Connect with us

Finance

Your money habits trace back to childhood, financial psychotherapist says. Here's how to fix them

Published

on

Your money habits trace back to childhood, financial psychotherapist says. Here's how to fix them

Child saving money in a glass jar at home

Pinstock | E+ | Getty Images

Your relationship with money might seem random, but one expert says it offers clues about your childhood — and understanding this could help overcome toxic spending habits.

Vicky Reynal, a financial psychotherapist and author of “Money on Your Mind,” told CNBC Make It that there are psychological reasons behind our spending habits, and many of these attitudes stem from childhood experiences.

Advertisement

“Our emotional experiences growing up will shape who we become,” she said.

For example, someone who felt secure during childhood might feel that they deserve good things, and later in life may be more likely to negotiate a higher salary or enjoy the money they have, Reynal said. Whereas someone who experienced childhood neglect may grow up with low self-esteem and act this out through money behaviors.

This could include feeling guilty when spending money because they don’t feel they deserve good things, or splashing the cash to impress because they feel unworthy of attention.

“The little toddler that goes up to their parents to show them their scribble — how they get responded to will give them a message about how the world will respond to them,” Reynal added.

Scarcity or wealth

Reynal said “the money lessons we learn growing up” are largely shaped by whether we grew up in an environment of scarcity or wealth.

Advertisement

“To give you an example, growing up in scarcity, people that manage to move themselves out of that economic reality, and maybe in their own adult life manage to accumulate quite a bit of wealth, it’s quite common for them to struggle with what they call the scarcity mindset,” Reynal said.

This is a pattern of thinking that fixates on the idea that you don’t have enough of something, like money. A scarcity mindset means someone might struggle to enjoy the money they’ve earned and be anxious about spending it, Reynal added.

Alternatively, there are people who grew up with little but became wealthy, and are now very careless with money.

“They’re giving themselves everything that they longed for when they were little so they might go on the other extreme and start spending it quite carelessly, because now they want to give their children everything that their parents couldn’t give them,” Reynal added.

Stop self-sabotaging

The key to overcoming toxic spending habits is to stop self-sabotaging — a common behavior — according to Reynal.

Advertisement

“Often behind a pattern of financial self-sabotage, there are deep-seated emotional reasons, and it could range from feelings of anger, feelings of un-deservedness, to maybe a fear of independence and autonomy,” she said.

To identify these, you first have to determine what your financial habits and inconsistencies are, Reynal said, giving an example of someone who might overspend in the evenings.

“Is it boredom? Is it loneliness? What is the feeling that you might be trying to address with the overspending?” she said.

“That’s already giving you a clue as to what you could be doing different. So, if it’s boredom, what can you replace this terrible financial habit with?”

Reynal said she had a young client who would always run out of money within the first two weeks of the month. She asked them: “What would happen if you were financially responsible?”

Advertisement

The client revealed that they feared risking their relationship with their mother because every time they ran out of money, they called their mother to ask for more.

“Their parents had divorced a long time ago, and the only time they ever spoke to their mother was to ask for money,” Reynal said. “They had a vested interest in being bad with money, because if they were to become good with money, then they had the problem of: ‘I might not have an excuse to call mother anymore and I don’t know how to build that relationship again’.”

The financial psychotherapist recommended being “curious and nonjudgmental” when considering the root of bad spending behavior.

“So sometimes asking ourselves: “What feelings would I be left with if I actually didn’t self-sabotage financially, or if I weren’t so generous with my friends?’ That can start to reveal the reason why you might be doing it,” she added.

Advertisement

Finance

Arsenal Braced for Shock Sale to Combat Looming Financial Issues—Report

Published

on

Arsenal Braced for Shock Sale to Combat Looming Financial Issues—Report

Arsenal will be forced into selling at least one first-team player at the end of the season as last summer’s $359 million spend catches up with them, a report has revealed.

Advertisement

Arsenal parted ways with vast sums for an array of transfer targets before the campaign commenced, with Eberechi Eze ($90.2 million) and Viktor Gyökeres ($85.1 million) among the expensive additions.

An enormous outlay has facilitated an incredible campaign to date for Mikel Arteta’s side, who are currently perched first in the Premier League and can still secure an unprecedented quadruple of trophies.

Advertisement

However, according to The Telegraph, Arsenal will need to raise funds through player sales this summer to ensure they comply with the Premier League and UEFA’s financial regulations.

Advertisement

Internal discussions are already taking place over which first-teamer(s) could yield the greatest transfer fee and profit to help Arsenal balance the books. A host of names are potentially on the chopping block.


Few Safe From Arsenal Departure

Advertisement

Even the sale of Arsenal’s captain has not been ruled out. | Getty Images/Glyn Kirk/AFP

Certain individuals will undoubtedly be off limits when sales are sanctioned at the end of the season—Bukayo Saka, Declan Rice and William Saliba to name a few—but Arsenal might have to be ruthless with their outgoings.

Advertisement

According to the report, even skipper Martin Ødegaard is not immune to being pushed out the exit door, the Norwegian’s low value on Arsenal’s balance sheet paving the way for a mammoth profit if he’s sold. However, he’s still considered a hugely important figure at the club.

Advertisement

Gabriel Martinelli is another who is under consideration given his colossal transfer value, while Gabriel Jesus, Leandro Trossard, Kai Havertz and Ben White are other potential candidates for the boot as their contracts tick down.

Arsenal’s current preference is likely to be offloading one of their two precocious academy graduates: Ethan Nwaneri and Myles Lewis-Skelly. Neither are eager to leave the Emirates Stadium but their sales would count as pure profit given they have come through the club’s youth setup. Past sales of Emile Smith Rowe and Eddie Nketiah show Arsenal are not averse to selling homegrown talents.

The Gunners are expected to be protagonists in the transfer market again this summer as Arteta looks to build a dynasty, while the arrival of Piero Hincapié on a permanent deal worth $60 million adds to their desire to cash in on some of their stars.


Who Should Arsenal Offload This Summer?

Advertisement

Leandro Trossard could be looking for a new club this summer. | Alex Pantling/Getty Images

Advertisement

Contracts will come under the microscope when Arsenal consider sales. There are currently four players whose deals expire in the summer of 2027—Martinelli, Trossard, Jesus and Christian Nørgaard.

Martinelli and Nørgaard both have clauses allowing Arsenal to trigger a one-year extension and while the latter holds little transfer value, Martinelli would certainly command a hefty fee if he were to depart. The Brazilian has struggled to take the step to superstar status but is still just 24 years old.

Arsenal could therefore turn to Trossard or Jesus. The former will be 32 years old and the latter 30 by the time their deals run out, meaning extensions are unlikely. Cashing in this summer might be the wise move, although neither are likely to be a truly blockbuster sale.

Havertz’s injury issues and the fact his deal expires in 2028 make him a possibility, while White is certainly a luxury option in a well-stocked Arsenal backline.

Advertisement

Fortunately following years of cultivation, Arsenal will be able to cover for sales this summer given their immense squad depth.


Advertisement

READ THE LATEST ARSENAL NEWS, ANALYSIS AND INSIGHT FROM SI FC

Continue Reading

Finance

Oregon Legislature passes controversial campaign finance changes

Published

on

Oregon Legislature passes controversial campaign finance changes
play

Legislators passed a bill March 5 to modify forthcoming changes to Oregon’s campaign finance system despite outcry from good government groups who say the bill creates new loopholes.

Those groups were key in creating House Bill 4024, which was created and passed in 2024 in place of warring ballot measures seeking to overhaul the system.

That legislation included new limits on contributions, including capping individual spending on statewide candidates each cycle at $3,300, and other changes. Parts of the bill were set to go into effect in 2027 and 2028.

Advertisement

Under the new proposal, House Bill 4018, the limits would still begin in 2027, but disclosure requirements and penalties would be pushed to 2031. It also gives the Secretary of State money to update the campaign finance system, but far less than the office previously thought it might need.

Representatives voted 39-19 to pass the bill. A few hours later, the Senate passed it 20-9.

Fourteen of the “no” votes in the House were Democrats, including Reps. Tom Andersen, D-Salem, and Lesly Muñoz, D-Woodburn.

Muñoz told the Statesman Journal she voted against the bill after hearing from people upset with the bill’s process.

Advertisement

Six Democratic senators cast a “no” vote on HB 4018.

Oregon campaign finance reform advocates say they were left out of negotiations

After working together in 2024, advocates said Speaker of the House Julie Fahey, D-Eugene, “ghosted” them.

Good government groups said the bill does far more than address necessary technical fixes to HB 4024.

HB 4018 is “a complete betrayal of the deal that was made two years ago,” Norman Turrill of Oregon’s League of Women Voters said.

Advertisement

Should the bill be signed by Gov. Tina Kotek, the groups said they will push their own changes through a 2028 ballot initiative.

Those advocates have outlined at least 11 different changes they believe the bill creates. The bill’s contents were first shared through a Feb. 9 amendment that was posted after 5 p.m., hours before it received a public hearing in an 8 a.m. work session on Feb. 10 and later, Feb. 12.

Secretary of State Tobias Read told legislators in January his office was requesting $25 million as a placeholder to fund a new campaign finance system for the state. Read was not secretary of state when House Bill 2024 was passed and his office is now working to implement the bill’s changes on a fast approaching deadline.

An additional amendment to the bill instead gives the Secretary of State’s Office $1.5 million for staff, some of whom would be tasked with updating the state’s current system.

House members agreed March 4 to send the bill back to committee, presumably to be amended. A 5 p.m. committee meeting was canceled about an hour after initially being announced.

Advertisement

A work session on HB 4018 was moved to the next morning. After an hour of delay, legislators convened and finished the meeting, moving the bill back to the floor without any changes, in less than three minutes.

A new campaign finance bill, Senate Bill 1502, was introduced and scheduled for a public hearing and work session March 4.

The bill is “very simple,” Senate Minority Leader Bruce Starr, R-Dundee, said. It tells the Secretary of State’s Office to draft a bill for the 2027 session with necessary campaign finance improvements from HB 4024 and HB 4018.

Three senators voted against the bill March 5. It now moves to the House. Legislators have a March 8 deadline to end the session.

“SB 1502 would not correct the severe damage to campaign finance reform that will occur, if HB 4018 B is enacted in this session,” Dan Meek of Honest Elections Oregon wrote in submitted testimony.

Advertisement

Lawmakers appear unsatisfied, but supportive, toward Oregon campaign finance bill

House Majority Leader Ben Bowman, D-Tigard, said HB 4018 made positive changes but acknowledged it was “a challenging vote for many of us.”

“We are implementing this whole new system that is new for all of us, and there are a lot of opinions and there are a lot of details to figure out,” House Minority Leader Lucetta Elmer, R-McMinnville, said. Elmer and Bowman carried the bill in the House. “With that being said, we’re moving forward in good faith, knowing that we’ll also be coming back next year to make sure that those details and all those kinks are worked out.”

Rep. Mark Gamba, D-Milwaukie, said he was concerned about the bill and the “non-inclusive process” that led to it.

Gamba pointed to a letter from the Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center that states in part that the bill “would substantially revise critical campaign finance reforms enacted two years ago in Oregon” and weaken the state’s campaign finance law.

The current bill is not the only possibility for moving forward, Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, told lawmakers. Proposed amendments that would have extended implementation timelines without the additional changes were ignored, he said.

Advertisement

“House Bill 4024 and this bill, 4018, have two things in common. One, they were thrown together in a few days behind closed doors, mostly by organizations who dominate campaign funding in the current system,” Golden said. “And two, very few legislators understand what is actually in these bills.”

He urged lawmakers to abandon the system created in House Bill 4024 as an “uncomfortably expensive learning experience” and develop a new plan based on successful programs in other states.

Sen. Sara Gelser Blouin, D-Corvallis, also spoke against the bill on the Senate floor.

“The concern that I had and that my constituents had was technical changes are one thing, but it should not be increasing the amount of money that candidates can take in or hold or carry over,” Gelser Blouin said. “Unfortunately, as it’s drafted, this bill does all of those things.”

HB 4024 is too complicated and “unimplementable” without the fixes in HB 4018, Starr said.

Advertisement

Sen. Lew Frederick, D-Portland, agreed, saying HB 4018 and SB 1502 give reassurance about a system he has concerns about.

“If there were no cameras and the lights were off, I think most people would agree this is not the bill we want,” Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, said.

Some lawmakers expressed similar feelings of discontentment with the bill in Ways and Means and one of its subcommittees on March 3, but said they felt it was important to make some progress on the issue. Discussions could happen again in 2027, they said.

Rep. Nancy Nathanson, D-Eugene, who ultimately voted in favor of the bill, said March 3 supporting it “is a very painful choice to make.”

Statesman Journal reporter Dianne Lugo contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Anastasia Mason covers state government for the Statesman Journal. Reach her at acmason@statesmanjournal.com or 971-208-5615.

Continue Reading

Finance

Paramount ally RedBird says using Middle East money to help buy Warner Bros. could be a good idea

Published

on

Paramount ally RedBird says using Middle East money to help buy Warner Bros. could be a good idea

  • Last year, Paramount said it would use $24 billion in funding from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar to help buy WBD.
  • Now that Paramount has won that deal, it won’t say whether that’s still the plan.
  • A key Paramount backer suggests that Gulf money would be a good thing for this deal.

We still don’t know if Paramount intends to use billions of dollars from Gulf states like Saudi Arabia to help it buy Warner Bros. Discovery.

But if Paramount does end up doing that, it wouldn’t be a bad thing, says a key Paramount backer.

That update comes via Gerry Cardinale, who heads up RedBird Capital Partners, the private equity company that helped finance Larry and David Ellison’s acquisition of Paramount last year and is doing the same with their WBD deal now.

In a podcast with Puck’s Matt Belloni published Wednesday night, Cardinale wouldn’t comment directly on Paramount’s previously disclosed plans to use $24 billion from sovereign wealth funds controlled by Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar to help buy WBD.

Instead, he reiterated Paramount’s current messaging on the deal’s financing: The $47 billion in equity Paramount will use to buy WBD will be “backstopped” by the Ellison family and RedBird — meaning they are ultimately on the hook to pay up. The rest of the $81 billion deal will be financed with debt.

Advertisement

Cardinale also acknowledged what Paramount has disclosed in its current disclosure documents: It intends to sell portions of that $47 billion commitment to other investors: “We haven’t syndicated anything at this time,” he said. “We do expect to syndicate with strategic, domestic, and foreign investors. But at the end of the day, that alchemy shouldn’t matter because it’ll be done in the right way.”

And when asked about concerns about Middle Eastern countries owning part of a media conglomerate that includes assets like CNN, Cardinale suggested that could be a plus.

“I think we want to be a global company,” he said. “You look at what’s going on right now geopolitically. What’s going on right now geopolitically out of the Middle East wouldn’t be, the positives of that would not be happening without some of those sovereigns that you’re referring to.”

He continued:

“The world is changing. We can stick our head in the sand and pretend it’s not, or we can embrace globalization and the derivative benefits both geopolitically and otherwise that come from that. Content generation coming out of Hollywood is one of America’s greatest exports.
I firmly embrace the global nature and orientation that we bring to this from a capital standpoint, from a footprint standpoint, etc. At the end of the day, I do understand some of the concerns that you’ve raised, but that will work itself out between signing and closing because at the end of the day, worst-case scenario, Ellison and RedBird are 100% of this thing.”

All of which suggests to me that Paramount still intends to use money from Gulf-based sovereign wealth funds to buy WBD.

What I don’t understand is why the company won’t say that out loud. Does that mean it’s still negotiating with potential investors? Or that it’s reticent to disclose outside investors, for whatever reason, until it has to? A Paramount rep declined to comment.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending