Getting Your Financial Ducks In A Row Rotating Header Image

Codes of Ethics – A Reflection

Feb 7th, 2014
by sraskie.
4 comments

Ethics and Morals: Timeless and Universal?

Codes of ethics can be an effective means of guiding and directing personal behavior – I believe this is true as long as the person adhering to the codes actually adheres to and believes in them. Otherwise it’s just words memorized for an exam or used in vain in a feeble marketing attempt to gain clients. Perhaps I am being too harsh or too opinionated, but for me, codes of ethics or any type of code for that matter such as the Code of Law, the Internal Revenue Code are pretty uniform and significant words that are to be followed appropriately.

As mentioned above however, the Code of Law or the Internal Revenue Code are only going to be followed and upheld by those who believe in following them – there will of course be those that choose not to follow those codes and break the law. Granted, codes of ethics in financial services aren’t necessarily laws, but the same belief should apply to those codes as there is to the code of law. I believe codes of ethics work for those individuals who already have a moral compass and use the codes as guidance and to be better. Those that are already unethical will disregard any code.

There are seven principles in generally every code of ethics in financial services. They are integrity, competence, objectivity, confidentiality, fairness, professionalism and diligence. I do feel that these principles are good to have, but I feel, based on my own definitions that some could be removed simply because I feel there’s overlap. For example, competence could be removed and essentially placed under the principle of professionalism. If one is truly a professional and seen as a professional then they are going to have and maintain the competence to do the job. Competence doesn’t include anything on its own that isn’t included in professionalism. By definition, competence is doing something successfully or efficiently; also requiring skill, mastery and expertise. This is what a professional is.

Likewise, confidentiality, fairness and diligence could fall under the principle of integrity. By definition, integrity is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles. Synonyms of integrity include fairness, honesty, and trustworthiness. If a financial professional has integrity, then they will be diligent, fair and confidential. This does imply however, that integrity is very ambiguous and with so many words falling under it may be difficult to guide and direct any particular behavior.

If I had to remove a principle it would be fairness. From a pure redundancy standpoint fairness could be included in objectivity – with fairness being defined as making judgments free from discrimination. I believe objectivity would include this definition, but would not be exclusive to this definition – meaning that being objective not only includes fairness, but also other qualities such as free from bias, etc.

Finally, if I had to add a principle it would be loyalty – which is a feeling of strong support to someone or something. Perhaps we could take this further and make loyalty an action, rather than a feeling. This means being vested in a client’s success and welfare throughout the professional relationship. If financial professionals were loyal to their clients and not their company or paychecks, I feel the industry could move forward and progress more quickly towards being recognized as a true profession.

I know this can get pretty murky and heated when we talk about contracts and whether a professional is loyal to his or her company first based on an agency contract. But if professionals were loyal to their clients – truly loyal and devoted to them – then I feel there would be a shortening of the divide between clients and professionals and the general public would be in a better position to trust financial services professionals.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted on Feb 7th, 2014
by author: sraskie.

4 comments already - add to the conversation!

Posted in: fee-only, fiduciary, financial planning.
Tagged: ·

myRA? What’s the point?

Feb 5th, 2014
by jblankenship.
4 comments
Image courtesy of stockimages at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of stockimages at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

After the President’s state of the union announcement of the new myRA account, my first reaction was: Did we need this?  What’s so “out of reach” about a regular Roth IRA?  And if there was a great hue and cry for this, why hasn’t the marketplace provided it already?

After all, there are custodians who will provide a no-fee Roth IRA with no account minimum already (TD Ameritrade comes to mind). Plus, there are plenty of ways to get a bond-like return with no costs or account minimums as well.

All that I can find that is different about the myRA accounts is that the bond investment (same as the TSP “G” fund) has downside protection – meaning that the funds in the myRA account will never reduce in value, only grow or stay the same.

As with any gift (and downside protection is indeed a valuable gift), there is a cost associated with it.  Think about it: bonds fluctuate in value day in and day out, year in and year out.  If the value of the bonds decreases, somehow the investor’s dollar has to remain constant.  The only way to do that is to have other funds available to hedge the value fluctuations, and someone has to provide those funds.  Since these myRA accounts have no fees associated with them, the investor isn’t paying for the hedge. I KNOW! How about all taxpayers foot the bill?!

One other difference with the myRA is that the intent is to have this available via widespread employers – at no cost to the employer – via payroll deduction.  First of all, there is cost associated with making changes to payroll.  Adding in a new deposit destination doesn’t just happen automatically, someone has to take action to set it up – and that costs money.

Other than those two facts, all of the remaining features that I’ve been able to read about are exactly the same as a Roth IRA – contributions are not tax deductible, withdrawals at retirement age are tax free, withdrawal of contributions can be done without tax or penalty at any time, and the account can be rolled over into a Roth IRA at any time (myRAs must be rolled over when the balance grows to $15,000, or a maximum of 30 years from initial investment).

From my perspective the myRA is only going to complicate matters more than they already are.  Folks who had the desire to save money in a Roth IRA were already figuring out how to do it on their own.  Having this additional option is (I believe) destined to the same result as the Coverdell ESA – great idea, but there are too many alternatives already in place with 99 44/100ths percent of the same features.

Far be it for me to disparage attempts to help people save more.  I spend a lot of time encouraging folks to do just that, all the time.  I suspect that the myRA will likely do not much more than just confuse folks who know someone named Myra (I knew a Myra when I was a kid, she was our pastor’s wife and she taught my sister to play the piano).  She was a very nice lady and an excellent piano teacher, but if she did anything to promote retirement savings, it was lost on me.

Posted on Feb 5th, 2014
by author: jblankenship.

4 comments already - add to the conversation!

Posted in: #noTOP, myRA, Roth IRA, roth ira contribution.
Tagged: ·

Disclosure or Maximum Information?

Jan 31st, 2014
by sraskie.
No comments yet

Speak No Evil, See No Evil, Hear No Evil

In the financial services industry there are many products, services, business owners and employees that one would think would have one common goal – the welfare of the people they serve through investments, financial planning, insurance and other financial areas. Unfortunately, in an industry rampant with conflicts of interest it has become the norm, not the exception that people in the industry push forward in spite of the conflicts, not once the conflicts have been disclosed and resolved.

Examples of conflicts of interest include salespeople that are paid only if they succeed in selling a client a product. This is what happens in most commission-only sales positions. Other conflicts arise when fee-only planners persuade a client to move their money to the planner in order to help them manage it, when in fact the planner is really not a planner at all, but simply an asset gatherer and the client may not receive any better advice once the assets are under watch of the planner.

Other examples include home office personnel that review applications, transfers, and contracts for completeness and compliance reasons. In these situations the home office employee must act in compliance to the law, but not necessarily ethically to the client. Finally, a major conflict occurs when employees and independent contractors for companies sign contracts that prohibit them from serving the interests of clients first, rather they must remain loyal to their company first, the client taking a back seat.

In my opinion, for anyone working in a position within the financial services industry there must be no subordination to the rule of maximum information – created by David Holley of the University of Southern Missippi. In order for the financial services industry to move from and industry to as profession, there must be rules in place (the maximum information rule) that require as much information as possible be disclosed to the client. This would require the salesperson, advisor, employee and company take steps to make sure the client understood the disclosure, not merely have the disclosure given.

An example of this would be the salesperson that is required to give a prospectus to a client when the client purchases a mutual fund. Under the maximum information rule not only would the prospectus have to be given, but also explained to the client – every area that affected the client’s purchase or potential purchase. Under my definition of the maximum information rule it would also require that in any transaction the client be notified either verbally or preferably in writing what the fees and expenses are and what the salesperson or advisor is making on the transaction.

I would argue that there are not different levels of disclosure and information giving or withholding needed within different levels in the industry. The reason why I would be against this and why it would be detrimental to the industry is you would have many people within the industry try to avoid giving information by doing their best to “move to another level” where the required information be given in one level need not be given in another. Having this segregation would lead to avoidance of the maximum information rule which defeats the purpose of having such a rule.

People would argue my point and say that such a rule would prohibit growth in the industry and stagnate sales and income for employees in the industry. They may be right – in the short term. But I would ask them if they were truly professionals, to whose benefit should they be working for? If not for the client, then whom? And finally, the main question would be, “What do you have to hide?” The financial services industry must not be a zero sum game between professionals and clients. It must be win-win.

I would argue that perhaps it’s the way in which people are paid (commission) in the industry that deters them from wanting the maximum information rule. I would also argue that it would force a cleansing of the industry as now those people who wanted to stay in, would have to become much more knowledgeable about the products and services they are providing – as maximum information would require this.

In the long term, I believe you’d see more of a movement to a true profession as those who were great salespeople, but terrible professionals would leave and those that were professional and saw the industry as a profession would stay. By law of supply and demand, the supply of those providing services would decline, but the demand for those still in would increase as they would by default be more professional. I am using the term professional loosely here. I know that being a professional is much more than giving as much information as possible. But it does mean in this circumstance that if you are selling a product or service, under the maximum information rule – you must know what it is you’re providing – thus requiring competence and betterment of one’s knowledge in order to remain professional.

Financial planning and services is such a juvenile industry taking baby steps in its mission to be a profession. The maximum information rule would allow some obstacles to be removed and the profession to start taking giant leaps towards being recognized as a profession and not simply a sales job.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted on Jan 31st, 2014
by author: sraskie.

No comments yet - start the conversation!

Posted in: commissions, fee-only, fiduciary, financial planning, investing, investment, variable annuities.
Tagged: ·

Net Unrealized Appreciation is not subject to the 3.8% surtax

Jan 29th, 2014
by jblankenship.
1 comment
Image courtesy of Matt Banks at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of Matt Banks at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

When you take advantage of the Net Unrealized Appreciation (NUA) treatment for stocks transferred from your employer retirement plan, you need to fully understand the tax treatment both when you transfer the stocks and when you eventually sell the stock.

Stock that you’ve chosen to treat with NUA tax treatment has three potential tax components –

  1. The basis of the stock – this is the original purchase cost of the stock, which is subject to ordinary income tax the year when you transfer the stock from the employer’s plan into your brokerage account.
  2. The Net Unrealized Appreciation – this is the difference in the total value of the stock minus the basis (from #1 above) on the date that you transfer it from your employer’s plan. This amount is not taxable until you sell the stock, and then it is taxed at long-term capital gains rates, no matter how long you’ve owned the stock.
  3. The non-NUA appreciation – this is any gain that has occurred in the value of the stock after you transferred it into the brokerage account, up to the date that you sell the stock.  This amount is taxed at short-term capital gains rates if held less than 1 year after the transfer, or long-term capital gains rates if held more than 1 year.

Here’s an example:

Ed has worked for ABC company for 30 years and will retire this year.  He has built up a 401(k) plan worth $500,000, of which $100,000 is stock in ABC company.  The basis of this stock, which he’s purchased over the years, is $75,000.  Ed wants to take advantage of the NUA provision for treatment of his ABC stock.

Ed transfers the $400,000 balance of his account that is not ABC stock into an IRA.  He then transfers the $100,000 of ABC stock into a brokerage account (non-IRA).  For the year, Ed must include the basis of the ABC stock ($75,000) as ordinary income on his tax return.

Later, when Ed is ready to sell his ABC stock, six months have passed, and the stock has increased in value to $115,000.  Ed sells the stock, and when he files his taxes for that year, he will have long term capital gains of $25,000 of NUA gain, and then short-term capital gains of $15,000 (the gain since he transferred the funds to the brokerage account).  If more than 1 year had passed, the NUA gain and the additional gain would all have been considered long-term capital gains.

In a nutshell, that’s how NUA treatment taxation works. Or rather, how it used to work, but there’s more to it now since the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

0.9% Additional Medicare Tax on Earned Income

First of all, the basis amount (#1 above) is subject to ordinary income tax.  This brings up the question – if your income is above the limits as a result of this distribution and newly-recognized ordinary income, will it also be subject to the additional 0.9% Medicare tax on earned income?  The answer is no – this basis is treated as a distribution from your retirement account, and since your contributions were already subject to Medicare taxation, this is not subject to further taxation for Medicare purposes.

3.8% Medicare Surtax on Unearned Income

Secondly, given that upon the sale of the stock you’ll have (potentially) significant unearned income, you might wonder about the new 3.8% Medicare surtax on unearned income – does this apply?  Yes and no.

The “no” applies to the NUA as of the transfer into the taxable brokerage account (#2 from above).  This amount will not be included if you have unearned income that is subject to the 3.8% Medicare surtax.

The “yes” applies to the additional capital gains that have occurred in the account since you transferred it to the brokerage account.  This amount can potentially be subject to the 3.8% Medicare surtax, if you are otherwise subject to this tax, on top of the capital gains treatment.  From our example above, Ed’s additional gain of $15,000 would have this potential additional tax.

What about a loss?

If you experience a loss after the transfer into the brokerage account (the value becomes less than the basis, in other words) and you subsequently sell the stock, the loss is treated as a long-term capital loss, the same as any other capital transaction.  If the loss was experienced before you distributed the stock from the account – that is, upon the distribution the value of the stock was less than the basis – you may be able to deduct the loss as a miscellaneous itemized deduction, subject to the 2% floor.

Posted on Jan 29th, 2014
by author: jblankenship.

1 comment already - add to the conversation!

Posted in: Affordable Care Act, Medicare, net unrealized appreciation, NUA.
Tagged: · · ·

Watch out for scams at tax time

Jan 27th, 2014
by jblankenship.
No comments yet
Image courtesy of chanpipat at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of chanpipat at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

You’ve probably seen news reports about how identity theft is rampant around the time tax returns are being filed.  All sorts of nefarious schemes are out there, via the phone or email.

The IRS recently published their Special Edition Tax Tip 2014-02, which details the warnings from the IRS about scams.  The full text of the Tip is below.

IRS Warns of Tax-time Scams

It’s true: tax scams proliferate during the income tax filing season.  This year’s season opens on Jan. 31.  The IRS provides the following scam warnings so you can protect yourself and avoid becoming a victim of these crimes:

  • Be vigilant of any unexpected communication purportedly from the IRS at the start of tax season.
  • Don’t fall for phone and phishing email scams tha use the IRS as a lure.  Thieves often pose as the IRS using a bogus refund scheme or warnings to pay past-due taxes.
  • The IRS doesn’t initiate contact with with taxpayers by email to request personal or financial information.  This includes any type of e-communication, such as text messages and social media channels.
  • The IRS doesn’t ask for PINs, passwords or similar confidential information for credit card, bank or other accounts.
  • If you get an unexpected email, don’t open any attachments or click on any links contained in the message.  Instead, forward the email to phishing@irs.gov. For more about how to report phishing scams involving the IRS visit the genuine IRS website, www.IRS.gov.

Here are several steps you can take to help protect yourself against scams and identity theft:

  • Don’t carry your Social Security card or any documents that include your Social Security number or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.
  • Don’t give a business your SSN or ITIN just because they ask.  Give it only when required.
  • Protect your financial information.
  • Check your credit report every 12 months.
  • Secure personal information in your home.
  • Protect your personal computers by using firewalls and anti-spam/virus software, updating security patches and changing passwords for Internet accounts.
  • Don’t’ give personal information over the phone, through the mail or on the Internet unless you have initiated the contact and are sure of the recipient.
  • Be careful when you choose a tax preparer.  Most preparers provide excellent service, but there are a few who are unscrupulous.  Refer to Tips to Help You Choose a Tax Preparer for more details.

For more on this topic, see the special identity theft section on IRS.gov.  Also check out IRS Fact Sheet 2014-1, IRS Combats Identity Theft and Refund Fraud on Many Fronts.

Posted on Jan 27th, 2014
by author: jblankenship.

No comments yet - start the conversation!

Posted in: irs, tax preparers.
Tagged: ·

How to Save More

Jan 24th, 2014
by sraskie.
9 comments

Money

This may seem like common sense but we are common sense people. If your’e looking for ways to save a bit more money in 2014 – here are some steps that you can take

to put some extra green back in your pockets.

1. Brew your own coffee. I’m m a coffee fanatic and rarely go a few hours without replenishing my mug of joe. I can’t imagine what my coffee bill would be per month if I went to the fast food place or coffee shop – likely $5-$10 per day. At $150-$300 per month, brewing my own makes more sense.

2. Cut your TV costs. Don’t watch a lot of TV or want to make more time for other things? Simply reduce the channels you watch or scrap it altogether. This can put an extra $150 in your pocket per month.

3. Turn the lights off. This one is near and dear to me. My wife often calls me the light Nazi as I’m m constantly going through the house checking and turning off lights. Even with energy efficient bulbs, leaving lights on uses energy which raises electric bills.

4. Pay Yourself First. This is a pretty easy concept. Before you pay any other bill, put some aside for yourself. Then live off what’s left. If there’s s not a lot left for cable TV or other luxuries that’s s ok. Your cable box won’t spit out $50 bills for your retirement, given the huge amount you’ve paid into it over your lifetime.

5. Educate yourself. Take some financial planning classes, money classes, or even check out some great books at the library (free of course). You can learn a lot and put yourself in a great position. Note: Cable news money shows are
not education.

6. Take advantage of every tax deduction and credit you can.

7. Start today. The best laid plans are useless without action. Start a savings plan and stick to it. If you can make it automatic (paycheck deductions to a retirement account) even better.

8. Talk to a financial planner. This may be one of the best investments you can make. Since anyone can call themselves a financial planner, start with a CFP; and then go from there. Interview them, ask questions, and become informed.

9. Don’t be a do-it-yourselfer. Do you give yourself the flu shot? Did you build your own home? Would you act as your own attorney? Likely the answer is no for these questions. The same thinking needs to apply when you think about your finances and retirement planning. There’s s a lot to be said for point number 5, but too many folks rely on the last sentence.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted on Jan 24th, 2014
by author: sraskie.

9 comments already - add to the conversation!

Posted in: financial planning, saving.

The Inequity of Spousal Social Security Benefits

Jan 22nd, 2014
by jblankenship.
4 comments
Cover of "Sid and Nancy: The Criterion Co...

Cover of Sid and Nancy: The Criterion Collection

We’ve covered a lot of ground talking about Spousal Benefits and strategies for filing, and other facts to know about Spousal Benefits.  But did you realize that there is a flaw in the process that shortchanges some couples when it comes to Spousal Benefits?

Here’s a pair of example couples to illustrate the inequity:

The first couple: Jane has worked her entire life and has earned a Social Security benefit of $2,600 per month when she retires.  Her husband Sam has been a struggling artist his whole life, as well as a stay-at-home Dad to their three kids when they were young.  As a result, Sam has never generated enough income on his own to receive the requisite 40 quarter-credits to have a Social Security benefit of his own.

The second couple: Sid and Nancy have both worked and had earnings within the Social Security system over their lifetimes.  Sid had a higher level of earnings, generating a Social Security retirement benefit of $2,600 when he’s ready to retire.  Nancy operated a home-based business part-time while the kids were young, and worked outside the home for several years after they were all finished with high school.  As a result, Nancy has a retirement benefit of $1,000 built up for when she’s ready to retire.

The result is this: Both couples, if they file at Full Retirement Age (FRA), will be eligible for the exact same benefit amounts. For the sake of my illustration and to keep things simple, all four individuals reach FRA at the same time.

Jane files for her own retirement benefit of $2,600.  Sam, without an earnings record, can now file for the Spousal Benefit in the amount of $1,300.  Altogether they will receive $3,900 per month.

Sid also files for his own retirement benefit of $2,600.  Nancy then files for her own benefit of $1,000, and since she’s eligible to file for the Spousal Benefit, she will receive a Spousal Benefit offset amount of $300 – bringing her total benefit to $1,300.  Altogether they will receive $3,900 per month.

Exactly the same benefit amount.  Nancy receives nothing extra from Social Security for her earnings record.

One Difference

There is one difference in the options available to these two couples.  Having read my columns on the subject, Sid and Nancy decide that Nancy should file a restricted application for Spousal Benefits only, which would result in the same $1,300 per month benefit.  Nancy can then later, at age 70, file for her own benefit which has been increased due to Delayed Retirement Credits.  This amounts to a 32% increase, which would bring her total benefit to $1,320 per month at that time.

So for her work record, Nancy can increase her overall benefit by $240 per year.  Doesn’t seem fair, does it?  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think a stay-at-home parent should be penalized and receive nothing for his or her time in that critical occupation, nor do I think that spouses with low or no income should suffer either.  But it does seem that there should be *some* additional benefit for the lower-earning spouse who has generated a benefit on his or her own record.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted on Jan 22nd, 2014
by author: jblankenship.

4 comments already - add to the conversation!

Posted in: Social Security, social security retirement, Social Security spousal benefit, Spousal Benefit.
Tagged: · ·

Book Review: The $1,000 Challenge

Jan 20th, 2014
by jblankenship.
No comments yet

I picked up this book at FinCon 2013, the Financial Blogger’s Conference held last year in St. Louis.  The author, Brian J. O’Connor, is the Personal Finance Editor and syndicated “Funny Money” columnist at The Detroit News.  The book is the compilation of a 10-part series O’Connor wrote in 2010, wherein he opened up his personal financial situation to his readers and attempted to come up with ways to save an on-going $1,000 per month on regular, everyday expenses.

The result is a surprisingly interesting (not to mention humorous!) journey with the author into the depths of personal financial dealings – everything from babysitting expenses to transportation costs to groceries.  The author takes each section of his personal finances in turn, laying out what the current costs are, and the steps he took to make reductions in his monthly outlay.  He the takes the series a step further to recommend steps for folks in three “saving” situations: Freeing Up Cash (where you’re looking for ways to increase your savings contributions, for example), Making Ends Meet (when you are constantly coming up just a bit short each month in paying your regular expenses), and Pinching Pennies So Hard That Lincoln Gets A Headache (for folks suffering through long bouts of unemployment or underemployment and have to make drastic changes).

For each situation the author provides sound advice that can be applied to other monetary situations, with a wide array of methods for saving. It seems like this might be a dry reading, but the author has a wonderful way of dropping in little bits of humor to really keep you interested.  Of course, what would you expect from a column known as “Funny Money”?

In addition to the financial aspects of making these changes, O’Connor supplies some real-world advice to help you stay the course and make it all work for you.  Here’s a quote from the Entertainment category, where the author drives home the point that you can’t live solely on Ramen noodles for long:

Trust me. Meal planning, shopping for bargains at the grocery store, and learning to love every part of the chicken – except the McNugget! – will be much easier to bear if you go out for a good crab cake once in a while. Otherwise, you become one very crabby cake yourself.

I won’t ruin it for you by telling how it turns out, but suffice it to say that I believe virtually anyone can gain valuable insights into reducing day-to-day expenses from this book.  And who doesn’t want to save money?

Posted on Jan 20th, 2014
by author: jblankenship.

No comments yet - start the conversation!

Posted in: Book review, financial planning, personal finance.
Tagged: ·

Why Watching the Stock Market Can Make You Sick

Jan 17th, 2014
by sraskie.
4 comments

YuckFaceI recently read a fascinating article on the correlation between market declines and admission rates to hospitals. The authors point out that almost instantaneously; the effects of a market decline affect mental health such as anxiety. In a nutshell, the authors describe that expectations about the future play a role in investor’s utility (happiness) today.

The research in this article can be beneficial on two fronts. One the one hand, the information can be beneficial to advisors in educating their clients that once proper assets allocation for a particular client is achieved there is little to be gained by logging into an account and watching the daily and even hourly fluctuations of the market.

And every asset class will fluctuate – which is why we diversify and allocate assets accordingly such as real estate, large cap stock, small cap stocks, commodities, bonds, etc. It’s important to note that at any given time, any of these asset classes will be both in and out of favor. The more someone watches the gyrations, the more likely their headed for the antacids – or in the case of the article, the hospital!

The other benefit is self-evident for the client; not watching the market can be beneficial to your health and I would argue your wealth. The reason why it’s beneficial for your health is there’s going to be a lot less stress and worry looking at your account on a daily basis. Unless you’re a day trader (proven to be especially useless) there’s little need to look at your account more than once per month – and less if you can stand to.

The reason it’s beneficial for your wealth is that by not watching the daily movements, there’s less of a chance you’re going to act on that worry and succumb to the loser’s game of trying to time and actively beat the market. Additionally, you may be tempted to stop investing in your IRA, 401(k), or other savings plan which is the last thing you want to do in a down market; in fact, consider investing more when the market drops.

Finally, this is where a financial planning professional can be worth their weight in gold (no; that is not a recommendation to buy the metal!). Working with a professional can help you better control your emotions by helping you think objectively which can be extremely difficult in a market downturn.

That being said you still need to do your homework. Make sure your professional isn’t in the same boat when markets fluctuate. If he or she is irrational and thinking emotionally, it’s going to be difficult if not impossible to be objective. And this is your money.

Be leery of professionals that claim to be market prognosticators or actively beat the market or use funds that do so. Numerous empirical studies show that this is almost an impossible feat. And again, this is your money. Also be cautions of “order takers” – meaning professionals that do whatever you ask – as if you were ordering from the drive through.

A good professional financial planner will challenge your requests (politely) if they feel it’s not in your best interest and can help prevent you from making mistake that can be hard to recover from. Case in point: think of all the “orders” that were placed to sell in 2008 when it’s the last thing investors should have done. Some folks experienced irreversible damage to their portfolios.

To quote a wonderful line from one of my favorite investment books, The Investment Answer, “There are those that don’t know, and those that don’t know they don’t know.”

The market is much bigger than all of us so it makes sense not to worry about what we can’t control.

Posted on Jan 17th, 2014
by author: sraskie.

4 comments already - add to the conversation!

Posted in: fee-only, fiduciary, financial planning, investing, investment, investment diversification, real estate investment, recession, retirement, retirement savings.
Tagged: · · ·

Social Security and the Non-Citizen Spouse

Jan 15th, 2014
by jblankenship.
2 comments
Citizenship ceremony, 1960

Citizenship ceremony, 1960 (Photo credit: Oregon Nikkei Legacy Center)

With our increasingly global society today, many married couples are made up of a US citizen and a non-citizen.  In some cases, the non-citizen spouse has never been covered by the US Social Security system – he or she may have been covered by another system in his or her home country.  In other cases, the non-citizen spouse may have worked in a Social Security-covered job while living in the US, and so may have generated a Social Security earnings record of his or her own.

At any rate, it is important to know that your lawful spouse who is a non-citizen may be eligible for Social Security benefits based on your earnings.

As long as other qualifications are met (length of marriage, age of the spouse, and your filing status with Social Security), your non-citizen spouse may qualify for Spousal Benefits based upon your record.  By the same token, your non-citizen spouse will also be eligible for Survivor Benefits upon your passing, as long as all other qualifications are met.

The good news is that if the non-citizen spouse is receiving a pension from another system (such as in his or her home country), this will not trigger GPO (Government Pension Offset) treatment of the Spousal or Survivor Benefits.  These foreign pensions only trigger WEP (Windfall Elimination Provision) impact, and then only to the individual receiving the pension’s own retirement benefit, not the Spousal or Survivor Benefit.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted on Jan 15th, 2014
by author: jblankenship.

2 comments already - add to the conversation!

Posted in: Social Security, Social Security spousal benefit, social security survivor benefits.
Tagged: · ·

Who’s Got Your Back?

Jan 10th, 2014
by sraskie.
No comments yet

Compass

We all have people we look to for advice and people whom we trust deeply with our thoughts, feelings, money, fears and dreams.

These people could be loved ones, friends, family and professionals such a s doctors, psychologists, counselors and planners.

Naturally we don’t trust just anyone with our most intimate thoughts, feelings and dreams. These are reserved for those people that we feel have earned that privilege.

For the last week I have been working at my first residency for my PhD in Financial and Retirement Planning at The American College in Bryn Mawr, Pa. One of the courses involves the subject of ethics – and not just a list of commandments of what we should do, but more of a mentality of what we owe to ourselves, loved ones clients and people we come into contact with on a daily basis.

There has been a lot of theory discussed from Kant, Mills, Aristotle, Bentham and Boatright to name a few. All of these philosophers have had thoughts and contributions to the world of ethics and virtue and have striven to make the world a “better place”. From the standpoint of the scholars in my class we’ve discussed how these virtues can be applied in our lives and how the World would act if it applied the same views.

It became quickly obvious that many theories can be applied and there is not one theory that is better than the other. We all have our own moral compasses – but my question is – what if we all did our best to be our best and treat other with our best?

What kind of World would that be?

In the financial planning industry, what would that mean for the industry? For the people that trust us with their livelihoods, dreams and fears?

I would argue that we would advance the financial planning industry from a vocation to a profession in the eyes of the people we serve. And that’s what we strive to do here. That’s why we embrace the fiduciary standard. That’s why we do what is best for our clients – even if it means they do that best with another company or adviser.

And that’s why we choose to do what we do. For Jim and I, it’s a choice, a duty, a pleasure – and an honor to serve our clients.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted on Jan 10th, 2014
by author: sraskie.

No comments yet - start the conversation!

Posted in: fee-only, fiduciary, financial planning.
Tagged: ·

Medicare Part B and D Premiums for 2014

Jan 8th, 2014
by jblankenship.
2 comments
B

B (Photo credit: Flооd)

Even though other retirement-related items increased for 2014, such as the taxable income limit for Social Security tax ($117,000, up $3,300), the earnings limits for pre-Full Retirement Age Social Security benefits ($15,480 before FRA year, $41,400 during FRA year), and the COLA for Social Security benefits (+1.5%), the premium for Medicare Part B coverage remained the same for 2014, at $104.90 per month.

However, if your income in 2012 was above $85,000 for single filers or $170,000 for married filers, you will have to pay more for your Medicare Part B insurance, but it’s the same increase as in 2013.  Medicare Part D coverage for upper income folks will rise slightly.  The maximum increase for both Part B and Part D tops out at $300.10 per month, for a total premium of $405 per month.

This income amount is actually your Modified Adjusted Gross Income, which is equal to your regular AGI (bottom line on the first page of your 1040 tax return) plus tax-exempt interest, foreign earned income, and Series EE US Savings Bonds that were used for education (and which would otherwise be non-taxed).

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted on Jan 8th, 2014
by author: jblankenship.

2 comments already - add to the conversation!

Posted in: 2014 Tax Year, Medicare.
Tagged:

Penalty for Having No Health Insurance

Jan 6th, 2014
by jblankenship.
No comments yet
English: President Barack Obama's signature on...

English: President Barack Obama’s signature on the health insurance reform bill at the White House, March 23, 2010. The President signed the bill with 22 different pens. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Note: this provision has been repealed beginning with tax year 2019.

As you may already be aware, individuals are required to carry health insurance on themselves and their dependents, as of January 1, 2014.  This is the mandate set forth in the Affordable Care Act – and of course it’s an important part of making the whole Act work.  Small businesses (less than 50 employees) have a similar mandate to provide coverage for employees beginning in 2015, or face penalties themselves.

Without mandating insurance coverage for everyone, the system can’t sustain the lower-cost options for folks who desperately need the medical coverage. This includes folks who are not covered by any other means (employer, Medicare, Medicaid or individually-purchased policies) and who have medical problems that require costly care.  With the mandate, healthier individuals will also have to pony up and purchase health insurance, so that the overall cost is spread among both healthy and not-as-healthy individuals.

There are a few ways that the penalty can be avoided:

  1. Having an insurance policy purchased via the Affordable Care Act Healthcare Exchange for your state.
  2. Having an insurance policy from any other source that meets the minimum standards of the “bronze” level plan on the exchanges.  This includes employer-provided healthcare or other group policies (such as via an association), as well as individually-purchased policies.
  3. If the coverage costs more than 8% of your household Adjusted Gross Income – this applies to employer-provided insurance as well as the net cost of a bronze-level policy from the exchange.  If your income is so low that the cost of either type of policy is more than 8% of your AGI, you will not be penalized.
  4. If you have to go without coverage for a period of less than 3 months, such as when changing jobs, you will also not be penalized.
  5. The same goes for folks who can prove that a hardship has caused them to go without coverage, such as if your policy was canceled and you otherwise cannot afford a policy. (This one is a bit odd, it seems that the situation is covered via #3 above, but I guess that wasn’t complicated enough!)

If you don’t fit any of the above exceptions, you may owe this penalty.  The penalty is the greater of either $95 per person in the household (half that if the dependent is under 18), capped at $285; or 1% of Adjusted Gross Income over the minimum to file a tax return ($20,300 for couples or $10,150 for singles, plus $3,950 per dependent).  At no time can the penalty be more than the cost of the basic bronze-level policy offered on the exchanges.

When your income is less than certain limits, you will receive a tax credit for a portion of the cost of the insurance coverage.  These limits are prescribed by the Act, and the upper limit is 4 times the federal poverty limit – for a family of four, this amounts to $94,200; for a single person, the limit is $45,960.  The credit varies between the limit for filing (mentioned above) and the 400% poverty limit line.  This credit can be paid directly to the insurance provider, lowering your monthly premium (if you’ve purchased via the exchanges) or you can wait to receive the refundable credit when you file your income tax return.

A Quirk

There’s a quirk about this law concerning the penalties for not having insurance: The penalty, which is actually called a tax, is administered by the IRS, collected with your income tax return each year.  However, unlike income taxes and other taxes collected with your income tax return, the IRS cannot use a lien against your property or a levy against your income in order to collect the penalty if owed.  In addition, any amounts unpaid are not charged interest (as with other taxes).  The only way that the IRS can force payment of the penalty is by withholding refunds from other taxes reported on the tax return.  If you’re astute, you’ll notice that there is a planning opportunity there – although not recommended nor for the faint of heart.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted on Jan 6th, 2014
by author: jblankenship.

No comments yet - start the conversation!

Posted in: #noTOP, Affordable Care Act, income tax, income tax credit, irs.
Tagged: · ·

Chasing Returns

Jan 3rd, 2014
by sraskie.
No comments yet

Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner

Looking at this morning’s financial section of the paper inevitably had a piece regarding the assets classes and the respective investors (gamblers) that did exceptionally well in 2013. There was mention of a firm that bet heavily on Japanese stocks and did very well, another investor bet against gold and achieved glamorous returns and a hedge fund that bet on US stocks and looked like gods among mortals.

But that’s the problem with these scenarios – we are mortal.

Pick up any financial magazine that reports on funds or stock returns and you’ll see examples of mutual funds, stocks and bonds that have either beaten or done worse than their counterparts. For example, US stocks did very well in 2013 – so a domestic large cap fund would look amazing based on what it did for 2013. Herein lies the problem; the publication is reporting what the fund did, not what it will do.

Investors that chase returns are falling prey to the thinking that past returns are indicative of future results when we know that that’s not the case. There’s no guarantee that the fund or stock or bond will increase in value and there’s no guarantee that it will decline. We just don’t know.

For more specific funds and stocks – there may be a good chance that the fund is going to go down although it may not happen right away. The reason is that when the publications show the funds with amazing returns, there are some people that flock to those funds since they are chasing returns. Prices temporarily increase. What happens next is that those folks that have been in the fund for quite some time sell – and sell a lot. Naturally when there’s quite a bit of selling fund prices drop – and so do the returns of those investors that chased last year’s results.

Another reason prices drop is due to mean reversion. Simply stated mean reversion is the concept that a fund’s prices will move toward their average over time. A simple, but exaggerated example of this is let’s say a fund’s average return is 10% over 20 years. In one year it returns 40% – which is very respectable. However, according to mean reversion it can be expected (although there’s no guarantee as to when) that at some point in the future the fund is going to experience a declination (either gradually or suddenly) in order to get back to its average return of 10%.

Another way to look at this concept is standard deviation (for another article later) which is really how much something flip-flops around an average. To keep things easy, let’s say this fund has a standard deviation of 10% also. With an average return of 10% and a high of 40%, means that this fund went three standard deviations above its average. This means that it could also go three standard deviations below the average or achieve a -20% return.

Without getting too mathematical or statistical on our readers it simply means that this fund flip-flops a lot and if it’s flipped 40% returns in the last year, there’s a good chance it could flop going forward.

Rather than chasing returns a wise choice is to invest broadly among asset classes and diversify accordingly. An excellent way to do this is through indexing – buying index funds of different asset classes (such as stock, bonds real estate and international stocks and bonds). This helps an investor avoid chasing returns and helps them accept that certain asset classes will rise and others will fall – but the combination of all of them in one portfolio not only lowers overall portfolio risk, but prevents an investor from chasing the next big fund – which according to the latest financial magazines – already happened.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted on Jan 3rd, 2014
by author: sraskie.

No comments yet - start the conversation!

Posted in: fee-only, fiduciary, financial planning, investing, investment, passive investing.
Tagged: · ·

Goals for 2014

Jan 1st, 2014
by sraskie.
No comments yet

GoalGoals setting and resolutions are among the top things on peoples’ minds when they start the New Year. And rightfully so. A new year signals a fresh, start a new beginning, a clean slate.

Feeling refreshed and ready, most people start on their resolutions with the best of intentions – for about a week or two. Then they either give up, forget, fall back onto the same habits and routines that they promised they’d get out of the year before.

It’s great to have resolutions – but they must be accompanied by resolve. What is resolve? Resolve, according to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary is to make a definite and serious decision to do something. This means planning ahead, expecting obstacles and figuring out ways to push through and achieve your goals. I recommend writing your goals or resolutions down.

Here’s how:

To begin write out your financial, fitness, work, eating, etc. goals that you would like to achieve throughout the course of this year. Make sure you study them carefully and write down reasonable goals. What I mean by this is that it’s important not to set a goal so high that you can’t possibly achieve it. For example, if I wrote down a goal stating that I’d like to be able to save $1,000 per day that would be a goal that’s too high. Instead, I might write down $100 per month. This goal could be sensible and attainable. Now if I was already saving $100 per month – than this wouldn’t be a goal at all – so I may up the amount to $200 and so on.

 

You want to lose weight? Set a reasonable amount you want to lose (2-3 lbs. per week is ideal). That goal can and will be attainable. Make sure you write down your goals and read them every night before you go to bed and every morning when you get up – WITHOUT FAIL.

Also, always write your goals in the first person, present tense. This programs your subconscious to take action immediately in the “here and now.” For example, you may write down, “I save $100 per month.” Or, “I run 5 miles per week.”

Write down your specific goal (whatever money, weight, business goal you want to attain). You can also put up a photo of someone whose net worth, business model or physique you’d like to achieve and of someone you don’t ever want to be or look like. Keep these photos where you can see them every day.

Once you’ve reached a certain goal, reward yourself!! This can be that new toy you’ve had your eye on, or something you’ve denied yourself until you reached that goal.

Finally, sign and date your goals. Giving yourself a deadline and committing to it with your signature produces a sense of urgency and importance. After all, can you think of anything you sign that isn’t important? Think of it as a contractual obligation to yourself!

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted on Jan 1st, 2014
by author: sraskie.

No comments yet - start the conversation!

Posted in: #noTOP, fee-only, fiduciary, financial planning, goals, retirement.
Tagged: ·

2014 IRA MAGI Limits – Married Filing Separately

Jan 1st, 2014
by jblankenship.
No comments yet
Separated Strawberry

Separated Strawberry (Photo credit: bthomso)

Note: for the purposes of IRA MAGI qualification, a person filing as Married Filing Separately, who did not live with his or her spouse during the tax year, is considered Single and will use the information on that page to determine eligibility.

For a Traditional IRA (Filing Status Married Filing Separately):

If you are not covered by a retirement plan at your job and your spouse is not covered by a retirement plan, there is no MAGI limitation on your deductible contributions.

If you are covered by a retirement plan at your job and your MAGI is less than $10,000, you are entitled to a partial deduction, reduced by 55% for every dollar (or 65% if over age 50), and rounded up to the nearest $10.  If the amount works out to less than $200, you are allowed to contribute at least $200.

If you are covered by a retirement plan at your job and your MAGI is more than $10,000, you are not entitled to deduct any of your traditional IRA contributions for tax year 2014.  You are eligible to make non-deductible contributions, up the annual limit, and those contributions can benefit from the tax-free growth inherent in the IRA account.

If you are not covered by a retirement plan but your spouse is, and your MAGI is less than $10,000, you are entitled to a partial deduction, reduced by 55% for every dollar over the lower limit (or 65% if over age 50), and rounded up to the nearest $10.  If the amount works out to less than $200, you are allowed to contribute at least $200.

Finally, if you are not covered by a retirement plan but your spouse is, and your MAGI is greater than $10,000, you are not entitled to deduct any of your traditional IRA contributions for tax year 2014.  You are eligible to make non-deductible contributions, up the annual limit, and those contributions can benefit from the tax-free growth inherent in the IRA account.

For a Roth IRA (Filing Status of Married Filing Separately):

If your MAGI is less than $10,000, your contribution to a Roth IRA is reduced ratably by every dollar, rounded up to the nearest $10.  If the amount works out to less than $200, you are allowed to contribute at least $200.

If your MAGI is $10,000 or more, you can not contribute to a Roth IRA.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted on Jan 1st, 2014
by author: jblankenship.

No comments yet - start the conversation!

Posted in: #noTOP, 2014 Tax Year, IRA, magi, Roth IRA.
Tagged: · ·

2014 MAGI Limits for IRAs – Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er)

Jan 1st, 2014
by jblankenship.
1 comment
rendered universal joint animation. Español: M...

rendered universal joint animation. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Note: for the purposes of IRA MAGI qualification, a person filing as Married Filing Separately, who did not live with his or her spouse during the tax year, is considered Single and will use the information on that page to determine eligibility.

For a Traditional IRA (Filing Status Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er)):

If you are not covered by a retirement plan at your job and your spouse is not covered by a retirement plan, there is no MAGI limitation on your deductible contributions.

If you are covered by a retirement plan at work, and your MAGI is $96,000 or less, there is also no limitation on your deductible contributions to a traditional IRA.

If you are covered by a retirement plan at your job and your MAGI is more than $96,000 but less than $116,000, you are entitled to a partial deduction, reduced by 27.5% for every dollar over the lower limit (or 32.5% if over age 50), and rounded up to the nearest $10. If the amount works out to less than $200, you are allowed to contribute at least $200.

If you are covered by a retirement plan at your job and your MAGI is more than $116,000, you are not entitled to deduct any of your traditional IRA contributions for tax year 2014. You are eligible to make non-deductible contributions, up the annual limit, and those contributions can benefit from the tax-free growth inherent in the IRA account.

If you are not covered by a retirement plan at your job, but your spouse IS covered by a retirement plan, and your MAGI is less than $181,000, you can deduct the full amount of your IRA contributions.

If you are not covered by a retirement plan but your spouse is, and your MAGI is greater than $181,000 but less than $191,000, you are entitled to a partial deduction, reduced by 55% for every dollar over the lower limit (or 65% if over age 50), and rounded up to the nearest $10. If the amount works out to less than $200, you are allowed to contribute at least $200.

Finally, if you are not covered by a retirement plan but your spouse is, and your MAGI is greater than $191,000, you are not entitled to deduct any of your traditional IRA contributions for tax year 2014. You are eligible to make non-deductible contributions, up the annual limit, and those contributions can benefit from the tax-free growth inherent in the IRA account.

For a Roth IRA (Filing Status of Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er)):

If your MAGI is less than $181,000, you are eligible to contribute the entire amount to a Roth IRA.

If your MAGI is between $181,000 and $191,000, your contribution to a Roth IRA is reduced ratably by every dollar above the lower end of the range, rounded up to the nearest $10. If the amount works out to less than $200, you are allowed to contribute at least $200.

If your MAGI is $191,000 or more, you cannot contribute to a Roth IRA.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted on Jan 1st, 2014
by author: jblankenship.

1 comment already - add to the conversation!

Posted in: #noTOP, 12/8/2010 update, 2014 Tax Year, IRA, magi, Roth IRA.
Tagged: · ·

2014 MAGI Limits – Single or Head of Household

Jan 1st, 2014
by jblankenship.
1 comment
David Lee Roth IRA ruins my perfect shot

David Lee Roth IRA ruins my perfect shot (Photo credit: nickfarr)

Note: for the purposes of IRA MAGI qualification, a person filing as Married Filing Separately who did not live with his or her spouse during the tax year, is considered Single and will use the information on this page to determine eligibility.

For a Traditional IRA (Filing Status Single or Head of Household):

If you are not covered by a retirement plan at your job, there is no MAGI limitation on your deductible contributions.

If you are covered by a retirement plan at work, if your MAGI is $60,000 or less, there is also no limitation on your deductible contributions to a traditional IRA.

If you are covered by a retirement plan at your job and your MAGI is more than $60,000 but less than $70,000, you are entitled to a partial deduction, reduced by 55% for every dollar over the lower limit (or 65% if over age 50), and rounded up to the nearest $10. If the amount works out to less than $200, you are allowed to contribute at least $200.

If you are covered by a retirement plan at your job and your MAGI is more than $70,000, you are not entitled to deduct any of your traditional IRA contributions for tax year 2014. You are eligible to make non-deductible contributions, up the annual limit, and those contributions can benefit from the tax-free growth inherent in the IRA account.

For a Roth IRA (Filing Status Single or Head of Household):

If your MAGI is less than $114,000, you are eligible to contribute the entire amount to a Roth IRA.

If your MAGI is between $114,000 and $129,000, your contribution to a Roth IRA is reduced ratably by every dollar above the lower end of the range, rounded up to the nearest $10. If the amount works out to less than $200, you are allowed to contribute at least $200. If your MAGI is $129,000 or more, you cannot contribute to a Roth IRA.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted on Jan 1st, 2014
by author: jblankenship.

1 comment already - add to the conversation!

Posted in: #noTOP, 2014 Tax Year, IRA, magi, Roth IRA.
Tagged: · ·

New Year’s Resolutions You Can Keep

Dec 30th, 2013
by jblankenship.
No comments yet
Gym

Gym (Photo credits: www.mydoorsign.com)

This time of year it’s cliché to make resolutions for the coming year.  Whether it’s to lose weight, stop a bad habit, or begin saving for retirement, many of us set these goals at the beginning of the new year.  And then three weeks into the new year, we’ve left that goal astern – having changed nothing at all.

The problem is in how we set goals for ourselves.  For example, we might make the bold statement that we want to lose weight.  Often, that’s all there is to our resolution – but there’s much more to setting a goal than making a statement about it.  There has to be a plan, and some specifics around the goal.

If the resolution is to lose weight, first of all you need to put some specifics around that goal:

I want to lose fifteen pounds in 2014.

Now, how are you going to do this? Is it going to happen all at once? One fine day you’ll wake up and you’re 15 pounds lighter?  Of course not.  But it’s that “presto” mentality that often derails us.  We dive into our 15-pound goal with much gusto, going to the gym and working out four days a week for the first week. (Have you ever tried to get a treadmill at the gym during the first week of January? Impossible!)

Then, when we don’t see the automatic result after the first couple of weeks, we get discouraged, and we start to fall back into our old routines.  Pretty soon we’ve given up on the goal altogether.  How can you stop this cycle? Incrementalism.

Incrementalism

Instead of focusing on the year-long goal of losing fifteen pounds, look at the goal incrementally – set yourself monthly goals of losing 1¼ pounds each month.  That’s a much more attainable goal, and not one that you have to spend hours on the treadmill each day to achieve.  You might be able to achieve this by taking a walk for 20 minutes, three days a week, and pushing back from the table a bit sooner at mealtime.  Before you know it, you’re incorporating the walks into your daily routine, and you’re not missing the extra helping of taters – and you’ve lost that month’s 1¼ pounds.  Keep up the incremental changes through the year, and voila! you’ve met your yearly goal.

The trick is in looking at shorter-term increments to meet the larger goal. When we look at the larger goal only, we think we’ve got to do something heroic in order to meet the goal.  By taking a short term view, we realize that smaller, incremental changes will help us to get to that short-term goal.

Let’s take saving for retirement as an example: In 2014 you have the goal of saving $5,500 to make a full IRA contribution toward your retirement.  If we focus on the full $5,500 – that can be a significant amount to come up with.  Instead, incrementalize the goal.  Look at it in terms of your regular payroll cycle – every two weeks.  That works out to $211 every paycheck.

That’s not insignificant, especially if you’re on a tight budget already, but it can be done.  There are many places where we’re short-changing ourselves, paying for more things than are necessary.  Most folks have more tax withheld from their pay than is necessary, which results in an over-large income tax refund.  Making a change to your W4 filed with your employer will help to free up some extra cash to make up the $211 each payday that you are looking to save.

Other areas can be reviewed as well – rarely-used gym memberships, rented storage lockers (full of stuff we haven’t thought of for years!), magazine subscriptions that we don’t take time to read, and lunches out while working – all represent places where we can free up cash for the by-weekly $211 contribution to the IRA.

Insurance premiums – for homeowner’s and auto insurance – can be reduced by upping the deductibles on these policies.  For example, a $1,000 deductible on your auto insurance policy (rather than $250) will result in a decrease in the cost of the policy.  Most of the time, if you have minor damage to a vehicle (less than $1,000) you’re better off to pay for it yourself rather than submit a claim, since your insurance company will make up the difference (plus!) by increasing your premium in the coming years.  The same is true for your homeowner’s policy.

Start going through your month-to-month expenses and finding those places to free up the cash on an incremental basis, and soon enough you’ll have that $211 per pay period freed up, and next thing you know you’ve saved that $5,500 for the year.  This is the magic of incrementalism.

Keep in mind that the net result of your $5,500 contribution to the IRA, if it’s a deductible IRA, will be less than the full $5,500 after you’ve prepared your tax return.  If you’re in the 25% marginal tax bracket, the net resulting cost is $4,125, since you are paying $1,375 less tax on your income by making the $5,500 contribution.

So – go forth and make your resolutions for 2014.  But put some more planning into the process, and incrementalize the goals.  You’ll have a much better chance of meeting them.  And if you follow this advice, leave word below about your plans and your successes.  We’d love to hear about them!

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted on Dec 30th, 2013
by author: jblankenship.

No comments yet - start the conversation!

Posted in: goals, IRA, retirement savings.
Tagged: · ·

What’s in Store for 2014?

Dec 27th, 2013
by sraskie.
1 comment

English: Wall Street sign on Wall Street

A few weeks ago I was interviewed by a local business journal about our firm’s thoughts as to how the market would react in 2014 and how to best prepare for that reaction. Essentially, the journal was asking us to predict where the market would be in 2014.

Most of our clients know the answer I am about to write, which was, “No one can predict the direction of the market with any degree of accuracy.” “If that were the case, (as I told the interviewer) neither she nor I would be having this interview.” In other words, we’d be clinking our glasses on our respective tropical beaches because we’d have gotten filthy rich predicting and timing the moves of the market.

Markets are pretty efficient – meaning that the price of any particular stock in any particular sector, industry or country is generally priced based on all available information about that particular security. Think of it this way: Wall Street hires thousands of analysts to comb through the financials of thousands of publicly traded companies. So the information about those companies is known almost instantaneously and the prices of those stocks react instantly to any change in information.

Rhetorical questions:

If Wall Street analysts are good at forecasting the market and different stocks, why do they still work as analysts?

 If Wall Street was any good a predicting the market, how did 2008 happen?

If I had to make a prediction for 2014 it would be this: Markets will rise and fall and be jittery and overly-emotional. They’re just like people – after all, that’s who drives markets anyway.

It can be very tempting to try to predict and time the markets and react emotionally. A few months ago we had the debt ceiling issue and there was worry that markets would crash. We recommended clients hold steadfast – and our clients are happy they did; as markets didn’t crash but actually reached new highs shortly afterward.

This wasn’t brilliance on our part – but sticking to our strategy of once we find the right mix of assets for a particular client, the majority of returns comes from that investment mix – not timing.

Not timing and not predicting prevents us from one of the major psychological flaws that can happen to money managers – confirmation bias. Say we predicted that 2014 was going to be a bullish year and we were right, now we would be tempted to enter 2015 thinking we had superior knowledge of the direction of the market instead of really admitting it was dumb luck.

The best way to predict is to own the market and diversify accordingly. This includes owning a well-diversified mix of index funds and or ETFs (which we do for our clients) and learn to manage emotions (which we try to do for our clients).

This allows our clients time to focus on things worth focusing on such as family, friends, goals and aspirations and frees them from the burden of trying to time their investments (something we admit we cannot do). It also allows us to focus more on building relationships with our clients and keeps our clients costs very low.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted on Dec 27th, 2013
by author: sraskie.

1 comment already - add to the conversation!

Posted in: #noTOP, fee-only, fiduciary, investing, investment.
Tagged: · · · · ·

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →