Resist the temptation. Fight the urge. Fight for your future.
Recently, you may have heard about a spike in 401(k) withdrawals. The evidence is not merely anecdotal. Fidelity Investments recently issued its 2010 overview of the 401(k) accounts it administers and found that 22% of participants had outstanding loans from these retirement savings plans, with the average loan at $8,650. In 2Q 2010, a record 62,000 of Fidelity’s 401(k) participants had taken hardship withdrawals – a jump from 45,000 in the preceding quarter.
If at all possible, you should avoid joining their ranks.
The persuasive argument against a 401(k) loan. If you borrow from your 401(k), you are opening the door to some big risks (perhaps not immediately evident to you) and you may pay some severe opportunity costs.
• What if you lose your job? That’s an all-too-common occurrence right now. If you get laid off or leave your job and you have an outstanding 401(k) loan, guess what – you usually have just 60 days to pay it all back, 60 days without income from work. Well, what if you don’t pay it all back? The outstanding loan balance may be recharacterized as a 401(k) withdrawal. If you are younger than 59½, you may be assessed a 10% federal tax penalty on the “withdrawal amount”, which by the way would be taxed as ordinary income.
• What will you do with the money? Will it be invested in anything? If not, it won’t grow. When you take a 401(k) loan and use the money for an expense, you are forfeiting its potential for growth and compounding. (Think: how much could that lump sum grow over 20 or 30 years if your account returns 5% or 8% a year? Do the math, look at the potential.)
• The terms of a 401(k) loan are less than ideal. You can’t deduct interest on a 401(k) loan, and that interest is typically one or two points above the prime rate. Here’s another thing few people realize about 401(k) loans: when you pay the money back, you pay it back with after-tax dollars. Ultimately, those dollars will be taxed again when you take a 401(k) distribution someday.
The compelling case against hardship withdrawals. Sometimes these are made in worst-case scenarios – someone is being evicted or foreclosed on, or needs money to pay medical bills. Sometimes people think hardship withdrawals are “good debt” – they make these withdrawals in order to pay college costs or buy a house. Well, here are the reasons that you might want to look elsewhere for the money.
• You may not be able to get a hardship withdrawal. Some 401(k) plans don’t allow them. Many do, but you will have to satisfy some IRS rules. Hardship withdrawals can only be made to pay medical expenses that are more than 7.5% of your adjusted gross income, to pay qualified tuition expenses, to pay funeral/burial costs, to buy a home, to make home repairs, or to stop eviction or foreclosure on a primary residence. Beyond those IRS requirements, the company you work for might have its own stipulations. Some firms won’t give an employee a hardship withdrawal unless the employee can demonstrate that no other source can provide the needed funds.
• You may not be able to withdraw as much as you want. Okay, let’s say you are able to take a hardship withdrawal. The money is considered a retirement plan distribution. By law, your employer has to withhold 20% of it because you aren’t making a trustee-to-trustee transfer with the funds. Are you younger than 59½? If so, you may be hit with an additional 10% tax penalty for early withdrawal. Regardless of your age, the amount you withdraw will be taxed as ordinary income. So besides the potential subtractions above, you’ll lose even more of the lump sum you pull out to income taxes. Only in very rare cases can you get a hardship withdrawal without penalty (court order, total disability). Even in those circumstances, the money is still taxable.
• You can’t pay the money back. It would be nice if you could, but you can’t. To add insult to injury, after you reduce your retirement savings through the hardship withdrawal, you typically can’t contribute to your 401(k) for the next six months.
Knowing all this, would you still consider these moves? Is it worth it to possibly do harm to your retirement savings potential? There are alternatives. Talk to a financial services professional – you may be pleasantly surprised to learn what other options might be available.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
OBAMA'S MIDTERM TAX PROPOSALS
The President recommends what amounts to a second stimulus package.
Many Americans are frustrated with the pace of the economic recovery; many Democrats are worried that their party will lose its majority in the House and Senate. As elections loom, President Obama has offered a new platform of tax initiatives for Congress to consider and potentially approve.
Extending the Bush-era tax cuts (for the middle class). President Obama wants to extend the EGTRRA and JGTRRA cuts of the last decade – but not to what Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner referred to as the “most fortunate 2% of Americans.” Taxpayers who earn more than $250,000 would see those tax breaks disappear in 2011, while others would still benefit from them.
Why not extend the Bush-era tax breaks for the demographic that is probably the most economically influential? “We don’t think that’s responsible economic policy,” Geithner commented during an interview on the FOX Business Network. He felt that preserving the cuts for the highest-earning Americans would be analogous to “borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from our children.”
Some contend that EGTRRA and JGTRRA have had broader impact. The Tax Foundation (a non-partisan Washington D.C. think tank which often criticizes tax policy) claims that the Bush-era tax cuts have saved the median U.S. family of four about $2,200 per year.
However, an August Gallup poll indicated that only 37% of Americans wanted to keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for all taxpayers. A plurality (44%) wanted to end them for those earning above $250,000, and 15% wanted them gone altogether. In partisan terms, 60% of the Democrats polled favored extending the cuts for all but the wealthiest Americans; 54% of Republicans polled wanted them retained for everyone.
Offering tax breaks for capital spending and R&D. President Obama wants to allow businesses to write off 100% of their investment costs through 2011. He also wants to bring back the research tax credit for businesses – it would be expanded and made permanent.
What would a 100% expensing credit do for the business sector? On the right, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw calls it a “good idea” yet feels “the impact will be relatively modest.” In his view, this tax break amounts to “a zero-interest loan if [companies] invest in equipment. But with interest rates near zero anyway, the value of the loan is not that great.” On the left, UC Berkeley economist (and former Labor Secretary) Robert Reich thinks that “the economy needs two whopping corporate tax cuts right now as much as someone with a serious heart condition needs Botox. The reason businesses aren’t investing in new plant and equipment has nothing to do with the cost of capital. It’s because they don’t need the additional capacity.”
Historically, the R&D tax credit has favored larger companies with long track records in research rather than smaller firms. Since 1981, Congress has allowed the R&D credit to sunset 13 times – it expired again at the end of last year. In the Obama proposal, the most popular R&D tax credit offered to businesses would rise to 17% from 14%. Many Silicon Valley firms and biomedical firms would love any break they can get – R&D credits in India, China and Brazil are all greater than in the U.S., and France's R&D tax credit is six times more generous than ours.
Infrastructure projects to provide added stimulus. The President also wants to devote another $50 billion to infrastructure spending on roads, railroads and airports. The money would be used to repair 150,000 miles of highways and 4,000 miles of railways, among other uses. Some transportation industry analysts see it as merely a drop in the bucket – but also possibly a step toward the creation of a national infrastructural fund.
What might the effect be? Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi thinks the proposed tax breaks would be “helpful but they're not going to jump start the economy, at least not in the next six to twelve months.” Interviewed by CNN, Zandi noted that “Investment spending has picked up very nicely, that's not the problem. The problem is a lack of hiring.”
David Rosenberg, chief economist at investment bank Gluskin Sheff, is one voice more skeptical about the business tax breaks. He notes that “We already have business spending running at its fastest rate in three decades … how ridiculous is it for the government to be targeting tax relief to the one part of the economy that needs it the least?”
Standard & Poor’s chief economist David Wyss feels that any new government stimulus is better than none, saying that “going cold turkey” in 2010 would severely damage growth. The debate on Capitol Hill over these tax initiatives will likely amplify as we head into fall.
Many Americans are frustrated with the pace of the economic recovery; many Democrats are worried that their party will lose its majority in the House and Senate. As elections loom, President Obama has offered a new platform of tax initiatives for Congress to consider and potentially approve.
Extending the Bush-era tax cuts (for the middle class). President Obama wants to extend the EGTRRA and JGTRRA cuts of the last decade – but not to what Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner referred to as the “most fortunate 2% of Americans.” Taxpayers who earn more than $250,000 would see those tax breaks disappear in 2011, while others would still benefit from them.
Why not extend the Bush-era tax breaks for the demographic that is probably the most economically influential? “We don’t think that’s responsible economic policy,” Geithner commented during an interview on the FOX Business Network. He felt that preserving the cuts for the highest-earning Americans would be analogous to “borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from our children.”
Some contend that EGTRRA and JGTRRA have had broader impact. The Tax Foundation (a non-partisan Washington D.C. think tank which often criticizes tax policy) claims that the Bush-era tax cuts have saved the median U.S. family of four about $2,200 per year.
However, an August Gallup poll indicated that only 37% of Americans wanted to keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for all taxpayers. A plurality (44%) wanted to end them for those earning above $250,000, and 15% wanted them gone altogether. In partisan terms, 60% of the Democrats polled favored extending the cuts for all but the wealthiest Americans; 54% of Republicans polled wanted them retained for everyone.
Offering tax breaks for capital spending and R&D. President Obama wants to allow businesses to write off 100% of their investment costs through 2011. He also wants to bring back the research tax credit for businesses – it would be expanded and made permanent.
What would a 100% expensing credit do for the business sector? On the right, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw calls it a “good idea” yet feels “the impact will be relatively modest.” In his view, this tax break amounts to “a zero-interest loan if [companies] invest in equipment. But with interest rates near zero anyway, the value of the loan is not that great.” On the left, UC Berkeley economist (and former Labor Secretary) Robert Reich thinks that “the economy needs two whopping corporate tax cuts right now as much as someone with a serious heart condition needs Botox. The reason businesses aren’t investing in new plant and equipment has nothing to do with the cost of capital. It’s because they don’t need the additional capacity.”
Historically, the R&D tax credit has favored larger companies with long track records in research rather than smaller firms. Since 1981, Congress has allowed the R&D credit to sunset 13 times – it expired again at the end of last year. In the Obama proposal, the most popular R&D tax credit offered to businesses would rise to 17% from 14%. Many Silicon Valley firms and biomedical firms would love any break they can get – R&D credits in India, China and Brazil are all greater than in the U.S., and France's R&D tax credit is six times more generous than ours.
Infrastructure projects to provide added stimulus. The President also wants to devote another $50 billion to infrastructure spending on roads, railroads and airports. The money would be used to repair 150,000 miles of highways and 4,000 miles of railways, among other uses. Some transportation industry analysts see it as merely a drop in the bucket – but also possibly a step toward the creation of a national infrastructural fund.
What might the effect be? Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi thinks the proposed tax breaks would be “helpful but they're not going to jump start the economy, at least not in the next six to twelve months.” Interviewed by CNN, Zandi noted that “Investment spending has picked up very nicely, that's not the problem. The problem is a lack of hiring.”
David Rosenberg, chief economist at investment bank Gluskin Sheff, is one voice more skeptical about the business tax breaks. He notes that “We already have business spending running at its fastest rate in three decades … how ridiculous is it for the government to be targeting tax relief to the one part of the economy that needs it the least?”
Standard & Poor’s chief economist David Wyss feels that any new government stimulus is better than none, saying that “going cold turkey” in 2010 would severely damage growth. The debate on Capitol Hill over these tax initiatives will likely amplify as we head into fall.
Friday, July 16, 2010
How LTC Insurance Can Help Protect Your Assets
Create a pool of healthcare dollars that will grow in any market.
How will you pay for long term care? The sad fact is that most people don’t know the answer to that question. But a solution is available.
As baby boomers leave their careers behind, long term care insurance will become very important in their financial strategies. The reasons to get an LTC policy after age 50 are very compelling.
Your premium payments buy you access to a large pool of money which can be used to pay for long term care costs. By paying for LTC out of that pool of money, you can preserve your retirement savings and income.
The cost of assisted living or nursing home care alone could motivate you to pay the premiums. Genworth Financial conducts a respected annual Cost of Care Survey to gauge the price of long term care in the U.S. The 2010 report found that
• In 2010, the median annual cost of a private room in a nursing home is $75,190 or $206 per day – $14,965 more than it was in 2005.
• A private one-bedroom unit in an assisted living facility has a median cost of $3,185 a month – which is 12% higher than it was in 2009.
• The median payment to a non-Medicare certified, state-licensed home health aide is $19 in 2010, up 2.7% from 2009.
Can you imagine spending an extra $30-80K out of your retirement savings in a year? What if you had to do it for more than one year?
AARP notes that approximately 60% of people over age 65 will require some kind of long term care during their lifetimes.
Why procrastinate? The earlier you opt for LTC coverage, the cheaper the premiums. This is why many people purchase it before they retire. Those in poor health or over the age of 80 are frequently ineligible for coverage.
What it pays for. Some people think LTC coverage just pays for nursing home care. That’s inaccurate. It can pay for a wide variety of nursing, social, and rehabilitative services at home and away from home, for people with a chronic illness or disability or people who just need assistance bathing, eating or dressing.
Choosing a DBA. That stands for Daily Benefit Amount - the maximum amount that your LTC plan will pay per day for care in a nursing home facility. You can choose a Daily Benefit Amount when you pay for your LTC coverage, and you can also choose the length of time that you may receive the full DBA on a daily basis. The DBA typically ranges from a few dozen dollars to hundreds of dollars. Some of these plans offer you “inflation protection” at enrollment, meaning that every few years, you will have the chance to buy additional coverage and get compounding - so your pool of money can grow.
The Medicare misconception. Too many people think Medicare will pick up the cost of long term care. Medicare is not long term care insurance. Medicare will only pay for the first 100 days of nursing home care, and only if 1) you are getting skilled care and 2) you go into the nursing home right after a hospital stay of at least 3 days. Medicare also covers limited home visits for skilled care, and some hospice services for the terminally ill. That’s all.
Now, Medicaid can actually pay for long term care – if you are destitute. Are you willing to wait until you are broke for a way to fund long term care? Of course not. LTC insurance provides a way to do it.
Why not look into this? You may have heard that LTC insurance is expensive compared with some other forms of policies. But the annual premiums (about as much as you’d spend on a used car from the late 1990s) are nothing compared to real-world LTC costs. Ask your insurance advisor or financial advisor about some of the LTC choices you can explore – while many Americans have life, health and disability insurance, that’s not the same thing as long term care coverage.
How will you pay for long term care? The sad fact is that most people don’t know the answer to that question. But a solution is available.
As baby boomers leave their careers behind, long term care insurance will become very important in their financial strategies. The reasons to get an LTC policy after age 50 are very compelling.
Your premium payments buy you access to a large pool of money which can be used to pay for long term care costs. By paying for LTC out of that pool of money, you can preserve your retirement savings and income.
The cost of assisted living or nursing home care alone could motivate you to pay the premiums. Genworth Financial conducts a respected annual Cost of Care Survey to gauge the price of long term care in the U.S. The 2010 report found that
• In 2010, the median annual cost of a private room in a nursing home is $75,190 or $206 per day – $14,965 more than it was in 2005.
• A private one-bedroom unit in an assisted living facility has a median cost of $3,185 a month – which is 12% higher than it was in 2009.
• The median payment to a non-Medicare certified, state-licensed home health aide is $19 in 2010, up 2.7% from 2009.
Can you imagine spending an extra $30-80K out of your retirement savings in a year? What if you had to do it for more than one year?
AARP notes that approximately 60% of people over age 65 will require some kind of long term care during their lifetimes.
Why procrastinate? The earlier you opt for LTC coverage, the cheaper the premiums. This is why many people purchase it before they retire. Those in poor health or over the age of 80 are frequently ineligible for coverage.
What it pays for. Some people think LTC coverage just pays for nursing home care. That’s inaccurate. It can pay for a wide variety of nursing, social, and rehabilitative services at home and away from home, for people with a chronic illness or disability or people who just need assistance bathing, eating or dressing.
Choosing a DBA. That stands for Daily Benefit Amount - the maximum amount that your LTC plan will pay per day for care in a nursing home facility. You can choose a Daily Benefit Amount when you pay for your LTC coverage, and you can also choose the length of time that you may receive the full DBA on a daily basis. The DBA typically ranges from a few dozen dollars to hundreds of dollars. Some of these plans offer you “inflation protection” at enrollment, meaning that every few years, you will have the chance to buy additional coverage and get compounding - so your pool of money can grow.
The Medicare misconception. Too many people think Medicare will pick up the cost of long term care. Medicare is not long term care insurance. Medicare will only pay for the first 100 days of nursing home care, and only if 1) you are getting skilled care and 2) you go into the nursing home right after a hospital stay of at least 3 days. Medicare also covers limited home visits for skilled care, and some hospice services for the terminally ill. That’s all.
Now, Medicaid can actually pay for long term care – if you are destitute. Are you willing to wait until you are broke for a way to fund long term care? Of course not. LTC insurance provides a way to do it.
Why not look into this? You may have heard that LTC insurance is expensive compared with some other forms of policies. But the annual premiums (about as much as you’d spend on a used car from the late 1990s) are nothing compared to real-world LTC costs. Ask your insurance advisor or financial advisor about some of the LTC choices you can explore – while many Americans have life, health and disability insurance, that’s not the same thing as long term care coverage.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Should You Downsize For Retirement?
It may be better to sell that big home rather than keep it.
You want to retire, and you own a large home that is nearly or fully paid off. The kids are gone, but the upkeep costs haven’t fallen. Should you retire and keep your home? Or sell your home and retire? Maybe it’s time to downsize.
Lower expenses could put more cash in your pocket. If your home isn’t paid off yet, have you considered how much money is going toward the home loan? The typical mortgage payment in the U.S. represents about 30% of gross income and about 50% of after-tax income. When you move to a smaller home, your mortgage expenses may diminish and your cash flow may greatly increase – and don’t forget about interest savings over the life of the loan.
You might even be able to buy a smaller home with cash (if finances permit) and cut your tax liability. Optionally, that smaller home could also be in a region with lower income taxes and a lower cost of living.
You could capitalize on some home equity. Why not convert some home equity into retirement income? If you were forced into early retirement by some corporate downsizing, you might have a sudden and pressing need for retirement capital – another reason to sell that home you bought decades ago and head for a smaller one.
The lifestyle reasons to downsize (or not). Maybe your home is too much to keep up, or maybe you don’t want to climb stairs anymore. Maybe a condo or an over-55 community appeals to you. Maybe you want to be where it seldom snows. On the other hand, you may want and need the familiarity of your current home and your immediate neighborhood (not to mention the friends attached).
If you decide to downsize, it may not pay to wait. Anyone who wants to retire in the current economy needs all the financial resources that can be mustered. Of course, the real estate market will eventually improve; it depends on how long you want to wait for improvement. Some people want to retire and then sell their home, but it may be wiser to sell a home and then retire since homes tend to sit on the market these days. If you sell sooner instead of later, you can always rent until you find a smaller house that could save you thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars.
You want to retire, and you own a large home that is nearly or fully paid off. The kids are gone, but the upkeep costs haven’t fallen. Should you retire and keep your home? Or sell your home and retire? Maybe it’s time to downsize.
Lower expenses could put more cash in your pocket. If your home isn’t paid off yet, have you considered how much money is going toward the home loan? The typical mortgage payment in the U.S. represents about 30% of gross income and about 50% of after-tax income. When you move to a smaller home, your mortgage expenses may diminish and your cash flow may greatly increase – and don’t forget about interest savings over the life of the loan.
You might even be able to buy a smaller home with cash (if finances permit) and cut your tax liability. Optionally, that smaller home could also be in a region with lower income taxes and a lower cost of living.
You could capitalize on some home equity. Why not convert some home equity into retirement income? If you were forced into early retirement by some corporate downsizing, you might have a sudden and pressing need for retirement capital – another reason to sell that home you bought decades ago and head for a smaller one.
The lifestyle reasons to downsize (or not). Maybe your home is too much to keep up, or maybe you don’t want to climb stairs anymore. Maybe a condo or an over-55 community appeals to you. Maybe you want to be where it seldom snows. On the other hand, you may want and need the familiarity of your current home and your immediate neighborhood (not to mention the friends attached).
If you decide to downsize, it may not pay to wait. Anyone who wants to retire in the current economy needs all the financial resources that can be mustered. Of course, the real estate market will eventually improve; it depends on how long you want to wait for improvement. Some people want to retire and then sell their home, but it may be wiser to sell a home and then retire since homes tend to sit on the market these days. If you sell sooner instead of later, you can always rent until you find a smaller house that could save you thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars.
Friday, July 9, 2010
What Exactly is Wealth Management?
The two words signify a far-reaching kind of financial care.
There’s financial planning, and then there’s wealth management. Think of wealth management as a step up from garden-variety financial planning. One office (rather than one person) provides a range of services for a client: personal financial planning and investment management, tax reduction and estate planning strategies, and occasionally in-house legal resources. Business continuation planning, tax preparation and even budgeting and bill paying are sometimes added to the menu.
The difference is really big-picture. Financial planning usually means creating a strategy for accumulating wealth for retirement and personal goals. Investment management focuses on managing financial assets with a performance level in mind. Wealth management, in comparison, considers the total net worth of a family, a couple or an individual. It weighs financial decisions in light of an investment portfolio and additional components of the financial picture such as real estate, insurance, a business, charitable gifting and more.
Yet it is also about paying attention to detail. Every successful professional or business owner reaches a point of delegation – there comes a point at which you can’t do it all yourself. Indeed, it can be hazardous to try and keep track of every detail without help. The same goes for your finances – your taxes, your investments, your various accounts.
Good wealth management helps you stay on top of things. A skilled wealth management firm pays attention to many of the financial details in your life for you. You can free up your mind. You feel confident because the wealth management firm has an ongoing relationship with you, with regular reviews and communication.
Wealth management unites advisors from different disciplines as a team. The team looks at your goals, needs and priorities to determine the right, individualized strategy for guiding your invested assets and enhancing your net worth.
When is it time for wealth management? If you have too many financial concerns, issues or priorities to address by yourself, then it is certainly time for this kind of financial care. And even if your financial life is less complex, significant wealth calls for a vigilant, ongoing management approach.
There’s financial planning, and then there’s wealth management. Think of wealth management as a step up from garden-variety financial planning. One office (rather than one person) provides a range of services for a client: personal financial planning and investment management, tax reduction and estate planning strategies, and occasionally in-house legal resources. Business continuation planning, tax preparation and even budgeting and bill paying are sometimes added to the menu.
The difference is really big-picture. Financial planning usually means creating a strategy for accumulating wealth for retirement and personal goals. Investment management focuses on managing financial assets with a performance level in mind. Wealth management, in comparison, considers the total net worth of a family, a couple or an individual. It weighs financial decisions in light of an investment portfolio and additional components of the financial picture such as real estate, insurance, a business, charitable gifting and more.
Yet it is also about paying attention to detail. Every successful professional or business owner reaches a point of delegation – there comes a point at which you can’t do it all yourself. Indeed, it can be hazardous to try and keep track of every detail without help. The same goes for your finances – your taxes, your investments, your various accounts.
Good wealth management helps you stay on top of things. A skilled wealth management firm pays attention to many of the financial details in your life for you. You can free up your mind. You feel confident because the wealth management firm has an ongoing relationship with you, with regular reviews and communication.
Wealth management unites advisors from different disciplines as a team. The team looks at your goals, needs and priorities to determine the right, individualized strategy for guiding your invested assets and enhancing your net worth.
When is it time for wealth management? If you have too many financial concerns, issues or priorities to address by yourself, then it is certainly time for this kind of financial care. And even if your financial life is less complex, significant wealth calls for a vigilant, ongoing management approach.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Why Four Percent For Retirement?
Why are retirement plans often created assuming a 4% withdrawal rate?
When retirement planners try to estimate just how much money a couple or individual should take out of their savings annually, their model scenarios often assume a 4% annual withdrawal rate. Why is 4% used so frequently? Was that percentage plucked out of thin air? No, it actually became popular back in the 1990s.
The “Trinity Study” helped popularize the 4% guideline. In 1998, a trio of professors at San Antonio’s Trinity University analyzed historical market data between 1925 and 1995 in search of a “sustainable” withdrawal rate. They used five different portfolio compositions - 100% stocks, 100% bonds, and 25/75, 50/50 and 75/25 mixes. (For purposes of the study, “stocks” equaled the S&P 500 and “bonds” equaled long-term, high-grade domestic debt instruments.) They tried to see which withdrawal rates would leave these portfolios with positive values at the end of 15, 20, 25 and 30 years.
Their conclusion? If you are retired and withdraw more than 5% annually, you increase the chances of depleting your portfolio during your lifetime.
Subsequently, another such study was conducted by RetireEarly.com using financial market data from 1871 to 1998 – and that report reached the same conclusion.
However, that wasn’t all the study had to say. The “Trinity Study” made some other conclusions that were not entirely in agreement. The professors maintained that most retirees should have 50% or more of their portfolios in stocks. But they also noted that retirees withdrawing just 3-4% a year from stock-dominated portfolios may end up helping their heirs get rich while hurting their own standard of living.
Perhaps most interestingly, the study concluded that an 8-9% withdrawal rate from a stock-heavy portfolio was sustainable for a period of 15 years or less – but not for longer periods. In other words, while our parents and grandparents could confidently withdraw 8-9%, we who might easily live to age 90 or 100 probably can’t.
Another 4% advocate: Bill Bengen. In 1994, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ practitioner William P. Bengen published a landmark article in the Journal of Financial Planning presenting his own research findings on withdrawal rates from retirement savings. While Bengen published this article in the middle of a long bull market, he factored in the possibility of extended bear markets, minimal annual stock market gains and sustained high inflation.
Looking at 75 years worth of stock market returns and retirement scenarios, Bengen concluded that a retiree who was 50-75% invested in stocks should draw down a portfolio by 4% or less per year. He felt that retirees who did this had a great chance of making their retirement money last a lifetime. In contrast, he felt that retirees taking 5% annual withdrawals had about a 30% possibility of eventually outliving their money. He put that risk at better than 50% for retirees withdrawing 6-7% per year.
Over time, people began to call Bengen’s dictum the “4% drawdown rule”. The model 4% income distribution could be inflation-adjusted – in year one, 4% of a portfolio could be withdrawn, in year two that 4% withdrawal amount could be sweetened by .03% for 3% inflation, and so on.
A dissenting view. In 2009, William Sharpe (one of the Nobel Prize-winning principals of Modern Portfolio Theory) published an article in the Journal of Investment Management contending that “it is time to replace the 4% rule with approaches better grounded in fundamental economic analysis.” Sharpe thinks that “the 4% rule's approach to spending and investing wastes a significant portion of a retiree's savings and is thus prima facie inefficient.” If a portfolio underperforms, he notes, you have a spending shortfall; and if it surpasses performance expectations, you end up with a “wasted surplus”.
So in Sharpe’s view, by adhering to a 4% rule, you either risk living too large or short-changing yourself. Therefore, it would be better to constantly fine-tune a withdrawal rate according to time horizon and market conditions.
While not necessarily a rule, 4% is a frequent recommendation. There is some compelling research to support the “4% rule”, and that is why financial advisers often cite it and tell retirees not to withdraw too much.
Would withdrawing 4% of your portfolio annually (with adjustments for inflation) allow you to live well? For some of us, the answer will be yes; others will need to address an income shortfall. As we retire, most of us will want to practice some degree of growth investing. Now may be the right time to talk about it.
When retirement planners try to estimate just how much money a couple or individual should take out of their savings annually, their model scenarios often assume a 4% annual withdrawal rate. Why is 4% used so frequently? Was that percentage plucked out of thin air? No, it actually became popular back in the 1990s.
The “Trinity Study” helped popularize the 4% guideline. In 1998, a trio of professors at San Antonio’s Trinity University analyzed historical market data between 1925 and 1995 in search of a “sustainable” withdrawal rate. They used five different portfolio compositions - 100% stocks, 100% bonds, and 25/75, 50/50 and 75/25 mixes. (For purposes of the study, “stocks” equaled the S&P 500 and “bonds” equaled long-term, high-grade domestic debt instruments.) They tried to see which withdrawal rates would leave these portfolios with positive values at the end of 15, 20, 25 and 30 years.
Their conclusion? If you are retired and withdraw more than 5% annually, you increase the chances of depleting your portfolio during your lifetime.
Subsequently, another such study was conducted by RetireEarly.com using financial market data from 1871 to 1998 – and that report reached the same conclusion.
However, that wasn’t all the study had to say. The “Trinity Study” made some other conclusions that were not entirely in agreement. The professors maintained that most retirees should have 50% or more of their portfolios in stocks. But they also noted that retirees withdrawing just 3-4% a year from stock-dominated portfolios may end up helping their heirs get rich while hurting their own standard of living.
Perhaps most interestingly, the study concluded that an 8-9% withdrawal rate from a stock-heavy portfolio was sustainable for a period of 15 years or less – but not for longer periods. In other words, while our parents and grandparents could confidently withdraw 8-9%, we who might easily live to age 90 or 100 probably can’t.
Another 4% advocate: Bill Bengen. In 1994, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ practitioner William P. Bengen published a landmark article in the Journal of Financial Planning presenting his own research findings on withdrawal rates from retirement savings. While Bengen published this article in the middle of a long bull market, he factored in the possibility of extended bear markets, minimal annual stock market gains and sustained high inflation.
Looking at 75 years worth of stock market returns and retirement scenarios, Bengen concluded that a retiree who was 50-75% invested in stocks should draw down a portfolio by 4% or less per year. He felt that retirees who did this had a great chance of making their retirement money last a lifetime. In contrast, he felt that retirees taking 5% annual withdrawals had about a 30% possibility of eventually outliving their money. He put that risk at better than 50% for retirees withdrawing 6-7% per year.
Over time, people began to call Bengen’s dictum the “4% drawdown rule”. The model 4% income distribution could be inflation-adjusted – in year one, 4% of a portfolio could be withdrawn, in year two that 4% withdrawal amount could be sweetened by .03% for 3% inflation, and so on.
A dissenting view. In 2009, William Sharpe (one of the Nobel Prize-winning principals of Modern Portfolio Theory) published an article in the Journal of Investment Management contending that “it is time to replace the 4% rule with approaches better grounded in fundamental economic analysis.” Sharpe thinks that “the 4% rule's approach to spending and investing wastes a significant portion of a retiree's savings and is thus prima facie inefficient.” If a portfolio underperforms, he notes, you have a spending shortfall; and if it surpasses performance expectations, you end up with a “wasted surplus”.
So in Sharpe’s view, by adhering to a 4% rule, you either risk living too large or short-changing yourself. Therefore, it would be better to constantly fine-tune a withdrawal rate according to time horizon and market conditions.
While not necessarily a rule, 4% is a frequent recommendation. There is some compelling research to support the “4% rule”, and that is why financial advisers often cite it and tell retirees not to withdraw too much.
Would withdrawing 4% of your portfolio annually (with adjustments for inflation) allow you to live well? For some of us, the answer will be yes; others will need to address an income shortfall. As we retire, most of us will want to practice some degree of growth investing. Now may be the right time to talk about it.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Taxing the Rich to Pay for Health Care
That’s part of the plan. How will you be affected?
In 2013, wealthy Americans will pay extra Medicare taxes. Congress, President Obama and the IRS are putting a surcharge on the wealthy to help fund the health care reforms.
• Beginning in 2013, joint filers with adjusted gross incomes of $250,000 or greater and single filers with AGI of $200,000 or greater will have to pay 0.9% extra in FICA taxes (that is, Social Security and Medicare taxes). The employers of these taxpayers face no such increase.
• Also, joint filers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) of $250,000 or more and single filers with MAGI of $200,000 or more will be docked with a 3.8% tax on investment income. (Even estates and trusts will be subject to this new 3.8% levy.)
What might the dollar impact be? The Tax Foundation, a politically conservative watchdog organization, thinks that the richest 1% of American families will pay an average of $52,000 more in federal taxes by 2016.
What are the chances of these tax hikes being repealed? Think slim and none. Basically, you’d have to repeal the health care reforms to make it happen.
How can you avoid the 3.8% tax on dividends, capital gains & interest? It won’t be easy. Real estate investors may luck out the most, because federal law characterizes rental income as “active” rather than “passive”. On the other hand, if you sell a home you’ve owned for decades and see a taxable gain above the home sale exclusion ($250,000 single, $500,000 married), you’ll face the 3.8% tax.
Some forms of unearned income won’t be slapped with the tax. IRA distributions and income distributions from 401(a), 403(b) and 457(b) plans will be exempt. The same goes for pension income and Social Security income. Annuities that are part of a pension plan will be exempt. Any income from a business that you participate in won’t be hit with the 3.8% tax. Veterans’ benefits, life insurance payouts and interest earned by municipal bonds will also be spared.
As a result of this tax, you might start to see subtle shifts in financial strategy. You might see more muni bond purchases, more interest in life insurance, and more installment sales. As qualified Roth IRA distributions don’t boost AGI, you might be looking at another factor promoting Roth IRA conversions. Everybody will think about taking some capital gains prior to 2013.
The richest Americans have paid less tax in recent decades. Wealth for the Common Good (a liberal non-profit looking at this matter) notes that in 1955, the 400 largest incomes in America paid 51.2% of those incomes back in federal taxes. That led to the “tax shelters” of the 1960s and 1970s. In comparison, the top 400 incomes in America in 2007 paid out only an average of 16.6% in federal taxes.
So how can you reduce your taxes in 2013? It is not too early to think about it. You might want to devote a planning session to this topic, or start to read up on your options.
In 2013, wealthy Americans will pay extra Medicare taxes. Congress, President Obama and the IRS are putting a surcharge on the wealthy to help fund the health care reforms.
• Beginning in 2013, joint filers with adjusted gross incomes of $250,000 or greater and single filers with AGI of $200,000 or greater will have to pay 0.9% extra in FICA taxes (that is, Social Security and Medicare taxes). The employers of these taxpayers face no such increase.
• Also, joint filers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) of $250,000 or more and single filers with MAGI of $200,000 or more will be docked with a 3.8% tax on investment income. (Even estates and trusts will be subject to this new 3.8% levy.)
What might the dollar impact be? The Tax Foundation, a politically conservative watchdog organization, thinks that the richest 1% of American families will pay an average of $52,000 more in federal taxes by 2016.
What are the chances of these tax hikes being repealed? Think slim and none. Basically, you’d have to repeal the health care reforms to make it happen.
How can you avoid the 3.8% tax on dividends, capital gains & interest? It won’t be easy. Real estate investors may luck out the most, because federal law characterizes rental income as “active” rather than “passive”. On the other hand, if you sell a home you’ve owned for decades and see a taxable gain above the home sale exclusion ($250,000 single, $500,000 married), you’ll face the 3.8% tax.
Some forms of unearned income won’t be slapped with the tax. IRA distributions and income distributions from 401(a), 403(b) and 457(b) plans will be exempt. The same goes for pension income and Social Security income. Annuities that are part of a pension plan will be exempt. Any income from a business that you participate in won’t be hit with the 3.8% tax. Veterans’ benefits, life insurance payouts and interest earned by municipal bonds will also be spared.
As a result of this tax, you might start to see subtle shifts in financial strategy. You might see more muni bond purchases, more interest in life insurance, and more installment sales. As qualified Roth IRA distributions don’t boost AGI, you might be looking at another factor promoting Roth IRA conversions. Everybody will think about taking some capital gains prior to 2013.
The richest Americans have paid less tax in recent decades. Wealth for the Common Good (a liberal non-profit looking at this matter) notes that in 1955, the 400 largest incomes in America paid 51.2% of those incomes back in federal taxes. That led to the “tax shelters” of the 1960s and 1970s. In comparison, the top 400 incomes in America in 2007 paid out only an average of 16.6% in federal taxes.
So how can you reduce your taxes in 2013? It is not too early to think about it. You might want to devote a planning session to this topic, or start to read up on your options.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The 2 Biggest Retirement Misconceptions
While the idea of retirement has changed, certain financial assumptions haven’t.
We’ve all heard about the “new retirement”, the mix of work and play that many of us assume we will have in our lives one day. We do not expect “retirement” to be all leisure. While this is becoming a cultural assumption among baby boomers, it is interesting to see that certain financial assumptions haven’t really changed with the times.
In particular, there are two financial misconceptions that baby boomers can fall prey to – assumptions that could prove financially harmful for their future.
#1) Assuming retirement will last 10-15 years. Historically, retirement has lasted about 10-15 years for most Americans. The key word here is “historically”. When Social Security was created in 1933, the average American could anticipate living to age 61. By 2005, life expectancy for the average American had increased to 78.
However, some of us may live much longer. The population of centenarians in the U.S. is growing rapidly – the Census Bureau estimated 71,000 of them in 2005 and projects 114,000 for 2010 and 241,000 in 2020. It also believes that 7.3 million Americans will be 85 or older in 2020, up from 5.1 million 15 years earlier.
If you’re reading this article, chances are you might be wealthy or at least “affluent”. And if you are, you likely have good health insurance and access to excellent health care. You may be poised to live longer because of these two factors. Given the landmark health care reforms of the Obama administration, we could see another boost in overall American longevity in the generation ahead.
Here’s the bottom line: every year, the possibility is increasing that your retirement could last 20 or 30 years … or longer. So assuming you’ll only need 10 or 15 years worth of retirement money could be a big mistake.
In 2010, the American Academy of Actuaries says that the average 65-year-old American male can expect to live to 84½, with a 30% chance of living past 90. The average 65-year-old American female has an average life expectancy of 87, with a 40% chance of living past 90.
Most people don’t realize how much retirement money they may need. There is a relationship between Misconception #1 and Misconception #2 …
#2) Assuming too little risk. Our appetite for risk declines as we get older, and rightfully so. Yet there may be a danger in becoming too risk-averse.
Holding onto your retirement money is certainly important; so is your retirement income and quality of life. There are three financial issues that can affect your quality of life and/or income over time: taxes, health care costs and inflation.
Will the minimal inflation we’ve seen at the start of the 2010s continue for years to come? Don’t count on it. Over the last few decades, we have had moderate inflation (and sometimes worse, think 1980). What happens is that over time, even 3-4% inflation gradually saps your purchasing power. Your dollar buys less and less.
Here’s a hypothetical challenge for you: for the rest of this year, you have to live on the income you earned in 1999. Could you manage that?
This is an extreme example, but that’s what can happen if your income doesn’t keep up with inflation – essentially, you end up living on yesterday’s money.
Taxes will likely be higher in the coming decade. So tax reduction and tax-advantaged investing have taken on even more importance whether you are 20, 40 or 60. Health care costs are climbing – we need to be prepared financially for the cost of acute, chronic and long-term care.
As you retire, you may assume that an extremely conservative approach to investing is mandatory. But given how long we may live - and how long retirement may last - growth investing is extremely important.
No one wants the “Rip Van Winkle” experience in retirement. No one should “wake up” 20 years from now only to find that the comfort of yesterday is gone. Retirees who retreat from growth investing may risk having this experience.
How are you envisioning retirement right now? Has your vision of retirement changed? Is retiring becoming more and more of a priority? Are you retired and looking to improve your finances? Regardless of where you’re at, it is vital to avoid the common misconceptions and proceed with clarity.
We’ve all heard about the “new retirement”, the mix of work and play that many of us assume we will have in our lives one day. We do not expect “retirement” to be all leisure. While this is becoming a cultural assumption among baby boomers, it is interesting to see that certain financial assumptions haven’t really changed with the times.
In particular, there are two financial misconceptions that baby boomers can fall prey to – assumptions that could prove financially harmful for their future.
#1) Assuming retirement will last 10-15 years. Historically, retirement has lasted about 10-15 years for most Americans. The key word here is “historically”. When Social Security was created in 1933, the average American could anticipate living to age 61. By 2005, life expectancy for the average American had increased to 78.
However, some of us may live much longer. The population of centenarians in the U.S. is growing rapidly – the Census Bureau estimated 71,000 of them in 2005 and projects 114,000 for 2010 and 241,000 in 2020. It also believes that 7.3 million Americans will be 85 or older in 2020, up from 5.1 million 15 years earlier.
If you’re reading this article, chances are you might be wealthy or at least “affluent”. And if you are, you likely have good health insurance and access to excellent health care. You may be poised to live longer because of these two factors. Given the landmark health care reforms of the Obama administration, we could see another boost in overall American longevity in the generation ahead.
Here’s the bottom line: every year, the possibility is increasing that your retirement could last 20 or 30 years … or longer. So assuming you’ll only need 10 or 15 years worth of retirement money could be a big mistake.
In 2010, the American Academy of Actuaries says that the average 65-year-old American male can expect to live to 84½, with a 30% chance of living past 90. The average 65-year-old American female has an average life expectancy of 87, with a 40% chance of living past 90.
Most people don’t realize how much retirement money they may need. There is a relationship between Misconception #1 and Misconception #2 …
#2) Assuming too little risk. Our appetite for risk declines as we get older, and rightfully so. Yet there may be a danger in becoming too risk-averse.
Holding onto your retirement money is certainly important; so is your retirement income and quality of life. There are three financial issues that can affect your quality of life and/or income over time: taxes, health care costs and inflation.
Will the minimal inflation we’ve seen at the start of the 2010s continue for years to come? Don’t count on it. Over the last few decades, we have had moderate inflation (and sometimes worse, think 1980). What happens is that over time, even 3-4% inflation gradually saps your purchasing power. Your dollar buys less and less.
Here’s a hypothetical challenge for you: for the rest of this year, you have to live on the income you earned in 1999. Could you manage that?
This is an extreme example, but that’s what can happen if your income doesn’t keep up with inflation – essentially, you end up living on yesterday’s money.
Taxes will likely be higher in the coming decade. So tax reduction and tax-advantaged investing have taken on even more importance whether you are 20, 40 or 60. Health care costs are climbing – we need to be prepared financially for the cost of acute, chronic and long-term care.
As you retire, you may assume that an extremely conservative approach to investing is mandatory. But given how long we may live - and how long retirement may last - growth investing is extremely important.
No one wants the “Rip Van Winkle” experience in retirement. No one should “wake up” 20 years from now only to find that the comfort of yesterday is gone. Retirees who retreat from growth investing may risk having this experience.
How are you envisioning retirement right now? Has your vision of retirement changed? Is retiring becoming more and more of a priority? Are you retired and looking to improve your finances? Regardless of where you’re at, it is vital to avoid the common misconceptions and proceed with clarity.
Monday, May 10, 2010
European Debt & The U.S. Markets
Why the crisis has Wall Street stressed.
It would be wonderful if the U.S. financial markets could “decouple” themselves from what is going on in Greece, Portugal and Spain. Unfortunately, the debt situation in these countries is like a ripple in a pond. The question is, how strong will the ripple ultimately be and will its full force reach our markets?
The problem. Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland are all carrying enormous debts. On May 1, the New York Times put up a chart breaking this down: Greece owes $236 billion, which believe it or not is the smallest debt among these five countries. Portugal’s debt stands at $286 billion – and it owes roughly a third of that to Spain. Spain carries around $1.1 trillion in debt, and its economy is in horrible shape (20% unemployment). According to the Bank for International Settlements, it owes $220 billion to France and $238 billion to Germany. Ireland has $867 billion in debt, with about 40% of that owed to the U.K. and Germany. Italy owes $1.4 trillion, including $511 billion to France (almost 20% of France’s GDP).
After the euro was launched, Greece had access to a whole bunch of cheap debt - and the country used it nonchalantly. In the years since the establishment of the euro, Greece’s debt-to-GDP ratio has remained repeatedly above 100%.
Europe’s biggest banks are heavily exposed to these debts, and so are some of ours: names like Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley. In fact, these five banks have $2.5 trillion of cross-border exposure in the crisis, with Citigroup the most exposed. So you have potential risk to these banks, the euro, and the European and world economy.
The offer on the table. Fortunately, Greece has the chance to accept a $146.5 million bailout from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union in exchange for austerity measures (less government spending and a lower standard of living). This would help Greece avoid default – that is, having to renegotiate its debt and possibly assume more. (As a sovereign nation, Greece cannot go bankrupt.) Many economists think Greece will go into a deep recession (or depression) which could last most of the decade.
The potential ripple. It looks like the bailout will be accepted by Greece and its EU partners. This means some confidence will return and other Eurozone nations with big debts will be slightly less threatened. However, Greece still has a risk of default.
Should Greece default even with the bailout, some major lenders in France and Germany would be hit very hard. They would have to raise capital ratios and reduce the frequency of loans. That would hamper economic growth in France, Germany and in turn across Europe. In coming months, the U.S. and other nations could feel the pinch from such a slowdown.
Keep in mind, Greece only represents about 2% of the Eurozone economy. In the roughest scenario, Spain or Italy defaults and the shock wave to European banks (and U.S. banks exposed to the debt) is significantly greater. What would happen then? A credit freeze across Europe? Diving stocks? A trashed euro? A flight to gold?
These are merely scenarios, not present realities – but in a nutshell, this is what had Wall Street biting its nails this spring.
So is the bailout truly a solution? It was unpopular throughout the EU, but the right step to take. The move certainly helped defend the stability of the euro; in fact, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicholas Sarkozy have jointly pledged to preserve the euro’s value.
The worry is that other bailouts will be needed to preserve the fiscal health of other Eurozone nations. We all hope these countries can effectively manage their debt levels, for the sake of the stock market and the economy in our country.
It would be wonderful if the U.S. financial markets could “decouple” themselves from what is going on in Greece, Portugal and Spain. Unfortunately, the debt situation in these countries is like a ripple in a pond. The question is, how strong will the ripple ultimately be and will its full force reach our markets?
The problem. Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland are all carrying enormous debts. On May 1, the New York Times put up a chart breaking this down: Greece owes $236 billion, which believe it or not is the smallest debt among these five countries. Portugal’s debt stands at $286 billion – and it owes roughly a third of that to Spain. Spain carries around $1.1 trillion in debt, and its economy is in horrible shape (20% unemployment). According to the Bank for International Settlements, it owes $220 billion to France and $238 billion to Germany. Ireland has $867 billion in debt, with about 40% of that owed to the U.K. and Germany. Italy owes $1.4 trillion, including $511 billion to France (almost 20% of France’s GDP).
After the euro was launched, Greece had access to a whole bunch of cheap debt - and the country used it nonchalantly. In the years since the establishment of the euro, Greece’s debt-to-GDP ratio has remained repeatedly above 100%.
Europe’s biggest banks are heavily exposed to these debts, and so are some of ours: names like Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley. In fact, these five banks have $2.5 trillion of cross-border exposure in the crisis, with Citigroup the most exposed. So you have potential risk to these banks, the euro, and the European and world economy.
The offer on the table. Fortunately, Greece has the chance to accept a $146.5 million bailout from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union in exchange for austerity measures (less government spending and a lower standard of living). This would help Greece avoid default – that is, having to renegotiate its debt and possibly assume more. (As a sovereign nation, Greece cannot go bankrupt.) Many economists think Greece will go into a deep recession (or depression) which could last most of the decade.
The potential ripple. It looks like the bailout will be accepted by Greece and its EU partners. This means some confidence will return and other Eurozone nations with big debts will be slightly less threatened. However, Greece still has a risk of default.
Should Greece default even with the bailout, some major lenders in France and Germany would be hit very hard. They would have to raise capital ratios and reduce the frequency of loans. That would hamper economic growth in France, Germany and in turn across Europe. In coming months, the U.S. and other nations could feel the pinch from such a slowdown.
Keep in mind, Greece only represents about 2% of the Eurozone economy. In the roughest scenario, Spain or Italy defaults and the shock wave to European banks (and U.S. banks exposed to the debt) is significantly greater. What would happen then? A credit freeze across Europe? Diving stocks? A trashed euro? A flight to gold?
These are merely scenarios, not present realities – but in a nutshell, this is what had Wall Street biting its nails this spring.
So is the bailout truly a solution? It was unpopular throughout the EU, but the right step to take. The move certainly helped defend the stability of the euro; in fact, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicholas Sarkozy have jointly pledged to preserve the euro’s value.
The worry is that other bailouts will be needed to preserve the fiscal health of other Eurozone nations. We all hope these countries can effectively manage their debt levels, for the sake of the stock market and the economy in our country.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Could a Roth IRA Conversion Affect a Student's Financial Aid?
Run the numbers, because the answer could be “yes.”
An underreported story. In 2010, we have a wave of IRA owners converting traditional IRAs to Roths. There are all kinds of compelling reasons to make that move. Yet for some IRA owners, the conversion may have an unintended consequence: it may reduce their son or daughter’s chances for college financial aid.
A Roth conversion will increase your taxable income. As some scholarships, grants and loans are awarded based on income levels, a big jump in AGI could potentially jeopardize them. This can be a problem if you’re a “millionaire next door” who wants your kids to exploit financial aid as much as possible.
That income must be recorded on the FAFSA. Universities commonly use the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) as a test to determine whether a student is eligible for grants, loans and some scholarships. The FAFSA is all about family income – factors like net worth and invested assets don’t come into play. Mom and Dad’s higher AGI could mean lower levels of financial aid, because the income boost from the Roth conversion will make it look like Mom and Dad can now shoulder a greater percentage of education costs.
A New York Times article offered an example. Take a hypothetical family of four with total 2010 income of $75,000 and one college student. For every $10,000 of taxable income stemming from a Roth conversion, the parents’ expected annual contribution to that student’s education would go up by $3,200 in a FAFSA estimate.
In April, Mark Kantrowitz (publisher of FastWeb.com, an online scholarship directory) told Financial Advisor Magazine that the Department of Education had requested universities to recognize the effect of 2010 Roth conversions on family incomes. No evidence suggests colleges are doing this en masse.
Financial aid decisions are often based on multiple years of income. Keep this in mind. IRA owners who go Roth this year are well aware that they may divide taxes on the conversion across the 2011 and 2012 tax years. Well, that decision may affect family incomes for those years, and possibly chances at student loans, grants and scholarships through 2013.
If your kids are young, time is on your side. If your children are a few years or more away from college, you can make a Roth conversion without having to worry about its impact on FAFSA applications.
Any potential Roth IRA conversion should be analyzed for its impact on other aspects of your family’s financial life. The impact on college financial aid is but one factor to consider. The potential long-term benefits of a Roth IRA conversion are considerable. Confer with a financial consultant to see if the decision is appropriate before you elect to make the move.
An underreported story. In 2010, we have a wave of IRA owners converting traditional IRAs to Roths. There are all kinds of compelling reasons to make that move. Yet for some IRA owners, the conversion may have an unintended consequence: it may reduce their son or daughter’s chances for college financial aid.
A Roth conversion will increase your taxable income. As some scholarships, grants and loans are awarded based on income levels, a big jump in AGI could potentially jeopardize them. This can be a problem if you’re a “millionaire next door” who wants your kids to exploit financial aid as much as possible.
That income must be recorded on the FAFSA. Universities commonly use the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) as a test to determine whether a student is eligible for grants, loans and some scholarships. The FAFSA is all about family income – factors like net worth and invested assets don’t come into play. Mom and Dad’s higher AGI could mean lower levels of financial aid, because the income boost from the Roth conversion will make it look like Mom and Dad can now shoulder a greater percentage of education costs.
A New York Times article offered an example. Take a hypothetical family of four with total 2010 income of $75,000 and one college student. For every $10,000 of taxable income stemming from a Roth conversion, the parents’ expected annual contribution to that student’s education would go up by $3,200 in a FAFSA estimate.
In April, Mark Kantrowitz (publisher of FastWeb.com, an online scholarship directory) told Financial Advisor Magazine that the Department of Education had requested universities to recognize the effect of 2010 Roth conversions on family incomes. No evidence suggests colleges are doing this en masse.
Financial aid decisions are often based on multiple years of income. Keep this in mind. IRA owners who go Roth this year are well aware that they may divide taxes on the conversion across the 2011 and 2012 tax years. Well, that decision may affect family incomes for those years, and possibly chances at student loans, grants and scholarships through 2013.
If your kids are young, time is on your side. If your children are a few years or more away from college, you can make a Roth conversion without having to worry about its impact on FAFSA applications.
Any potential Roth IRA conversion should be analyzed for its impact on other aspects of your family’s financial life. The impact on college financial aid is but one factor to consider. The potential long-term benefits of a Roth IRA conversion are considerable. Confer with a financial consultant to see if the decision is appropriate before you elect to make the move.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
How Will Obamacare Affect Your Small Business?
Will health care reform mean headaches … or hidden dividends?
Increased costs or savings in years to come? What do the federal health care reforms mean for your company? Will they lead to thousands of dollars in extra costs and more paperwork? Or will federal subsidies make this a “game changer” for small companies that have struggled to provide insurance plans?
If you employ 50 or more, you will face a major choice. Businesses with 50 or more employees will have a choice beginning in 2014: they can sponsor a health plan for 100% of their workers (even those signed up for government-subsidized health insurance) or pay $750 per worker in penalties to the federal government.
A business might opt to take the penalty and do away with health insurance. Paying the annual penalty might be cheaper. So that would leave the employees uninsured, and they would have to go to state health plan exchanges to buy health coverage that could be more expensive.
Some analysts warn that another macroeconomic effect might result - years of high unemployment. They think that increased insurance costs will discourage business hiring in the next decade.
The new reforms don’t put any caps on health insurance premiums. Insurers have every reason to hike rates before the new insurance markets come around in 2014 with added competition.
If you employ 25-49 people, you won’t face this choice. The government won’t require companies with fewer than 50 employees to offer health insurance starting in 2014, and therefore these companies won’t have to contend with possible fines like their big brothers. But while firms with 50 or fewer workers would be exempt from coverage provisions, they will still have to contend with rising premiums.
A major tax credit for smaller firms and solopreneurs. If you employ less than 25 or are self-employed, you may find that the healthcare reforms bring you tax relief.
Beginning in 2010, companies with less than 25 employees that pay the majority of health care premiums for their workers qualify for a tax credit up to 35% of their premiums. (In 2014, that credit could be as great as 50% of premiums if you arrange insurance via one of the Small Business Health Options Programs, or SHOP Exchanges). The tax break you get will depend on a couple of variables: the number of employees you have and their average salary.
However, this tax break won’t be offered to sole proprietorships. That factor may encourage you to incorporate or become an LLC.
If you own a smaller company, insurance might become cheaper. The idea is that small businesses can pool together in the SHOP Exchanges and negotiate insurance coverage as a group. Greater buying power implies lower premium costs (in theory).
Businesses with 100 or fewer workers can jump into a state SHOP Exchange pool starting in 2014; states may choose to limit the pools to firms with 50 or fewer employees through 2016.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the SHOP Exchanges would lower annual premiums for these businesses by 1-4% with a 3% increase in the amount of coverage. That could mean a savings of more than $10 billion nationally.
If you work for yourself, you will likely be able to take advantage of government health care subsidies in 2014. If you are self-employed in 2014 and earn less than four times the poverty level, you can qualify for these subsidies. (To give you some idea, in 2010 400% of the poverty level comes to $88,200 for a family of four.)
Some notes for 2011. In 2011 as a result of the new law, a business will have to report the value of an employee's health care coverage on W-2 forms. Many companies provide coverage for employee dependents not enrolled in other employer-based health plans up to age 22 or 23; next year, that age limit will rise to 26. All lifetime caps on insurance policies offered through employer-sponsored plans will be eliminated in 2011. Penalties will increase for the misuse of HSA funds, and workers with FSAs and HSAs will not be reimbursed for money used for over-the-counter drug purchases.
Increased costs or savings in years to come? What do the federal health care reforms mean for your company? Will they lead to thousands of dollars in extra costs and more paperwork? Or will federal subsidies make this a “game changer” for small companies that have struggled to provide insurance plans?
If you employ 50 or more, you will face a major choice. Businesses with 50 or more employees will have a choice beginning in 2014: they can sponsor a health plan for 100% of their workers (even those signed up for government-subsidized health insurance) or pay $750 per worker in penalties to the federal government.
A business might opt to take the penalty and do away with health insurance. Paying the annual penalty might be cheaper. So that would leave the employees uninsured, and they would have to go to state health plan exchanges to buy health coverage that could be more expensive.
Some analysts warn that another macroeconomic effect might result - years of high unemployment. They think that increased insurance costs will discourage business hiring in the next decade.
The new reforms don’t put any caps on health insurance premiums. Insurers have every reason to hike rates before the new insurance markets come around in 2014 with added competition.
If you employ 25-49 people, you won’t face this choice. The government won’t require companies with fewer than 50 employees to offer health insurance starting in 2014, and therefore these companies won’t have to contend with possible fines like their big brothers. But while firms with 50 or fewer workers would be exempt from coverage provisions, they will still have to contend with rising premiums.
A major tax credit for smaller firms and solopreneurs. If you employ less than 25 or are self-employed, you may find that the healthcare reforms bring you tax relief.
Beginning in 2010, companies with less than 25 employees that pay the majority of health care premiums for their workers qualify for a tax credit up to 35% of their premiums. (In 2014, that credit could be as great as 50% of premiums if you arrange insurance via one of the Small Business Health Options Programs, or SHOP Exchanges). The tax break you get will depend on a couple of variables: the number of employees you have and their average salary.
However, this tax break won’t be offered to sole proprietorships. That factor may encourage you to incorporate or become an LLC.
If you own a smaller company, insurance might become cheaper. The idea is that small businesses can pool together in the SHOP Exchanges and negotiate insurance coverage as a group. Greater buying power implies lower premium costs (in theory).
Businesses with 100 or fewer workers can jump into a state SHOP Exchange pool starting in 2014; states may choose to limit the pools to firms with 50 or fewer employees through 2016.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the SHOP Exchanges would lower annual premiums for these businesses by 1-4% with a 3% increase in the amount of coverage. That could mean a savings of more than $10 billion nationally.
If you work for yourself, you will likely be able to take advantage of government health care subsidies in 2014. If you are self-employed in 2014 and earn less than four times the poverty level, you can qualify for these subsidies. (To give you some idea, in 2010 400% of the poverty level comes to $88,200 for a family of four.)
Some notes for 2011. In 2011 as a result of the new law, a business will have to report the value of an employee's health care coverage on W-2 forms. Many companies provide coverage for employee dependents not enrolled in other employer-based health plans up to age 22 or 23; next year, that age limit will rise to 26. All lifetime caps on insurance policies offered through employer-sponsored plans will be eliminated in 2011. Penalties will increase for the misuse of HSA funds, and workers with FSAs and HSAs will not be reimbursed for money used for over-the-counter drug purchases.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Health Care Changes in America
But the historic vote hardly means an end to the debate.
The House approves the Senate bill. Not a single Republican voted for it, but 219 Democrats did – and by a vote of 219-212, the House of Representatives sent the Senate’s version of landmark healthcare legislation toward President Obama’s desk. The President could sign the bill into law as early as March 23.1
But the fight is not over. The House of Representatives also passed a collection of amendments to the Senate bill by a 220-211 margin, but the Senate must also approve this reconciliation bill – exactly as it is worded. If that doesn’t happen, then guess what … there will be another vote on the Senate version of the bill in the House.1,2
“If those people think they’re only going to vote on this once, they’re nuts,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said on Bloomberg Television March 20. Hatch claims that Senate Republicans have the votes to force a modification of the bill passed on March 21 and boot it back to the House for a second vote.3
Will the reforms be overturned? Twelve state attorney generals have indicated that they will contest the bill on these grounds the moment President Obama signs it.4 What are the odds the Supreme Court will throw the reforms out? Probably pretty slim. Look at the precedents of Medicare and Medicaid. When both those federal programs were enacted, the Court twice upheld a broad federal role in health care.
The big reforms will take effect in 2014. If you are looking forward to health insurance reform, you will have to wait a while before many of the big changes occur.
• Starting in 2014, individuals will be required to have health insurance coverage or pay an annual penalty which could climb to $750 or 2% of their income (alternately $695 or 2.5% of income), whichever is larger. Inmates, Native Americans, and those with religious objections would be exempted.5,6
• In 2014, if you aren’t enrolled in an employer-sponsored health care plan, you will have to buy coverage yourself. You could shop for it through a state insurance exchange. The federal government will offer $500 billion worth of assistance to help insurance shoppers buy coverage through these state exchanges. Undocumented immigrants would not be able to buy coverage.5,7
• After 2014, businesses with more than 50 employees could be fined as much as $2,000 per worker for failing to provide the option of coverage.5
• In 2014, insurers will be required to provide coverage to all Americans regardless of their health status.7
• Medicare spending will be cut by about $500 billion over the next decade, mostly in reduced government payments to Medicare Advantage plans. Democrats have claimed this will not shortchange Medicare recipients.5
• Federal money coming from the bill could not be used for abortions, with exceptions made in cases of rape, incest, or danger to a woman’s life.8
What changes are about to happen in 2010? These new rules would go into effect presently thanks to the new law.
• Insurers will be barred from revoking existing health insurance coverage on an individual, unless fraud or misrepresentation can be shown.6
• Insurers will not be able to limit the amount of money that can eventually be paid out on a health care policy, and it will be harder to limit the amount of money that can be paid out annually.6
• Seniors will get $250 payments to help them out if they face a coverage gap in the middle of the Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage plan.6
• Children will be able to stay on their parents’ health care policies until age 26, and they won’t be denied coverage because of pre-existing health conditions.6
• Adults with pre-existing health conditions will get a chance to enroll in a national high-risk insurance plan – albeit a temporary one.6
• Small businesses that sponsor health care plans for their workers could qualify for tax credits of up to 50% of the cost of the premiums they pay.6
New taxes? Yes – starting in 2013. Approval of these reforms will also bring a new 3.8% tax on investment income for individuals earning more than $200,000 and households earning more than $250,000, so the effective capital gains rate will be 23.8% for these taxpayers in 2013. Also, these taxpayers will be able to keep 8.8% less of the income resulting from taxable stock investments. The Medicare tax rate on households with income over $250,000 will also rise in 2013, from 1.45% to 2.35%.5,6,9
A huge savings? Maybe. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the health care reforms will reduce the federal deficit by between $65-118 billion over the next decade and by more than $1 trillion in the decade after that.5
These are the views of Montgomery Taylor, CPA, CFP, and should not be construed as investment advice. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however, we make no representation as to its completeness or accuracy. If expert assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. Please consult your Financial Advisor for further information.
Citations.
1 nytimes.com/2010/03/23/health/policy/23health.html?ref=us [3/23/10]
2 blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2010/03/22/obamacare-now-for-the-hard-part/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield [3/22/10]
3 bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aghrqNBEBtIc [3/20/10]
4 csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0322/Attorneys-general-in-12-states-poised-to-challenge-healthcare-bill [3/22/10]
5 cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/21/health.care.main/?hpt=Sbin [3/21/10]
6 csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0319/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Who-must-buy-insurance [3/19/10]
7 latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22,0,2788293.story?page=2 [3/22/10]
8 whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/21/one-more-step-towards-health-insurance-reform [3/21/10]
9 investmentnews.com/article/20100322/FREE/100329992 [3/22/10]
The House approves the Senate bill. Not a single Republican voted for it, but 219 Democrats did – and by a vote of 219-212, the House of Representatives sent the Senate’s version of landmark healthcare legislation toward President Obama’s desk. The President could sign the bill into law as early as March 23.1
But the fight is not over. The House of Representatives also passed a collection of amendments to the Senate bill by a 220-211 margin, but the Senate must also approve this reconciliation bill – exactly as it is worded. If that doesn’t happen, then guess what … there will be another vote on the Senate version of the bill in the House.1,2
“If those people think they’re only going to vote on this once, they’re nuts,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said on Bloomberg Television March 20. Hatch claims that Senate Republicans have the votes to force a modification of the bill passed on March 21 and boot it back to the House for a second vote.3
Will the reforms be overturned? Twelve state attorney generals have indicated that they will contest the bill on these grounds the moment President Obama signs it.4 What are the odds the Supreme Court will throw the reforms out? Probably pretty slim. Look at the precedents of Medicare and Medicaid. When both those federal programs were enacted, the Court twice upheld a broad federal role in health care.
The big reforms will take effect in 2014. If you are looking forward to health insurance reform, you will have to wait a while before many of the big changes occur.
• Starting in 2014, individuals will be required to have health insurance coverage or pay an annual penalty which could climb to $750 or 2% of their income (alternately $695 or 2.5% of income), whichever is larger. Inmates, Native Americans, and those with religious objections would be exempted.5,6
• In 2014, if you aren’t enrolled in an employer-sponsored health care plan, you will have to buy coverage yourself. You could shop for it through a state insurance exchange. The federal government will offer $500 billion worth of assistance to help insurance shoppers buy coverage through these state exchanges. Undocumented immigrants would not be able to buy coverage.5,7
• After 2014, businesses with more than 50 employees could be fined as much as $2,000 per worker for failing to provide the option of coverage.5
• In 2014, insurers will be required to provide coverage to all Americans regardless of their health status.7
• Medicare spending will be cut by about $500 billion over the next decade, mostly in reduced government payments to Medicare Advantage plans. Democrats have claimed this will not shortchange Medicare recipients.5
• Federal money coming from the bill could not be used for abortions, with exceptions made in cases of rape, incest, or danger to a woman’s life.8
What changes are about to happen in 2010? These new rules would go into effect presently thanks to the new law.
• Insurers will be barred from revoking existing health insurance coverage on an individual, unless fraud or misrepresentation can be shown.6
• Insurers will not be able to limit the amount of money that can eventually be paid out on a health care policy, and it will be harder to limit the amount of money that can be paid out annually.6
• Seniors will get $250 payments to help them out if they face a coverage gap in the middle of the Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage plan.6
• Children will be able to stay on their parents’ health care policies until age 26, and they won’t be denied coverage because of pre-existing health conditions.6
• Adults with pre-existing health conditions will get a chance to enroll in a national high-risk insurance plan – albeit a temporary one.6
• Small businesses that sponsor health care plans for their workers could qualify for tax credits of up to 50% of the cost of the premiums they pay.6
New taxes? Yes – starting in 2013. Approval of these reforms will also bring a new 3.8% tax on investment income for individuals earning more than $200,000 and households earning more than $250,000, so the effective capital gains rate will be 23.8% for these taxpayers in 2013. Also, these taxpayers will be able to keep 8.8% less of the income resulting from taxable stock investments. The Medicare tax rate on households with income over $250,000 will also rise in 2013, from 1.45% to 2.35%.5,6,9
A huge savings? Maybe. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the health care reforms will reduce the federal deficit by between $65-118 billion over the next decade and by more than $1 trillion in the decade after that.5
These are the views of Montgomery Taylor, CPA, CFP, and should not be construed as investment advice. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however, we make no representation as to its completeness or accuracy. If expert assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. Please consult your Financial Advisor for further information.
Citations.
1 nytimes.com/2010/03/23/health/policy/23health.html?ref=us [3/23/10]
2 blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2010/03/22/obamacare-now-for-the-hard-part/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield [3/22/10]
3 bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aghrqNBEBtIc [3/20/10]
4 csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0322/Attorneys-general-in-12-states-poised-to-challenge-healthcare-bill [3/22/10]
5 cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/21/health.care.main/?hpt=Sbin [3/21/10]
6 csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0319/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Who-must-buy-insurance [3/19/10]
7 latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22,0,2788293.story?page=2 [3/22/10]
8 whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/21/one-more-step-towards-health-insurance-reform [3/21/10]
9 investmentnews.com/article/20100322/FREE/100329992 [3/22/10]
Saturday, March 20, 2010
The DB(k)
In 2010, companies have a whole new retirement plan option.
What is a DB(k)? Basically, a DB(k) combines a pension plan with a matching 401(k) plan. As the name implies, it is a defined benefit retirement plan with some of the features of a 401(k).
DB(k)s could become great recruiting tools. These hybrid retirement plans will be very attractive to employees looking to restore pre-bear market retirement savings levels – not to mention workers who want to retire with a pension-style income like the one Mom and Dad had. In the coming years, firms in especially competitive industries may be prompted to offer DB(k)s as perks.
Won’t it cost a lot for a company to fund one? Not necessarily. It is likely that the companies that do create them will have sizable cash reserves and profit margins. However, it isn’t as if a business is funding two retirement plans at once. In fact, any businesses that offer both defined benefit plans and 401(k) plans may unite them in this new option.
A DB(k) could save a business paperwork & money. These plans are exempt from “top-heavy” rules, and a company can put one in place with just one Form 5500 and one plan document. Principal Financial Group vice-president Chris Mayer, whose firm helped to develop the DB(k), told the Washington Post that the cost of providing a DB(k) will probably work out to 6-8% percent of payroll for most companies. This is certainly beneath the administrative costs of having both a 401(k) and a pension plan. Companies with 2-500 employees are eligible to have DB(k)s.
What do employees get? An income stream, an employer match and a really neat tool to save for retirement. In brief, the DB(k) has four compelling attributes:
• An arrangement for lifelong monthly income. The income stream won’t replace an employee’s end salary, but it certainly will help. Loyalty is rewarded: the pension income equals either a) 1% of final average pay times the number of years of service, or b) 20% of that worker's average salary during his or her five consecutive highest-earning years.
• Employees are automatically enrolled in the 401(k) portion. (They can choose to opt out.)
• The company automatically directs 4% of a worker's salary into his or her 401(k) account. The company also has to match 50% of that amount, which is vested upon the match. (Employees do have the choice to alter the contribution level up or down from 4%.)
• It only takes three years for an employee to become fully vested in a DB(k) pension plan. So even if they leave the company, the money is theirs.
The best of both worlds? Maybe. The DB(k) is shaping up as an intriguing 401(k) alternative, a new IRS-sanctioned way to offer valued employees something more than the usual voluntary retirement savings program. If you are saving for retirement, ask your company about it. If you own a business in a very competitive field, it may help you recruit, impress and retain the caliber of employees you really want.
What is a DB(k)? Basically, a DB(k) combines a pension plan with a matching 401(k) plan. As the name implies, it is a defined benefit retirement plan with some of the features of a 401(k).
DB(k)s could become great recruiting tools. These hybrid retirement plans will be very attractive to employees looking to restore pre-bear market retirement savings levels – not to mention workers who want to retire with a pension-style income like the one Mom and Dad had. In the coming years, firms in especially competitive industries may be prompted to offer DB(k)s as perks.
Won’t it cost a lot for a company to fund one? Not necessarily. It is likely that the companies that do create them will have sizable cash reserves and profit margins. However, it isn’t as if a business is funding two retirement plans at once. In fact, any businesses that offer both defined benefit plans and 401(k) plans may unite them in this new option.
A DB(k) could save a business paperwork & money. These plans are exempt from “top-heavy” rules, and a company can put one in place with just one Form 5500 and one plan document. Principal Financial Group vice-president Chris Mayer, whose firm helped to develop the DB(k), told the Washington Post that the cost of providing a DB(k) will probably work out to 6-8% percent of payroll for most companies. This is certainly beneath the administrative costs of having both a 401(k) and a pension plan. Companies with 2-500 employees are eligible to have DB(k)s.
What do employees get? An income stream, an employer match and a really neat tool to save for retirement. In brief, the DB(k) has four compelling attributes:
• An arrangement for lifelong monthly income. The income stream won’t replace an employee’s end salary, but it certainly will help. Loyalty is rewarded: the pension income equals either a) 1% of final average pay times the number of years of service, or b) 20% of that worker's average salary during his or her five consecutive highest-earning years.
• Employees are automatically enrolled in the 401(k) portion. (They can choose to opt out.)
• The company automatically directs 4% of a worker's salary into his or her 401(k) account. The company also has to match 50% of that amount, which is vested upon the match. (Employees do have the choice to alter the contribution level up or down from 4%.)
• It only takes three years for an employee to become fully vested in a DB(k) pension plan. So even if they leave the company, the money is theirs.
The best of both worlds? Maybe. The DB(k) is shaping up as an intriguing 401(k) alternative, a new IRS-sanctioned way to offer valued employees something more than the usual voluntary retirement savings program. If you are saving for retirement, ask your company about it. If you own a business in a very competitive field, it may help you recruit, impress and retain the caliber of employees you really want.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
New Tax Perks for Nonqualified Annuity Owners
You can thank the Pension Protection Act.
More options. On January 1, 2010, owners of nonqualified annuities were allowed some new tax benefits. On that date, the Pension Protection Act (PPA) of 2006 was fully implemented and brought about dramatic and interesting changes for those who had started annuities with after-tax dollars. At the start of 2010:
• Non-qualified deferred annuities with added long term care insurance riders were now characterized as tax-qualified LTC insurance plans.
• As a result, all withdrawals from these “hybrid annuities” are income tax free so long as they are used for qualified long term care. So you can use the cash value of the annuity to cover the cost of LTC insurance premiums without triggering a taxable event.
• Annuity owners were now allowed to make tax-free 1035 exchanges into appropriate hybrid annuities with long term care riders.
• Additionally, an annuity owner can do a 1035 exchange for the cash value from any annuity into a single-premium qualified LTC insurance policy without incurring any gains.
Now these annuities are even more attractive. Hybrid annuities with LTC insurance riders already offer their owners tax-deferred growth - and sometimes, a return-of-premium option that gives back the investment to an owner’s estate if no LTC claim is made. These linked-benefit annuities (and linked-benefit life insurance policies) can provide something like a “money-back guarantee”, as well as the capability to multiply the benefit value of idle cash sitting on the sidelines. The new allowance of what could be sizable tax-free withdrawals makes them look even better.
In addition, the new freedom to make a tax-free exchange means that an annuity owner can now leave a current contract for a hybrid annuity that may provide a much greater pool of money someday to cover LTC costs.
Are they for you? These hybrid annuities are certainly worth a look. If you can’t qualify medically for LTC insurance but still need to be protected, a hybrid annuity may be an excellent option. Many people fund these annuities by redirecting cash from a bank CD or an annuity they already own. You might want to talk to your insurance or financial consultant about the possibility.
More options. On January 1, 2010, owners of nonqualified annuities were allowed some new tax benefits. On that date, the Pension Protection Act (PPA) of 2006 was fully implemented and brought about dramatic and interesting changes for those who had started annuities with after-tax dollars. At the start of 2010:
• Non-qualified deferred annuities with added long term care insurance riders were now characterized as tax-qualified LTC insurance plans.
• As a result, all withdrawals from these “hybrid annuities” are income tax free so long as they are used for qualified long term care. So you can use the cash value of the annuity to cover the cost of LTC insurance premiums without triggering a taxable event.
• Annuity owners were now allowed to make tax-free 1035 exchanges into appropriate hybrid annuities with long term care riders.
• Additionally, an annuity owner can do a 1035 exchange for the cash value from any annuity into a single-premium qualified LTC insurance policy without incurring any gains.
Now these annuities are even more attractive. Hybrid annuities with LTC insurance riders already offer their owners tax-deferred growth - and sometimes, a return-of-premium option that gives back the investment to an owner’s estate if no LTC claim is made. These linked-benefit annuities (and linked-benefit life insurance policies) can provide something like a “money-back guarantee”, as well as the capability to multiply the benefit value of idle cash sitting on the sidelines. The new allowance of what could be sizable tax-free withdrawals makes them look even better.
In addition, the new freedom to make a tax-free exchange means that an annuity owner can now leave a current contract for a hybrid annuity that may provide a much greater pool of money someday to cover LTC costs.
Are they for you? These hybrid annuities are certainly worth a look. If you can’t qualify medically for LTC insurance but still need to be protected, a hybrid annuity may be an excellent option. Many people fund these annuities by redirecting cash from a bank CD or an annuity they already own. You might want to talk to your insurance or financial consultant about the possibility.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Where were you on the night of April 15, 2007?
If you didn’t collect your refund for the 2006 tax year,
time is running out to claim it!
$1.3 Billion Dollars.
That’s the amount of unclaimed refund money the IRS is holding in their account. From the original filing deadline, each taxpayer has a window of just three years to claim refunds they are owed. Miss the window, and that’s it … no money.
Why is so much money sitting there?
According to the IRS, unclaimed refunds are fairly commonplace. Generally this is due to individuals simply not filing in a given year because they don’t owe taxes. But of course, by not filing, they can’t get any refund due either. In 2006 the number of individuals who decided, for some reason, not to file their taxes was over 1.4 million.
What could you do with $604?
That’s the median outstanding refund amount, according to IRS estimates. The most unclaimed refunds come from the state of California, where almost 160,000 taxpayers did not file their 2006 returns. Texas and Florida are next in line, with over 100,000 unfiled returns in each of those states.
How about an additional $30 or $60 on top of that?
Based on the number of exemptions filed on 2006 tax returns, most taxpayers received $30 or up to $60, thanks to the repealed Telephone Excise Tax Refund. For some who did not file, that money, too, is sitting in an IRS account waiting for them. The only way to get that money is to file a 2006 return.
If you didn’t file your 2006 return, you have until April 15, 2010.
If the IRS owes you a refund on your 2006 return, you only have until April 15, 2010 to claim it. Otherwise, that money goes to Uncle Sam. You might want to double-check your 2007 and 2008 returns as well (though, you have a little more time on those). To file a return for a previous year, visit www.irs.gov and download the appropriate documents from their index of forms from past years.
time is running out to claim it!
$1.3 Billion Dollars.
That’s the amount of unclaimed refund money the IRS is holding in their account. From the original filing deadline, each taxpayer has a window of just three years to claim refunds they are owed. Miss the window, and that’s it … no money.
Why is so much money sitting there?
According to the IRS, unclaimed refunds are fairly commonplace. Generally this is due to individuals simply not filing in a given year because they don’t owe taxes. But of course, by not filing, they can’t get any refund due either. In 2006 the number of individuals who decided, for some reason, not to file their taxes was over 1.4 million.
What could you do with $604?
That’s the median outstanding refund amount, according to IRS estimates. The most unclaimed refunds come from the state of California, where almost 160,000 taxpayers did not file their 2006 returns. Texas and Florida are next in line, with over 100,000 unfiled returns in each of those states.
How about an additional $30 or $60 on top of that?
Based on the number of exemptions filed on 2006 tax returns, most taxpayers received $30 or up to $60, thanks to the repealed Telephone Excise Tax Refund. For some who did not file, that money, too, is sitting in an IRS account waiting for them. The only way to get that money is to file a 2006 return.
If you didn’t file your 2006 return, you have until April 15, 2010.
If the IRS owes you a refund on your 2006 return, you only have until April 15, 2010 to claim it. Otherwise, that money goes to Uncle Sam. You might want to double-check your 2007 and 2008 returns as well (though, you have a little more time on those). To file a return for a previous year, visit www.irs.gov and download the appropriate documents from their index of forms from past years.
Life Insurance
Is it time to review your policy?
Life insurance is hard.
It’s hard to know if you have the right kind.
It’s hard to know if you have enough.
And it’s hard to know if you need any at all.
The insurance companies have made it even harder by coming up with bewildering names: whole life, term life, universal life. Some life insurance policies have a cash value while others don’t. Some invest that cash value in the stock market while others pay a fixed rate of interest. Some insurance policies combine all of these ideas.
This may be one reason why a recent study by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners found that about 40% of people don’t review their life insurance annually. In my experience, that number seems to be even higher. But no matter what the exact number, a large portion of Americans may simply be paying for insurance that’s not right for them.
That is why it’s important for you to sit down annually with an insurance professional to review how your policy works and how it will help you to protect your family.
When you’re young, a certain type of policy is needed. As you raise a family and take on more responsibilities, your needs change again. At some point - when the nest is empty or other life changes occur - there may come a time where you don’t need life insurance at all or you may desperately need it to protect your estate. Reviewing your life insurance policies is one way to make sure you have the coverage that is right for you and your family now, today – not when you bought it.
When is the last time you thought about your life insurance?
Is it time to take another look?
Life insurance is hard.
It’s hard to know if you have the right kind.
It’s hard to know if you have enough.
And it’s hard to know if you need any at all.
The insurance companies have made it even harder by coming up with bewildering names: whole life, term life, universal life. Some life insurance policies have a cash value while others don’t. Some invest that cash value in the stock market while others pay a fixed rate of interest. Some insurance policies combine all of these ideas.
This may be one reason why a recent study by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners found that about 40% of people don’t review their life insurance annually. In my experience, that number seems to be even higher. But no matter what the exact number, a large portion of Americans may simply be paying for insurance that’s not right for them.
That is why it’s important for you to sit down annually with an insurance professional to review how your policy works and how it will help you to protect your family.
When you’re young, a certain type of policy is needed. As you raise a family and take on more responsibilities, your needs change again. At some point - when the nest is empty or other life changes occur - there may come a time where you don’t need life insurance at all or you may desperately need it to protect your estate. Reviewing your life insurance policies is one way to make sure you have the coverage that is right for you and your family now, today – not when you bought it.
When is the last time you thought about your life insurance?
Is it time to take another look?
What's Going on With the Estate Tax?
Good question. Congress has elected to keep us in suspense.
0% estate taxes in 2010 … for now, anyway. On January 1, the federal estate tax went away – at least for the time being and perhaps for all of 2010 as envisioned back in 2001. President Obama and Congressional leaders wanted the estate tax to stick around in 2010 at 2009 levels (estate taxes up to 45% with a $3.5 million exemption), but lawmakers were preoccupied with other matters.
Will Washington really give families million-dollar tax breaks? If no estate tax is imposed in 2010, it could mean a savings of millions for wealthy families. There is talk of bringing the tax back retroactively – after all, the federal government could really use the money. Yet the further we get from January 1, the more difficult reinstating the estate tax for 2010 may become.
As American Institute of Certified Public Accountants vice-president for taxation Tom Ochsenschlager told MarketWatch, "They're still talking (in Congress) about making something retroactive, but at some point they can't do that … is it even constitutional? There’s a real question about that."
The unconstitutional argument goes like this: if Congress moves to retroactively apply the estate tax for 2010, an estate could take the matter to court and point out that Congress had all year to reinstate it but failed to do so.
That argument aside, some estate planners think Congress will get around to a retroactive measure – one that would put the 2009 estate tax levels back into place for 2010.
What taxes are in place now? Some taxes still apply to estates in 2010 even if the estate tax doesn’t. People who give away more than $1 million during their life still face federal gift taxes – though in 2010, they max out at 35% instead of 45%.
Also, all assets with capital gains are to be taxed at 15% above a $1.3 million federal exemption when sold by heirs in 2010. The big news here is that heirs don’t get to use a step-up this year. When they compute the value of an inherited asset, they have to use the basis (the original price paid for the asset) instead of how much that asset was worth when the original owner died. (In addition to the $1.3 million exemption per estate just mentioned, there is another $3 million exemption available for assets inherited from a spouse.)
What precautions may be wise this year? As a potential heir, you’ll want to document the cost basis of any assets you might receive in 2010. Good recordkeeping is in order.
Additionally, you may want to search a trust or a will for so-called formula clauses anchored by words such as “that portion”, “that amount” or “that fraction”, especially if the will or trust was created some years ago with the presumption of a constantly increasing federal estate tax exemption.
These formula clauses are fundamental to bypass trusts created to defend estate tax exemptions for a couple. However, these clauses assume that there is an estate tax. With no estate tax in place, there is the possibility (depending on how the formula clause is worded) that a deceased spouse’s assets would not be inherited by the surviving spouse, but instead go directly into the family trust – not the most useful result for the surviving spouse.
What will 2011 bring? Well – if there are no changes – the estate tax and the generation-skipping tax would come back in 2011. Only the first $1 million of an estate would be exempt from estate taxes. Assets above the exemption would be hit with a 55% federal penalty.3 However, the Obama administration had talked of keeping the 2009 estate tax levels in place for 2010 and beyond, which would be better than returning to the pre-EGGTRA levels in 2011.
0% estate taxes in 2010 … for now, anyway. On January 1, the federal estate tax went away – at least for the time being and perhaps for all of 2010 as envisioned back in 2001. President Obama and Congressional leaders wanted the estate tax to stick around in 2010 at 2009 levels (estate taxes up to 45% with a $3.5 million exemption), but lawmakers were preoccupied with other matters.
Will Washington really give families million-dollar tax breaks? If no estate tax is imposed in 2010, it could mean a savings of millions for wealthy families. There is talk of bringing the tax back retroactively – after all, the federal government could really use the money. Yet the further we get from January 1, the more difficult reinstating the estate tax for 2010 may become.
As American Institute of Certified Public Accountants vice-president for taxation Tom Ochsenschlager told MarketWatch, "They're still talking (in Congress) about making something retroactive, but at some point they can't do that … is it even constitutional? There’s a real question about that."
The unconstitutional argument goes like this: if Congress moves to retroactively apply the estate tax for 2010, an estate could take the matter to court and point out that Congress had all year to reinstate it but failed to do so.
That argument aside, some estate planners think Congress will get around to a retroactive measure – one that would put the 2009 estate tax levels back into place for 2010.
What taxes are in place now? Some taxes still apply to estates in 2010 even if the estate tax doesn’t. People who give away more than $1 million during their life still face federal gift taxes – though in 2010, they max out at 35% instead of 45%.
Also, all assets with capital gains are to be taxed at 15% above a $1.3 million federal exemption when sold by heirs in 2010. The big news here is that heirs don’t get to use a step-up this year. When they compute the value of an inherited asset, they have to use the basis (the original price paid for the asset) instead of how much that asset was worth when the original owner died. (In addition to the $1.3 million exemption per estate just mentioned, there is another $3 million exemption available for assets inherited from a spouse.)
What precautions may be wise this year? As a potential heir, you’ll want to document the cost basis of any assets you might receive in 2010. Good recordkeeping is in order.
Additionally, you may want to search a trust or a will for so-called formula clauses anchored by words such as “that portion”, “that amount” or “that fraction”, especially if the will or trust was created some years ago with the presumption of a constantly increasing federal estate tax exemption.
These formula clauses are fundamental to bypass trusts created to defend estate tax exemptions for a couple. However, these clauses assume that there is an estate tax. With no estate tax in place, there is the possibility (depending on how the formula clause is worded) that a deceased spouse’s assets would not be inherited by the surviving spouse, but instead go directly into the family trust – not the most useful result for the surviving spouse.
What will 2011 bring? Well – if there are no changes – the estate tax and the generation-skipping tax would come back in 2011. Only the first $1 million of an estate would be exempt from estate taxes. Assets above the exemption would be hit with a 55% federal penalty.3 However, the Obama administration had talked of keeping the 2009 estate tax levels in place for 2010 and beyond, which would be better than returning to the pre-EGGTRA levels in 2011.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Financial Planning for Divorced Women
A Post-Divorce Action Plan
You have just gone through one of the most challenging and difficult periods that a woman can experience in her life – a divorce. While many things may still be in up in the air, one aspect of your life that you should make sure you’re in control is your finances.
Financial planning for divorced women is not that much different than financial planning for married couples. Several basic elements are the same. However, the differences offer both good news and bad news. The good news: you can make plans and decisions based solely on your needs and goals. There won’t be miscommunication or conflicting ideas. The bad news: it’s all in your hands. Any mistakes will be your own and a poor decision can’t be salvaged by the income or assets of a partner.
The following post-divorce action plan offers a few things worth considering:
One way to counter the bad news is to find a trusted professional to seek advice from.
After a divorce, friends are often spit between spouses. Financial representatives can be the same way. If you lost yours in the divorce or never had one to begin with, it’s a good time to consider finding a professional who can help you make sound financial decisions for your new life.
To find one, start simply. Ask friends or acquaintances who it was that helped them when they went through a divorce. The attorney who handled your divorce may also be a good source for a referral. It’s important to have someone help you who has previously assisted or - best of all - who specializes in helping divorced women.
Selecting the right financial professional for you is a critical step. After all, this person will be helping you with the important financial decisions you now have to face.
Long-term care insurance may become even more important post-divorce.
Long-term care policies are designed to cover the costs of care if you are unable to care for yourself because of age or if you become ill or disabled. Long-term care is especially important for women because they typically pay more for it than men do. The reason is simple: women typically live longer than men and usually require longer care during those additional years.
A woman’s retirement is usually more expensive than a man’s.
The reason that women usually need long-term care insurance more than men is the same reason that retirement income planning for women may be more important. Women live – on average - 5 to 10 years longer than men. Eighty-five percent of people over 100 are women. This means a woman’s retirement savings must, on average, be stretched out over a larger number of years.
While, in general, retirement planning for a single person is easier in many ways than for a couple, remember … you can no longer rely on a spouse's financial resources if a mistake is made. It’s important to review your social security estimates, any pensions you have and your retirement assets. You can then compare that to the kind of lifestyle you would like to have during retirement.
Because retirement may be more expensive, you may want to make an employer-sponsored retirement plan a larger deciding factor in any job search. Also, you may decide that you must retire at a later date than you had originally planned.
Update your beneficiaries and consider using a trust to help manage your assets. People often forget to update the beneficiaries of their life insurance and retirement accounts after a divorce. If not changed, your ex-husband may stand to inherit a large portion of your assets. Also, the estate laws give certain breaks to married couples that are not available to a single person. Establishing the proper type of legal trust may be a way to pass along more of your assets to your heirs, rather than to the IRS.
Finally, after you have moved on from your divorce there may come a time when you consider remarriage. It’s important that you understand the financial effects this may have. If you were married longer than 10 years you may be collecting or entitled to 50% of your ex-husband’s social security benefit. If you remarry you will no longer have that right. While you will become entitled to your new husband’s benefit, you must know if your new husband’s benefit will be lower or higher, and how that will affect your retirement.
Remarriage can also lead to blended families, blended assets and blended income. Your new husband may have his own family from a previous relationship. A financial professional can help the two of you prepare for this blending that satisfies the financial needs of each of you, as well as your new family.
While it’s all in your hands, partnering with a financial professional can help you move on to the next phase of your life with a more solid plan for your financial future.
You have just gone through one of the most challenging and difficult periods that a woman can experience in her life – a divorce. While many things may still be in up in the air, one aspect of your life that you should make sure you’re in control is your finances.
Financial planning for divorced women is not that much different than financial planning for married couples. Several basic elements are the same. However, the differences offer both good news and bad news. The good news: you can make plans and decisions based solely on your needs and goals. There won’t be miscommunication or conflicting ideas. The bad news: it’s all in your hands. Any mistakes will be your own and a poor decision can’t be salvaged by the income or assets of a partner.
The following post-divorce action plan offers a few things worth considering:
One way to counter the bad news is to find a trusted professional to seek advice from.
After a divorce, friends are often spit between spouses. Financial representatives can be the same way. If you lost yours in the divorce or never had one to begin with, it’s a good time to consider finding a professional who can help you make sound financial decisions for your new life.
To find one, start simply. Ask friends or acquaintances who it was that helped them when they went through a divorce. The attorney who handled your divorce may also be a good source for a referral. It’s important to have someone help you who has previously assisted or - best of all - who specializes in helping divorced women.
Selecting the right financial professional for you is a critical step. After all, this person will be helping you with the important financial decisions you now have to face.
Long-term care insurance may become even more important post-divorce.
Long-term care policies are designed to cover the costs of care if you are unable to care for yourself because of age or if you become ill or disabled. Long-term care is especially important for women because they typically pay more for it than men do. The reason is simple: women typically live longer than men and usually require longer care during those additional years.
A woman’s retirement is usually more expensive than a man’s.
The reason that women usually need long-term care insurance more than men is the same reason that retirement income planning for women may be more important. Women live – on average - 5 to 10 years longer than men. Eighty-five percent of people over 100 are women. This means a woman’s retirement savings must, on average, be stretched out over a larger number of years.
While, in general, retirement planning for a single person is easier in many ways than for a couple, remember … you can no longer rely on a spouse's financial resources if a mistake is made. It’s important to review your social security estimates, any pensions you have and your retirement assets. You can then compare that to the kind of lifestyle you would like to have during retirement.
Because retirement may be more expensive, you may want to make an employer-sponsored retirement plan a larger deciding factor in any job search. Also, you may decide that you must retire at a later date than you had originally planned.
Update your beneficiaries and consider using a trust to help manage your assets. People often forget to update the beneficiaries of their life insurance and retirement accounts after a divorce. If not changed, your ex-husband may stand to inherit a large portion of your assets. Also, the estate laws give certain breaks to married couples that are not available to a single person. Establishing the proper type of legal trust may be a way to pass along more of your assets to your heirs, rather than to the IRS.
Finally, after you have moved on from your divorce there may come a time when you consider remarriage. It’s important that you understand the financial effects this may have. If you were married longer than 10 years you may be collecting or entitled to 50% of your ex-husband’s social security benefit. If you remarry you will no longer have that right. While you will become entitled to your new husband’s benefit, you must know if your new husband’s benefit will be lower or higher, and how that will affect your retirement.
Remarriage can also lead to blended families, blended assets and blended income. Your new husband may have his own family from a previous relationship. A financial professional can help the two of you prepare for this blending that satisfies the financial needs of each of you, as well as your new family.
While it’s all in your hands, partnering with a financial professional can help you move on to the next phase of your life with a more solid plan for your financial future.
Recovering From Unemployment
Four tips for recovering from unemployment.
Any period of unemployment is fraught with stress – both personal and financial. While landing that formerly-elusive new job can be a relief, it is only the first step on the road to recovery from unemployment. This transition time is akin to breaking the surface after being underwater for several minutes. It’s a relief to be breathing again and feel the sun on your face, but it’s no time to relax. You must start swimming right away to get back to a healthy financial shore.
Here are four steps you can take to help make sure your recent unemployment doesn’t cast a long shadow across your future financial health.
Continue to live lean. More likely than not, you weren’t buying $4 coffees while unemployed. Five star restaurants were out too. Hamburger may have replaced steak. You may want to continue to follow that pattern. We tend to grow into our incomes, our budgets bloating along with our salaries. Fighting that urge will help with the rest of the steps to unemployment recovery.
Protect yourself ASAP. The longer your unemployment lasts the more important basic survival becomes. Someone who is unemployed may let life insurance, disability insurance or health insurance policies lapse as they try to keep current on the mortgage, pay utilities and put groceries in the pantry. Sometime during the first few days of your employment you should enroll in whatever benefits you need that your company offers. If the new firm does not offer the coverage you need, make an appointment with an insurance professional and use part of your first paycheck to protect you and your family. Remember, the income from your new job won’t benefit anyone if a catastrophic illness, disability or death suddenly takes it away.
Develop a plan to pay down your debts. When you have a job, debts are a nuisance. When you don’t have a job, they may become a threat to your future financial well-being. While it’s normal to hope that you never have to go through unemployment again, you must start preparing for the possibility.
If you are behind on your mortgage, call your lender to let them know of your new job and to work with them on a plan to catch up on your payments. If they are unwilling to work with you, consider using a Federal resource such as those offered by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Administration.
While there are fewer similar programs for car loans, calling your lender and trying to develop a plan for a loan you’re behind on should be your first step.
All too often during unemployment, credit cards may be used to get by when cash is low. While your interest rates may have been low when you initially signed up for the card, new legislation has caused a spike in credit card rates. Rates of 20% - 30% are not uncommon as banks react to new rules. Paying down these balances should also be a primary goal.
Remember to start paying yourself. Whether you call it a rainy day fund, a nest egg or emergency cash, slowly, paycheck by paycheck, begin paying yourself a fraction of your salary. Some experts will argue that a family should keep six months to one year’s worth of expenses in the bank for unexpected events such as a blown car engine, the roof caving in, or another round of unemployment. For many families, that may feel like an insurmountable sum. But as the old joke goes “How do you eat an elephant?” The answer: “One bite at a time”. Paying yourself has to be done paycheck-to-paycheck, little by little.
Any period of unemployment is fraught with stress – both personal and financial. While landing that formerly-elusive new job can be a relief, it is only the first step on the road to recovery from unemployment. This transition time is akin to breaking the surface after being underwater for several minutes. It’s a relief to be breathing again and feel the sun on your face, but it’s no time to relax. You must start swimming right away to get back to a healthy financial shore.
Here are four steps you can take to help make sure your recent unemployment doesn’t cast a long shadow across your future financial health.
Continue to live lean. More likely than not, you weren’t buying $4 coffees while unemployed. Five star restaurants were out too. Hamburger may have replaced steak. You may want to continue to follow that pattern. We tend to grow into our incomes, our budgets bloating along with our salaries. Fighting that urge will help with the rest of the steps to unemployment recovery.
Protect yourself ASAP. The longer your unemployment lasts the more important basic survival becomes. Someone who is unemployed may let life insurance, disability insurance or health insurance policies lapse as they try to keep current on the mortgage, pay utilities and put groceries in the pantry. Sometime during the first few days of your employment you should enroll in whatever benefits you need that your company offers. If the new firm does not offer the coverage you need, make an appointment with an insurance professional and use part of your first paycheck to protect you and your family. Remember, the income from your new job won’t benefit anyone if a catastrophic illness, disability or death suddenly takes it away.
Develop a plan to pay down your debts. When you have a job, debts are a nuisance. When you don’t have a job, they may become a threat to your future financial well-being. While it’s normal to hope that you never have to go through unemployment again, you must start preparing for the possibility.
If you are behind on your mortgage, call your lender to let them know of your new job and to work with them on a plan to catch up on your payments. If they are unwilling to work with you, consider using a Federal resource such as those offered by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Administration.
While there are fewer similar programs for car loans, calling your lender and trying to develop a plan for a loan you’re behind on should be your first step.
All too often during unemployment, credit cards may be used to get by when cash is low. While your interest rates may have been low when you initially signed up for the card, new legislation has caused a spike in credit card rates. Rates of 20% - 30% are not uncommon as banks react to new rules. Paying down these balances should also be a primary goal.
Remember to start paying yourself. Whether you call it a rainy day fund, a nest egg or emergency cash, slowly, paycheck by paycheck, begin paying yourself a fraction of your salary. Some experts will argue that a family should keep six months to one year’s worth of expenses in the bank for unexpected events such as a blown car engine, the roof caving in, or another round of unemployment. For many families, that may feel like an insurmountable sum. But as the old joke goes “How do you eat an elephant?” The answer: “One bite at a time”. Paying yourself has to be done paycheck-to-paycheck, little by little.
A Medigap Update
New changes are taking effect. New policies may have lower premiums.
Lower premiums ahead? Back in 2005, Congress voted to make major changes to Medigap plans effective June 1, 2010. While these changes are a bother, they could indirectly result in reduced premiums for these policies.
As the “modernized” Medigap plans sold after June 1 will have some differences from previous plans, insurers will be allowed to reset rates. Competition may drive premiums lower.
Please note: we’re talking about new Medigap policies that will be sold after June 1. If you already have a Medigap policy or buy one before June 1, these new changes won’t affect your plan, and you don’t need to replace your existing plan unless you feel the need.
Just to clarify things further, Medigap plans are Medicare supplement plans, not Medicare Advantage plans.
The changes in brief. In June, three Medigap plans are going away, another is being modified, and two new plans are being introduced. Also, a new benefit will be included in all plans.
• Plan E, Plan H, Plan I and Plan J will no longer be sold beginning June 1. (If you have one of these plans, you can continue to renew it as long as you keep paying premiums.)
• Two new lower-cost options will be available: Plan M and Plan N. Both come with some unique cost-sharing.
o Plan M looks like Plan D with a couple of alterations. It covers just 50% of Medicare’s Part A deductible; 100% of Part B co-insurance is covered, plus skilled nursing facility care and emergency care in foreign countries.
o Plan N also resembles Plan D, but there are differences. Plan N will pay the full Part A deductible, but it asks you for co-payments of up to $20 for each covered healthcare provider office visit (including specialists) and up to $50 for each covered emergency room visit (you don’t pay that $50 if you end up being admitted to a hospital).
• Plans D and G will not come with preventative care and at-home recovery benefits after June 1, 2010. After June 1, Plan G coverage of Part B excess charges will be raised from 80% to 100%.
• A hospice care benefit will be added to basic benefits of Plans A-G.
How easy would it be to switch to a lower-premium plan? If you’re going to celebrate your 65th birthday in the next few months, you can enroll in a Medicare supplement plan now and switch to a lower-premium plan in June, as you’ll be in the six-month open enrollment period. If you are older than 65, of course, you’ll have to go through underwriting to switch to a lower-premium plan – but if you’re healthy, making the switch to a cheaper plan may not be difficult at all.
Could you save on prescription drugs as well? If you find yourself hard-pressed to pay for prescription drugs, see if you qualify for Medicare’s new Extra Help program, which is worth an average of about $3,900 a year to Medicare recipients.
As of January 1, 2010, Medicare no longer counts money contributed by others to pay your household expenses as income. It also no longer counts your life insurance policy as an income resource. This means that more people can qualify for prescription drug savings.
Basically, a married couple living together qualifies for Extra Help if it has less than $25,010 in resources (savings and investments) and less than $21,855 in annual income. For individuals, the limits are $12,510 in resources and $16,245 in annual income. However, you still may qualify even if you have earnings from work.
Lower premiums ahead? Back in 2005, Congress voted to make major changes to Medigap plans effective June 1, 2010. While these changes are a bother, they could indirectly result in reduced premiums for these policies.
As the “modernized” Medigap plans sold after June 1 will have some differences from previous plans, insurers will be allowed to reset rates. Competition may drive premiums lower.
Please note: we’re talking about new Medigap policies that will be sold after June 1. If you already have a Medigap policy or buy one before June 1, these new changes won’t affect your plan, and you don’t need to replace your existing plan unless you feel the need.
Just to clarify things further, Medigap plans are Medicare supplement plans, not Medicare Advantage plans.
The changes in brief. In June, three Medigap plans are going away, another is being modified, and two new plans are being introduced. Also, a new benefit will be included in all plans.
• Plan E, Plan H, Plan I and Plan J will no longer be sold beginning June 1. (If you have one of these plans, you can continue to renew it as long as you keep paying premiums.)
• Two new lower-cost options will be available: Plan M and Plan N. Both come with some unique cost-sharing.
o Plan M looks like Plan D with a couple of alterations. It covers just 50% of Medicare’s Part A deductible; 100% of Part B co-insurance is covered, plus skilled nursing facility care and emergency care in foreign countries.
o Plan N also resembles Plan D, but there are differences. Plan N will pay the full Part A deductible, but it asks you for co-payments of up to $20 for each covered healthcare provider office visit (including specialists) and up to $50 for each covered emergency room visit (you don’t pay that $50 if you end up being admitted to a hospital).
• Plans D and G will not come with preventative care and at-home recovery benefits after June 1, 2010. After June 1, Plan G coverage of Part B excess charges will be raised from 80% to 100%.
• A hospice care benefit will be added to basic benefits of Plans A-G.
How easy would it be to switch to a lower-premium plan? If you’re going to celebrate your 65th birthday in the next few months, you can enroll in a Medicare supplement plan now and switch to a lower-premium plan in June, as you’ll be in the six-month open enrollment period. If you are older than 65, of course, you’ll have to go through underwriting to switch to a lower-premium plan – but if you’re healthy, making the switch to a cheaper plan may not be difficult at all.
Could you save on prescription drugs as well? If you find yourself hard-pressed to pay for prescription drugs, see if you qualify for Medicare’s new Extra Help program, which is worth an average of about $3,900 a year to Medicare recipients.
As of January 1, 2010, Medicare no longer counts money contributed by others to pay your household expenses as income. It also no longer counts your life insurance policy as an income resource. This means that more people can qualify for prescription drug savings.
Basically, a married couple living together qualifies for Extra Help if it has less than $25,010 in resources (savings and investments) and less than $21,855 in annual income. For individuals, the limits are $12,510 in resources and $16,245 in annual income. However, you still may qualify even if you have earnings from work.
Monday, January 25, 2010
How and When to Sign Up for Medicare
Breaking down the enrollment periods and eligibility.
Medicare enrollment is automatic for some of us. In fact, anyone who has received a Social Security check or 24 months worth of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is automatically enrolled in Medicare Part A and Part B. Part A is hospital insurance; Part B is medical insurance.
If you’re getting Social Security checks and approaching age 65, you’ll get a Medicare card in the mail three months before your 65th birthday. Medicare benefits begin on the first day of the month in which you turn 65. If you are getting SSDI (regardless of your age), the card will arrive coincidental with your 22nd monthly payment and you are entitled to Medicare coverage with your 25th monthly payment.
Oh yes, there is another important criterion: you must be a U.S. citizen or a legal resident of this country for five years or longer to be eligible for Medicare.
Some of us have to contact the SSA. If you’re coming up on 65 and not receiving Social Security benefits, SSDI or benefits from the Railroad Retirement Board, you can still apply for Medicare coverage. You can visit your local Social Security Administration office or dial (800) 772-1213 or go to www.ssa.gov to determine your eligibility. (If you’re going online, don’t just type in ssa.gov; you need the www. to get to the site.)
In this case, if you are eligible you have the choice of accepting or rejecting Part B coverage. If you want Medicare Part A and Medicare Part B, then you should sign your Medicare card and keep it in your wallet. If you don’t want Part B, you put an "X" in the refusal box on the back of the Medicare card form, and send the form to the address shown right below where your signature goes. About four weeks later, you will get a new Medicare card indicating that you only have Part A coverage.
When can you add or drop forms of Medicare coverage? Medicare has enrollment periods that allow you to do this.
• The initial enrollment period is seven months long. It starts three months before the month in which you turn 65 and ends three months after that month. You can enroll in any type of Medicare coverage within this seven-month window – Part A, Part B, Part C (Medicare Advantage Plan), and Part D (prescription drug coverage). AS it happens, if you don’t sign up for some of this coverage during the initial enrollment period, it may cost you more to add it later.
• Once you are enrolled in Medicare, you can only make changes in coverage during certain periods of time. For example, the annual enrollment period for Part D is November 15-December 31, with Part D coverage starting January 1. (You can also select a health plan for the next year or drop or change Part D coverage in this period.)
• Additionally, there are also open enrollment periods between January 1 and March 31. These dates frame an open enrollment period for Part D; if you enroll in Part D in this window, coverage starts on the first day of the month after the plan receives your enrollment form. There is also an open enrollment period for Part B coverage from January 1 to March 31; if you sign up for such coverage within that period, it begins in July of that year.
Special situations. Individuals with end-stage kidney failure who need dialysis or a transplant may qualify for Medicare regardless of age. Upon diagnosis, they can contact the SSA. Medicare coverage usually takes effect three months after a patient begins dialysis. People with Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS) are automatically enrolled in Medicare as soon as they begin receiving SSDI payments.
Do you have questions about eligibility, or the eligibility of your parents? Your first stop should be the Social Security Administration (see the contact information in the fourth paragraph above). You can also visit www.medicare.gov and www.cms.hhs.gov.
Medicare enrollment is automatic for some of us. In fact, anyone who has received a Social Security check or 24 months worth of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is automatically enrolled in Medicare Part A and Part B. Part A is hospital insurance; Part B is medical insurance.
If you’re getting Social Security checks and approaching age 65, you’ll get a Medicare card in the mail three months before your 65th birthday. Medicare benefits begin on the first day of the month in which you turn 65. If you are getting SSDI (regardless of your age), the card will arrive coincidental with your 22nd monthly payment and you are entitled to Medicare coverage with your 25th monthly payment.
Oh yes, there is another important criterion: you must be a U.S. citizen or a legal resident of this country for five years or longer to be eligible for Medicare.
Some of us have to contact the SSA. If you’re coming up on 65 and not receiving Social Security benefits, SSDI or benefits from the Railroad Retirement Board, you can still apply for Medicare coverage. You can visit your local Social Security Administration office or dial (800) 772-1213 or go to www.ssa.gov to determine your eligibility. (If you’re going online, don’t just type in ssa.gov; you need the www. to get to the site.)
In this case, if you are eligible you have the choice of accepting or rejecting Part B coverage. If you want Medicare Part A and Medicare Part B, then you should sign your Medicare card and keep it in your wallet. If you don’t want Part B, you put an "X" in the refusal box on the back of the Medicare card form, and send the form to the address shown right below where your signature goes. About four weeks later, you will get a new Medicare card indicating that you only have Part A coverage.
When can you add or drop forms of Medicare coverage? Medicare has enrollment periods that allow you to do this.
• The initial enrollment period is seven months long. It starts three months before the month in which you turn 65 and ends three months after that month. You can enroll in any type of Medicare coverage within this seven-month window – Part A, Part B, Part C (Medicare Advantage Plan), and Part D (prescription drug coverage). AS it happens, if you don’t sign up for some of this coverage during the initial enrollment period, it may cost you more to add it later.
• Once you are enrolled in Medicare, you can only make changes in coverage during certain periods of time. For example, the annual enrollment period for Part D is November 15-December 31, with Part D coverage starting January 1. (You can also select a health plan for the next year or drop or change Part D coverage in this period.)
• Additionally, there are also open enrollment periods between January 1 and March 31. These dates frame an open enrollment period for Part D; if you enroll in Part D in this window, coverage starts on the first day of the month after the plan receives your enrollment form. There is also an open enrollment period for Part B coverage from January 1 to March 31; if you sign up for such coverage within that period, it begins in July of that year.
Special situations. Individuals with end-stage kidney failure who need dialysis or a transplant may qualify for Medicare regardless of age. Upon diagnosis, they can contact the SSA. Medicare coverage usually takes effect three months after a patient begins dialysis. People with Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS) are automatically enrolled in Medicare as soon as they begin receiving SSDI payments.
Do you have questions about eligibility, or the eligibility of your parents? Your first stop should be the Social Security Administration (see the contact information in the fourth paragraph above). You can also visit www.medicare.gov and www.cms.hhs.gov.
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Decade in Review
A look at stocks, commodities and memories (good and bad).
A turbulent ten years. The 2000s gave us remarkable opportunity and remarkable volatility. They tested our patience, and many investment strategies. They taught us to hold on, hang in there and diversify.
Stocks. Was it really a “lost decade”? It depends on how you were invested. Yes, the Dow ended the 1990s at 11,497.12 and ended the 2000s at 10,428.05, amounting to a 9.30% slip. The S&P 500 lost 24.10% in the same interval. If you had invested a lump sum into an index fund tracking the S&P 500 on December 31, 1999 and left those assets untouched for ten years, you would have ended up with a sizable loss.
Well, that sounds dismal - but how many of us actually invest this way? Very few of us make one lump sum investment and just watch it for ten years. Thanks to diversification, rebalancing and constant inflows of new money, quite a few investors were able to grow their assets and/or outperform the S&P 500 in the past decade.
The fact is, five sectors of the S&P 500 gained 10% or more across the 2000s – health care (+10.85%), utilities (+10.92%), materials (+24.91%), consumer staples (+31.84%) and energy (+102.12%).
Few articles about the “lost decade” mention this notable factoid: the Russell 2000 advanced 23.90% during the 2000s. Mutual funds that focused on buying undervalued small-company stocks gained an average of 8.3% annually in the 2000s.
Outside America, developing stock markets shattered all expectations while the developed markets mirrored American performance. Look at the decade-long gains in key indices in some of the BRIC nations, as measured by CNBC.com: China, +72%; India, +249%; Brazil, +301%; Russia, +863%. Compare all that with the benchmark indices in Japan (-44%), France (-34%), Great Britain (-22%) and Germany (-14%) in the past decade. Emerging market mutual funds gained an average of 9.3% per year in the last ten years.
Commodities. It was a decade of amazing gains in the broad commodities market. From the end of 1999 to the end of 2009, gold advanced 278.52%. How about silver and copper? Silver gained 208.91% and king copper rose 287.78%. Crude oil rose 210.00% during the 2000s.
How great a decade was it for the commodities sector? Only one notable commodity posted a ten-year loss from 12/31/1999 to 12/31/2009. That was palladium, which retreated 8.98%. On the other hand, we know that 16 commodities gained 100% or more across the decade.
The two biggest gainers during the 2000s were a pair of crops: sugar (+340.36%) and cocoa (+293.31%).
Highs and lows. We are 10 years past the bursting of the tech bubble – March 10 will mark the 10th anniversary of the NASDAQ’s all-time high of 5,132.50. And of course, a decade-defining geopolitical event rocked the markets 18 months later.
General Motors and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy protection in 2009; at the start of the decade, so did Enron - the company that Fortune Magazine ranked as “most innovative” each year from 1995-2000. In 2008, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and Washington Mutual either folded, mutated, or were bought up while AIG, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were bailed out.
The Dow hit a new high of 11,723 in January 2000, a post-9/11 closing low of 7,286 in October 2002, and then ended 2003 at 10,453 (as the DJIA gained 25.32% that year while the dollar lost 14.67%). The Dow hit new peaks of 11,727 on October 3, 2006 and 14,164 on October 9, 2007. A close of 11,215 on July 2, 2008 officially marked the start of a bear market.
From March 9, 2009 closing lows to the end of the year, the Dow shot up 59.28% and the S&P 500 advanced 64.83%. This led to some to entertain tantalizing thoughts about the birth of a new bull market. Or it is simply a cyclical bull in a secular bear? The jury is still out, as the saying goes; we can hope for the best.
What did we learn? The 2000s taught us lessons about irrational exuberance (companies that had never made a dime were probably not worth billions) and lessons about the value of diversifying your portfolio. We also learned the importance of having an exit strategy for our investment portfolio.
The 2000s put investors through some seemingly unimaginable financial headlines. It was a rare decade, an aberrant one in stock market history – for example, the Dow hadn’t had a negative decade since the 1930s, and it had advanced 228.25% over the 1980s and 317.59% for the 1990s. Will we see it make a double- or triple-digit advance in the next ten years? We don’t know. Past performance is no indicator of future success. Yet the awesome potential of the stock market and commodities markets should not be dismissed – and with economies healing the world over, it is clearly time to look forward and stay invested.
A turbulent ten years. The 2000s gave us remarkable opportunity and remarkable volatility. They tested our patience, and many investment strategies. They taught us to hold on, hang in there and diversify.
Stocks. Was it really a “lost decade”? It depends on how you were invested. Yes, the Dow ended the 1990s at 11,497.12 and ended the 2000s at 10,428.05, amounting to a 9.30% slip. The S&P 500 lost 24.10% in the same interval. If you had invested a lump sum into an index fund tracking the S&P 500 on December 31, 1999 and left those assets untouched for ten years, you would have ended up with a sizable loss.
Well, that sounds dismal - but how many of us actually invest this way? Very few of us make one lump sum investment and just watch it for ten years. Thanks to diversification, rebalancing and constant inflows of new money, quite a few investors were able to grow their assets and/or outperform the S&P 500 in the past decade.
The fact is, five sectors of the S&P 500 gained 10% or more across the 2000s – health care (+10.85%), utilities (+10.92%), materials (+24.91%), consumer staples (+31.84%) and energy (+102.12%).
Few articles about the “lost decade” mention this notable factoid: the Russell 2000 advanced 23.90% during the 2000s. Mutual funds that focused on buying undervalued small-company stocks gained an average of 8.3% annually in the 2000s.
Outside America, developing stock markets shattered all expectations while the developed markets mirrored American performance. Look at the decade-long gains in key indices in some of the BRIC nations, as measured by CNBC.com: China, +72%; India, +249%; Brazil, +301%; Russia, +863%. Compare all that with the benchmark indices in Japan (-44%), France (-34%), Great Britain (-22%) and Germany (-14%) in the past decade. Emerging market mutual funds gained an average of 9.3% per year in the last ten years.
Commodities. It was a decade of amazing gains in the broad commodities market. From the end of 1999 to the end of 2009, gold advanced 278.52%. How about silver and copper? Silver gained 208.91% and king copper rose 287.78%. Crude oil rose 210.00% during the 2000s.
How great a decade was it for the commodities sector? Only one notable commodity posted a ten-year loss from 12/31/1999 to 12/31/2009. That was palladium, which retreated 8.98%. On the other hand, we know that 16 commodities gained 100% or more across the decade.
The two biggest gainers during the 2000s were a pair of crops: sugar (+340.36%) and cocoa (+293.31%).
Highs and lows. We are 10 years past the bursting of the tech bubble – March 10 will mark the 10th anniversary of the NASDAQ’s all-time high of 5,132.50. And of course, a decade-defining geopolitical event rocked the markets 18 months later.
General Motors and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy protection in 2009; at the start of the decade, so did Enron - the company that Fortune Magazine ranked as “most innovative” each year from 1995-2000. In 2008, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and Washington Mutual either folded, mutated, or were bought up while AIG, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were bailed out.
The Dow hit a new high of 11,723 in January 2000, a post-9/11 closing low of 7,286 in October 2002, and then ended 2003 at 10,453 (as the DJIA gained 25.32% that year while the dollar lost 14.67%). The Dow hit new peaks of 11,727 on October 3, 2006 and 14,164 on October 9, 2007. A close of 11,215 on July 2, 2008 officially marked the start of a bear market.
From March 9, 2009 closing lows to the end of the year, the Dow shot up 59.28% and the S&P 500 advanced 64.83%. This led to some to entertain tantalizing thoughts about the birth of a new bull market. Or it is simply a cyclical bull in a secular bear? The jury is still out, as the saying goes; we can hope for the best.
What did we learn? The 2000s taught us lessons about irrational exuberance (companies that had never made a dime were probably not worth billions) and lessons about the value of diversifying your portfolio. We also learned the importance of having an exit strategy for our investment portfolio.
The 2000s put investors through some seemingly unimaginable financial headlines. It was a rare decade, an aberrant one in stock market history – for example, the Dow hadn’t had a negative decade since the 1930s, and it had advanced 228.25% over the 1980s and 317.59% for the 1990s. Will we see it make a double- or triple-digit advance in the next ten years? We don’t know. Past performance is no indicator of future success. Yet the awesome potential of the stock market and commodities markets should not be dismissed – and with economies healing the world over, it is clearly time to look forward and stay invested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
