks cannot keep their payments up-to-date, that’s their problem. They should not look to the state for handouts. Taxes should not be used to bail out freeloaders. From the other side come the attacks that the programs are drawn up in a way that cuts down the number of eligible people to a minimum. Instead of helping the millions who are underwater with their loans, this is a Band-Aid trying to staunch a major hemorrhage.

In a way, it does not matter which side is right. What matters is whether anyone has been able to get real help. Well, the Bank of America has not been slow in coming forward with numbers. Since HAMP began, it claims to have modified the loans of 700,000 people. So how does this work? The first step is to negotiate and agree a trial modification. If this trial is a success, the bank agrees to make the modification permanent. Obviously, the trials have to run over a period of time to prove the borrowers can afford to pay. That explains why the Bank of America has only made 12,200 modifications permanent. It quickly says it has a further 13,700 loans waiting for the borrowers to sign the permanent agreement. Only 26,000 permanent modifications agreed may not sound many but do not forget the headline that 700,000 were admitted to the trial process. To encourage us, the Bank also says it will negotiate on a second mortgage (2MP). Putting the politics to one side, if you have problems with your home loan and your home is at risk, you should check out whether you are eligible under HARP or HAMP. No-one cares about which side is right about these programs so long as they help you solve your mortgage problems.