Advertiser Disclosure

News

How to Make Your Child’s Expensive Activity Fit Your Family Budget

Editorial Note: The content of this article is based on the author’s opinions and recommendations alone. It has not been previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any of our network partners.

iStock

Every time the Olympics roll around, we hear stories about parents making significant financial sacrifices to raise elite athletes. But if you have kids, you don’t need to raise an Olympian to know that supporting a talented, passionate child can strain the family budget.

Roughly 40 percent of American families spend more than $1,000 a year on their children’s extracurricular activities, and 20 percent spend more than $2,500 annually, according to a January SunTrust survey of about 510 adults.

Some families spend a lot more.

MagnifyMoney spoke to three families with children who have exceptional interests or talents in sports, arts or cultural experiences to learn about the costs, decision-making processes and money-saving tips related to helping their children pursue their passions. While families have different priorities and values, they have one thing in common: They want the best for their children and have to make financial sacrifices to make it work.

Common obstacles

Deferring retirement savings

Peggy Chen and her daughter, Sophia, who is holding her trophies from piano competitions. (Courtesy of Peggy Chen)

Peggy Chen, 58, of East Brunswick, N.J., is a single mother who supported her daughter Sophia, now 32, and son Albert, 28, as they pursued their musical talents and passions growing up. The siblings eventually became professional musicians, one a pianist, and the other a violinist. But in order to focus on her children’s futures, Chen had to put hers on the back burner. She didn’t save for retirement while raising the kids.

The costs were high from the beginning. Growing up, Sophia played three pianos, including a Steinway grand piano the family bought for about $25,000 when Sophia was 9. She took an hourlong lesson with a top-notch piano instructor each week, who charged $70 an hour in the 1990s. If she was preparing for contests, the lesson would last 30 minutes longer. Chen herself accompanied Sophia to almost every single piano lesson and competition. The constant piano maintenance, tuning, travel and lodging for competitions also ate away a huge part of the family disposable income.

“There was no budget,” Chen said matter-of-factly. “We’d squeeze out however much money was needed to pay for her practices and performances.”

Chen’s then-husband took home about $25,000 a year as an accountant. Chen, a violin teacher, supplemented family income by giving lessons at home. Although barely scraping by, the couple wanted to give the best to their first child, developing her talent in any way they could.

When Sophia was in 8th grade, Chen and her husband divorced. Chen, a Taiwanese immigrant who had never worked in the U.S. and couldn’t even tell the difference between a checking and savings account at the time, had to work three jobs. Her top priority was making monthly mortgage payments to avoid being homeless.

Even at such a difficult time, Chen continued paying $70 for Sophia’s weekly piano lessons. Being extremely frugal allowed her to take care of the necessities and support her budding musicians.

“I’d be thrilled if I saw a penny on the ground, as if I won a lottery,” she said. “I didn’t dare to waste a nickel.”

Still, Chen said she had no financial planning. She only started saving for retirement a few years ago, when Sophia and Albert had both graduated from college.

Putting off paying down debt

The Rechkemmer family from Iowa has five children. It is not easy for the parents to financially support all the children’s extracurriculars. (Courtesy of Molly Rechkemmer)

Josh and Molly Rechkemmer live with their five children in a suburb outside of Iowa City, Iowa. He is an architect and she a part-time academic adviser and lecturer at the University of Iowa.

Their kids — Gracie,18; Sam, 16; Hannah, 13; Kate, 11; and Luke, 9 — are all involved in arts or athletic activities. Most days, each kid has two things going on after school.

The family is constantly in their minivan, traveling to different games, auditions, training sessions, competitions and rehearsals. The busy schedule has meant their finances are always tight.

Despite painstakingly budgeting and planning ahead for big payments, covering expenses for the kids’ extracurriculars have hampered the Rechkemmers’ ability to pay down debt quickly. The couple has credit card debt, a mortgage, car loans and student loan debt.

“Partly we try to do it wisely, and partly we just also know that we’re only going to have these kids in our house for what? Ten years,” Molly said. “And so we want to do things for them to help them develop.”

Prioritizing their children’s activities means spending thousands of dollars they could otherwise put toward their debt.

“I think almost a minimum per kid per year is easily $1,000 on the low end, and probably $3,000 to $4,000 on the high end,” Josh said.

Private sport teams with out-of-town competitions are particularly expensive. The parents have to pay for all of the uniforms, training and tournament fees and travel. Just for one season of one club sport, the cost for this big family easily adds up to at least $1,000.

Choosing what’s ‘fair’ when you have multiple kids

When there’s more than one child, it’s not always easy to decide who gets more resources from the family budget.

For the Rechkemmers, it could mean going with inexpensive recreational sports leagues instead of a club team, Molly said. But other times they would go for the more costly option, like the club teams, if they see a gift requiring a higher level of time and financial commitment.

“We’d love to say it’s always proactive, that we’ve intentionally made those decisions and thought it all through,” Molly said. “But a lot of the times it’s also reactive. An activity comes up and we have to make a decision whether or not they get to do it.”

Molly acknowledged that they haven’t always made the perfect decisions. There are things the family had heavily invested in, but the kids eventually lost interest. Retrospectively, they also realized that they might not have done enough for other kids.

Albert is playing the piano as his sister Sophia watches. (Courtesy of Peggy Chen)

Chen said she had never expected it would cost so much to develop Sophia’s piano talent. When it came to her second child, Albert, she downgraded the spending — she gave Albert violin lessons herself.

“I taught him myself, and he sat in the first chair,” Chen said. “I thought it was enough: no competitions, no anything else.”

Albert graduated from Northwestern University with a bachelor’s degree in political science and violin performance. He now studies at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music.

Making trade-offs

Emmeline dePillis and her family at the local Shichi Go San festival in 2008. Maria, then 7, is dressed in kimono on the right. (Courtesy of Emmeline dePillis)

Emmeline dePillis is a business professor at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, on the southernmost island of Hawaii where a large population of Japanese immigrants live.

Her older daughter, Maria, partly of Japanese descent, is passionate about Japanese language and culture. She is getting ready for her third extended trip to Japan.

For her last two trips, Maria went in a group where her school covered some expenses, but the family still had to pay more than $1,500 out of pocket each time. It cost less than if they had planned and paid for the trips themselves, dePillis said, but sending Maria on those trips meant putting off other purchases.

“Each time we were like, ‘Well, that’s a lot of money, but that’s a good deal,’” dePillis said. “And she loves it so much. It was like, ‘Well, maybe we can’t buy a new refrigerator this year, but it’s worth it because it’s such a good opportunity.’”

In the Rechkemmer family, a lot of other entertainment activities have to go: movies, concerts and short family vacations.

“Instead of planning a long weekend to take our family to Chicago and doing things like the planetarium, the aquarium and all those things, we might have a long weekend in Chicago where we spend most of the time at a baseball tournament,” Molly said.

How to make it work

Financial planners say plainly there are no perfect solutions to fund children’s expensive hobbies. But they stress that families need to take a holistic view of their finances, understand the level of risks and discuss with the entire family — yes, kids included — to make sure everyone understands the commitments and agrees on the sacrifices to be made.

To help families facing tough financial decisions around paying for kids’ activities, we gathered advice from parents and experts who have experienced these dilemmas firsthand:

1. Prioritize family values

dePillis said her family decided to fund their daughter’s Japan trips because her husband and her both value education highly.

“We see our daughter’s passion for Japanese culture as an educational thing,” dePillis said. “This is not just, ‘Oh, I’m going for fun.’ So if it’s ‘Let’s go to Disneyland’ versus ‘Let’s give Maria a chance to go to Japan for this educational experience,’ we would choose the educational experience for her.”

Prioritizing family values is the most important step to take in the decision-making process, experts say. There are no right or wrong decisions, but ultimately, the parents should thoroughly think why they are investing in the hobbies.

“The real way to be successful at this is to really identify what the family goals are, and then trying to balance out what their goals are for the future with what they think they can realistically provide for,” said John Rivers, a Clinton, N.J.-based financial planner at Newroads Financial Group.

2. Make a budget

In the Rechkemmer family, Josh, the father, tracks family spending almost religiously on spreadsheets, and he tries to budget for upcoming activities far ahead to make sure that they wouldn’t be hit by unexpected expenses.

The family budget for kids’ recreational and entertainment activities could go up to $10,000 a year. That translates to 10 percent of the family income.

Experts say there is no formula of how much should be spent on children’s hobbies that fits all families — again, it depends on family prioritization — but they do need to set a budget, look at the family finances holistically and trim expenses elsewhere.

3. Cut back on spending

When it comes to trimming expenses, pros say it’s more likely that the family’s lifestyle needs to change.

For example, when someone in the Rechkemmer family has a weekend sports tournament, they minimize the number of family members staying overnight in a hotel. For holidays and birthdays, Molly and Josh give practical presents for their kids, such as sports equipment, instead of the trendy electronic toys that their children long for.

Sam Rechkemmer plays baseball in May 2015. (Courtesy of Molly Rechkemmer)

For Chen, diligent saving on every single thing helped her get through the tough years. She barely had any expenses for herself.

“My life was pretty much bare-bones,” Chen recalled. “I’d always only buy food that passed expiration dates or was about to expire. You wouldn’t die eating it, anyway.”

Jude Boudreaux, founder of New Orleans-based Upperline Financial Planning, said the best strategy he’s seen is downsizing a family home. A client of his sold their big home and moved into a much smaller space — with no mortgage — to free up cash to pay for children’s activities.

Boudreaux said, typically, it’s easier to cut a family’s big-ticket expenses to make financial wiggle room. Parents need to make conscious decisions about whether or not to buy cars, or send their children to private schools if they also hope to develop their hobbies, he said.

But there is a bottom line: “Taxes must be paid. Utilities must be paid. Insurance must be paid,” said Lauren G. Lindsay, a financial adviser based in Covington, La.

After paying all the fixed bills and life necessities, families can look at the discretionary expenses and trim spending based on family priorities, Lindsay said.

4. Eliminate activities when needed

For the most part, the Rechkemmers try to stick to their budget, but there are moments when things get out of hand. The couple has periodically paused and reflected on the reasons they do all these activities.

“If it is to develop good friendships and stay active and be healthy and finding enjoyment in life, then that doesn’t need to come with the high burden of debt and so much stress,” Molly said. “If [the activities are] putting us into debt and causing so much stress, then it’s time to rethink if it’s all worth it and try to kind eliminate some things.”

5. Look for other resources or sources of income

Chen, the avid saver, said being thrifty wasn’t enough — she had to find other ways to earn more to support the family. Often she found herself participating in laboratory tests, earning $10 here and $20 there. Little things add up, she said.

At times, the mother and children all used their skills to support the family: Chen taught violin upstairs, Sophia taught piano downstairs and Albert went to students’ homes to tutor them in math.

You may be able to find outside help, too. For example, having Maria go on group educational trips allowed the dePillis family to save, as the school covered a large chunk of the expenses.

Lindsay encourages parents to explore financial aid opportunities before shelling out money for expensive extracurriculars, as some local camps and sports associations offer scholarships.

6. Talk to the children

Experts say the biggest “no no” when it comes to investing in children’s extracurricular activities is not consulting their opinions.

“Make sure it really is for them, not for us,” said Boudreaux, a parent himself. “Check our egos at the gate when we make the decisions.”

The kids need to be involved in the decision-making and understand the financial sacrifices the family is making, to make sure they will be as committed to the choice as parents are, Boudreaux said.

The dePillis family did that with Maria, and they worked out a plan together.

Maria is expected to enroll in the University of Hawaii at Hilo’s Japanese Studies program in the fall. She has made an agreement with her parents to stay in state for college. The in-state tuition is about $7,200 a year. Maria has also agreed to stay home during college so she could avoid taking out student loans.

“If she had gone to an out-of-state school, we would be paying $20,000 a year or more,” dePillis said. “I mean, imagine saving that kind of money. We feel like, ‘Oh, yeah, we will send you to Japan as much as you want.’”

7. Understand the consequences

The reason why these decisions are tough is that essentially, every spending choice is a trade-off, and it’s hard for parents to picture potential future risks, Boudreaux said.

Some trade-offs, such as deferring retirement or putting off paying debt can have severe consequences, experts say. In general, financial planners suggest parents put themselves and their futures first.

“Kids can get their own loans, and we can’t borrow for retirement down the road,” Rivers said.

However, in families where children are expected to support their parents in their old age, maybe it’s worth making those sacrifices now, experts say. In that case, parents should explicitly and appropriately communicate with their children about the expectations.

Chen said she has no regrets about putting off saving for her retirement.

“She was so good,” Chen said. “It would have been a pity if she had given up after a certain level.”

Sophia eventually studied piano performance and English at Oberlin College and Conservatory of Music. She became a journalist after graduation, but still keeps performing. “I am pleased that she has piano as a great lifelong companion,” Chen said.

Advertiser Disclosure: The products that appear on this site may be from companies from which MagnifyMoney receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site (including, for example, the order in which they appear). MagnifyMoney does not include all financial institutions or all products offered available in the marketplace.

Shen Lu
Shen Lu |

Shen Lu is a writer at MagnifyMoney. You can email Shen Lu at [email protected]

Advertiser Disclosure

News

Study: The Best U.S. Cities for Working from Home

Editorial Note: The content of this article is based on the author’s opinions and recommendations alone. It has not been previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any of our network partners.

Working from home has never been easier. Thanks to advances in technology, many professionals can plow through their to-do lists from the comfort of their couch. However, some cities are better for remote work than others.

Cities that are more appealing to telecommuters have higher earning power for the remote workers who live there and more remote work opportunities. Additionally, cities with longer commute times also make it more appealing for residents to choose to work from home.

To determine the best cities for working from home, MagnifyMoney combed through the Census Bureau’s 2018 1-Year American Community Survey. We examined the 100 largest U.S. cities by the number of workers, classifying them by metrics related to how many people work from home, their earning power and their cost of living.

Key findings

  • Gilbert, Ariz. is rated the best place to work from home, due to a sharp rise in the number of people working from home, which indicates more remote work opportunities, as well as the fact that remote workers there make $1.32 for every dollar earned by the average worker.
  • The second best place to work from home is Atlanta, thanks to factors like a rise in people working from home from 2017 to 2018 and good pay for remote workers. Additionally, local housing costs in Atlanta were equal to just 27% of earnings for the average person who works from home.
  • Aurora, Colo. comes in third, with residents who work remotely skipping out on the 30-minute average daily commute there.
  • The worst city to work from home was Toledo, Ohio, which had a low and stagnant number of people working from home, indicating few remote work opportunities. Those who do work from home in Toledo generally earned less in comparison to average earnings.
  • The second worst city to work from home was El Paso, Texas, followed by Greensboro, N.C.
  • On average, across the 100 cities analyzed, working from home tended to pay better than not working from home.
  • Overall, the number of people working from home is fairly flat, suggesting that the so-called “telecommuting revolution” has yet to come to fruition.
  • Long commutes did not necessarily translate to more people working from home. While New York and New Jersey had the longest average commutes, they did not see much of an increase in the number of people working from home.

Best cities for working from home

Topping our study’s ranking of the best cities to work from home is Gilbert, Ariz. Gilbert, a suburb located southeast of Phoenix, measures just over 72 square miles and has a population of more than 230,000.

Our study found that the average person working from home in Gilbert makes $1.32 for every dollar the average person makes, earning it a tie for the 20th spot regarding that metric. Gilbert also ranked high for two metrics measuring the city’s overall work-from-home climate. It ranked fourth for its share of remote workers, with 4.90% of residents working from home, and sixth for the percent change in the number of people working from home from 2017 to 2018, a 1.20% year-over-year increase. Additionally, the average commute time of a typical worker in Gilbert is 28 minutes, earning Gilbert the 27th spot for that metric as telecommuters are saving nearly half an hour each way.

All of these metrics contributed to Gilbert’s overall top ranking, making it a great option for telecommuters looking for a balanced lifestyle of good pay, a remote work-friendly culture and a decent chunk of time saved from commuting.

Atlanta snags the spot for the second best city to work from home, thanks to the high earning power of remote workers and a culture friendly to telecommuting. Atlanta has a high work-from-home rate, with 4.50% of people working from home, earning it a sixth-place ranking for that metric. Remote workers in Atlanta make $1.13 for every dollar the average worker pulls in, and housing costs accounted for just 27% of a remote worker’s earnings, landing it the 22nd spot for that metric.

Rounding out the top three for our study on the best cities to work from home is Aurora, Colo. Aurora’s rankings were boosted by the fact that remote workers in Aurora make $1.41 for every dollar that the average person makes — earning the city the 11th spot for that metric. The city also boasts 3.50% of people working from home, which landed it in 19th spot for that metric. Additionally, workers in Aurora had an average commute time of 30 minutes, which means, conversely, remote workers get to skip out on a half hour long-commute, earning the city the 18th spot for the commute time metric.

Overall, the best state to work remotely seems to be Arizona — three cities, all Phoenix suburbs, cracked our study’s top 10 best cities to work from home ranking: Gilbert (first), Chandler (seventh) and Scottsdale (tenth). Another state with a strong presence in our study’s top 10 best cities to work from home is Colorado, with Aurora ranking second and Denver ranking sixth.

Worst cities for working from home

The U.S. city falling to the bottom of our study’s ranking — making it the worst city to work from home — is Toledo, Ohio. Located in the northwest region of Ohio, Toledo has a population of around 276,000.

Remote workers in Toledo pulled in far less than the average worker, earning just $0.58 for every $1 earned by an average worker and resulting in the city ranking 99th for that metric. Additionally, remote workers in Toledo spent an average of 51% of their earnings on housing, underscoring remote workers’ overall low earning power. Toledo also had a staggeringly low percentage of residents working remotely — 0.90% — which indicates the poor overall culture of remote work and opportunity in the city.

The second worst city to work from home, according to our study, is El Paso, Texas. Remote workers in El Paso also had dismal earning power, with people who work from home making just $0.81 for every dollar earned by the average worker, and housing costs accounting for 45% of remote workers’ earnings. Like Toledo, El Paso also had a relatively low percentage of remote workers overall, with 1.60% of people working from home, placing the city 87th for that metric.

Meanwhile, our study found that Greenboro, N.C., is the third worst city to work from home. Greensboro ranked last for the metric measuring the growth in the number of people working from home, with 1.90% fewer people working remotely in 2018 compared to 2017, indicating a possible decline in remote work opportunity there. Remote workers also weren’t saving a particularly significant amount of time by telecommuting, with the average commute time for residents in Greensboro being just 21 minutes.

Overall, our study found that there are bad cities for working from home nationwide, from the Northeast all the way to the West Coast.

What happened to the “telecommuting revolution”?

Roughly a decade ago, as technology became more advanced and workforces became increasingly mobile, there were predictions of a “telecommuting revolution” in which more and more employees would begin working remotely.

Indeed, a recent study from FlexJobs found that between 2005 and 2017, remote work has grown 159%. However, this massive explosion in growth in the last decade and a half slowed to just 7.9% between 2016 to 2017 — evidence that the movement is losing steam.

Our study also found a fairly stagnant remote workforce in the 100 most populated U.S. cities from 2017 to 2018. Even the city that ranked first for the metric measuring the growth of the number of people working from home from 2017 to 2018 — Irvine, California — had just a 2.40% increase in the number of telecommuters. Additionally, our study revealed a slew of cities in which there were a smaller share of remote workers in 2018 than there were in 2017, including Washington D.C., Orlando and St. Louis.

While the number of remote workers might not be completely stagnant, these are certainly signs that the telecommuting movement might be slowing down. So, what’s to blame for the seemingly slowing growth of the “telecommuting revolution”? One explanation might be linked to perceived worker productivity. In 2013, for example, Yahoo yanked its employees’ remote privileges and shortly after cited increased levels of productivity and employee engagement.

Additionally, a 2018 survey from Randstad USA found that employees might not be buying into the idea either. While 82% of workers said being able to work from home helps them maintain their work-life balance, 62% said they still prefer working in the office, a number that was even higher among younger generations.

Advantages and disadvantages of working from home

As is the case with clocking your 9-to-5 hours in a cubicle, there are both advantages and disadvantages to working from the comfort of your couch.

Advantages of working from home

  • Potentially higher pay: Our survey found that in many cities, remote workers raked in more money than non-remote workers. For example, in Norfolk, Va., the average remote worker made $1.68 for every dollar earned by the average worker. One reason for this could be that, according to the BLS, the more popular occupations for remote work include jobs in management, business and finance, all of which tend to be higher-paying.
  • Money saved on transportation: The cost of commuting is not something to overlook. Depending on the state in which you live, you could spend between $2,000 to $5,000 a year on commuting costs. Working from home enables you to save thousands of dollars a year.
  • Money saved on childcare: One of the biggest incentives for working from home is the flexibility it allows — especially for parents with kids to care for. For working parents, the cost of childcare can add up to hundreds of dollars a week. If a parent works from home, they might be able to avoid paying for a daycare service or nanny.

Learn how you can maximize your savings with the best online savings account offers. 

Disadvantages of working from home

  • Strain on relationships with colleagues: Working from home could have a negative effect on your relationships with your colleagues. At least one study has found that remote workers were more likely to report that their co-workers treat them poorly and exclude them.
  • Lack of work-life balance: When your home doubles as your workspace, it can be difficult to unplug. Indeed, one survey from Remote.co found that unplugging after work hours is the biggest challenge among telecommuters. Achieving a healthy work-life balance when you work from home can certainly be a challenging obstacle to overcome.

Methodology

For our study, we looked at data from the 2018 Census Bureau’s 1-Year American Community Survey. Metrics analyzed included:

  • The percentage of people who work from home.
  • Earnings for people working from home relative to average earnings of local workers.
  • The percentage point change in the share of workers working from home from 2017 to 2018.
  • The percentage point change in earnings for people who work from home from 2017 to 2018.
  • Housing costs as a percentage of income for people working from home.
  • Average commute time.

To create the final rankings, we ranked each city in each metric. Using these rankings, we created a final index based on each city’s average ranking. The city with the best average ranking received the highest score, while the city with the lowest average ranking received the lowest score. The cities were then indexed based on the best possible score.

Advertiser Disclosure: The products that appear on this site may be from companies from which MagnifyMoney receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site (including, for example, the order in which they appear). MagnifyMoney does not include all financial institutions or all products offered available in the marketplace.

Sarah Berger
Sarah Berger |

Sarah Berger is a writer at MagnifyMoney. You can email Sarah here

Advertiser Disclosure

News

Survey: 3 in 4 Americans Believe Physical Banks Are Becoming Obsolete

Editorial Note: The content of this article is based on the author’s opinions and recommendations alone. It has not been previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any of our network partners.

Thanks to the fintech revolution and ever more sophisticated bank apps, some aspects of banking — like paper checks and statements that come in the mail — seem pretty outdated. For many Amercians, bank branches are also increasingly seen as redundant.

A new survey from MagnifyMoney, a LendingTree company, found that 3 in 4 Americans think that physical bank branches are becoming a thing of the past, and nearly 8 in 10 do all of their banking online or via a mobile app.

Key findings

  • Approximately 3 in 4 of survey respondents say physical bank branches are becoming “a thing of the past.” Unsurprisingly, millennials and Gen Z are most likely to hold that opinion, but the sentiment is also shared by more than two-thirds of baby boomers.
  • More than 1 in 10 Americans with bank accounts didn’t set foot in a bank branch in the last year, and an additional 15% haven’t visited a branch in at least the last six months. Gen Xers are the least likely to have visited a branch in the last year.
  • There’s an app for that… and people are using it. Nearly 8 in 10 conduct all of their banking business online or via a mobile app whenever possible. Still, people still see in-person interactions with their bank as valuable, with almost 50% of respondents saying this is their preferred method of communication with their bank.
  • Credit union account holders visit their bank’s physical location less frequently than those who use a traditional bank, and they’re more likely to prefer online banking.
  • Making a deposit is the most common reason cited by respondents for visiting a bank branch, followed by making a withdrawal.

Americans are visiting bank branches less often

Our survey reveals that trips to the bank are becoming increasingly rare. The survey found that 29% of Americans say they typically only visit bank branches a few times a year, while 14% say they go less than once a year. The survey shows that the most common reason for a respondent’s most recent trip to a physical bank was to make a deposit (39%), followed by making a withdrawal (32%).

Surprisingly, the frequency of trips to physical bank branches doesn’t differ too much among generations. However, younger people were more likely to agree with the statement that physical banks are becoming a thing of the past, including 89% of Gen Zers, but only 68% of baby boomers.

In an era in which finding a date or having pad thai delivered to your doorstep is as easy as a few taps on your phone, it’s not surprising that more people are turning to apps for their banking needs. Our survey found that 78% of Americans say they conduct all of their banking online or through a mobile app, including an eye-popping 87% of millennials. Paradoxically, respondents also indicated that facetime remains important, with nearly half saying that speaking with a bank representative in person is their preferred mode of communication.

How different generations bank

Different generations have different preferences on everything from fashion to food. Their preferred mode of banking varies, too. Unsurprisingly, younger generations — who’ve grown up with technology at the center of their lives — are more likely to use a digital bank for their banking needs.

The survey found 21% of Gen Zers and 18% of millennials have their primary account at an online bank, compared to just 8% of baby boomers. Still, about 51% of Gen Zers and 59% of millennials have their primary accounts at a traditional bank — compared to more than 73% of baby boomers.

Younger generations were also much more likely than older ones to say that they do all of their banking online or via an app — 87% of millennials, compared to 67% of baby boomers.

Digital banking on the rise

As both fintechs and conventional banks invest more in their digital offerings, consumers have fewer reasons to visit a physical bank branch. JP Morgan Chase, for example, offers digital banking services like the ability to directly deposit checks straight from your phone to your accounts, and the option to check your balance and transaction history via text message.

The advantages of online-only banks further erode the draw of brick-and-mortar branches. Digital-only operations like Ally Bank and Chime offer very attractive APYs with no monthly fees, as they are saving money on overhead costs.

Cash management accounts from fintech companies can provide compelling alternatives to traditional bank accounts. For example, SoFi Money holds each customer’s cash in accounts at multiple partner banks. This arrangement means the partner banks provide a combined $1.5 million in FDIC insurance for each SoFi Money customer’s balance.

Other innovative features include Chime’s SpotMe feature, which grants its customers up to $100 if they overdraft their account, and Simple’s built-in budgeting tools, which seamlessly tell you how much money is safe to spend while taking into account your future goals and expenses.

Why use a physical bank branch?

Despite all the bells and whistles made possible by technology, physical bank branches do offer something an app can’t replace: in-person assistance. The value of physical, human contact shouldn’t be underestimated.

Case in point: In October 2019, Chime experienced a service outage, leaving millions of its customers without access to their accounts. With no physical branches, Chime’s customers were cut off from their money.

Our findings underscore the importance of having the option to waltz into a bank and ask for assistance, if need be: Among survey respondents, the number one preferred way to communicate with their bank was in person, beating phone contact and online chat.

Methodology

MagnifyMoney by LendingTree commissioned Qualtrics to conduct an online survey of 936 Americans with a bank account. The survey was fielded September 11-13, 2019. In the survey, generations are defined as:

  • Millennials are ages 22-38
  • Generation Xers are ages 39-53
  • Baby boomers are ages 54-73

Members of the Silent Generation (ages 74 and older) were also surveyed, and their responses are included within the total percentages among all respondents. However, their responses are excluded from the charts and age breakdowns due to the smaller population size among our survey sample.

Advertiser Disclosure: The products that appear on this site may be from companies from which MagnifyMoney receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site (including, for example, the order in which they appear). MagnifyMoney does not include all financial institutions or all products offered available in the marketplace.

Sarah Berger
Sarah Berger |

Sarah Berger is a writer at MagnifyMoney. You can email Sarah here