Finance
Money issues? The financial psychotherapist will see you now
I am surprised that Vicky Reynal, a financial psychotherapist, is soft and reaffirming when I meet her. Perhaps I shouldn’t be – she is a therapist, after all. But something about her line of work, helping people untangle their issues with money, had primed me to expect someone more brisk, more clinical.
I think of how many business executives she meets with, how prohibitively expensive her time must be, and how strong her boundaries probably are. I even panic at the thought of logging into our Zoom meeting one minute late, because time, after all, is money.
Reynal, I’m sure, would find this compelling. She believes that we often have thoughts and feelings about money that actually have nothing to do with cold, hard cash, and everything to do with our earliest emotional experiences, deepest yearnings or misgivings.
It can be frustrating, then, that Reynal won’t talk much about herself. I’m genuinely curious – especially when I ask about her fascination with Warren Buffett, whom she has read extensively about and once met in person. She admits she was drawn to him growing up, but offers only vague hints as to why: references to formative financial experiences and the symbolic weight he held within her family, though she declines to elaborate.
As a psychotherapist, she tries to obscure her own life from her clients, to prevent it obstructing their process. Anonymity, it turns out, is a very good therapeutic tool.
“People try to guess where I’m from, and their guesses tell me so much about their internal world. Some people who have very strict and ungiving parents guess that maybe I’m eastern European, because of how cold they perceive me to be. Others guess I am Mediterranean or South American – from a warm country – because of how loving and giving [they think] I am.”
When Reynal was younger and went through therapy herself, she had a transformative experience working through some of the feelings about money. This, she thought, must be an area ripe for psychotherapeutic practice. But after nearly a decade studying psychology and psychotherapy, she was surprised to find that only a handful of research papers and textbooks directly focus on it.
“I thought, ‘Wait a minute, we are talking about our relationship with food, with sex, with people, why aren’t we talking about people’s relationship with money?’ It comes in the therapy room anyway, because it’s part of leading a life and people get into all sorts of messes because of it – and as therapists we have the lens to understand that.”
When Reynal began to explicitly market herself as a financial psychotherapist, she was suddenly overwhelmed by patients queueing up to talk to her. Her inbox was full of emails from would-be clients, telling her how relieved they were to find her. “They were saying: ‘I didn’t know a money psychotherapist existed, and I need your help,’” she says.
She sees some clients on a concession fee or a reduced rate, as they may be unemployed or struggling with debt. But others don’t need it. These are patients who know what they need to do when it comes to money on a rational level, but they just can’t bring themselves to do it: the client who obsessively buys shoes, or the one that can’t bring himself to buy basic things like a coat in the winter, because he feels a deep and bewildering desire to deny himself nice things – despite having more than ample means to buy them. Others have more than enough cash, but can’t find contentment. They come to her thinking: “Maybe you won’t judge me, for being wealthy and yet unhappy.”
Finances are central to how we relate to the world. The way we deal with our income affects our families, shapes our conversations with partners, and can cast long shadows over our relationship to our parents.
But as with so much in therapy, when people think they are coming to talk about money, it is actually not about the money at all. And beneath all that, it often reflects the lessons we absorbed growing up.
“It’s just a language that we use, because I think it’s easier to say: ‘You are being stingy,’ than to say: ‘I wish you were more affectionate with me,’ or ‘I don’t feel you love me enough,’ or ‘I love you more than you love me,’” says Reynal.
She also meets clients who are struggling to make ends meet, who have the sense that they are being childish and impulsive with money – they feel belittled by the way that they spend. When Reynal raises this, I can’t help but wonder whether her clients attach those negative descriptions to themselves because in the US and the UK, poverty is often described as being about bad choices rather than broader economic conditions.
Most of us can point to relationships in our lives – certainly with ourselves – where the way in which we spend serves as a proxy for something deeper. The colleague who is a constant under-tipper, who feels hard done by despite always contributing least to the bill; the sibling who works like a dog but can never, ever ask for a raise; the friend who constantly feels on the edge of financial ruin, despite having more than enough.
So what are the subconscious motivators beneath these interactions? Reynal will often see clients who come in to talk to her about one thing: for example, a recurring frustration that they are always too generous and give far beyond their means, even to the point that it leaves them feeling resentful and angry; which in turn leads to a conversation about people pleasing and where the urge to put others’ needs first came from in their life.
Those behaviours, it turns out – just like infidelity or drug use, or any of the more obvious topics that we associate with therapy – may originate from a time in our lives when we felt unsatisfied. An incredibly generous person might have struggled to fit in during their teenage years, while another’s hunger for wealth might be due to an unmet need to be loved by their caregiver as a baby or feeling constantly rejected or dismissed as a child.
“They are non-obvious links on the surface … but they help us get to the real longing underneath, the real unmet desire.”
Her practice has helped her understand broader shifts, too. She remains shocked at how social media use has led to an unprecedented level of lifestyle inflation. People are no longer comparing their lives with their neighbours, but to totally unattainable lifestyles displayed by people paid to look rich.
“There’s this manic level of social comparison,” she says. “People begin to believe that everyone has more money than they do. A lot of clients of mine are men who come under an enormous amount of pressure because they have taken on mortgages bigger than they could afford or cars that they couldn’t afford. They have to accept that they have failed against their own standards, or the shame of not being able to provide what their family wanted or was hoping for.”
In some ways, it’s no surprise that many of her clients feel a sense of relief after finding her. These kinds of struggles aren’t often met with much sympathy – especially in an economy where so many are simply trying to make ends meet.
“There’s this idea that is quite common that money will fix everything. And of course, if you are struggling to pay your bills, money would make that better. But to make the leap that if people have money they must be happy, or they have no right to be unhappy – that’s a big leap,” she says.
She lists many of the ways that people struggle with wealth. Some clients have more than their families did, and self-sabotage as a result, perhaps believing they don’t deserve it. They don’t invoice clients properly for work, or feel guilty when there’s a lot of money in their account. Others spend money extravagantly, almost to rid themselves of it. And in the therapy room she often learns about how the stories clients have heard growing up affect them: if their families thought of wealth as immoral or greedy, for example, what does that say about them if they become wealthy?
But Reynal also stresses the many stabilizing and positive relationships people have with money – like feeling empowered after years of struggle, or wanting to be financially independent because it is freeing.
“It’s not about stripping emotions out of financial decisions,” she says. “It’s about becoming aware of them.”
In that sense, she invites readers to be inquisitive about their own attitudes towards money, how they spend it, and where their own beliefs about financial security come from.
“We can’t all afford therapy. But opening up that curiosity can be enough: why am I buying this thing? Or why am I feeling guilty about spending money on that thing, if I have enough for it? What’s the longing behind that?” she says.
Some may think there are just a number of different ways to split the bill. But for those who look deeper, they may just find out something new about themselves.
Banks have had a stellar first quarter. The major U.S. banks raked in nearly $50 billion in profits in the first three months of the year, The Guardian reported.
That was largely due to Wall Street bank traders, who profited from a volatile stock exchange, Reuters showed.
But even without the extra bump from stock trading, banks are doing well when it comes to interest, the same Reuters article found. And some banks could stand to benefit even more from this one potential rule change.
Morgan Stanley thinks it could have a major impact on Citi in particular.
Upcoming changes for banks
To understand why Morgan Stanley thinks things are going to change at Citi, you need to understand some recent bank rule changes.
Banks make money by lending out money, which usually comes from depositors. But people need access to their money and the right to withdraw whenever they want.
So, banks keep a percentage of all money deposited to make sure they can cover what the average person needs.
But what happens if there is a major demand for withdrawals, as we saw during the financial crisis of 2008?
That’s where capital requirements come in. After the financial crisis, major banks like Citi were required by law to hold a higher percentage of money in order to avoid major bank failures.
For years, banks had to put aside billions of dollars. Money that couldn’t be lent out or even returned to shareholders.
Now, that’s all about to change.
Capital change requirements for major banks
Banks that are considered globally systemically important banking organizations (G-SIBs) have a higher capital buffer than community banks as they usually engage in banking activity that is far more complicated than your average market loan.
The list depends on the size of the bank and its underlying activity, according to the Federal Reserve.
Current global systemically important banks
A proposal from U.S. federal banking regulators could drastically reduce the amount that these large banks have to hold in reserve.
Changes would result in the largest U.S. banks holding an average 4.8% less. While that might seem like a small percentage number, for banks of this size, it equates to billions of dollars, according to a Federal Reserve memo.
The proposed changes were a long time coming, Robert Sarama, a financial services leader at PwC, told TheStreet.
“It’s a bit of a recognition that perhaps the pendulum swung a little too far in the higher capital requirement following the financial crisis, making it harder for banks to participate in some markets,” he said.
Natasha Luscri and Luke Miller consider themselves among the lucky ones. The couple recently bought their first home in the northwest suburbs of Melbourne.
It wasn’t something they necessarily expected to be able to do, but some good fortune with an investment in silver bullion and making use of government schemes meant “the stars aligned” to get into the market. Luke used the federal government’s super saver scheme to help build a deposit, and the couple then jumped on the 5 per cent deposit scheme, which they say made all the difference.
“We only started looking because of the government deposit scheme. Basically, we didn’t really think it was possible that we could buy something,” Natasha told Yahoo Finance.
RELATED
Last month they settled on their two bedroom unit, which the pair were able to purchase in an off-market sale – something that is becoming increasingly common in the market at the moment.
Rather perfectly, they got it for about $20-30,000 below market rate, Natasha estimated, which meant they were under the $600,000 limit to avoid paying stamp duty under Victoria’s suite of support measures for first home buyers.
“They wanted to sell it quickly. They had no other offers. So we got it for less than what it would have gone for if it had been on market,” Natasha said.
“We didn’t have a lot of cash sitting in an account … I think we just got lucky and made some smart investment decisions which helped.”
It’s a far cry from when the couple couldn’t find a home due to the rental crisis when they were previously living in Adelaide and had to turn to sub-standard options.
“We’ve managed to go from living in a caravan because we were living in Adelaide and we couldn’t find a rental with our dogs … So we’ve gone from living in a caravan, being kind of tertiary homeless essentially because we couldn’t get a rental, to now having been able to purchase our first home,” Natasha explained.
Rate rises beginning to bite for new homeowners
Natasha, 34, and Luke, 45, are among more than 300,000 Australians who have used the 5 per cent deposit scheme to get into the housing market with a much smaller than usual deposit, according to data from Housing Australia at the end of March. However that’s dating back to 2020 when the program first launched, before it was rebranded and significantly expanded in October last year to scrap income or placement caps, along with allowing for higher property price caps.
A year after the US exit from the global health body, WHO officials say finances are secure, for now. But amid donor cuts, rising inflation, and future economic uncertainties, will funding be sufficient to meet its needs?
Earlier this month, senior officials at the World Health Organization (WHO) told journalists in a newly refurbished pressroom at the agency’s headquarters that its finances were “stable”. Following a year that saw its biggest donor withdraw as a member, forcing it to cut 25 per cent of its staff, its financial chief said that 85 per cent of its 2026 and 2027 budget had been financed.
“While we are looking at resource mobilisation, we’re also looking at tightening our belts,” Raul Thomas, assistant director general for business operations and compliance, explained, admitting that the WHO “will have great difficulty mobilising the last 15 per cent”.
Sitting at the centre of the press podium, surrounded by his deputies, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO director general, backed up Thomas’s outlook. “We are stable now and moving forward”, since the retreat of the United States from the health body, he said. The Ethiopian noted that the WHO’s financial reform, allowing for incremental increases in state member fees, has been a big plus.
Mandatory contributions have historically accounted for only a quarter of the organisation’s total funding. States have agreed to raise their contributions by 20 per cent twice, in 2023 and in 2025. Further increments are scheduled to be negotiated in 2027, 2029 and 2031 to bring mandatory funding up to par with voluntary donations that the agency relies on. The WHO also reduced its biennial budget for 2026 and 2027 from $5.3 billion to $4.2bn.
“Our financing actually is better,” Tedros emphasised. “Without the reform, it would have been a problem.”
Read more: Nations agree to raise their WHO fees in wake of US retreat
Nonetheless, the director general, now in his final year at the UN agency, warned that member states should not assume that the financial road ahead will be clear. “The future of WHO will also be defined by how successful we are in terms of the assessed contribution increases or the financial reform in general.”
As west retreats, others step in
Suerie Moon, co-director of the Global Health Centre at the Geneva Graduate Institute, explains that every year at the WHO, there’s “a non-stop effort” to ensure funding. She says a continued reliance on non-flexible, voluntary funding earmarked for specific projects, as well as donors withholding contributions – sometimes for political leverage – complicates the organisation’s financial plans. Meanwhile, ongoing cuts and predictions of a global economic downturn stemming from the war in the Middle East may further aggravate the situation, as costs rise and member states focus on national spending needs.
Soaring prices driven by the conflict and supply chain disruptions have already affected the WHO’s procurement of emergency health kits for crises, officials at the global health body said. “We are continuing to negotiate at least from a procurement standpoint on how we can bring down a little bit the prices or reduce the increases, but we are seeing it across the board,” said Thomas.
Altaf Musani, WHO director of health emergencies, meanwhile, said aid cuts have already deprived roughly 53 million people in crisis situations of access to healthcare.
Last month, Thomas told the Association of Accredited Correspondents at the UN at the end of April that the agency is looking at non-traditional, or non-western, donors for funding to close the biennial 15 per cent funding gap. “It’s not that we won’t go to the traditional donors, but we’re expanding that donor base.”
Since the dramatic drop in funding from the US, formerly the WHO’s biggest contributor, Moon highlights that there hadn’t been a “sudden jump by non-traditional states to compensate for the US”. Last May, at the World Health Assembly, China pledged $500 million in voluntary funding until 2030, a sharp rise from the $2.5m it contributed over 2024 and 2025.
The WHO did not respond to questions from Geneva Solutions about how much of the pledged amount had been disbursed. China’s mission in Geneva did not respond to questions raised about the funding.
Other countries, particularly Gulf states, have meanwhile been increasing their voluntary contributions to the organisation in recent years. Similarly to “western liberal democracies have in the past”, Moon explains that they may be seeking “to raise their profile and prioritise health as one of the issues that they would like to be known for”. She noted that the shift in the UN agency’s list of top donors may affect how it manages the money.
‘Sustainable’ spending
Amid these financial uncertainties, WHO executives say the organisation is also reviewing its expenditure through “sustainability plans”. This includes working more closely with collaborating centres, including universities and research institutes that support WHO programmes and are independently funded. On influenza, for example, the WHO works with dozens of national centres around the world, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US,
When asked about any plans for further job cuts, Thomas denied that these were part of the WHO’s current strategies, but could not rule them out entirely as a future possibility. Instead, he said, the organisation was “looking at ways to use funding that may have been for activities to cover salaries in the most important areas”.
Meanwhile, WHO data shows that the number of consultants employed by the agency by the end of 2025 decreased by 23 per cent, slightly less than the staff reductions. Global heath reporter Elaine Fletcher explained to Geneva Solutions that consultants continue to represent a significant proportion of the agency’s workforce, at 5,844 – including an overwhelming number hired in Africa and Southeast Asia – compared with regular staff numbering 8,569 in December.
Upcoming donor politics
The upcoming change in leadership will also be a strategic moment for the organisation to boost its coffers. Moon says the race for the top job at the organisation may attract funding from candidates’ home countries, which could be seen as a strategic opportunity.
Given the relatively small size of the WHO budget, compared to some government or agency accounts, “you don’t have to be the richest country in the world to dangle a few 100 million dollars, which could go a long way in their budget,” the expert notes.
The biggest ongoing challenge, however, will be whether major donors will announce further aid cuts. In the medium and longer term, “countries will have to agree on the step up every two years, and there’s always drama around that.”
-
World2 minutes agoBolivia issues warrant for Evo Morales’s arrest after court no-show
-
News32 minutes agoWhy cruise ship passengers with possible hantavirus exposure went to Nebraska
-
New York2 hours agoAirbnb Turns to Black Leaders in Its Bid to Make a Comeback in New York
-
Detroit, MI3 hours agoMetro Detroit braces for Frost Advisory, Freeze Warning overnight before rain arrives
-
San Francisco, CA3 hours ago50 Beagles Rescued From Wisconsin Lab Arrive in Bay Area, SF Activist Faces Felony Charges
-
Dallas, TX3 hours ago
Former Cowboys QB Craig Morton passes away at age 83
-
Miami, FL3 hours agoBrickell Avenue Bridge openings spark rush hour gridlock concerns in downtown Miami
-
Boston, MA3 hours agoWhat we know about accused Memorial Drive gunman Tyler Brown
