Monday, December 21, 2009, 8:30AM ET - U.S. Markets open in 1 hr..

Laura Rowley Money & Happiness

Laura Rowley, Money & Happiness

In Personal Finance, Choice Can Be a Tyranny

by Laura Rowley

Very Good (146 Ratings)
3.958902/5
Posted on Thursday, September 4, 2008, 12:00AM

I've officially been writing this column for three years, and covering personal finance for two decades. What I know for certain is that making the right financial decisions has never been harder.

Obscure Options

Part of the problem comes from the creative engine of consumer products and financial services, relentlessly generating new solutions to meet new needs. They offer so many different (and frequently shifting) iterations that it's often too time-consuming and complex to make an informed choice. Another part of the dilemma can be attributed to the corrupt underbelly of gotcha capitalism, which obscures the facts and tricks unsophisticated consumers into a host of expensive mistakes (think auto financing and subprime mortgages).

And often, the choices we must make don't translate in a meaningful way -- they don't tell us what we need to know. For instance, my health insurance came up for renewal over the summer, with a 26 percent increase in the premium. My insurance broker provided a side-by-side comparison of other plans; we talked about hospitalization, co-pays, and the ability to see doctors outside the plan. But it's virtually impossible to know what the policies would and would not cover if someone in my family got cancer. As a result, I defaulted to the status quo.

That's what most consumers do, and the widespread tendency to go with the default option creates an opportunity for better decision-making, according to Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, the authors of "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness." Their proposal: Change the structure of the choice, and inertia will result in better outcomes -- higher savings rates, improved health care, and more organ donors.

The Architecture of Choice

Thaler, a behavioral economist at the University of Chicago, and Sunstein, who teaches at the university's law school, define a nudge as any aspect of "choice architecture" that changes people's behavior in a predictable way, without prohibiting options or significantly altering their economic incentives.

Calling themselves paternalistic libertarians, they say a nudge must be easy and cheap to avoid -- putting healthy foods at eye level in a school cafeteria vs. banning junk food, say, or making a diversified stock and bond fund the default choice for a 401(k) participant instead of a money market account.

And although the book is aimed at public policy, individuals can also nudge themselves. "We didn't write it as a self-help book, but it can be read that way," says Thaler.

Heuristics, Biases, and Anchors

In most decisions, people tend to rely on shortcuts and rules of thumb known as "heuristics and biases" that can skew our thinking. These were first articulated by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in the 1970s.

For example, the "availability heuristic" causes people to make skewed assessments of risk based on recent experience and memories. People who know someone who has experienced a flood are more likely to buy flood insurance for themselves, regardless of the flood risk they actually face.

"Anchoring" causes people to pay too much attention to an initial number or piece of information, and then adjust in a direction they think appropriate -- often when the anchor itself is random or arbitrary.

Big Decisions, Small Decision-Making

The first step to improved choices is to lay aside rule-of-thumb thinking when faced with a big decision that is rare, complex, difficult to translate in terms that can be easily understood, and doesn't offer immediate feedback. Invest time and money into getting independent advice, something most people don't do, says Thaler.

"I think you can get by OK with rules of thumb in lower-stake situations, but they don't end up working as well in high-stake situations," he notes. "People are used to using shortcuts, and on the big decisions they don't compensate enough. So they'll spend as much time choosing a TV as a mortgage, though the stakes are hundreds of times bigger."

When consumers do seek advice, he says, they tend to turn to people with conflicts of interest -- a mortgage broker or stockbroker working on commission. "It's the big-stake stuff people get the most wrong, such as mortgages and house-buying," says Thaler. "Some economists say if it really matters, people will take the time [to research] or get expert help. But people never get expert help in those domains -- at least expert help that's unbiased."

Choose Wealth

I asked Thaler for a few simple nudges anyone can do to boost their wealth. Here are a few:

Pay off your mortgage before your retire.

"If you look at data from early 1980s, people in their 60s nearing retirement by and large had no mortgage debt," says Thaler. "The norm that you pay your mortgage off by time you retire has disappeared. It's a good self-control device to pay off the mortgage, and if you refinance, don't view it as an excuse for another vacation or some other kind of splurge. And if you do refinance, take a 15-year instead of 30-year mortgage, especially if you're in your 40s."

Ask your credit card company to enforce the card's limit.

"Credit card companies don't do that because they say people don't want to be embarrassed by having card turned down," Thaler explains. "But most people carry more than one credit card. If you go over the limit by $50, they'll charge you by $50 and raise your interest rate by 300 basis points -- and you could have avoided the whole thing by saying, 'Oh, that card's capped out, use this one.'"

Use the "mere measurement" effect to boost your goals.

Researchers have found that merely asking people about their plans affects what they do. "If you call them up and ask them if they're going to vote, they're more likely to vote; if you ask when they plan to vote and how they plan to get there, that works even better," says Thaler. "Whatever your goal is, announce it, make a specific plan, and then elaborate on it."

Beware the pitfalls of "mental accounting."

While it's beneficial to allocate money for specific goals to separate accounts, strict observance can lead to unproductive behavior. A 2002 study of one group of consumers found the typical household had more than $5,000 in liquid assets (typically in savings accounts earning less than 5 percent a year) and nearly $3,000 in credit card balances, carrying a typical rate of 18 percent or more.

Divest from your employer's stock.

If you hold a lot of your employer's stock in your retirement plan, create a nudge to sell 1 percent of the shares on a certain date of the month until you reduce your holdings to 10 percent or less. Five million Americans have more than 60 percent of their retirement savings in company stock despite the lessons of Enron and WorldCom. Thaler and Sunstein propose employers help workers with gradual divestiture, and they're looking for a firm willing to try out the plan. If your company is interested, contact the authors at their blog.

Cutting Through the Confusion

I asked Thaler about the subprime mortgage debacle, and the fact that poor choices were often made because lenders deliberately obscured information. The situation, he says, raises "a real question about how markets work," he says. "Some people have a naive view, that the invisible hand works when there is lots of competition. The winners will be the ones that provide the best products to people, and it can work out that way. But it can also work out that the winners are the ones that most successfully confuse people."

The solution is not more regulation, but more disclosure that allows for a clear comparison of the choices, as the authors wrote in a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. They advocate electronic, machine-readable disclosure, "so when you apply for a mortgage, you could take that file and upload it to a website that would explain what you were buying," says Thaler. "It would allow the creation of third-party websites that would let you search better with more transparency."

Thaler cites the example of Morningstar and Lipper -- two companies that track and evaluate mutual funds, and exist only because funds are required to disclose performance, fees, and other information. "Machine-readable disclosure doesn't sound sexy, but has the potential to change the shape of gotcha capitalism," Thaler says.

Rate This story

Very Good (146 Ratings)
4/5
Sign-in to rate!

95 Comments

Showing comments 6-35 of 95<< PreviousNext >>
Sort: first to last
  • Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, September 8, 2008, 9:36AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Always good advice. You rule, Laura.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 6:52PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Choice is a tyranny??? What a truly insightful article by a truly great writer.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 4:34AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Choice is a tyranny??? What a truly pathetic article by a truly pathetic writer.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Saturday, September 6, 2008, 1:22PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Too much choice? Wow, she must be pandering to the losers on the left...

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Saturday, September 6, 2008, 1:03PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    I don't think I have enough choices for investment. Someone needs to bundle auto loans, boat, jet ski, ect. loans into a mutal fund so I can invest in that. How about some payday loans while you're at it.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Saturday, September 6, 2008, 11:18AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    common sense stuff, blown out of proportion by you, Laura, to make a deadline. not helpful.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Saturday, September 6, 2008, 9:49AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    This article results from some careful thinking and in one sense is excellent. However it fails in many ways because it fails to face up to the fact that letting folks suffer the results of poor judgement (which we all have at times) weakens our self respect -or at least should do so - and destroys humanity. Although the next to the last paragraph presents a good suggestion, IT IS NOT A SOLUTION; but is much less. It is simply one thing that can be helpful. There is no perfect solution but less government intervention and involvement is probably a much better course than the TAKE CARE OF YOU ROUTE WE ARE ON.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Saturday, September 6, 2008, 9:46AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    It was not less regualtion that led to this situation but rather the regualtions that exist being manipulated by those who buy washington, starting right at the fed whose easy credit caused the credit expansion in the first place. Low rates send a signal to all that there is low risk and cause the malinvestment. A truly free market doesn't not have all these regulations and wealth is distributed much more evenly thaan today. It is the regulations themselves and the centralization of the economy by the unconstitutional fed that cause these problems. Our money must be backed by something, this keynesian system stinks and always fails long term and the markets have to be truly open. Open is always good, open society, open government, open market. Don't be fooled government is the problem.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Saturday, September 6, 2008, 9:00AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    We are the most marketed to generation in history. It's no wonder that we always feel compelled to buy something, anything. Along with so many options comes increased confusion. It's not Government regulation that will provide the solution, but less regulation. If left to it's own devices the free market will reward those businesses that do the right thing, while those that don't will fail. I'd suggest that instead of blaming Government or big business for our own personal weaknesses, each of us should seek to understand just what it is that we're sirning up for. Each should develop an understanding of how much debt he can afford to maintain. If a person doesn't wish to understand, or is incapable of learning (we can't all be experts), then he should seek the services of a competent professional. A Certified Financial Planner (CFP) is a great place to begin. A CFP has a strong general knowledge in personal finance including insurance, college planning, retirement, insurance, etc. A CFP must pass a rigid 10 hr exam to use the marks. A CFP is also held to a higher standard than a broker or insurance salesman. For investments, consider using the services of a Registered Investment Advisor, or RIA. Unlike a broker, this type of firm has a fiduciary responsibility. This means, that the RIA must place the client's interest ahead of his own. Google these terms or look them up on Wikipedia. One last note, probably the most important place to begin is to simply stop borrowing money. Just stop! Save for your purchases. Stop asking how much are the payments and instead ask what can I get it for if I pay cash.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Saturday, September 6, 2008, 7:23AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    Sorry, Laura, but LESS regulation led us into the current mortgage problem. The crooks will always be looking for a loophole; and our lack of governance has led us into a billion dollar debt we will have to pay as taxpayers (ie: Freddie and Fannie bought out by the Feds...this AM news). I think we need more accountability from the top down; and until or if that ever happens, nothing will ever get accomplished. Moral and ethical leadership is what is needed, but I doubt it will ever occur....too much Political Rightousness by the crooks themselves!

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Saturday, September 6, 2008, 12:07AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    One approach to solving the medical insurance problem would be to have a government task force define a set of standardized health insurance plans which every health insurance company would be required to offer (along with any value-added extensions at extra cost that they wished to offer). Multiple plans to cover different life stage needs. With standardized plans, insurance companies would then be competing strictly on cost efficiency, not on ability to confuscate. A task force with specialized knowledge of health care delivery costs would be able to design the plans to cover the actual costs that are likely to be incurred, rather than a byzantine web of coverage that leaves a lot of important things out that your average person is not likely to understand (like a lot of health insurance plans do now). But I digress. Soon enough we will have universal health coverage and all will be dandy, right? ;-)

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 6:14PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Who cares, 2012 is just arround the corner.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 5:32PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    There are a series of contradictions in this article. She starts by reviewing the hidden, and therefore deceptive, components of contracts with healthcare insurance, then completes the thought with generically 'no brainer' solutions like paying off the mortgage. How is that a solution to undisclosed contractual information having an unknown effect on choice? The solutions offered are unrelated to the problems outlined. She then says that more regulation requiring discosure isn't advised but cites Morningstar's success because companies are required to disclose performance stats. There is no logic and nothing useful here.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 5:26PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    If this was a normal rating system where 3 stars is listed as "Fair", I might have awarded 4 stars, but Yahoo has a serious star inflation issue. If Laura takes the next couple weeks and expands in detail on some of the issues she raised (such as choosing a health care plan) helping people understand the issue, I will be truly impressed. If this is the end of the line such that she only raises the issue, than I will regret that I gave even 3 stars. The key is to be useful, she really needs to go past the "common sense" stage. Interestingly, Scientific American magazine wrote a piece about how more choice tends to make people less satisfied than less choice. In many ways, Russians were happier with their choice of wheat or white instead of the myriad that we have today. Also, to the guy on the mortgage, the vast majority of Americans would are far better for paying off their mortgage. Few people are both diciplined enough not to spend the extra money and smart enough to consistently get better investment results. The one thing that I had admired about Suze Orman (though she is far from a favorite of mine) is that she deals with reality better than most financial planners. Most planners focus on what is better in theory without considering how well someone can put it into practice. Paying off a mortgage is an area that people understand and can do consistently. Investing is something that people often do poorly or even end up forgoing for a flat screen tv or other frivolous purchases.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 5:08PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Excellent advice that should be taken seriously.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 4:13PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Useless information and generally poor advice. Paying off your mortgage may be one of the dumbest things you can do. It depends on your particular circumstances whether this is prudent or not. Blanket statements are irresponsible.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 4:03PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    CHOICE is equivalent to FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To sacrifice choice in the name of whatever is the direct path leading to TYRANNY!!!!!! How on earth one can suggest that choice can be equal to tyranny?! This two notions are diametrically opposed... It looks like to me that Ms. Rowley is no friedn to freedom and American values embedded in the Constitution of the United States!!!!!!!!!!! It is precisely this kind of mentality of the intellectuals that paves the road to Tyranny!!!! What a shame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 3:58PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    Once Again Laura "GET"S IT!"

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 3:42PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Great summary and great advice. I Emailed this to my friends and relatives.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 3:13PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    How many times do we have to repeat the same basic knowledge? This is not the crowd that needs Econ 101, give us some meat.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 2:04PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    It may be true that lenders obscured some information, but when I bought my first house back in 1987, I was able to see the obvious (obvious to me at least) conflict of interest that commissioned sales people have when selling products to consumers. I read books on mortgages and learned what I needed to know in order to make an informed decision. Rather than buying the most expensive house I could barely afford, I bought a house I could easily afford at 1.6 times my income at the time. I didn't realize just how huge the statistical variation in human intellect is until this mortgage crisis. If you take on an adjustable rate mortgage to buy a house you can't afford after the payment increases, during a period of time when your income and other expenses stayed roughly the same or merely plodded along with inflation, you have to be on the far end of stupid.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 1:27PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    These are all excellent suggestions. I would add one more. Around the age 45-50, create a simple spreadsheet showing all the money you can expect to earn in retirement -- social insurance, company pensions, and income from investments or property. Then ask the following questions: 1) could we live on this? 2) is it protected from inflation? (While some payments are adjusted for inflation, others are not. You might find your future income is protected from 50% of inflation.) 3) Is it as diversified as it should be? 4) What disasters may occur (ie hurricane, earthquake, company failure) that may affect your portfolio and what steps can you take to protect it? Do this yourself if you can; an investment adviser or insurance guy is going to scare the hell out of you he can get more money from you, and more fees.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 12:56PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Mark S - Probably not realistic, or even legal, to try to tell somebody who they can & can't lend money to. If I want to make a risky loan with my money, shouldn't I be able to do so?? It is MY money after all; I am in control of it; I make the decisions on what to do with it, how to spend it, who to loan it to. And, how can it not be left up to individual lenders to decide how risky each borrower is? 2 different lenders might view a particular Joe Borrower at two entirely different levels of risk; Who's to say which lender is right?? And, those 2 different lenders might also be in entirely different positions such that they can take on entirely different levels of risk. If Lender 1's lending business isn't doing very well, he might not be able to make even a slightly risky loan. Lender 2 may be totally flush with cash, decides he can afford to lose a little $ if the loan is defaulted, so he makes the risky loan. I don't know how anybody is gonna govern or control all this. This seems like a market that just has to flush itself out once in a while.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 12:24PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    Good ideas but most people's behavior won't be changed because they know these things already but have rejected them because they don't bring instant gratification. So they won't bother to study the details of their investment choices, or even bother to sign up. They know paying off their mortgage for retirement would be a good idea but can't resist extracting money from their equity for the big vacation or the lavish wedding for the daughter. They know they should carefully evaluate the fine print of the 30 year mortgage they are about to sign, but they just want the new house and don't want to be bothered with details. They know carrying a credit card balance is foolish but spending on unnecessary things is more fun right now. People know they should take time to plan for retirement but right now they would rather watch the football game. There are a select few people who do pay attention to these details. They are called "wealthy". Much of their wealth is derived by benefiting from the irresponsible ways of the majority. It was always like this, and always will be.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 12:15PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    Good, common sense article but there's enough disclosure already. What we need are laws that forbid lending to people who cannot afford to repay the debt. I can't trade risky derivatives on margin in my brokerage account because I'm unqualified. Why is it that I could have bought a house on 100% debt that I could not afford to repay? Buying a house is an emotional decision, and there is a sizable percentage of the population that will simply buy as much house as they can without regard to whether they can pay it off over the long term.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 12:05PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    This article (and the book referenced) shows people how to manipulate the decisions of others. It also illustrates how most people have probably been manipulated in the past. Do the research yourself. Don't rely on others to do it for you. Make a decision and accept the consequenses of that decision. Take responsibility for yourself. If you got screwed by the sub-prime mortgage game, it's your own fault.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 11:22AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Again, Laura, you're succeeding so well in this Yahoo! Personal Finance ecosystem. You've managed to defuse a lot of kneejerk commenters by bringing up relevant topics that they haven't already formed a polaritic opinion about. It also helps that your topic "Money and Happiness" covers a lot more and gives you more wiggle room and permission to go over a much wider range without breaking against knee-jerker expectations. Keep up the good work. I look forwarding to reading more from you.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 11:15AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    Pretty good article. I would have given it 3 stars because it's nothing special, except two reasons: 1) The "nudge" part is very true with psychology (putting healthy food at eye level, the previous poster putting the closing statement saying how much it'll cost overall to take 30 years, etc.), and people who can properly utilize this will benefit, and 2) The previous poster about their "nervous tick" just made me laugh really hard, thanks, i needed it.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 10:51AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Laura always writes interesting articles about things that we don't always think about. That being said, I DO think about these things. In fact, I keep that little piece of paper that I got at the closing real handy (on my fridge). You know, the one that shows how much you will ACTUALLY have paid for your home if the take the full 30 thirty years to pay the mortgage. I've become so obsessed with it that everytime someone calls me and suggests that I tap my equity, I get this nervous tic, and my middle finger pops up. The doctors can't seem to cure me even though I pay a fortune in health insurance...

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, September 5, 2008, 10:01AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    This article will be saved and forwarded.

Showing comments 6-35 of 95<< PreviousNext >>
The columns, articles, message board posts and any other features provided on Yahoo! Finance are provided for personal finance and investment information and are not to be construed as investment advice. Under no circumstances does the information in this content represent a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. The views and opinions expressed in an article or column are the author's own and not necessarily those of Yahoo! and there is no implied endorsement by Yahoo! of any advice or trading strategy.

More From Laura Rowley

Money & Happiness

Discover the secrets to financial happiness. Laura's book offers practical tools and positive strategies to create "the good life" in a meaningful way.

More about Money & Happiness

Learn to identify your values, banish debt, start saving, and investing; plus Laura's favorite online resources.

Order your copy of Money & Happiness today and boost your financial well-being!

More from Yahoo! Sources

  • CNN Money
  • Consumer Reports
  • Kiplinger
  • The Motley Fool
  • Business Week
  • Wall Street Journal

Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data and daily updates provided by Morningstar, Inc. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Quotes and other information supplied by independent providers identified on the Yahoo! Finance partner page. Quotes are updated automatically, but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity. Quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes. Real-Time continuous streaming quotes are available through our premium service. You may turn streaming quotes on or off. All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein.

Yahoo! Answers is provided for informational purposes only, and no Q&A is intended for trading or investing purposes. Yahoo! shall not be responsible or liable for the accuracy, usefulness or availability of any Q&A information, and shall not be responsible or liable for any trading or investment decisions based on such information. View Complete Answers Disclaimer.