Not to keep quoting the Economist but… it had a recent article about healthcare and why competition hasn’t driven down prices (hence making the case for government backed healthcare), and it cited gas prices as evidence that competition in some cases only sets market price to see how much consumers can bear, without necessarily driving it *down*.

Well, come to California and you’ll see that The Economist is yet again, correct. The Shell station at the corner of Prospect and Beryl has one of the highest prices in the neighborhood and it’s still in business, so someone’s buying.

And I don’t want to hear Europeans talking about how Americans are just paying what everyone else has been paying… we are comparing our gas prices today to our gas prices in the past, we’re not interested in comparing our gas prices to your gas prices.

Check out this article labeling $250K investable assets as “wealthy”.

I was thinking $1M or at least the $650K figure Johsua Kennon talks about in his personal blog (as a “tipping point”).

As for the “Lessons Learned”, the Bogleheads certainly take issue with the idea that the #1 piece of advice relative to saving and investing should be “working with a financial adviser or working with one earlier” (not to mention $250K being a lower than expectations target)! The Bogleheads philosophy is the “do it yourself, match the market” approach, which is so ridiculously simple that many people can’t believe that it should work. That’s why many go with commission based brokers who call themselves financial advisors, buy all the products (insurance, loaded mutual funds with high expense ratios) their broker tells them to buy, and have a portfolio that needs to generate a higher return to pay for all the fees.

I’d stick with the 27% who said that we should be “more hands-on with our investment portfolio, including adjusting their asset allocation”. Since late least year when I did a personal “cram course” in investing 101 and joined up with the Bogleheads I haven’t looked back. Add to this Goldie and Murray’s popular “The Investment Answer” book, and it confirms my suspicion that when it comes to money matters, “simple” can be “better”.

Other good lessons: “…Knowing how they want to live in retirement was more important than they’d realized it would be. Fifty-two percent said knowing how to manage retirement income was more important than they’d expected.”

If you’re in your 20s and 30s, better start thinking what life will be like when you hit 60. It will be here sooner than you think!

The feds cutting interest rates can mean only one thing: mortgage lenders are jumping at the opportunity to persuade you to refinance your loan!

There’s just one catch: if you happen to be a responsible and conscientious borrower who locked in a jumbo loan at a 30-year fixed rate mortgage, your rates are probably better than what is being offered right now on the market.

At least, that’s what I’ve found: our jumbo loan 30 year fixed rate is 6.0% and as of today, most of the interest rates for jumbo loans hover in the low 6% but generally above 6.0%. I’ve seen some as high as over 7%! It is the non-jumbo 30 year fixed rate mortgages that have the attractive high 5% rates.

Unless you’ve lived in California for decades or traded “up” a house using the equity of your first house during the housing boom, you’re likely to be paying a jumbo mortgage, which is a loan exceeding $417,000.

It’s that time of the year again… speculations abound for the coming year’s housing challenges and home prices.

Yahoo News posted Reuters’ report on a record drop in home prices nationwide, predicting that 2008 will continue to see home prices but 2009 may see a rebound. Washington Times looked at who’s to blame in the current housing debacle, comparing this cycle of housing bust with previous busts, and suggesting that “some combination of easy money, loose lending, greed and fraud” turned a housing boom into a bubble. More »

Wall Street Journal’s Informed Reader blog recently reported on a research citing that homeowners hurt the economy because homeowners are less mobile than renters and therefore are less willing to leave when local economy takes a dive. This lack of mobility exacerbates unemployment issues and hinders new development with zoning rules. While homeowners are more likely to invest in their communities and improve their neighborhoods, these benefits may not offset the drawbacks.