http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/ en Copyright 2009 Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:57:12 -0800 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Question: I own a home which I'm in the process of refinancing under the Keeping Homes Affordable program. As part of the refinancing, the mortgage lender wants to subordinate my home equity line of credit (which is through a different lender - my bank) to the mortgage. In order to do this, my bank wants to lower my line of credit from $28,000 to $10,000 and they want to freeze it for the time being. I'm very uncomfortable with this as it has been serving as my "safety net" to pay for unexpected expenses in the past year, which I know isn't ideal, but things have been challenging economically because I've had to take a 20% pay cut at my job for the past 9 months. In the long run, refinancing will save me thousands of dollars, but it will also extend my mortgage 5 years and could put me in a difficult situation if anything happens in the short term. What should I do? Laura, Minneapolis, MN Answer: I understand your trepidation. Pay cuts are tough to absorb, especially when it's unclear when you'll get back to par. My bet is that it won't happen anytime soon. Companies are in no hurry to act with an unemployment rate of 10.2% and the broadest measure of underemployment at a record 17.5%. That said, from what you've told us the refinancing is putting you on the path toward a stronger financial position. I would take the lower line of credit limit. I would focus on reducing your spending--yes, budget--to shore up your savings instead. Of course, it's always easy for me or anyone else to say "budget." It's always hard to make cuts in spending. Nevertheless, It will pay off for you to go over your spending carefully, see where you can nip and tuck, and add to your savings. The sums may not seem like much at first. But save a bit here and a bit there and all of a sudden your talking real money. By the way, there should be no prepayment penalty with your mortgage. So, when your income and finances take a turn for the better you can always start paying off your mortgage more aggressively. What do other members of the Getting Personal community think? Send Laura your thoughts and suggestions. ]]> http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/11/refinace_or_not.html http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/11/refinace_or_not.html Debt Housing Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:57:12 -0800 Question: Over the past year I have saved about $3,500, stashing it in online savings accounts that are yielding lower and lower interest rates. My question is, what should I do with this money? I'm wary of putting it into tumultuous stock market, but CDs and other "safe" options are yielding abysmal returns. Is there a low-risk investment that would allow me to see a better return than 1.5 percent? Thanks! Casey, Portland, Maine Answer: The interest rates on safe savings are paltry. It's hard to get much more than a fractional rate of interest on savings accounts, certificates of deposit, savings bonds and short-term Treasury securities. Little wonder many of the questions I get involve the desire for higher yields without abandoning the security of the federal government's full faith and credit. Fact is, you're not doing bad getting 1.5%! It's an axiom of modern finance that you can only create the prospect for higher returns by taking greater risk. You've worked hard to save $3,500--congratulations. You say you're wary of putting it into the stock market since your $3,500 could plummet in value to $2,500 or worse if the stock market lurches lower. (Of course, it could grow in value if the rally continues.) You can pick up a higher yield by buying into corporate bonds, but there is still greater risk than in an online savings account or CD. In most cases, my advice for now is if you don't want to embrace volatility stick with safety--and low yields. Eventually interest rates will rise when the economy is healthier and you'll be able to participate in those greater yields. Another thought: Inflation erodes the purchasing power of savings. I'm skeptical that the outcome of the Federal Reserve's unprecedented efforts to prevent a financial collapse will end in a bout of hyperinflation as some Wall Street money mavens fear. Yet even if I am right, low rates of inflation still eat away at the value of a dollar. That's why many investors are adding to their portfolios securities that safeguard against inflation. You could put some of the money into I-bonds. It's a hedge against a rise in inflation and there's no credit risk. ]]> http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/11/question_over_the_past_year.html http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/11/question_over_the_past_year.html Banking Investing Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:00:29 -0800 Question: I am still employed and am almost 67 years young. Is better to wait till I am 70 1/2 to collect Social Security benefits or take them now? Barbara, Palos Hills, IL Answer: Yes, you are young. By the way, question is whether you take it now or by age 70. The age 70 ½ date comes from when you have to start taking money out of a traditional IRA or 401(k). But there is no benefit to waiting past age 70 to start drawing on Social Security. That's when you reach the maximum payout. I can't give you a definitive answer. A lot of factors play a role in dealing with your question, from earnings to taxes. But I can do one better. I can send you to the website with the best online Social Security calculator. It's analyzenow.com. It offers several simple but comprehensive Social Scurity calculators. The website was created by Henry "Bud" Hebeler. He's quite a character. In 1956, he left Boston with a graduate degree in engineering from MIT for a job at Boeing in Seattle. Some three decades after he made that trip in a Volkswagen Beetle, he retired as president of the company's giant aerospace unit. It wasn't long before Hebeler started a new career dispensing conservative financial advice on his web site. And he has thought carefully about the trade-offs between taking Social Security at different retirement ages, ranging from early (age 62) to late (age 70). ]]> http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/11/take_social_security_now_or_la.html http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/11/take_social_security_now_or_la.html Retirement Social Security Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:03:30 -0800 Question: My husband's paranoid web sites are now predicting the collapse of the dollar by the end of the year. They say that other countries are no longer buying dollars and that the Fed is printing money like crazy to make up for the lack of foreign investment. What do you think? If the dollar did collapse, what would that mean for the average citizen? Cheryl, Boulder, CO Answer: The dollar has been weak in the international currency markets. At the moment, a weaker dollar has improved the competitive position of American exporters against their foreign rivals. I'm skeptical that we're seeing a "run on the dollar," however. For instance, the dollar rallied during the global financial crisis. The greenback is still the world's safe haven during times of trouble. So, some of the retreat in the dollar's value reflects a calmer mood among global traders. I'm also in the camp that believes the Federal Reserve will be able to successfully mop up money in the aftermath of its extraordinary campaign to prevent another depression. It won't be easy or smooth, but I'm convinced the Fed is well aware of the problem ans has the intellectual and monetary tools to cope. Still, the risk that the dollar will spiral sharply lower is there. We all know that the risk of catastrophe can't be simply dismissed simply because it's unlikely, not following the once "unthinkable" government takeovers of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, GM and Chrysler. So, you asked what a dollar collapse might mean for the average citizen. Basically, it would be a disaster. My guess is that the financial markets would crater as financings denominated in dollars plunged in value. The price of oil and other critical commodities could skyrocket. Inflation would certainly take off. Americans would find it harder to borrow with the rest of the world wary of lending to us. After all, who wants to get paid back with depreciating dollars? Interest rates would sky rocket. The Federal Reserve would feel forced to tighten monetary policy to stem to panic. Trade wars could erupt. And so on. Peter Coy of Business Week has a good article directly looking into your question, What Happens if the Dollar Crashes. You can read it here. ]]> http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/11/a_dollar_collapse.html http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/11/a_dollar_collapse.html Currency Wall Street Woes Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:22:47 -0800 Question: I've just opened a Roth IRA to start saving for retirement. However, as a graduate student, the amount I'm starting with and able to contribute monthly is well below the minimum investments for various mutual funds. I've been looking at ETF's, which seem to have the same diversification with lower expense ratios. Is there a reason to prefer one over the other that I'm not seeing? Thanks much. Drew, Atlanta, GA Answer: The exchange traded fund (ETF) is a genuine innovation. ETFs are investment vehicles that track indexes but an ETF is traded like a stock. The most popular ETFs are based on broad stock indexes such as the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000. There are also a number of broad-based socially responsible ETFs. It's also another way for the small investor to take a plunge in windmill energy, solar and other energy alternatives. Problem is, there has been an explosion of ETFs that slice and dice the market into smaller and smaller and smaller pieces. Intrigued by patents? There's an ETF for you. Think the Austrian economy is poised to rebound? Yes, there's an Austrian ETF. That's why I'm cautious with ETFs in general. It's a product increasingly designed for speculation, not investing. That said, an ETF is fine if you want to buy a broad-based index all at once. You pay the brokerage fee, and then hold on to the investment. An ETF works for a buy-and-hold strategy. But a no-load equity index mutual fund is better if you're adding to the investment in small increments over time, say, $100 a month or a similar investment disciple. ]]> http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/11/etfs.html http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/11/etfs.html IRAs Investing Retirement savings Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:54:09 -0800 Question: Is there a way I can buy "I" series treasury bonds with pre-tax money? I would like to hedge a little bit against inflation with these bonds, but don't like buying them with after tax dollars. Does this make sense? I am open to suggestions. Jeff, Sparta, TN Answer: Let me clarify the choices. In an IRA or comparable retirement savings plan you can't buy Treasury Inflation Protected Securities directly from the U.S. government. However, you can purchase them through a broker with pretax dollars in an IRA, 401(k), and the like. (And commission costs are low.) You can also buy mutual funds that invest in TIPS with pretax money. The I-bond is a savings bond that also offers investors an inflation hedge. It is purchased with after-tax dollars. But the money compounds tax free until you cash them. You don't want to buy I-bonds with pretax dollars since it's already a tax-sheltered form of savings. Both TIPS and I-bonds are good long-term investments for savers. ]]> http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/inflation_indexed_bonds.html http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/inflation_indexed_bonds.html Investing Retirement savings Taxes Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:13:16 -0800 Question: My husband is a mid level executive and he receives stock options yearly as part of his compensation. Since the stock prices have been continually declining at his company, we now have five year's worth of options we are unable to exercise. Aside from the stock price increasing, is there any way we will be able to recoup this money? Mary, Milwaukee, WI Answer: Your husband's situation isn't uncommon among publicly-traded companies. Many executives now hold stock options that are worthless because the "exercise" price is greater than the market value of the underlying stock. In other words, you'd lose money if you exercised the options. The Wall Street metaphor for this experience is that the options are "underwater". Descriptive, isn't it? There's nothing your husband or you can do. It's really up to management and the board. They can decide to leave the current option awards program unchanged. In that case, everyone will have to wait and see if the stock price improves before the option grant expires. The employee optionholders remain in the same financial boat as shareholders. However, some companies have decided to take a different tact. They are rewarding employees by substituting their old underwater options for newer ones with a lower exercise price, retiring the options and issuing restricted stock, or by exchanging cash for the options. ]]> http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/stock_options.html http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/stock_options.html Investing Jobs Stocks Work Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:42:50 -0800 Question: Hi, I recently left active duty military service and am trying to decide what to do with my Thrift Savings Plan. I've got about $40k saved in it right now. When I look at the options for withdrawing, it seems like I'll be paying either 10 or 20 percent penalty fee. I was thinking about starting a ROTH IRA. Should I take the penalty and roll it over into a ROTH IRA? Or am I better off just letting the money sit in the TSP until I retire? Thanks, Spencer, Humble, TX Answer: You have a number of good options to think through. And you shouldn't pay a penalty or taxes with them. The one exception on taxes is the Roth option. I'll explain in a moment. First of all, the Thrift Savings Plan is a really good, low-fee plan. It's hard to beat. You might want to simply leave your retirement savings in the plan. If you still want to move your savings out of the Thrift Savings Plan you can roll it over into another tax sheltered plan. For instance, if your current employer's savings plan allows it you could transfer the money into your new 401(k). Alternatively, you could roll it over into an IRA. In both cases you don't take the money out. You'll make an institution to institution transfer of the money, preserving its tax-sheltered status. No penalties will be imposed, either. You could put the money into a Roth-IRA. Since the Thrift Savings Plan was funded with pre-tax dollars and a Roth is funded with after-tax dollars you'll owe taxes on the money your transfer into the Roth. However, when you pull the money out during retirement the gain is free of Uncle Sam's levy. By the way, in most cases it does not make sense to Roth if you have to use your retirement savings money to pay the tax levy. It reduces the amount that can grow, free of tax, in the Roth. I'm not sure which branch of the military you served in. But the Navy offers a clear brief explanation of your choices. ]]> http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/military_thrift_plan.html http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/military_thrift_plan.html IRAs Military Retirement savings Savings Taxes Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:05:39 -0800 Question: In 1999 I opened a credit card with my nanny to help her establish credit. I have never used the card so all of the charges on it are hers. Last year in July I was informed by the bank that she was late on a payment. I canceled the card. Since then she had been paying regularly until this past May. She is over 90 days late and it is now in collection. I had her fill out a form to assume financial responsibility for the card. The bank will not allow that because she has been late. Technically it is my responsibility. The total due on the card is around $10,000. What can I do so this doesn't ruin my credit? Vivian, San Mateo, CA Answer: I know you don't need me to say this at the moment, but for other listeners and readers your experience is why it doesn't pay to co-sign or open a joint account with non-family members--no matter how trustworthy. Life intervenes, and many of us fall behind on our payments for a number of reasons. (Even with family members I urge caution; there are other ways to help them out financially without taking on a legal obligation.) Fact is, the bank and collection agency has every incentive to enforce your legal responsibility for the payments. You can't get off the financial hook. Still, the good news is that you've closed the account. The potential damage is limited to the $10,000 remaining on it. Now that it's in collection the simplest way to minimize any damage to your credit is to pay it off and then work out a payment plan with your nanny. Of course, this course of action depends on your relationship with your nanny. Does anyone else have a suggestion? ]]> http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/responsible_for_debt.html http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/responsible_for_debt.html Credit cards Credit report, credit score Debt Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:34:38 -0800 Question: Hi Chris, I have listening to Market place Money for the past several years and love to hear your views on the economy and your Q&A. Last year I bought some Municipal Bonds (MICHIGAN ST BLDG AUTH REV BDS CUSIP 594614W54) when the financial world was coming to an end (:((). I just did this as an experiment. (The post tax yield equivalent on these bonds were attractive at that time) If I were to sell these bonds after a year of holding them - what are the tax implications? Thank you and look forward to hearing your views in these historic times. Guru, Farmington Hills, MI Answer: With the scenario you've laid out you would come under the capital gain and capital loss rules. You say you've owned the bonds for more than a year. Let's assume for illustration purposes that you paid $10,000 and you can sell the bonds for $10,400. You would have a capital gain of $400 with a maximum rate of 15%. (A long-term capital gain requires that the security be held for more than 12 months; the maximum rate on short-term capital gains is 35%.) However, if you sold the bonds and could only get $9,800 for them you would have a capital loss of $200 that can be used to offset, first, a long-term capital gain and, second, if there is any loss left over any short-term capital gains. Of course, there are a few other wrinkles, such as adjusting for selling costs and whether the bonds were sold at a discount. But that's the basic idea. Thanks for listening. ]]> http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/investment_taxes.html http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/investment_taxes.html Investing Taxes Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:32 -0800 Question: My wife and I are considering buying a home in San Francisco, but also know that we will be moving to LA sometime in the 3+ years. Homes in SF are extremely expensive, and we would be able to put down a 15%~20% down payment, but I don't want to lose this money if the market gets worse. We are both currently employed luckily and are expecting which is what is prompting this decision. What tools are out there to help us make a smart decision on whether this is a financially smart idea? Also if we do buy a home, when we move what are the consequences of renting out the home? Thanks in advance and love the show. David, San Francisco, CA Answer: I would be very wary of buying with your time frame of 3-plus years. Whenever I run the numbers it's clear the longer you intend to stay in a home the better the financial advantages of ownership. It's safe to say that if you plan on staying in a place for three years or less renting is always preferable. I don't think ownership makes sense unless you're confident that your time horizon is at least 5 years, and preferably longer. It does appear that the housing market is stabilizing. That doesn't mean it won't stagnate for a long period of time in many markets. It's what I expect. In coming years, the ebb and flow of home values will largely be dependent on local job and income growth. In the words of a Business Week story on the housing market, it will be "back to blissful boredom." It will be a welcome respite. Still, it's always a good idea to run the numbers. Online calculators will do the math for you. There are a number of good ones, but I tend to gravitate toward the websites dinkytown.net and hsh.com. By playing with different assumptions these calculators will help you figure how long it might take before you break even on the investment or, to put it somewhat differently, how much risk you're taking with the down payment money. When you rent out a home you are no longer a homeowner but a small business person. It's a business. Nolo.com is a good source on what it takes to be a landlord. ]]> http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/buy_a_home_2.html http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/buy_a_home_2.html Housing Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:09:52 -0800 Question: My wife has a combined income that is over the limit for a traditional IRA tax deduction or for contributing to Roth directly. We both also have employer sponsored retirement plans. Since there is no income limit for conversion from a traditional IRA to a Roth in 2010, I want to establish a traditional IRA now so that I can convert it to Roth next year. My question is, because I will be contributing to my traditional IRA after tax (or without any tax deduction), how I will be taxed when I convert my traditional IRA to a Roth coming 2010? Thanks. Andrew, Norman, OK Answer: What you're planning on doing can be a smart move. Let me just give a bit of the background behind your question. The Roth-IRA is a terrific retirement savings vehicle, probably the best available. The main reason is that all accumulated investment gains are free from Uncle Sam's clutches when withdrawn during retirement. The other attraction of the Roth is that it offers unusual flexibility for managing finances. For instance, there is no required minimum distribution at age 70 ½ with a Roth as there is with a 401(k) or a traditional IRA. In the past, you could convert money stashed in a traditional IRA into a Roth, but you could only do it if your adjusted gross income was under $100,000. That earnings cap on conversion disappears next year. That's why the Roth conversion equivalent of a gold rush is about to be unleashed in 2010. Conversion calculators have sprung up all over the web. (The contribution limits to a Roth and the income phase-outs all remain essentially the same in 2010 and on. What have changed are the rules with conversion.) There are a lot of twists and turns to the Roth conversion question in 2010 and after. But it's an issue well worth researching. Now, to your question. Many financial planners I've talked to are advising folks that earn too much to contribute to a Roth and a traditional IRA to open up what is called a non-deductible IRA. This is what you're planning to do. The non-deductible IRA is funded with after-tax dollars. The gain is tax-sheltered over the years and the earnings are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate on withdrawal during retirement. But you're not going to wait that long. You'll convert the non-deductible IRA into a Roth in 2010. The only tax you will owe on conversion is on whatever gain you've earned in the meantime--in other words, not much. You won't owe anything on the contribution since you've already paid the tax tab on that money. And, of course, with this maneuver you won't pay any taxes on the investment earnings when you withdraw the money in your retirement years. As I said, it can be a savvy move. ]]> http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/roth_conversion.html http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/roth_conversion.html IRAs Investing Retirement savings Taxes Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:32:02 -0800 Question: I was recently laid off and told that because my 401k balance was below 5k I would need to move the money. I do not want to cash out and would like to avoid paying any taxes on the funds. I currently have 3 other 401k accounts with previous employers. What are some of my options for these investments? Natalie, West Chester, OH Answer: You'll want to do what's called a "rollover IRA." There are no tax consequences or penalties so long as the money is transferred from your former employer directly into the rollover IRA account. Check with human resources before you do anything to make sure you understand any requirement the company may have about a rollover. The same goes with the company you've chosen to place your rollover IRA. And if you put the money into a comparable investment you shouldn't take much of a hit on the transfer, either. Now, as to your other 401(k) accounts at 3 previous employers, why are you keeping the money there? If it's because you really like the plan options offered by these employers, fine. But my bias is for you to take control of the money through a rollover IRA. "It's great anytime you can take control of your money and take it out of your company plan," says Ed Slott, head of his eponymous company and a leading IRA expert. You're no longer working for these companies. It's your money and if it's under your control you'll watch it carefully. Plus, you get to chose the investment company and investment options, not your former employer. ]]> http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/rollover_ira.html http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/rollover_ira.html 401k IRAs Investing Retirement savings Taxes Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:29:12 -0800 Question: My fiancée has about $40K in student federal loans outstanding and because of that, has yet to contribute to her company's 401k program. I think her company matches dollar for dollar up to $2000 and .50 cents up to $4000. What's the best "financial equation" to use to figure out how much to contribute to the 401k and how much to set up for monthly deductions for her student loan payments? DJ, San Francisco, CA Answer: The simplest answer is that she should invest enough to take full advantage of the employer match. Warren Buffet, David Swensen, and any other investing superstar of recent decades can't come close to the kind of investment performance recorded by the match. Plus, most of the growth in a 401(k) plan doesn't come from investment earnings but from the match. (And that's why it's doubly devastating when employers reduce or eliminate the match.) There are additional issues she could consider. For example, she could look at the interest rate she's paying on her student loans. She can put in more money than the match if she thinks she'll do better than that interest rate over time. She should also increase her contributions as her income grows. Still, for now, the simplest equation is to "invest to the match." ]]> http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/question_my_fiancee_has_about.html http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/question_my_fiancee_has_about.html Investing Retirement savings Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:58:03 -0800 Question: I am inquiring as to if the State of Missouri has enacted legislation to enable consumers to "freeze" their credit report access from landlords and employers. The state of Missouri, where I reside, currently has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation (near 10%) and an employer that I interviewed with who otherwise would have hired me based their decision NOT to hire me on my credit report, which is a disaster. Last Sunday's Parade magazine mentioned that the Federal government is considering legislation that would block employer access to credit reports. Please advise and thank you. Sincerely, Colleen, St Louis, MO Answer: The official unemployment rate is close to 10%. The broadest measure of unemployment, which includes folks that want to be working full-time but are employed part-time, is at 17%. Its numbers like these that have the federal government and a number of states worried with almost half of employers making use of credit checks to screen potential employees. That said, not much has been done on the legislative front. Washington instituted limits on employers tapping into credit histories for job candidates in 2007. Hawaii became the second state with such a law this year. A number of other state legislatures have considered comparable proposals, among them is Missouri with a 9.5% unemployment rate. The bill is here. The bill hasn't passed into law. All these bills recognize that a credit check is essential in some industries and jobs, such as financial services and bank tellers. There isn't and shouldn't be any dispute about that. But it sure seems like an abuse of power in the current economic environment. Look, when the economy is weak employers have the upper hand. They can impose all kinds of job qualification requirements for potential openings. Sometimes, it seems as if applicants need a PhD to be a janitor and an MBA for a clerical position. Yet when the economy is booming and the unemployment rate is low these onerous requirements disappear. That's what happened in the late '90s. The journalist Dana Dratch has a nice backgrounder on the issue. Your credit score isn't supplied to employers (at least your FICO score, which is the main one).And the fact that a potential employer may run a crdeit check is yet one more reason to monitor and correct any errors in your reports. ]]> http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/credit_check.html http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/gettingpersonal/2009/10/credit_check.html Credit report, credit score Jobs Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:57:11 -0800