加载中…
个人资料
英文工作室
英文工作室
  • 博客等级:
  • 博客积分:0
  • 博客访问:94,317
  • 关注人气:31
  • 获赠金笔:0支
  • 赠出金笔:0支
  • 荣誉徽章:
相关博文
推荐博文
谁看过这篇博文
加载中…
正文 字体大小:

Will More Regulation Help Consumers Overcome Their Ignorance?

(2011-06-12 16:10:53)
标签:

财经

股票

黄金

教育

期货

石油

时文阅读

投资

分类: 财经

Will More Regulation Help Consumers Overcome Their Ignorance?

会有更多的法规帮助消费者弥补他们在金融知识上的匮乏吗?

The Wall Street Journal recently busted several money managers — including CNBC host Jim Cramer — for misleading advertising: The managers compared their investment returns, including dividends, to the benchmark S&P 500 Index without dividends.

That's like suggesting I beat you in Monopoly because my net worth (my properties plus my cash) is higher than your net worth — but we don't include your cash in the equation. It's a ploy that even my eight-year-old wouldn't fall for. Of course, many people just read the headline; in Cramer's case, "My portfolio is CRUSHING the S&P 500." (When you do a fair calculation, the Journal points out, that "crushing" advantage is worth 0.9 percent. And that's before you pay several hundred dollars for Cramer's newsletter.)

Add this latest con to the gazillion other tricks people play to separate suckers from their money, and you've got a solid argument for requiring financial literacy courses in every year of school (or at minimum, annual Monopoly tournaments).

"We shouldn't underestimate how difficult it is for some people to make financial decisions," says economist Annamaria Lusardi of the George Washington School of Business, author of a new paper on financial literacy.

The paper analyzes the results of a survey conducted in 2009. Lusardi found that just 10 percent of 1,500 survey respondents could ace a quiz on the basics of economics and finance in everyday life, including investment returns, mortgages and inflation. (You can test yourself on my blog).

华尔街日报最近因误导广告抨击了几名资金经理—其中包括消费者信息与商业频道的主持人JC。资金经理把他们的包括红利在内投资回报比作了无红利的基准标准普尔500指数。

这看起好像我用垄断打击你,因为我的净资产(资产加上现金)比你的净资产要高—但是在你的净资产却没有把现金计算进去。这种骗局就边我只有八岁大的儿子也不会上当。当作,许多人只读了头条;在C的案件中,“我的投资组合已正在打败标准普尔500指数。”(华尔街日报指出,当你做一个公平的计算时,“打败”的优势只值0.9%。而且这只是在你向C时事通讯支付几百美元之前)。

把此最新的反对论加入到大量其它人们用以从傻瓜那里榨取金钱的诡计中,而且你已有了理由充分的论点以要求每学年都有金融知识课程(或者至少,年度垄断比赛)

“我们不应该低估当一些人做财政决策时有多艰难,”乔治华盛顿商学院的经济学家,同时也是某报金融专栏作者AL说到。

此报纸分析一项调查的结果在2009年处理了。L发现1500调查回复者中只有10%对日常基本的经济金融知识有所了解。(你可以在我的博客上对自己做一下测试)

Moreover, 10 percent didn't know the interest rate on their mortgages, and 20 percent didn't know the interest rate on their car loans. Of the 46 percent that carry a balance from month to month on their credit cards, 12 percent didn't know the interest rate on the highest-rate card.

When I suggested to Lusardi that this kind of information is both obvious and easy to find, and that people should know better, she disagreed. "Some financial contracts are designed such that people don't know the variable on which they should have chosen that contract," she says. "If I ask what interest rate you're paying on your mortgage and you don't know, that's probably not how you chose your mortgage."

Americans also failed to plan ahead: just 42 percent of survey respondents have tried to figure out what they need to save for retirement, and just 41 percent of people with financially dependent children have set aside money for college.

Those who do save don't necessarily understand the mechanics of investing. Among people with retirement savings, nearly one in five did not know how much of their portfolios were invested in stocks or stock mutual funds. Only a third of the college savers used a tax-advantaged savings account like a 529 plan or Coverdell account.

此外,调查者中有10%不知道他们抵押贷款的利率,20%不知道他们车贷的利率。还有46%的调查者每月的信用卡都有欠款,12%的调查者不知道高利率借记卡的利息。

当我告知L,此类信息不但很明显,而且非常容易查找,而且人们最好了解它,她却不赞同我的意见。“一些金融合同会有专门设计,人们不知道根据其中的多样性选择合同,”她说到。“如果我询问你将为你的按揭支付多少利息,而不不知道,这可能不是你如何选择按揭。”

美国人也不会提前制定计划,调查问卷回复者中只有42%的人尝试了解他们需要为退休准备多少钱,而且需要抚养小孩的人中只有41%的为他们的大学做了储蓄。

存钱的人不必要了解投资的原理。在为退休储蓄的人里有五分之一不知道把他们资金的多少投到股票中或股票共同基金。为小孩读大学存钱的家长中只有三分之一的使用纳税优惠的储蓄存款帐户,比如529计划或Coverdell教育储蓄帐户。

I spoke this week with a reader and retired insurance executive, Rick Mayhew, about financial literacy. Mayhew, 58, teaches a financial planning class for adults at Washington University in St. Louis. "Most of my students, even though they have been to college, didn't get a lot of the basic information along the way that we cover in my class," he said.

Magical thinking also looms large. "It is amazing how many people want to talk about investments rather than budgeting," Mayhew notes. "It's not the fun or sexy part of planning. People think they are going to hit a wonderful investment that's going to help them live a great life, when they will do better by managing their controllables: making sure they get the best value on purchases and keep a little money in reserve."

Lusardi's is a timely report, given the debate over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a new agency created by the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill. The CFPB's goal is to provide more transparency to consumers so they can compare financial products in an apples-to-apples fashion.

The CFPB must have a director in place by July 21 to receive its regulatory authority, but Republican senators have vowed to block the nomination of a director unless major changes are made to the agency. Consumer advocates charge that the GOP is trying to weaken the agency's powers at the behest of the financial-services lobby.

我本周与一位读者和一位退休的保险高管RM就财政知识进行交谈。M今年58岁,在圣.露易斯的华盛顿大学开授了针对成人财政规划课。“我的大部分学员,甚至所括那些大学生员,都未能从我的课上学到很多基本的财政知识,”他说到。

奇幻思维也显得严重。“让人惊讶的是那么多的人谈论投资而不是预算,”M说到。“这不是有趣或迷人的计划。人们认为他们将进行一次好的投资,此投资将帮助他们过上更好的生活,当通过管理他们的可操控资本时,他们将做得更好:确定以最合理的价格购物,并且在银行里留点钱。”

鉴于消费者财政保护局了个争议,L的言论是一个及时的报道。消费者财政保护局是DF金融法案创建的一个新机构。消费者财政保护局的目标是向消费者提供更多的透明,如此他们便可做金融产品横向对比。

消费者财政保护局在7月21号必须有一个主管接收制定规章的机构,但是共和党议员已立誓要阻止主管的提名,除非机构进行大的改变。消费者指责共和党按金融服务游说的要求,正在试图剥弱机构的权力。

 

In this week's New Yorker magazine, James Surowiecki suggests that the CFPB would even benefit banks by promoting fairer competition and more efficient markets. Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren, who established the bureau as a special adviser to the president, made similar arguments in my interview with her in March 2010.

Lusardi agrees with the efficient-market theory: "The banks need to get a grip. They are not going to benefit by going against regulation. It's going to come back to them [in the next crisis] and the cost will be much heavier than the cost of regulation."

The state of personal finance today is like a world without drivers' licenses, Lusardi says. "Imagine people get in the car and drive and it's up to them to learn so they don't have an accident," she says.

Drivers' licenses and speed limits are there to ensure everyone's safety. But when it comes to the financial arena, it's like we've put people on busy roads without asking what they know and without giving anyone directions, Lusardi says.

"In finance, when we have an accident, taxpayers may be asked to pay for it," she says. "It's not sustainable to have an economy of individual responsibility where people are not equipped to make decisions and we are always afraid of the next crisis. We bailed out the financial industry. I'm surprised consumers are not more vocal, demanding good, safe financial products and the ability to make decisions that don't require sophisticated research. Where is the tea party for this?"

本周的纽约客杂志上,JS认为消费者财政保护局推广了更公平的竞争和更高效的市场,银行也将从中受益。哈佛法律教授EW在2010年3月对她的一次采访中表述了类似的看法。EW把消费者财政保护局定义为董事的特殊顾问。

L同意效率市场的理论:“银行需要领会其中意义,反对此规章,银行将不会从中受益。【在下一次危机中】,银行将遭受打击,而且成本将比规章的成本高得多。”

今天,个人财物状况就像一个没有驾驶执照的世界,L说到。“想像人们开一辆车,他们想学什么自己决定,因此不会发生事故,”她说到。

驾驶执照和速度限制的产生是为了确保每个人的安全。但是进入金融领域,就好像把人放在了一条繁忙的道路上,却不问他们知道什么,也不给任何人指导,L说到。

“在金融方面,如果出了事故,买单的只有消费者,”她说到。“人们并没有准备好做决定的个人责任经济是不可持续性的,而且我们总是担心下一次经济危机。我们紧急救助金融业。我非常惊讶消费者不再出声,不再要求,好的安全的金融产品,而且做决定的能力不要求精深的研究。哪里可以为此开个茶话会呢?”

http://finance.yahoo.com/

 

0

阅读 评论 收藏 转载 喜欢 打印举报/Report
  • 评论加载中,请稍候...
发评论

    发评论

    以上网友发言只代表其个人观点,不代表新浪网的观点或立场。

      

    新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 电话:4000520066 提示音后按1键(按当地市话标准计费) 欢迎批评指正

    新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 会员注册 | 产品答疑

    新浪公司 版权所有