Nancy Anderson, MBJ contributing columnist

Saturday morning. Not a cloud in the sky. It had been a cool start to the morning. We pull our chairs into the sunshine. A sigh of relief.

This was a scary and tragic week from terrorism to mushroom clouds to the insanity of an Elvis impersonator. And we thought we were completely safe in little Mississippi!

The world has changed. How do I sort out the good from the bad? How do I remain open to new people and cautious about them at the same time?

As a professor, you shouldn’t have favorites, but I do. Ulanbek came to Mississippi College a few years ago. He was from Kyrgyzstan. He was Muslim. And he was one of the dearest young men who ever walked through my door. When he first started in my class, his English was atrocious. He struggled, but he worked hard.

I attended a dinner at The Raindrop Turkish House. This is a local interfaith group started after 9/11 to create dialogue among people of various religions. Ulanbek was there. We had the opportunity to have a long conversation about his life, his experiences and his thoughts on America. He came from a poor village, but his entire family saved and supported him so he could attend school in the United States.

When I asked him, “Why America?”, he explained it this way. He said that there is no British dream or French dream or Canadian dream, but there is, still, the American Dream. And when he said, “American Dream,” his eyes lit up. And I saw through his eyes the desire of every immigrant who comes here — the desire for a chance at success, the desire for a free society, the desire for something better.

But he also expressed confusion and dismay about his American peers. After all, he was a devout Muslim with a strict moral code. And I saw our failings through his eyes.

Ulanbek finished his time with us. I was quite sad to see him go. He never appeared on an FBI wanted poster. He didn’t leave behind death and destruction. He didn’t even leave with ill feelings toward America or Americans. Instead, he left me a better person.

Saturday morning. Not a cloud in the sky. As we sit in the sun by our little pond, a new family of geese swims by. Our new neighbors. A totally different species, but what joy to behold!

And I’m left to ask, “How do I sort out the good from the bad?”

» Nancy Lottridge Anderson, Ph.D., CFA, is president of New Perspectives Inc. in Ridgeland — (601) 991-3158. She is also an assistant professor of finance at Mississippi College. Her e-mail address is nanderson@newper.com, and her website is www.newper.com.

Nancy Anderson, MBJ contributing columnist

In 1975, about 8 percent of the U.S. population was on food stamps. Currently, that number is 15 percent. Much of the growth in usage can be attributed to the recent recession. In fact, since 2008, the food stamp program has ballooned 70 percent. No surprise there. The bigger surprise is the “stickiness” of these numbers. While unemployment claims have declined, the number of people receiving food stamps remains high.

Mississippi has 23 percent of its citizens on the food stamp roll, almost a quarter of the population. That is the highest rate in the country. We always seem to end up at the top of the worst lists! Of course, we are a small state, so our 672,000 citizens receiving food stamps pales in comparison to Louisiana with 986,000, Alabama with 919,000, Tennessee with 1,326,541, and Florida with 3,562,000. Lest you think the problem is only a Southern one, note that Oregon has 815,000 people on food stamps.

I have been fortunate. I’ve never had to depend on food stamps, and I don’t begrudge folks a helping hand when times are tough, but I have to wonder about the root causes of this condition. In Mississippi, we have entire sections of the state with extremely high unemployment rates and high poverty rates. We have a hit or miss educational system that seems to be leaving behind an entire section of our population, and we have limited job opportunities that pay a decent wage to support a family.

At an average monthly rate of $133, food stamps don’t represent a pot of gold, but they are still a handout. I have never had to resort to this to feed my family, but I would if my back were against the wall. Regardless, it would be difficult for me to take them. I prefer to stand on my own. Thankfully, I have the skills and education to do so, but I am left to wonder about entire communities with high food stamp usage. After years of drought, is it now just accepted to take whatever is available?

Mississippi has a lot of work to do to provide citizens with the skills and opportunity to provide for themselves, but we also need to take a hard look at ourselves. Can we change attitudes about assistance without demonizing those most in need of help? Being the winner of the food stamp lottery is a losing proposition.

» Nancy Lottridge Anderson, Ph.D., CFA, is president of New Perspectives Inc. in Ridgeland — (601) 991-3158. She is also an assistant professor of finance at Mississippi College. Her e-mail address is nanderson@newper.com, and her website is www.newper.com.

Nancy Anderson, MBJ contributing columnist

I really want the State Tax Commission to stay in Clinton. Really I do.

As a Clintonian, I understand the value added by having this large group of people in town every day. They add measurably to the town’s economy, but it’s also a sign of status to have this government agency within our borders.

The building they are currently occupying is quite unappealing. I’ve never been inside, but just driving by leaves me depressed. Basically, it’s just a big metal building in the middle of an industrial section of town. Surely such dismal surroundings weigh on the attitudes of employees. Of course, maybe you want your tax employees to be surly.

Regardless, it’s time for them to find a permanent home. And there’s the rub. As a resident of Clinton, I want them to stay. The old WorldCom building is quite a step up. Choose us!

But as a Mississippian, I’m not sure this is the best choice. First and foremost, the decision should be a financial one. Which location would give taxpayers the most for their money? In a town full of avowed fiscal conservatives, I’m shocked that no one bothered to do the math on this one. Meanwhile, we have the facts and figures on the Landmark building in Jackson. It looks like an obvious choice.

But even if we put pencil to paper and find Clinton is an even match, I still have to wonder about the wisdom of such a choice. Surely, state agencies should be located within the borders of the state capitol. The only time we should consider doing otherwise goes back to my original point — money.

I really want the State Tax Commission to stay in Clinton, but I’m siding with Jackson on this one. It’s the Capitol City. It’s the best fiscal choice. It just makes sense.

Of course, after my neighbors read this, I may have to move!

» Nancy Lottridge Anderson, Ph.D., CFA, is president of New Perspectives Inc. in Ridgeland — (601) 991-3158. She is also an assistant professor of finance at Mississippi College. Her e-mail address is nanderson@newper.com, and her website is www.newper.com.

Nancy Anderson, MBJ contributing columnist

In the financial business, I act as a fiduciary. That means I am required to always put the interests of my clients first. In doing so, I put my own concerns and interests at the back of the line.

Politicians are public servants. I thought part of the job description was to be a type of fiduciary for the public trust. The question they should ask before each policy vote is, “What is best for my constituents?” Their own job security should be at the back of the line. Getting re-elected shouldn’t even cross their minds. Instead, public service has morphed into a take-no-prisoners climb to the top of the garbage heap of public office. Every decision is based on what will get that pol to the next level of the political game. And we all end up losing.

How can this happen in a democracy? Money from groups who don’t have Mississippians’ interests at heart is flowing into campaign chests of local candidates. They dictate positions and insist on allegiance to their objectives. Marketing strategists hold candidates hostage by telling them which votes will win in a 30-second ad and which will bury them.

Just go online and check out the campaign contributor list of your favorite politician. You’ll be shocked. Mississippi money just can’t compete, so voter influence is diminished. And I’m left wondering why anyone should be allowed to contribute to a campaign when they don’t even get to vote in the election.

The end result is a criminal loss of fiduciary duty. So the fight is on over bond issues and health care exchanges and gun control and hurricane relief, and no politician stops to ask, “What is best for my constituents?” They’re not even asking, “What is the right and honorable thing to do?” Their only concern is how to get through the next campaign. Their political ambitions trump public service.

So scream all you want. They can’t even hear you, because you don’t have enough money to get that treasured spot near their ear.

Mississippi deserves better.

>> Nancy Lottridge Anderson, Ph.D., CFA, is president of New Perspectives Inc. in Ridgeland — (601) 991-3158. She is also an assistant professor of finance at Mississippi College. Her e-mail address is nanderson@newper.com, and her website is www.newper.com.

Nancy Anderson, MBJ contributing columnist

So the State legislature finally decided to pony up additional money to fund PERS appropriately. Their portion will increase from 14.26 percent to 15.75 percent. Of course, had they been funding it all along as outlined by the actuaries, this big jump would not be necessary.

And how will the State of Mississippi come up with the added money in these very tight times? According to Lt. Governor Tate Reeves, “The decision that the budget committee made was to allow for state agencies to fund any increase in the PERS contribution within existing budget outlines.”

Reeves said, “They’ll have to come up with the money.” Seriously?

Coming up with the money means NOT filling vacancies and requiring more of existing state workers. It may mean limiting raises and other benefits just to comply with past promises.

Reeves said that the department heads will have “to manage their agencies more efficiently.” Again, seriously?!?

The auditor’s annual report on the legislature shows that maybe the Lt. Governor lives in a glass house. The session only runs about a quarter of the year, but the 2012 session cost taxpayers $20.6 million dollars. That’s a whopping 11.3 percent more than the previous year. Of that, $12.4 million was spent on salaries and benefits for the members, and that is 8.8 percent higher than the previous year. I guess austerity only applies to everyone else.

And where did the other money go? They spent $13,406 on bottled water. I suppose tap water isn’t good enough for the high and mighty lawmakers. And they spent $2,600 on a service just to tell them what other people are saying about them. Have they not heard about Facebook?

And get this … they are paid $1,500 a month NOT to work. That’s their paycheck when the legislature is NOT in session. OK, one more time … SERIOUSLY???

Reeves’ office responded with the contention that this argument is comparing the cost of a 120-day session versus a 90-day session.

However, as a taxpayer, I could care less whether the legislature does its business in 90 or 120 days. For me, the issue is the total cost of the body. They spent more money this year than last. What if we paid by the session instead of “by the hour?”

People who live in glass houses…

>> Nancy Lottridge Anderson, Ph.D., CFA, is president of New Perspectives Inc. in Ridgeland — (601) 991-3158. She is also an assistant professor of finance at Mississippi College. Her e-mail address is nanderson@newper.com, and her website is www.newper.com.

Behavioral economists have long recognized our tendency to avoid making decisions. The more difficult the decision, the more we avoid the question all together. Thaler and Sunstein wrote a book called “Nudge.” In it, they cite all kinds of instances of this tendency to avoid choosing.

Of course, the business world had this figured out a long time ago. Get someone to set up a bank draft for their gym membership, and they’ll keep paying long after the last time they darkened the door. Set up automatic subscriptions on magazines and newspapers, and humans will pay for unread material for years. Give customers a free trial by getting them to commit to deferred enrollment. The trial will pass, and no choice is made. Get your customers to set up automatic deposits and bill paying on a bank account, and they’ll never change banks.

In the case of retirement, not choosing can have serious consequences. Academic studies and observations have led to real policy changes in this area. The changes did not take away our choices. They simply framed the situation so that we made better “not choosing” choices. In 2006, the Pension Protection Act allowed for more automatic enrollment in 401(k)s. For those employees who kept meaning to sign up for their 401(k) but never got around to it, now they could “not choose” and accumulate funds for retirement. The new law even allowed for automatic increases in employee contributions with salary increases. You could “not choose” your entire career and still have a nice nest egg.

Contributing to a 401(k) is only half the equation, though. Employees must choose investment funds within the plan. Oy-Vey. More choices. The 2006 Act allowed employers to make lifecycle funds the default choice. Now, instead of all your contributions sitting in low paying money market funds, you could be invested in an array of funds based on your age and retirement date.

Remember, choosing to NOT contribute or choosing a fund other than the default is always an option. It’s just that most people never get around to making those active choices. They just let things rock along and avoid making the hard decisions.

Add up all the costs you incur by “not choosing:” the gym, the subscriptions, the bank fees, your retirement plan. Not choosing may be the easier path, but it will cost you!

Nancy Lottridge Anderson, Ph.D., CFA, is president of New Perspectives Inc. in Ridgeland — (601) 991-3158. She is also an assistant professor of finance at Mississippi College. Her e-mail address is nanderson@newper.com, and her website is www.newper.com.

NANCY ANDERSON

I love reading letters to the editor from all over the country. A recent local letter was titled “Entitlements making America collapse.” The author said “entitlements is a dirty word,” and reported that 50 percent of Americans are receiving some form of entitlement. He was convinced these were all a bunch of deadbeats.

In 1950, 1 in 50 Americans received Social Security benefits. Today, that number is 1 in 6. I don’t think the letter writer realizes that the majority of that 50 percent are retired people on Social Security and Medicare. As I look at the current budget situation, its history and trajectory, I realize that poor people are not the ones dragging us down. It’s the old people.

Now, I’m not knocking old people. I’m well on my way to that status, and I guarantee you I’ll be waiting there for my checks when it’s my turn. After all, I’ve worked all these years and paid into the system. Don’t I deserve those benefits? Am I not ENTITLED to them?

The Supreme Court ruled that Social Security is not a benefit. It’s a tax, which means no matter how much I’ve paid in, I’m not guaranteed to receive any of the benefits. IF the money is available, IF the system is sustainable, IF there is the political will, I’ll receive some benefits.

The last time we made changes to the system was in 1983. At that time, the full retirement age was bumped up from 65 and gradually extended to 67. Also, increases in the tax were applied. The result is that I will not get as much out of the system as my parents, even though I have paid more into the system.

I suppose I should be mad. I suppose I should be writing a letter to the editor about those deadbeat old people sucking us all dry. Instead, I think I’ll write a letter to my congressmen asking for more long, past due changes to the system. And when it’s my turn, I’ll be happy to be part of that entitled 50 percent.

Nancy Lottridge Anderson, Ph.D., CFA, is president of New Perspectives Inc. in Ridgeland — (601) 991-3158. She is also an assistant professor of finance at Mississippi College. Her e-mail address is nanderson@newper.com, and her website is www.newper.com.

Nancy Lottridge Anderson, Ph.D., CFA, is president of New Perspectives Inc. in Ridgeland — (601) 991-3158.  She is also an assistant professor of finance at Mississippi College. Her e-mail address is nanderson@newper.com, and her website is www.newper.com.

Why isn’t Greg Davis in jail?

>> POLL QUESTION: Should Southaven Mayor Greg Davis be arrested for using city money for personal trips, clothes and entertainment?

This current mayor of Southaven, former state representative serving on the appropriations committee, and former Republican nominee for Congress has blurred the line between public and private with his questionable expense reports. For seven months, the State Auditor’s Office conducted an investigation. What they found was shocking.

Southaven Mayor Greg Davis

Mr. Davis used city money for personal expenses and is now being asked to pay back $170,782. He took a trip to Scottsdale, Arizona in 2010 for stress and anger management and charged the city of Southaven a whopping $27,105. That’s quite a few rounds of golf and a lot of spa treatments. Southaven also picked up the tab for his trip to Key West, Florida. And it wasn’t just trips. Davis billed the city for clothes, meals, and other personal entertainment. He lived well on the taxpayers’ dime.
With the investigation complete and the damage tallied, Auditor Stacey Pickering sent a bill to Davis. His response? Oops, but I don’t have the money to pay. Still there are no criminal charges! Shouldn’t Pickering have sent the file over to Jim Hood’s office for further action? Don’t the good people of Southaven deserve to see this thief brought to justice?
I say we take it out of his hide. Tie him to a post on the exit ramp and let everybody take a whack at him. Or maybe every citizen of Southaven could just show up at his house and take what they want. High unemployment, businesses closing, local budgets crunched — and this Bozo goes to Arizona. Well, yeah, I was stressed in 2010, too. That didn’t give me license to steal hard-earned money from my neighbors for a vacation.
Davis didn’t just make a mistake. He didn’t just misunderstand the boundaries. This was criminal. Time to call the sheriff.

The new fees on debit cards have had me hot under the collar. The financial reform bill set limits on bank debit card fees. Many lawmakers decried this change. How dare we interfere with the fine citizens of Wall Street in their pursuit of profit? It was downright un-American, and they warned that banks would just add on other fees to make up for the loss. Consumers would end up getting hurt.

Well, they were right, and they did. Bank of America and Regions decided they didn’t have to take this news law lying down. They created their own loophole by instituting a monthly fee to make up for the difference. They sent notices to their customers, took out full page ads, and held press conferences declaring they had “a right to make a profit.”

Within days, new ads started appearing around town. “Come bank with us,” they said. “We don’t charge debit card fees.” Ally Bank put up a television commercial with a stranger kindly holding a briefcase full of money for no charge. Trustmark Bank put up a billboard on busy I-55 saying they still don’t charge debit card fees.

Just made me laugh!

Competition is a fact of life in business. Think you can raise your prices or change your quality without skipping a beat? Your competitors will eat you alive, stepping in to give your customers what they want. Just ask Netflix.

Business is about your customer. The minute you forget that and start thinking it’s about you and your bottom line is the minute you lose. Competition keeps every business owner on her toes. When all is said and done, it’s the reason consumers end up with the best deal.

And now we hear that Regions and Bank of America have blinked.

Gotta love competition!