Is it worth it to reconcile my checking/savings accounts every month?
I quit diligently reconciling monthly statements some years before everything was online, when I realized that for years before that, every time I thought I found a mistake, it was always my own error. I was spending a fair amount of time (over the years) doing something that wasn't helping me. So I quit. That said, I do look at the statements and/or check the transactions on a regular basis (I now use email notifications of automatic deposits as the trigger, and then look over withdrawals, too) to make sure everything looks appropriate. I'm less concerned about a bank error than I am about identity or account theft. While it's wise, easier and safer to check your transactions online a few times a month, I opt to receive and file paper statements as a hard copy back up of account history. Any reconciliation I perform is a quick glance to make sure the numbers sound right. It's probably a small waste of time and space, but it settles some of my paranoia (due to my training as a computer engineer)  about failure of electronic banking systems. If someone tampers with bank records or a SAN explodes and wipes out a bunch of account data, then I will have years worth of paper statements to back up my numbers.  Having years worth of statements printed on the banks stationary will have better credibility in court than a .pdf or printout thereof that could have been doctored, in case I ever needed to take my bank to court. A little piece of mind for the price of a letter opener, a square foot file box and a couple of minutes a month. Account statements and the account information provided by your personal finance software should be coming from the same source, namely your bank's internal accounting records. So in theory one is just as good as the other. That being said, an account statement is a snapshot of your account on the date the statement was created, while synchronizations with your personal finance application is dynamically generated upon request (usually once a day or upon login).  So what are the implications of this? Your account statement will not show transactions that may have taken place during that period but weren't posted until after the period ended (common with credit card transactions and checks). Instead they'd appear on the next statement. Because electronic account synchronizations are more frequent and not limited to a specific time period those transactions will show up shortly after they are posted. So it is far easier to keep track of your accounts electronically. Every personal finance software I've ever used supports manual entries so what I like to do is on a daily basis I manually enter any transaction which wasn't posted automatically. This usually only takes a few minutes each evening. Then when the transaction eventually shows up it's usually reconciled with my manually entered one automatically.  Aside from finding (infrequent) bank errors this has the benefit of keeping me aware of how much I'm spending and how much I have left. I've also caught a number of cashier errors this way (noticing I was double-charged for an item while entering the receipt total) and its the best defense against fraud and identity theft I can think of. If you're looking at your accounts on a daily basis you're far more likely to notice an unusual transaction than any monitoring service. "My wife and I are paid every two weeks. I go on line see the exact deposit, add it to register, and see what checks cleared. In effect, I reconcile twice per month, and the statement can't be different that what their system tells me. Since the online site shows ""last statement balance"" I feel there's no need to bother with the paper, nothing left to reconcile." Banks make mistakes.  Reconciling your account with your bank statement is the way to catch the errors. I don't use debit cards, but if I did I would review that portion of the statement. I look at my credit card statements pretty closely, and probably catch one or two mistakes or things I want to question every year. Sounds like you are reconciling more than once a month.  I like to say I glance at all my statements, but these days I just look at the final balance and call it good.  If a transaction shows up by mistake, I would find it in a couple of days because of how often I update my Quicken and Mint.com
I would question whether your stated goal (of strictly controlling your expenses) is really the problem you should be tackling.  In my opinion, unless you're under financial hardship where you can barely make ends meet, you're much better off using a budget as a high-level, descriptive tool rather than a low-level, prescriptive tool. This is what I would do in your situation: After the first few months, you can start to think about high-level changes that you can make to your spending habits to get the most bang for your buck.  I wouldn't worry about the little expenses, unless they're really adding up to a sizable chunk of your total expenses.  Instead, I would look at things like: eating out too often, buying too many movies, too many impulse buys over $100, etc. Identifying patterns like that will help you make lifestyle changes that will allow you to spend less money without having to micromanage every single expense.  I have tried the micromanaged approach in the past, and it simply doesn't work for me.  There's too much overhead, and eventually I start to feel that it's just not worth it.  Think about it - is it really worth the extra time and energy required to worry about where every dollar goes all month long just to save an additional hundred bucks over what you can do with this passive approach?   I think that by focusing on the big picture, you can get within a couple percentage points of the same amount of savings as if you had micro-managed your expenses, but with much less work and mental strain. Let's put some numbers on this and see what the hourly returns are with each approach, always being optimistic about the micromanaged approach and conservative on the passive approach.   Let's assume you earn $50,000/year.  Let's also assume that if you micromanage all of your expenses, you could manage to save $5000/year beyond what you do now.  And let's say that with the passive approach, you can get within 20 percentage points instead of the 2 I stated earlier, for a savings of $4000/year.  Now what will your hourly returns look like?  The following are based on how I would personally use both systems, so your numbers may vary a bit. Micromanaged Budgeting Savings = $5000 per year = $416.67 per month  Time spent = 15-30 minutes per day = 7.5 - 15 hours per month  Hourly return = $27.78 - $55.56  Passive Budgeting Savings = $4000 per year = $333.33 per month  Time spent = 1 - 2 hours per month Hourly return = $166.67 - $333.33 So clearly the passive approach gives a substantially higher hourly return, even though it gives a lower absolute return.  Maybe more importantly though, if passive budgeting opens up an extra 10 hours a month, you could potentially put those hours into your job and make an extra (10 hours * $25/hour) = $250 a month, or $3000 per year, assuming no extra pay for overtime.  So that means that the passive budgeting approach would actually allow you to save ($4000 + $3000 * .75) = $6250 per year, compared to the $5000 you would save by micromanaging. If you're in a situation where you can't put those hours into more work and you really need that extra $83.34 per month to help make ends meet, then by all means micromanage your expenses and try to save as much as possible.  But if either of the previous conditions are not true for you, you're much better off, in my opinion, using a passive budget. First thing to do right now, is to see if there's somewhere equally liquid, equally risk free you can park your cash for higher rate of return. You can do this now, and decide how much to move into less liquid investments on your own pace. When I was in grad school, I opened a Roth IRA. These are fantastic things for young people who want to keep their options open. You can withdraw the contributions without penalty any time. The earnings are tax free on retirement, or for qualified withdrawls after five years. Down payments on a first home qualify for example. As do medical expenses. Or you can leave it for retirement, and you'll not pay any taxes on it. So Roth is pretty flexible, but what might that investment look like? It in depends on your time horizon; five years is pretty short so you probably don't want to be too stock market weighted. Just recognize that safe short term investments are very poorly rewarded right now. However, you can only contribute earnings in the year they are made, up to a 5000 annual maximum. And the deadline for 2010 is gone. So you'll have to move this into an IRA over a number of years, and have the earnings to back it. So in the meanwhile, the obvious advice to pay down your credit card bills & save for emergencies applies. It's also worth looking at health and dental insurance, as college students are among the least likely to have decent insurance. Also keep a good chunk on hand in liquid accounts like savings or checking for emergencies and general poor planning. You don't want to pay bank fees like I once did because I mis-timed a money transfer. It's also great for negotiating when you can pay in cash up front; my car insurance for example, will charge you more for monthly payments than for every six months. Or putting a huge chunk down on a car will pretty much guarantee the best available dealer financing. I can't immediately think of a reason to keep your paycheck and spending account separate, unless it be because you want to keep your savings in a money market or savings account and you deposit your paycheck into a checking account. However, I do have one reason from my experience to keep the bulk of your savings away from accounts that you transfer stuff out of.  I used to keep all my cash savings in an account from which I transferred money into my brokerage account (my paycheck was also deposited there).  A couple of years back a state that I haven't lived in since I was a child took $40,000 out of my account.  The broker mistakenly told the state I lived there and the state made some mistakes about how much tax I would owe.  Without either one telling me, the state helped themselves to my checking account to cover the bill.  When I called, both acknowledged that they were wrong, but it still took a long time (many months) and lots of letters and threats (I was close to paying a lawyer) before they returned my money.  It was worse because this was my savings for a down payment on a home and having it taken and not returned affected my ability to buy the house I wanted. If I hadn't had my money in that account, they would have tried to garnish my wages, and would have immediately stopped their attempt once they found out they were in the wrong. Now I keep cash savings in an account that I never pay taxes out of and do not use to transfer money directly to any broker or anyone who might give my account number to an inept government. Remember, carrying debt on a credit card and waiting to pay it is increased risk in the event something happens and you can't pay it off. I have 1 CC and I have it set to auto-pay on the day it's due (paid in full each month as I don't carry debt anymore - learned that lesson a hard way :) ). So the day it's due it auto-drafts out of my checking. No worries of late payments, missed payments, etc. If you feel that having any balance is bad then by all means pay it off the minute you get your statement. It should come at the same time each month (or close to the same time) and you should be able to setup an auto-payment to pay it off in full as soon as the new statement goes live. To be honest, those extra few days of supposed interest saved by keeping the money in your checking account is so minimal that's it's probably not worth it. Most checking is horrible in interest (all my 'high interest' checking accounts are now less than 1% APR. boo.) and if you're late 1 day then bam! All that earned interest is gone in 1 late fee... "If you just had one expense once a year of $1200, you would put in $100 a month. The average balance is going to be $600 in that case - the 0 and $1200 months average to $600, as do the $100 and $1100, the $200 and $1000, and so on. If you had one expense twice a year of $600 and put in $100 per month it will average to $300. You have a mix of 3/6/12 months - does 8 months seem reasonable as an ""average"" frequency? If so, there should be about a 4 month slush all the time. Now instead of one expense averaged over 12 months, imagine 12 accounts, each needing $100 a month. If you started at zero, you would put in $1200 the first month and immediately spend it. One account would go from +100 (its share of what you put in) to -1100 while the rest are all at +100. Overall your balance would be zero. Then the next month you would again deposit 1200 and spend 1200, bringing one account to -1000, one to -1100, and the rest to +200. You average to zero actually on deposit because some of the ""accounts"" have negative balances and some have positive. But aren't doing that. You ""caught up"" the months you were  behind. So it would be like putting in $1200 for the first account, $1100 for the second, $1000 for the third and so on - a total of $7800. Then you take out $1200 and go down to 6600. The next month you put in $1200 and take out $1200 but you will always have that $6600 amount in there. All of the accounts will have positive balances - averaging $550 in this example." You have to track your spending for a month, down to the cent. Without those records, the person trying to help you has no real data. Even a week would be a start.  Heck, try just doing this today.  See if it works for you. Throughout each day: Each evening: At the end of a month (or week, or whatever period you want): Each day you do it successfully it will get easier.  Let us know how it works out!  Best wishes! If you pay extra now you will pay less in interest over the life of the loan. Unless your savings account has a higher interest rate than the loan's rate you are not saving anything. That being said, you may have a greater need for savings due to other things (e.g. you might need a emergency fund). But if you are only saving for the loan: compare the rates to see if it is worth it. This is a slightly different reason to any other answer I have seen here about irrationality and how being rationally aware of one's irrationality (in the future or in different circumstances) can lead you to make decisions which on the face of it seem wrong. First of all, why do people sometimes maintain balances on high-interest debt when they have savings? Standard advice on many money-management sites and forums is to withdraw the savings to pay down the debt. However, I think there is a problem with this. Suppose you have $5,000 in a savings account, and a $2,000 credit card balance. You are paying more interest on the credit card than you get from the savings account, and it seems that you should withdraw some money from the savings account, and pay off the cc. However, the difference between the two scenarios, other than the interest you lose by keeping the cc balance, is your motivation for saving. If you have a credit card balance of $2,000, you might be obliged to pay a minimum payment of $100 each month. If you have any extra money, you will be rewarded if you pay more in to the credit card, by seeing the balance go down and understanding that you will soon be free from receiving this awful bill each month. To maintain your savings goal, it's enough to agree with yourself that you won't do any new spending on the cc, or withdraw any savings.  Now suppose that you decide to pay off the cc with the savings. There is now nothing 'forcing' you to save $100 each month. When you get to the end of the month, you have to motivate yourself that you will be adding spare cash to your $3,000 savings balance, rather than that you 'have to' pay down your cc. Yes, if you spend the spare cash instead of saving it, you get something in return for it. But it is possible that spending $140 on small-scale discretionary spending (things you don't need) actually gets you less for your money than paying the credit card company $40 interest and saving $100? You might even be tempted to start spending on your credit card again, knowing that you have a 0 balance, and that you 'can always pay it off out of savings'. It's easy to analogize this to a situation with two types of debt. Suppose that you have a $2,000 debt to your parents with no interest and a $2,000 loan at high interest, and you get a $2,000 windfall. Let's assume that your parents don't need the money in a hurry and aren't hassling you to pay them (otherwise you could consider the guilt or the hassle as a form of emotional interest rate). Might it not be better to pay your parents off? If you do, you are likely to keep paying off your loan out of necessity of making the regular payments. In 20 paychecks (or whatever) you might be debt free. If you pay off your loan, you lose the incentive to save. After 20 months you still owe your parents $2,000. I am not saying that this is always what makes sense. Just that it could make sense. Note that this is an opposite to the 'Debt Snowball' method. That method says that it's better to pay off small debts, because that way you have more free cash flow to pay off the larger debts. The above argues that this is a bad idea, because you might spend the increased cash flow on junk. It would be better to keep around as many things as possible which have minimum payments, because it restricts you to paying things rather than gives you the choice of whether to save or spend.