# Financial Literacy



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

There was an interesting article in the G&M today dealing with financial literacy. It went something like this "there is no evidence that being financially literate results in better financial decisions, the banks,etc are saying get literate but still doing everything they can to get people to over leverage and buy expensive investment products, our financal environment is way too complex for people to manage their own affairs even if they are financially literate.
I lend to agree with the first two points but not the third. Banks pushing financial literacy is like the liquor companies pushing responsible drinking I guess. Can't hurt I suppose. What do you guys think?


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Square Root said:


> What do you guys think?


I think this is false.



Square Root said:


> there is no evidence that being financially literate results in better financial decisions


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Teaching financial literacy is of little use to people when the bigger issue is behavior. In a world where debit cards and credit cards rule and numbers mean little the only thing that seems to matter is consequences.

The first thing that the financial institutions will offer is a solution when someone goes in and that solution likely will benefit them.
As pointed out lawyers have written things that are far above and beyond the needs of people, everything is a clause that protects institutions.

I've known many folks over the years that could help themselves get better rates on interest or change how they manage things but they chose not too.

If the mindset does not change what can anyone do.
I was walking through a mall one day and there was a gold buying booth set up, a fellow was there and I stood and listened to the exchange he was being offered 10K prices for 14K gold. I spoke up and pointed this out to him the person running the booth started telling me about all their costs to run the business, the customer agreed with him and said he was happy with the price. I figured out after that he sold 18g of gold for 11.00 that he should have got 17.50 per gram for. 

I wish folks luck.


----------



## Oilers82 (Jan 17, 2011)

People still smoke even though the simplest of folk know that smoking causes a hell of a lot of medical problems down the road.

Knowledge does not equal intelligence. You can stuff everyone's head full of good knowledge but can't expect everyone to make good decisions with those facts that they have.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Being financial literate doesn't necessarily mean that you'll make better financial decisions, however, it you don't have financial literacy, it luck if you make the right financial decisions.

Just like everything else, having the knowledge doesn't mean you'll apply, but not having the knowledge doesn't even give you a chance. 

I


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

I'm a good example of someone who is fairly financially literate, but not very wise financially. I have taken various courses on investing, attended seminars sponsored by banks and brokerage houses, read many of the recommended books on the subject, and I even worked for 12 years for public companies, where my responsibilities included the preparation of the many required filings for the stock exchanges and the BC Securities Commission. So I could talk the talk, but my ultra-conservative nature didn't allow me to walk the walk! Every asset I own, with the exception of my house, is invested in GICs. Fortunately for me, I have enough of those to last me my lifetime, but I fully realize that if I had been willing to put my knowledge into practice, I might be a wealthy woman, rather than just a comfortable one!


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

^ You have the information, but make the best decision for you and your personal comfort level. You understand your decisions.

A financially illiterate person has no clue what they are doing, other than the right thing by trying to invest. They have no idea that the MER might be a rip off, or that the stock's dividend is too high, and that not only a dividend cut will be in the order, but that the stock price, and their investments will soon decline too.

I am all for informed decision making. Have the knowledge, and use it as you please, being happy, confident and comfortable with your decisions.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Square Root said:


> There was an interesting article in the G&M today dealing with financial literacy. It went something like this "there is no evidence that being financially literate results in better financial decisions, the banks,etc are saying get literate but still doing everything they can to get people to over leverage and buy expensive investment products, our financal environment is way too complex for people to manage their own affairs even if they are financially literate.
> I lend to agree with the first two points but not the third. Banks pushing financial literacy is like the liquor companies pushing responsible drinking I guess. Can't hurt I suppose. What do you guys think?


Hmmm ... for the first point, I guess it depends on which examples ones picks. I know people who once burned, were motivated to learn and made much better financial decisions going forward. I also know people who studied finance in university who can talk about good decisions but in their personal life, it's a financial mess.

At the end of the day, having the knowledge opens the door but one has to walk through it.


The second point seems to be more of a reminder to check the advice (and hopefully where the financial literacy will help raise appropriate questions/warnings).


The third point I'd say depends on how fancy one wants to get. Then too - if one treats finances as any other skill, one learns as one goes instead of trying to be an "instant guru".


P.S. It would be interesting to review how the article evaluated "better financial decisions". 

For example - is leaving money in HISA while tending to a deathly ill parent a "bad" or "good" decision? 

Assuming it's "bad" as one could invest it for better returns - lets say the investment chosen tanks. If this a "good" decision as an investment was tried or is a "bad" decision as based on the result?


Cheers


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> if one treats finances as any other skill, one learns as one goes instead of trying to be an "instant guru".


Indeed, it is a lifelong process.

What a great post!


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Yes good post eclectic. They said there was a US study that found that
" greater financial literacy does not result in better financial outcomes especially for retirees" Again not sure how defined. agree with most of the posts.
" You can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink"


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> P.S. It would be interesting to review how the article evaluated "better financial decisions".
> 
> Cheers


So True, as hindsight is always 20/20.

The best financial desicion can be to make a good plan and stick to it.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

What I find these days is there is way too much emphasis on "investing" rather than on the more basic skills of saving, controlling desire, consuming less and protecting yourself against adversity. Look at our new posters. Virtually all of them are here asking questions about how to invest to create annual 5-10% growth or if they should "specuvest" the latest GTA condo. Meanwhile these people have $14K student loans and no e savings. Seriously, is this the extent of our financial literacy? No wonder people are in so much debt. God help us if our housing market should crash as it did in the US. These people will have no cushion!


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Nothing is free, nothing is guaranteed, even the best laid plan can fail.

Try to live without debt it is the master slave.

I thought today as I walked through a mall so many retailers with their hands out try this what do you think.

If I didn't need it for the last 60 years why would I want it today.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

TRM so true, save first, invest second, but most of all invest wisely. The stock market is not a replacement for a savings account. If people at age 20 stashed away $1K a month, not more, not less, in 25 years that's $300K hard earned dollar dollar bills.

Can you enhance those returns with investments? Sure, but your number one priority should be saving. Most people today I reckon desire the market to over-leverage their lifestyles. It doesn't always work that way, and if you have no cushion so to speak you are going to face a hard landing.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> Indeed, it is a lifelong process.
> 
> What a great post!


It is a pet peeve.

If the individuals who complain to me about being ripped off by financial institutions, advisers, <insert villain of your choice> put half as much effort into learning at their pace as they put into complaining after it is too late - they'd have the knowledge required to question, if not outright avoid a lot of costly issues.


Don't get me wrong - I can understand/sympathize with making that first mistake. But once the cost becomes evident, I'm baffled as to why so many will recognise the potential benefit but choose to repeat the mistake because they "can't learn it overnight".


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Square Root said:


> Yes good post eclectic. They said there was a US study that found that
> " greater financial literacy does not result in better financial outcomes especially for retirees" Again not sure how defined. agree with most of the posts.
> " You can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink"


*grin*

I personally prefer


> You can lead a horse to ice but you can't make him drink.


 ... but that's my warped sense of humour.


Cheers


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> It is a pet peeve.


Mine too. 

*Are you a Winner or a Whiner?*

http://www.nethervoice.com/nethervoice/2011/11/04/winner-whiner/










Cheers!


----------



## Helianthus (Oct 19, 2010)

I think for the most part, the article in the OP is very true, at least when I think of myself. At the very basics of financial health, you have to be an absolute moron not to know that saving money and living within your means are essential. I think the more financial knowledge you have, you may make better decisions on a technical basis, however, if you are still ignoring the basics, which are essentially common sense, you are going nowhere. 

I'm the same way with fitness and nutrition, in that I know a great deal about what I *should* be doing, but actually executing a plan with that knowledge and sticking to it is another story.


----------



## stephenheath (Apr 3, 2009)

ddkay said:


> TRM so true, save first, invest second, but most of all invest wisely. The stock market is not a replacement for a savings account. If people at age 20 stashed away $1K a month, not more, not less, in 25 years that's $300K hard earned dollar dollar bills.
> 
> Can you enhance those returns with investments? Sure, but your number one priority should be saving. Most people today I reckon desire the market to over-leverage their lifestyles. It doesn't always work that way, and if you have no cushion so to speak you are going to face a hard landing.


The problem with that at the moment is inflation. Even assuming the central bank manages to keep it at 2%, that $300k in nominal dollars only has the buying power of $182,860. Not really a great message... "save wisely for 25 years and lose 39% of your purchasing power". This is what interest, of course, is for, but most people would argue that the going interest rates now are below the "real" level of inflation (since housing costs aren't included in that 2% figure), so you might lose even more than 39% if that remains the case for 25 years. This is what causes older people behind on their retirement plans and young people today alike to jump for the risky stuff first... except I would argue the very young have one other reason to do so...

They've seen that in the financial world, while you have no assets to lose it's the time to bet the farm big using borrowed money. If you win, you make out like a bandit. If you lose, you walk away, no harm no foul, worst case you declare bankruptcy and then do it the slow and steady way.

I suspect when interest rates start to rise again that will change, when people are comfortable that savings will keep up with inflation.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

I would define a better financial outcome as achieving financial independence which allows for a reasonable retirement. Agree it is more important to understand that living within your means and consistently saving for retirement is far more important then understanding complex financial products. Just ask the wealthy barber or the millionaire next door.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

stephenheath said:


> The problem with that at the moment is inflation.
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> ...


Hmmm ... I read the point to be "take care of the basics first before investing" instead of a recommendation to keep the full $300K in savings. 

However, that said - keeping the full $300K even with losing the purchasing power beats selling in an investment in a panic and losing the $300K. Or worse, using margin and losing more the $300K plus a series margin calls.


As for the "now is the time for risky leverage for the older and young", this strikes me as recipe for disaster.

Taking the older people who are behind on their retirement - explain to me how a 55 year old who rolls the dice, loses and declares bankrupcty at say 58 has the time to make back significant amounts of money before retirement?

Then too, only certain types of RRSPs are creditor protected (see links). So if the 58 year old declares bankruptcy, they may lose what they've taken fifty years to accumulate in their RRSP as well, in addition to everything else (ex. house, car, etc.).

http://businesslawyers.com/business...uploads/2010/11/rrsp_s_-_asset_protection.pdf
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0132-e.htm


As for the young person - explain to me what institution is going to lend big money to "bet the farm big using borrowed money"? The ones that come to mind charge extreme rates and are not going to accept bankruptcy as a reason to not pay. 


So I don't see a "no harm, no foul" to this scenario. In fact, this type of thinking reminds me of what some co-workers have tried and been burned by.


Also, while interest rates may be the driving factor today but it is more of a combination of the perception of better options and an overconfidence without really knowing the risks (hmmm ... financially illiterate maybe?).

When tech stocks were going nuts in 1998, interest rates were much better than today but because people were unhappy with 6% to 10%, some fired their advisor and jumped into tech stocks as "they always go up". Some managed to turn $120K into $18K with a third margin call coming.



Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Square Root said:


> There was an interesting article in the G&M today dealing with financial literacy.
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> What do you guys think?


Is this the article you are referring to?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...he-myth-of-financial-literacy/article2242797/

If so - it has one good point and little detail to demonstrate the current path is useless.

I like the point of suggesting plain English disclosure (long overdue IMHO) and am less convinced about changing CPP but can see the rationale.

Without more detail - I am not convinced the research demonstrates that financial literacy is a lost cause.

Some interesting points:



> Carleton University economist Saul Schwartz concluded in a 2010 study for the Institute for Research on Public Policy that evidence of better financial outcomes, particularly for retirees, shows “mixed results at best.”


Hmmm ... say most retirees are 60 - how much of the "bad financial outcome" is due to decreased capacity to learn/remember? 




> Even armed with education, consumers will too often make the wrong choices. Experts report, for example, that workers in defined-contribution plans typically don’t adjust their risk profiles as retirement nears, leaving them dangerously exposed to market downturns.


The article quotes 2009 as being a starting point for a push for financial literacy. Isn't that too late for those side-swiped by the 2009 crash?

Then too - does "armed with education" mean a footnote in five pages? Does it mean a talking head who reminds plan members once a year to consider this? Or is it an explicit "no I don't want it" to an automatic program to shift away from market risk as one gets closer to retirement?

As well - one DC plan I was in offered a whopping four funds to choose from. If I recall correctly, the only way to reduce market risk was to move into a money market fund. Are excessively restricted DC plans being included as well?



Any comments, thoughts or links to the studies?


Cheers


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Yes, Eclectic that was the article. You raise good points and point out the general weaknesses in much of the financial media: sweeping genetalization, blurring of cause and effect in so called studies, sensationalization. This is all to sell readership. These articles can still be the catalyst for interesting discussion though.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Square Root said:


> Yes, Eclectic that was the article. You raise good points and point out the general weaknesses in much of the financial media: sweeping genetalization, blurring of cause and effect in so called studies, sensationalization. This is all to sell readership. These articles can still be the catalyst for interesting discussion though.


Thanks for the confirmation ... and discussion. I think we're both happy to have more discussion which gets people thinking.

To be fair, with the quick summary of the research that does not provide details, it is hard to tell how valid the research is with respect to the point the article is trying to make.

One of the points I like is that it is opening up to discussion the current gov't strategy, based on industry players and the matching spending.

What I'm less thrilled about is it suggests that adding financial literacy into the Ontario curriculum for grades 4 through 12 is a waste of time. IMO, this is a great place to put it. 

I'm under no illusion that this will transform every student but compared to the DIY piece meal approach that exists today, I'd expect more students to be impacted. I also expect it will be similar to the switch over from imperial measurements to metric. The first couple of waves will struggle with it but over time, it will become the way things are.



Cheers


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Agree.


----------



## stephenheath (Apr 3, 2009)

Eclectic, don't get me wrong, I agree 100% with you that in principle save money and spend less than you earn is the way to go. But man the world is working against it in some ways.

Credit is real easy for young people to get... I have a friend who last time we talked about it (years ago now) owned about 50 credit cards, Canadian and American due to his dual citizenship and he figured if he cash advanced them all, or did workarounds where you couldn't (ie, you couldn't cash advance some store cards, but you could buy money orders or gift cards that you could cash in), he could have $80-90k at 23 without a single asset, including no car, to his name. (And yet he had about 7-8 gas station branded cards . Or look at the kid in the states during their housing bubble that wound up owning a ton of houses, and when everything crashed and he couldn't borrow from one to buy another anymore, it all collapsed and he wound up owing over a million.

I'm definately not saying it's "no harm no foul"... my point is that as much as there are those of us going around saying "save your money, don't spend more than you earn, don't get bad debt, etc..." there's tons of people saying "forget that, take a chance and if it pays off you're set for life", and a lot of people figure this is a rigged game, so why not get their own. The problem is that the simple logical plan of saving for the long term and letting time work for you is not sexy the way daytrading triple leveraged funds are.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

stephenheath said:


> Eclectic, don't get me wrong, I agree 100% with you that in principle save money and spend less than you earn is the way to go. But man the world is working against it in some ways.
> 
> Credit is real easy for young people to get... I have a friend who last time we talked about it (years ago now) owned about 50 credit cards, ...
> 
> I'm definately not saying it's "no harm no foul"... my point is that as much as there are those of us going around saying "save your money, don't spend more than you earn, don't get bad debt, etc..." there's tons of people saying "forget that, take a chance and if it pays off you're set for life", and a lot of people figure this is a rigged game, so why not get their own. The problem is that the simple logical plan of saving for the long term and letting time work for you is not sexy the way daytrading triple leveraged funds are.


The way the post was written - it sounded like you agreed with with "no harm, no foul". Good to hear you don't agree.

*shrug* - Nothing has really changed over the years.

Back when I was in second year university, I couldn't qualify for a credit card based on a perfect record of payments on my car loan but I instantly qualified for twice the credit limit using the "university student" credit card application - from the same institution!!


As for the competing voices, this is where I like the idea of Ontario teaching financial literacy in schools. It won't help 100% but school should provide a closer to unbiased curriculum.


It would be interesting to get some data on those who see finances as a "rigged game" and what they do about it. Most of these types I've run into - either are staying the course (i.e. spending more than they make or sticking with a financial advisor/MF) or not trying (i.e. Canada Savings Bonds or GICs only, thanks).

The ones I've run into that are taking the risks are the ones who have learned something about investing. In most cases, they have learned a bit and think they are set. A co-worker and I started DIY investing about a month apart. Since he "knew tech stocks", he stuck to them. Nine months later he was complaining his portfolio was down (as were tech stocks) while I was up as I'd picked up bargains such as financial and pipeline stocks in addition to tech.


Cheers


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I had a hard time getting a CC when I was in university, too. Maybe it was because I was applying for a normal (non-student targeted) card.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I had a hard time getting a CC when I was in university, too. Maybe it was because I was applying for a normal (non-student targeted) card.


What really puzzled me was why with a perfect record of payment for three years I didn't qualify.

Yet with the same record and same financial institution was approved using the student application. If it was a different institution that rejected the regular CC application, I could understand.

One of many weird situations.


Cheers


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

If more parents were willing to involve their children in the family finances this would be a starting point.
Studies show that its easier to discuss sex than money in families.

IMHO most adults do not want their kids to know how many bad decisions they have made along the road. Preaching does not work so lay the facts out for them.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

At the risk of sounding repetitive....

Here is a question from my Mother's 1920-vintage Home Economics text book...

"You have 150,000 saved, you are 40 years old and plan to retire at 65. If you wish to enjoy a $40,000 annual retirement out to age 90, how much should you be putting away every year until retirement.

(I inflated the amounts to account for the 100 year discrepency)

The textbook included sinking fund, annuity and FV tables. No inflation, tax or other complications such as CPP, etc.

Financial literacy is not a modern-day problem... our parents/grandparents faced the same issues..... without computers.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

steve41 said:


> At the risk of sounding repetitive....
> 
> Here is a question from my Mother's 1920-vintage Home Economics text book...
> 
> ...


*shrug* - I'm not sure where you are going with this. 

Are you saying because it didn't work in the 1920's, this topic should continue to be left out of the current educational curriculum? 

Or maybe that it worked in the 1920's so put the same content into today's curriculum?


IAC, I agree it is not a new problem. However, based on the last CMF thread on this topic, it seems that currently - nothing is being taught. I'd argue this has makes the modern-day situation worse. 

To compound the issue, financial choices has become much more complex and DIY has become much more accessible. (Examples - Index Linked Notes versus GIC versus ETF etc. and for most of my uncle's investing, it was $75 to $200 a trade compared to today's $5 a trade).


I believe it is an improvement that Ontario is putting financial literacy into their Grade 4 to 12 curriculum compared to today's situation. I'm hoping this will give those students who are willing to pay attention a good foundation to build on.


Cheers


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I don't think Home Ec was all that successful back then. They certainly picked up the value of saving but then there was no alternative. The fundamental problem is that the students don't want to learn. The average boy thinks investing is buying a lottery ticket until he hits 30.

And if he makes a big windfall, it is likely blown on a fancy car. These are strawmen. Please blast away...


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> *shrug* - I'm not sure where you are going with this.
> 
> Are you saying because it didn't work in the 1920's, this topic should continue to be left out of the current educational curriculum?
> 
> Or maybe that it worked in the 1920's so put the same content into today's curriculum?


I am not sure if it worked or didn't work in the 1920s..... it just seems to me that it is a useful exercize to be able to do. It relates to the basics, namely, how much should I be saving annually going forward, what should I look forward to as future retirement income based on money saved to date, and a guesstimate of rates going forward. Sort of a 'RRIFmetic lite'. 

I can't see why this wouldn't be a basic skill taught every kid.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

kcowan said:


> I don't think Home Ec was all that successful back then. They certainly picked up the value of saving but then there was no alternative. The fundamental problem is that the students don't want to learn. The average boy thinks investing is buying a lottery ticket until he hits 30.
> 
> And if he makes a big windfall, it is likely blown on a fancy car. These are strawmen. Please blast away...




And how many people in their 50s have the same idea instead of a fancy car it's retirement.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

steve41 said:


> I am not sure if it worked or didn't work in the 1920s..... it just seems to me that it is a useful exercize to be able to do. It relates to the basics, namely, how much should I be saving annually going forward, what should I look forward to as future retirement income based on money saved to date, and a guesstimate of rates going forward. Sort of a 'RRIFmetic lite'.
> 
> I can't see why this wouldn't be a basic skill taught every kid.


So basically, you and I agree that it should be taught.

Of course, until Ontario produces a curriculum, say five years from now - we won't know if such info is considered part of the "financial literacy" the article is talking about.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

kcowan said:


> I don't think Home Ec was all that successful back then. They certainly picked up the value of saving but then there was no alternative. The fundamental problem is that the students don't want to learn. The average boy thinks investing is buying a lottery ticket until he hits 30.
> 
> And if he makes a big windfall, it is likely blown on a fancy car. These are strawmen. Please blast away...


I wouldn't go as far as "no alternative". 

Certainly at the commissions charged, it was far more difficult than today to invest. However, according to Homer Hickam, Jr.'s memoir _Rocket Boys_, his mother secretly invested in the 50s. Sadly, the role (or lack thereof) of Home Ec in her investing is not included in the memoir.


As for students not wanting to learn - that's true of any subject. Better teachers have a chance of overcoming this challenge.


Hmmmm ... I'm not sure the "average boy" thinks anything of investing. And without a subject in school, I'm not aware of many that are paying attention. Until they are looking to buy a house or some other major financial transaction. Which helps put them behind the eight ball, before they get started.


Ah yes, the "big windfall, it is likely blown on a fancy car" - which gives rise to another memoir reference. If I recall correctly, _To the stars: the autobiography of George Takei, Star Trek's Mr. Sulu_ reports that young George wanted to blow an early career big payday on a sports car. He was forever grateful his father insisted on planning for the future and investing in funeral plots instead. 


Cheers


----------



## hboy43 (May 10, 2009)

Square Root said:


> Just ask the wealthy barber or the millionaire next door.


Thank you for referencing me twice - I cut my own hair.

Seriously, I don't think putting this in the schools will make any difference. The problem is more in the realm of value judgements than any teachable skill. People value right now more than decades from now. If this weren't the case, 20 year olds would choose to keep their pecker in their pants and take a pass on a lifetime of HIV/AIDS. If you can solve the latter, you can solve financial literacy - the same problem. Pretty well any interesting problem is the same problem. If you can get past the value judgement issues, chances are the mathematics (literacy) needed to bring home the solution have been well known for centuries. You could then probably package the mathematics into lookup tables for the 90% of the population that can't do anything more than add, subtract, multiply, and divide.

No, the problem of finances both personal and governmental come down to the problem of valuing things decades off into the future on some kind of even footing with right now. I have no idea how to do this.

No, little Jonny in grade 9 isn't going to much care about the future value of an annuity formulae. His mind is more attuned to two dimensional functions of an approximate parabaloid shape. There is some mathematics he'd like to sink his teeth into.

hboy43


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Here's a thought.... Maybe the financial services industry would like to keep joe average in the dark.... "_OOOooo. Financial planning.... it's really complicated and scary. We are the only ones remotely capable of directing your financial future. Oh, and BTW, I think you are way behind in your savings regimen..... here's a hot MF you might consider"._

Just look at those 'financial makeovers' in the G&M and NP. Nothing relating to how the numbers came about, no hint that these plans are even remotely DIY-able.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

hboy43 said:


> [ ... ]
> 
> Seriously, I don't think putting this in the schools will make any difference. The problem is more in the realm of value judgements than any teachable skill. People value right now more than decades from now.
> 
> [ ... ]


Valuing things in the future are not a teachable skill?

That's a pretty bleak view. My ten year old niece is in progress of being taught this by her parents. The timeframe involved isn't decades into the future but she is learning.


The advantage to changing the grade 4 to grade 12 curriculum is that there are eight rounds of building/expanding the student's financial understanding. Even if it isn't fully absorbed, it's better than today's "I know nothing - help me financial sales rep and I'll follow what you say like a sheep".


Cheers


----------

