Reevaluating my Rewards Card

I've sworn by my rewards card since the day I had it. But a friend of mine and reader of my site named Steve emailed me the other day to talk up and recommend his own strategy. On this site, I try to be a big proponent of reevaluating our spending and habits, so I knew I'd be a hypocrite of I didn't at least check out his plan and contrast it against my own. Here's what he said:

I've got a schwab account for everyday checking that has the same benefits as the e*trade. Then i automatically send rent/utilities/insurance to a wachovia account and a percentage to a ing direct account for savings.

I use a chase freedom for gas/groceries/utilities for 3% cash back, and I have an Amex that's linked with my corporate amex for everyday expenses that gets points i can turn into airline miles or hotel points.

I've got to say that Steve has a great setup. A benchmark for rewards is about 2% -- anything more than that is tough to come by. And if those rewards are CASH then it's an even better deal.

Before I go any farther, let me reiterate a point I made a couple of months ago and say that unless you pay off your balance in full every month, you shouldn't use a rewards card. They tend to have higher interest rates than non-rewards cards, so in the long run, those rewards might actually cost you a lot of money.

When you're picking out a rewards card, try and figure out what the actual value is of your reward. Cash is easy; points, not so much. If your card offers points instead of cash, figure out how much each of those points is worth in terms of cash and then make your decision. I use my Choice Privileges rewards card, which earns me free stays at Choice hotels. Here's how my points work out:

I earn two points per dollar on everyday purchases that I put on the card. So how much is that worth? I just looked at their online booking system and found a hotel room that would cost $150 per night plus tax if I paid for it, or 6000 points if I used my rewards. To earn 6000 points, I would need to spend $3,000 on everyday purchases (two points per dollar). So if $3,000 in everyday spending gets me $150 worth of hotel rooms, that means that my points are "worth" about five percent of my everyday spending. That's a bit nicer than a one, two, or even three percent cash back card.

I'd say that I travel slightly more than the average American, so I never have trouble using my points whenever I do. Yes, cash back is usually better than points because it has more utility (you're not limited in where you can spend it), but if you can earn twice as many dollars' worth of free hotels than you could dollars' worth of cash, it pays to have the points as long as you would have otherwise paid for those rooms at some point.

Steve also mentioned that he uses his American Express card so he can pool his points with his business expenditures. That's another great idea. Because points are essentially useless until you reach a threshold at which they can be redeemed, it's best to earn them in a place that has more than one "input." A second business card earning you points is a great example of this.

With my rewards card, I don't just earn points from everyday spending. I also get three bonus points per dollar spent at Choice hotels. I travel a lot for business -- sometimes for months at a time -- so these really add up with weekly (reimbursable) bills that often exceed $500. Additionally, these same hotel points can be earned by anyone that signs up, regardless of their method of payment. So Joe Schmo can sign up for an account online, make a reservation, and earn about 10 points per dollar spent, even if he pays cash. This is similar to frequent flyer miles -- anyone can sign up and earn them when they fly, but frequent flyer cardholders earn extra.

So how quickly do my points add up? Let's say that I spend $500 on a room for a weeklong business trip. I'll earn a) the 10 points per dollar that I automatically get for being part of the program, b) the two points per dollar that I earn for everyday purchases on my card, and c) the three bonus points per dollar that I get for spending money at a Choice hotel with my card. That comes out to be 15 points per dollar. Multiply that by the $500 that I spent, and I just earned 7,500 points -- more than enough for a free $150 night.

Choice also runs seasonal promotions that you see advertised on TV pretty often (does the Johnny Cash song ring a bell?). They just finished doing their "triple points" promotion, that will triple the normal 10 points per dollar. Also, because I have spent more than 40 nights at Choice hotels this year, I personally earn four extra points per dollar. So If I spent that same $500 during a promotional period with my preferred status, I would have earned 39 points per dollar, earning me 19,500 points, enough for more than three free nights at a $150/night hotel (assuming 10% tax, that's worth $495). That comes out to be virtually "buy one night, get one free!"

So my rewards card gives me 5% worth of free hotel rooms for everyday purchases. And because those points are going into an account that has multiple inputs, I can use them much faster. Other examples of these types of multiple-input accounts are Airline rewards, which deposit miles into your already existing frequent flyer account, or grocery rewards at specific chains that deposit points into an account that was opened with your little keychain grocery card.

So I'm generally a fan of getting a rewards card that gives non-cash rewards as long as two criteria are met: 1) the value of the non-cash rewards is significantly more than the amount of cash you could get back on a cashback card and 2) the non-cash rewards will be spent on something that you would have otherwise paid for in the future, like hotel rooms, plane tickets, groceries, etc (NOT random crap in an all-points Sharper-Image-like catalog).

As far as my friend's banking choice goes, I have to say that it's a wise one. The 3% interest is high and it has no minimum balance. Today my E*Trade pays me 2.8% on my checking and 3.3% on my savings, with a $5,000 minimum balance on the checking account. Technically, the Schwab account is better than my E*Trade account because it doesn't require a minimum balance. However, I like the fast transfers to my brokerage and IRA accounts that I hold with E*Trade. Though there would technically be value in switching my account, it would be too small to justify the effort of switching.

If you're choosing a rewards card of your own, look for the best offers and try and figure out where you spend most of your money. Use Mint.com to determine this, as they'll tell you how many times you've visited a particular business and how much you've spent there. That'll be a good place to start when determining which rewards card is best for you.

Thanks for your comments, Steve.

Prosper.com: Convincing My Wife, Part 2

...she ain't convinced yet.

In my continued efforts to convince my wife that Prosper.com is a good investment, I'll analyze another aspect of the website today. Today I'll study what makes the successful lenders successful, what makes the average lenders average, and what makes the biggest losers, well, the biggest losers. I'll be moving my analysis platform to a fabulous website that focuses solely on Prosper.com lender and loan data, EricsCC.com.

To get things moving along quickly, consider the following graph that shows all lenders' rates of return on a seemingly normal distribution curve (please click any graphic to enlarge it):
As you can see, the majority of lenders are making money, and a significant majority are also earning a higher rate of return than they would earn in a traditional savings account. However, of all the non-average lenders, there are more that are doing exceptionally poor than doing exceptionally well. This indicates that if you do not follow a reasonable, disciplined investment strategy, you are more likely to lose at a high rate vs gain at a high rate. I guess the same could be said about the stock market. Essentially, it's easier to make mistakes than it is to get lucky.

Do you ever watch that show called The Biggest Loser on NBC? Well meet the biggest loser on Prosper.com: scoobydoo. Here is a graphical representation of his investments:
As Antonio from the Merchant of Venice would say, His "ventures are in one bottom trusted." This guy has invested a lot of money into Prosper.com and has given several large loans to people with C-grade credit. If one or two of those loans defaults, his ship will have sunk.

Let's look at another big loser's profile. How about jasonpeery:
Here's another guy that has a poor, lazy investment strategy. He has invested over $50,000 in Prosper.com listings and has scores of late payments and defaults. This guy has made several individual loans over $1,000, including one that is in default for $11,000! Why in the hell would you EVER loan $11,000 to a person with high-risk credit? And without even asking them a question! I sure hope that jasonpeery is better at personal finance than he is at determining to whom he should lend his money. As Neil Boortz would say, I bet that this guy has a lot of rent-to-own furniture in his house. My guess is that this guy's grandmother died recently and left him a bunch of money. No one that worked for $11,000 and saved it would ever be that careless in giving it to a single high-risk stranger.

One thing to remember about Prosper.com's fee structure is that all individual loan fees are passed along to the borrower except for a 1% loan servicing fee which is paid by the lender. This means that, statistically speaking, there is no reason to invest more than $50 in ANY candidate. Period. If I lend $500 to one person or $50 to ten people, I will pay the same loan servicing fee. And though I may save a little time by investing more money in lower-risk candidates, it's just plain silly to not diversify to the max with sub-prime borrowers.

OK, so let's look at someone with an average return. Consider the portfolio of helpishere777:
Ahh, this is refreshing. This user is right in the middle. He is earning about 11% interest, which takes into account the probability of his late payments going into default. He has invested the same $50,000 that our last big loser had invested, but in a completely different way. Look at the nice even relationship between all of the blue and green lines. Do you know why they're all equal? Because he invested the same $50 into every single loan. He understands that in order to mitigate his risk, he needs to diversify -- especially if he can do it at no additional cost!

Now let's look at the best lender. I'm not going to evaluate the person earning the highest return on his money. Currently that person is DrakeCO, who is earning about 33.6% interest. However, the average length of his loans is less than one month and most of his loans have been large amounts (max of $1,500) to high risk borrowers. Because of the youth of his loans and the nature of his strategy, he is bound to fail. Instead, I'm going to look at someone earning about 20% return with a reasonably large average loan period (if it's not old, the borrowers don't have time to be late!) and a significant amount of money. It looks to me like the golden child of Prosper.com is brother_tam. Here is his portfolio:

brother_tam is obviously smart and probably a little lucky. He has invested a little more than $10,000 in Prosper.com, mostly in $50 increments. Of his 224 loans, he has given more than $50 only 13 times, probably just to spice up his account. As a lender that understands the need to diversify. He is aware that he can invest in lower-credit borrowers because of his discipline. But he doesn't invest in only low-credit borrowers. He has a nice normal distribution of his loans that has a mean slightly on the low-credit side.

To be a successful lender on Prosper.com, you need to stick with a disciplined strategy that is formulated around the values of diversification and a normally distributed loan strategy. When choosing which loans to bid on, consider your current portfolio and establish a quota. "Right now, 75% of my loans are to high-risk borrowers. I should invest in some low-risk borrowers."

Remember: there is no penalty for investing the minimum amount in a person. And with more than 2,300 active listings, you shouldn't run out of people to lend to.

If she's still not convinced, I'll have to write more tomorrow.

Topography on Microsoft Live Maps

I am sometimes torn between using Google Maps and Microsoft Live Maps. Each has at least one unique feature that keeps me coming back. For example, Google Maps' ability to change my route by dragging it to additional waypoints is useful and intelligent. But Microsoft Live Maps has much better Bird's Eye View shots and satellite-photo coverage of rural areas, particularly Cooperstown, NY where I grew up. But Live Maps just got my attention on a whole new level with their 3D topology function.

When using their web-based 3D Virtual Earth tool, I can 'travel' to anywhere in the world and change my view to get a 3D representation of the view from anywhere. My first trip was to my cousin Kyle's house in Cooperstown, at the bottom of the hill that we used to climb when we were kids -- and there it was. With a few more mouse clicks and with a little help from their search bar, I was getting the view of the Himalayas from the top of Mount Everest, seeing the same terrain as what Sir Edmund Hillary saw after scaling the mountain for the first time.

I decided to put the rendered topography to the test and see how accurate it really was. I compared a photo that I took in Glacier National Park to a screen shot of the 3D representation that is displayed on Virtual Earth. See for yourself!

This is a photo I took at the
Many Glacier Hotel in
Glacier National Park, Montana

This is Microsoft Virtual Earth's
3D representation of the same location

3D rendering has been around for a long time, but not with the convenience, speed, and apparent accuracy of Microsoft Virtual Earth. I envision this to improve over time, eventually to a point when we can play a game like Chuck Yeager's Air Combat (remember that one?) and have a photo-quality 3D picture of what our world looks like with terrain and buildings included.