Getting Your Financial Ducks In A Row Rotating Header Image

Tax Act 2010 Provisions

extension cord by Unhindered by TalentAs you are likely aware, two major bills enacting tax cuts for individuals will expire at the end of 2010: the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA); and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA).  The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Tax Act 2010) extends quite a few provisions from EGTRRA and JGTRRA for an additional two years, most through 2012.  It also extends a number of provisions enacted as part of EGTRRA that were modified in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

fyi – you can find the technical explanation at jct.gov – in the document JCX-55-10.

Below is a summary of some of the more important provisions that will be extended:

Reduction in Employee Payroll Tax

The 2010 Tax Act provides for a temporary reduction, for 2011 only, of the employee-paid Social Security payroll tax, from 6.2% to 4.2%.  Self-employed individuals will see a reduction in the SE tax from 12.4% to 10.4%.  The same threshold applies as in 2010 – only the first $106,800 is taxed for Social Security.

Individual Income Tax

Temporarily extend the 10% bracket – if the extension hadn’t passed, the 10% individual income tax bracket would have been eliminated, making 15% the lowest tax bracket for individuals.  The Tax Act 2010 extends the 10% bracket through 2012.

Temporarily extend the 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35% brackets – these brackets will also be extended through 2012.  Otherwise, upon expiration, these rates would have moved to 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6%, respectively.

Temporarily repeal the Personal Exemption Phase-out – if not extended, the Personal Exemption Phase-out for taxpayers with AGI above a certain level would have returned for 2011 (it was repealed for 2010). The 2010 Tax Act extends the repeal through 2012.

Temporarily repeal the itemized deduction limitation – much like the Personal Exemption Phase-out, the AGI limit on itemized deductions was repealed for 2010 only (by EGTRRA), and Tax Act 2010 extends the repeal through 2012.

Temporarily extend the capital gains and dividend rates – unless the extension bill passed, the current capital gains and dividend tax rates (0% for those in tax brackets less than 25%, 15% for those in the 25% or higher brackets) would have reverted to the pre-EGTRRA rates of 10% and 20%, with dividends being taxed at ordinary income tax rates.  The Tax Act 2010 extends the current rates (0% and 15%) through 2012.

Child Tax credit – without the extension, the Child Tax credit would have reduced back to $500, the pre-EGTRRA amount, from $1,000, after 2010.  The Tax Act 2010 extends this provision through 2012.

AMT tax “patch” extension – annually, Congress votes to add a patch to the tax law, increasing the Alternative Minimum Tax exemption above the specific amount in the law, which is $33,750 for singles and $45,000 for married couples.  The extension puts the “patch” in place for both 2010 and 2011, with the amounts indexed for inflation up to this year and next.

“Third-Child” Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) – under current law, working families with two or more children currently qualify for an earned income tax credit equal to 40% of the family’s first $12,570 of earned income.  The ARRA 2009 increased, for 2010 only, the earned income tax credit to 45% of the family’s first $12,570 of earned income for families with three or more children and increased the phaseout range for all married couples filing a joint return.  The 2010 Tax Act extends these provisions for an additional two years, through 2012.

Marriage Penalty relief – the marriage penalty relief for the standard deduction, 15% tax bracket, and EITC would have expired at the end of 2010.  The 2010 Tax Act extends this relief through 2012.

Temporarily extend the expanded dependent care credit – this expanded dependent care credit allows a taxpayer a credit for an applicable percentage of child care expenses for children under age 13, and disabled dependents.  The EGTRRA increased the amount of eligible expenses from $2,400 for one child and $4,800 for two or more children to $3,000 and $6,000, respectively.  This was set to expire in 2010, but the 2010 Tax Act extends these amounts through 2012.

Temporarily extend the increased adoption tax credit – EGTRRA increased the credit from $5,000 to $10,000, and provided an income exclusion of up to $10,000 for employer-assistance programs.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 extended these benefits through 2011, and now the 2010 Tax Act extends these amounts through 2012.

Extension of deduction of state and local general sales taxes – the Tax Act 2010 extends through 2011 the election to take an itemized deduction for state and local sales taxes in lieu of the itemized deduction for state and local income taxes.

Estate and Gift Tax Provisions

Temporary estate tax relief – without this bill, the estate tax would have reverted to the pre-2001 level of 55% top tax rate and a $1 million exemption.  The Tax Act 2010 reduces the top tax rate to 35% and imposes an exemption amount of $5 million – and $10 million for couples!  This couple provision is new, as always in the past the exemption could only be used by each individual, so this is groundbreaking (more in the next paragraph).  The new legislation allows that the rate and exemptions will be effective for all of 2010, although there are some options for estates that came into being during 2010 (to the date of the law’s passage).  This also applies to the Generation Skipping Transfer Tax (GSTT).

Portability of exemption – this new provision works with the “couple” exemption mentioned above.  This provision allows the total exemption amount of $10 million to be utilized by a combination of the two spouses that make up the couple, rather than specific amounts attached to each individual.  This should reduce some of the complexity in estate planning for couples.

Reunification of gift tax and estate tax – beginning in 2011, gift tax and estate tax will re unified in their credit amounts and rates.  This means that the lifetime exemption of $5,000,000 can be used for either gifts or bequests.  The tax rate on gifts or bequests above the exemption is the same for either, 35%.

Education Provisions

Temporary extension of Coverdell provisions – the extension will leave the current Coverdell provisions in place through 2012, instead of letting them expire at the end of 2010.  This primarily leaves the annual contribution amount at $2,000 (instead of $500), and provides for the use of Coverdell funds for elementary and secondary school tuition, as has been the case since EGTRRA.

Temporary extension of above-the-line deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers – this extends the $250 above-the-line deduction through 2011 (and includes 2010).

Temporary extension of the above-the-line deduction for qualified education expenses – this deduction is extended for both 2010 and 2011.

Temporary extension of the expanded exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance – EGTRRA had the provision for excluding up to $5,250 from gross income per year for employer-provided educational assistance, through 2010.  The Tax Act 2010 extends the provision through 2012.

Temporary extension of the expanded student loan interest deduction – this provision provides the ability to deduct, above-the-line, up to $2,500 in interest paid for student loans.  The Tax Act 2010 extends this provision through 2012.

Extension of the American Opportunity Tax Credit – this credit, which replaced the old Hope credit, was created under ARRA, and allowed for a tax credit up to $2,500 for tuition and related expenses paid through 2010.  The Tax Act 2010 extends the American Opportunity Tax Credit through 2012.

Other Important Provisions

Extension of charitable IRA contribution provision – without the extension bill, this provision would have expired in 2009.  The Tax Act 2010 extends this provision for 2010 and 2011, allowing IRA owners age 70½ or older to make charitable contributions of up to $100,000 directly from their IRA – without having to recognize the distribution for tax purposes.

In addition to all of the above, there are quite a few business-owner-oriented tax provisions being extended and enhanced with this new law.  Again, let me know if you need additional details.

Photo by Unhindered by Talent

Charitable Contributions From Your IRA in 2010 and 2011

293px-Weston-super-Mare_station_Dandy_memorialWith the passage of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Tax Act 2010 or 2010 Tax Act), Congress retroactively reinstated the ability to make direct qualified charitable distributions (QCDs) from your IRA, in amounts up to $100,000 by IRA owners who are at least age 70½ years of age.

This provision expired at the end of 2009, but is once again available, retroactive to January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2011.

The provision allows the individual, age 70½ and thus subject to Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs), to make contributions directly from an IRA to a Qualified Charity, in an amount of up to $100,000 per year.  Since the 2010 Tax Act was passed so late in the year, there is a special provision for 2010 only, which allows the IRA owner to make such a QCD for the 2010 tax year as late as January 31, 2011.

QCDs can be used to satisfy the RMD requirement for the IRA owner, and the special provision allows the IRA owner to make such a distribution during January 2011 and elect to count this distribution toward his or her 2010 RMD.

This means that the IRA owner who doesn’t need his or her RMD for income can direct the distribution to the charity of his or her choice.  In addition, he or she will not have to recognize the distribution as income for determining Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) or any modified AGI calculations.

fyi – you can find the technical explanation at jct.gov – in the document JCX-55-10.

Photo by Wikimedia

Social Security by the Numbers

mixed numbers by Pink Sherbet PhotographyHere are some Social Security numbers I recently ran across that I found interesting.  The figures are from the current information available as of October, 2010:

The average retired worker receives $1,172 in monthly Social Security retirement benefits, and the average couple receives $1,892.  The average disabled worker receives $1,066 in Social Security disability benefits each month, and this amount increases to $1,803 for a disabled worker with a spouse and child.

The average widow or widower receives a total of $1,106 in Social Security survivor benefits per month, whereas a younger widow or widower with two children receives an average monthly benefit of $2,391.

Each month, over 34 million people receive Social Security retirement benefits, and over 4 million are receiving survivor’s benefits as a widow or widower.  Over 8 million people are receiving disability benefits from the Social Security system each month, as well.

Photo by Pink Sherbet Photography

SSA Revises Withdrawal Policy

On December 8, 2010, the Social Security Administration published a revision to their “withdrawal policy”.  It’s important for you to know what has changed about this rule, especially if you have been counting on this in your planning for Social Security benefits.  You can see the actual text of the SSA’s announcement 20 CFR Part 404 by clicking here.

What’s Changing?

Essentially SSA has decided that this rule, as it stood, represented a little too good of a deal, even though very few people ever took advantage of it.  The rule, in brief, allowed an individual to begin taking retirement benefits at any age, and then at any point in the future the individual could pay back all of the benefits (without interest) and re-set his or her beginning date for receiving benefits.  This strategy allowed the individual to receive benefits and invest them, then pay back the entire amount (but keep any interest earned or growth) and then receive a higher benefit due to the credits for delaying retirement.

Under the new rules, you can still use this strategy, but you can only wait for 12 months before you pay back your received benefits.  This doesn’t mean that you have to re-set your benefit and continue receiving benefits at the 12 month or less stage – you could pay back your benefit and withdraw from receiving benefits until much later if you wish.

So, the key here is that you couldn’t, for example, begin receiving benefits at age 62, then at age 70 pay it all back and re-set.  You’re limited to only 12 months of received benefits before you pay it back.  In the example, you could receive benefits at age 62 until you’ve received 12 months’ worth, then stop receiving benefits and pay back what you received – then delay reinstating your benefit until FRA or age 70 or whenever you like.  Or, at age 63 you could pay it back and re-set to a benefit for your new attained age.

Another thing that has changed is that you can only do this payback (known by the SSA as a “withdrawal of application”) one time in your life.  Previously, there was no limit as to how many times you could do this.

File and Suspend Changing – but not a big change

The last significant change that came about today is regarding the File and Suspend tactic.  Don’t worry, this one is still available – what changed is that you can no longer enact a “payback” of received benefits (like with the “do-over”).  File and Suspend is only allowed when this is your first application for benefits, meaning that you have not received any benefits in the past (although you could suspend after FRA and voluntarily forego accrued benefits).

Of course, the greatest benefit of the File and Suspend tactic is the ability to establish a “beginning date” on your record, so that then your spouse and dependents can begin receiving benefits based upon your record.  This remains unchanged.

New Book: “Can I Retire?”

My friend Mike Piper at Oblivious Investor recently published a new book Can I Retire? Managing a Retirement Portfolio Explained in 100 Pages or Less. The book is available for sale on Amazon.

As the latest addition to Mike’s “…in 100 Pages or Less” series, this book answers two questions:

  1. How much money will you need to retire?
  2. How should you manage your retirement portfolio to minimize the risk of outliving your money?
What Makes This Book Unique?

How does this book hope to be better than, for example, The Bogleheads’ Guide to Retirement Planning or Jim Otar’s Unveiling the Retirement Myth?

It doesn’t. It’s not better. It’s shorter.

Can I Retire? is written for the person who might not be able to find the time to read Otar’s entire 525-page book or the 370-page Bogleheads’ Guide.

If you’re considering reading a more in-depth guide to retirement planning, I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so. (Both of the above-mentioned books are excellent!) But if there’s a good chance that, if you were to buy one of those other books, it would sit unread on your coffee table or bookshelf, then this book is written for you.

What Topics Does the Book Address?

Some of the topics addressed in the book include:

  • How to calculate how much you’ll need saved before you can retire,
  • How to use annuities to minimize the risk of outliving your money,
  • How to choose which accounts (Roth vs. traditional IRA vs. taxable) to withdraw from each year,
  • When it makes sense to use a Roth IRA conversion to save on taxes,
  • How to choose an appropriate asset allocation for your retirement portfolio, and
  • How to minimize taxes by proper use of an asset location strategy.
Retiring Soon? Pick Up a Copy of Mike’s New Book:

Can I Retire? Managing a Retirement Portfolio Explained in 100 Pages or Less

Click here to see it on Amazon.

The F* Word Rocks

f word by Justin.Beck(*F is for Fiduciary)

Much has been said and written in the past year about standards to which advisors are held.  This has been primarily due to the recent passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which included a provision requiring the SEC to study the oversight of brokers and Registered Investment Advisers (RIAs).

While there are many nuances to the oversight differential, it really boils down to one thing:  RIAs are held to a fiduciary standard; brokers are held to a suitability standard.  Briefly, a fiduciary advisor is required to act with undivided loyalty to the client, including disclosure of compensation methods and conflicts of interest.  On the other hand, the broker’s suitability standard requires only that the broker’s recommendations are suitable for the client’s situation.

Those two definitions are on opposite sides of quite a chasm, don’t you think?  I think that the consumer of financial services deserves to receive advice from an advisor who has their best interests at heart.  (Full disclosure: in case you hadn’t already guessed, I’m a fiduciary advisor.)

This is not to say that a broker is not capable of having undivided loyalty to the client – I’m sure many do, even though they’re not required to.  What is disturbing is the fact that the broker industry has been strongly opposing the fiduciary standard – with the argument that it will be costly to implement and will leave certain lower-end consumers without an affordable choice.

Wait a second… does that mean that in order to serve these lower-end consumers, the professional has to provide recommendations that are not in the best interest of the consumer?  What other compromises are there?

I’ll repeat myself:  I think that the consumer of financial services deserves to receive advice from an advisor who has their best interests at heart.  I realize that the whole concept (this study by the SEC, that is) is only so much legalistic mumbo-jumbo for most folks.  And honestly, since the big money is on the side of the brokers and insurance companies, I don’t expect for a true fiduciary standard to be applied to all advisors after the SEC’s study.

But this is a law that you can write for your own world.  If you agree that the F word rocks – that is, a fiduciary standard makes sense to you – then you can take charge and require that all advisors that you work with are held to a fiduciary standard. This way, no matter what the SEC does, you’re covered.

Generally speaking, the broker is paid to do one thing: sell financial products.  If you’re in the market for a financial product and you know what you want to purchase, by all means, go to a broker and buy it.  But if you’re looking for advice in your best interests, look for a fiduciary.  That’s what they’re paid to provide.  And when you do, I’m betting you’ll be glad you did – the F word rocks!

Photo by Justin.Beck

Update on Time Out of the Market

paintbox by ZixiiAs an update to the article I wrote last month about the Cost or Benefit of Time Out of the Market, as promised I went back and ran the numbers for all the S&P 500 data that I could locate, starting in January, 1871.  This information is taken from an ongoing study by Robert Schiller for his book “Irrational Exuberance”, and since the S&P 500 index hasn’t actually been around for that whole time, the earlier numbers are an approximation of the index.

So anyhow, I looked at both five-year and ten-year data for a buy-and-hold strategy and the same periods for our momentum strategy (discussed in the earlier article).

In the buy-and-hold strategy, in the average five year period the return averaged approximately 6% per year, an aggregate of 31.49%, and for the ten-year periods, the average was a little higher, at just over 7¼%, for a total return of 72.60%.  Using the momentum strategy, these numbers increased for each period on average, to over 8% (42.49% total) and more than 10½% (105.38% total).

In the buy-and-hold tests, this strategy resulted in a positive (greater than zero) return in 68.34% of the five-year periods, and 75.76% of the ten-year periods.  By comparison, in the momentum tests, the results were even better:  94% positive returns in the five-year periods, 99.61% in the ten-year periods.

This is good information, but what about comparing the two strategies in terms of how often one is better than the other?  Not as often as you might think, given the results we see in the other categories:  67.90% of the time in the five-year tests the momentum strategy came up with a better result, and 69.62% of the time in the ten-year tests.

So, in roughly 7 out of 10 circumstances, you could be better off with the momentum strategy… when does the momentum strategy not work?  That is, when does a buy-and-hold strategy pay off better than the momentum strategy?

There are a few sustained examples (just using the 10-year periods, for brevity) where a buy-and-hold strategy gives a better result than the momentum strategy.  Those are the ten-year periods ending during these dates:

  • March, 1952 to May, 1966
  • August, 1967 to April, 1970
  • April, 1980 to May, 2002

If you don’t recognize these periods, these were the most rampant economic expansion timeframes that our market experienced over the past 140 years.  During these periods, the average monthly return on the S&P 500 was 0.66%, while the 140 year average was only 0.42%.  The aggregate return of the buy-and-hold strategy during these periods averaged 129.54% for each 10-year period, while the momentum strategy only returned an average of 109.54%, losing 2% for each year in the ten-year period.

So, the conclusion is that, while this is an interesting strategy, it’s not fool-proof.  If you’re looking only to have a positive return on your 10-year investing horizon, the momentum strategy seems to be almost waterproof on that score.  Just keep in mind that, as I mentioned previously, this strategy requires the utmost of discipline to the task – missing a few days here and there can derail the strategy altogether.  It might be interesting (if you’re so inclined) to use this momentum strategy on a small portion of your portfolio – but as I’ve mentioned before, you can certainly do much worse than following the buy-and-hold strategy.

I’ll keep doing the research on this (since I never met a spreadsheet I didn’t love!), most likely adding in analysis of the P/E ratios and any other pertinent information that I can track.  I’ll keep you posted!

Photo by Zixii

Was BP Just Being Nice?

bp beach cleanup 2 8_2010 Remember back when the oil spill first started to get really ugly, and BP announced their efforts to start the cleanup, by whatever means were necessary?

BP even went so far as to hire some 2,000 people to assist with the effort – 2,000 people who lived in the gulf coast area.  BP also very publicly announced that they’d only consider people who had been out of work for 60 days or more – under the auspices that they were altruistically working to improve the lot of these folks who had been impacted by the economy, and further by the spill itself.

I’m not going to address the spill or the cleanup, this has been discussed in many forums to great length.  Regardless of the effort put in and the emotional ramifications of BP’s cleanup effort – I found it interesting that BP specifically indicated they’d only consider folks who had been out of work for 60 days.

The reason this is interesting is that this is the very qualification required to take advantage of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act of 2010 (HIRE Act 2010).  With this law, all of the wages that these qualified new employees earned are subject to forgiveness of OASDI tax, a benefit equal to 6.2% of the wages paid between March 18, 2010 and December 31, 2010.

I don’t fault BP for taking advantage of the tax law – I just thought it was important to point out that the company wasn’t simply being altruistic with their choice of workers.  Even in this hour when we Americans, the consumers of their product and those impacted by their greed, needed this company to be heroic with their intentions and their efforts, they still found a way to work things in their favor in the working out of the cleanup.  Nice.

Photo by jb

2011 Retirement Plan Limits Published

800px-Vision.2011

The IRS has published the numbers for the annual contribution and income limits for retirement plans for 2011.  You can find the highlights at the page Annual Limits for Retirement Plans – 2011.

Essentially, very little changed from 2010 – IRA contribution limits are the same, as are 401(k), 403(b) and 457 plan contributions.  The catch up provisions are the same for each type of plan as well.

A few of the phase-out limits on MAGI were increased, but by negligible amounts.

On the bright side, the Social Security taxation limit did not increase over 2010.  Whee!

Photo by Wikipedia

The Cost or Benefit of Time Out of the Market

evolution of vans by Spencer C. CurtisI don’t know if you’ve ever heard it before, but there have been studies done with the intent to help folks realize the benefit of remaining invested in the market… with the outcome being if you missed the ten best days of the market’s returns over a particular period of time, your overall results are significantly diminished.

I’ve always been intrigued by the concept of these studies, so I decided to undertake a similar study of my own, using a few different circumstances in order to hopefully reflect what might happen in real life.

The Study

I used S&P 500 data to represent the stock market, and for the sake of better understanding and applicability to the present, I have limited the data used to the time period of January 1990 to present.  In order to better represent what most folks would do in real life, I used monthly results, rather than daily – because I figure that most folks, if they change a position (i.e., sell out of stocks, for example), most likely they would not jump right back into the same position the next day.  I figured 30 days was a little more realistic of a timeline for making changes to your holdings.

Also, I did not include dividends in the analysis, although these can be a significant part of your returns.  It was much simpler to work with the actual returns, rather than try to estimate when dividends might be paid and whether or not you were currently invested at that time.  I figure the results would be very similar, either way.

Lastly, transaction fees and taxes have not been factored in to these calculations.  Depending upon the circumstances these two factors can have a drag on your results – but taxes won’t come into play in an IRA, for example, plus transaction fees may not apply to your case.  In addition, if you’re working with traditional mutual funds, sometimes there are repercussions to changing your position frequently – such as holding periods.  These have also not been factored into the results.

Results

For the long-term benchmark, I assumed that the investor made an investment in January 1990, and left it alone until the end of September, 2010.  If you did this, you would have seen a total return of 230.05% – that’s a simple average of 11.5% per year.  Now we’ll start making some assumptions to change things up a bit.

What happens if we got out of the market for just one month during that twenty year period?  If we did this and happened, just by chance, to miss the month during that period with the best return of all of them, we’d have reduced our overall return to 194.63%. The month was April 2009, if you wondered, and the return was 12.02% for that month.

On the other hand, what if we were extremely lucky and missed the very worst month during the period?  (October 2008, at -20.39%, in case you were wondering.)   That would result in an overall result of 314.59%, or an average annual increase of more than 4%!  But how in the world can you guess that you’ve got the right month?  The very best month and the very worst month in 20 years were only six months apart…

Here’s another option to consider: what if you took two months out of the market during the 20 year period?  If it was the best two months that you missed, you’d drop your overall return to 164.73% (the second-best month during the 20 years was February of 1991).  But if your timing was immaculate and you skipped the two months in the 20 year period with the worst possible returns, you’d boost your results to 367.72% (the second worst month was September 2009).

Lastly, I took the data and calculated what would happen if you had the worst luck of all and missed the 10 best months during the 20 years studied… your result would be a paltry 46.45%, only 2.32% per year.  On the other hand, if you had near-perfect timing and happened to miss out on the ten worst months of the period – you’d have pulled down a total return of 816.90%, a yearly average of 40.85%!!  Clearly it would benefit you to have a crystal ball.

Add In Human Nature…

Since one month is a very short period of time, I took the same data and calculated what would happen if you not only missed the months in question, but then you also delayed an extra month before getting back in the market.  Here are the results under those circumstances:

Missed best month and the month following: 176.92%
Missed best two months and the months following: 142.11%
Missed best ten months and the months following: 25.06%
Missed worst month and the month following: 354.85%
Missed worst two months and the months following: 397.91%
Missed worst ten months and the months following: 943.74%

Clearly, once again, it pays to have had a degree of clairvoyance working in your favor.  But obviously you can’t plan to have this kind of timing – so far I think we’ve learned that staying the course has benefits.  Although it would be pretty cool if you had hindsight working in your favor and could miss all those bad months, the likelihood of hitting it just right is pretty low.

What About Reacting?

So – since we don’t have a crystal ball available to us, what’s the next most obvious way to handle things?  Reacting, of course.  So I took the same data and ran the calculations based upon those same months, only instead of missing the best or worst, you missed only the month following the best or worst months, in reaction to the prior months’ results.  Here’s how that turns out:

Missed the month after the best month: 210.21%
Missed the months after the best two months: 201.86%
Missed the months after the best ten months: 164.90%
Missed the month after the worst month: 262.10%
Missed the months after the worst two months: 251.36%
Missed the months after the worst ten months: 312.20%

This shows us that there may be some benefit to be had by taking the reactionary stance – for the worst ten months example, you’d have improved your overall return by over 80% for the period, more than 4% per year. But how would you know if you were choosing the right 10 months to react to?

The other thing that this shows us is that reacting to a positive result by locking in your returns and standing pat doesn’t help – I suspect that the momentum of the market is working for both cases.  This means that, if the market is on the rise, more often than not, it will continue to rise in the following month, and vice versa.

Practical Application

Since we don’t know for sure what the best and worst months will be in advance, what if we used the prior month’s return against a benchmark result and then reacted by getting out of the market for the following month?

On the upside, once again, locking in your positive results in any month with better than a 4% return (an arbitrary number that I chose), you’d wind up with a result less than half (at 111%) of what you’d have gotten by just buying the market and staying in it for the full period (which was 230%).  There were 32 months in the 20 year period that met this criteria.

The market momentum once again works its magic (at least with the data I used). If you chose to get out of the market on the first day of any month following a downside month (of which there were 97 in the period studied), you would have wound up with an overall result of 355.93%.  This is a good thing!  By putting this easily-understood method into play, your overall results increased by better than 6% per year.

Keep in mind that the study only covered the previous 20 years – a relatively small period of time, with some pretty dramatic results, both positive and negative.  I’m going to do some further study on the historical data and I’ll let you know more about those results after I’ve done that analysis.

Even with that fact in mind, I think this might be a useful tactic to consider putting into place.  I still think that the core of your portfolio should be left in place for the long term – especially with your well-balanced portfolio.  But it could work in your favor to put such a plan into place for a small portion of your portfolio, such as maybe 10-20% of your domestic stock holdings. The critically important fact here is that for this to work you have to stay disciplined and make your moves at the correct times.  Otherwise this won’t work.

And if you don’t want to hassle with this kind of manipulation, it’s still pretty clear that you can definitely do worse than the long-term hold tactic, which is the simple, tried and true way to handle your portfolio.

Photo by Spencer C. Curtis

The Legislation Page

If you haven’t done so recently, you should check out the Legislation page on this blog.  I’ve recently updated the summaries listed here, plus this is where you’ll find the coming tax law changes that you should be aware of.

You can check back here regularly to find out about major legislation affecting your financial future, including healthcare, retirement plans, jobs, and taxes.

As always, if you have questions about any of the information listed, just let me know!

New Opportunities to “Roth”

opportunity by turtlemom4baconRecently one of the tenets of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 came into effect, providing you with additional opportunities to set aside funds in a Roth account – not a Roth IRA, but rather a “designated Roth account”, often referred to as a Roth 401(k) or Roth 403(b).  Designated Roth accounts are also often referred to as DRACs – just to keep the acronym train rolling.

The way the new law works is that, if you have a 401(k) or 403(b) (the traditional kind), you can roll over or convert some of your funds to a DRAC while the account is still active – as long as your plan is set up to allow in-plan distributions of this variety.

The eligible rollover distribution (ERD) must be made:

  • after September 27, 2010;
  • from a non-designated Roth account in the same plan, meaning your traditional 401(k) or 403(b);
  • because of an event that triggers an ERD from the plan; and
  • otherwise meets the rollover requirements.

Eligible Rollover Distribution

To be considered an eligible rollover distribution (ERD), the distribution is all or part of an employee’s balance in a qualified retirement plan (401(k) or 403(b)), that is not any of the following:

  • A required minimum distribution (RMD)
  • Part of a Series of Substantially Equal Periodic Payments (SOSEPP), also known as a §72(t) plan
  • A hardship distribution
  • Return of employee’s nondeductible contributions
  • Loans treated as distributions
  • Dividends on employer securities
  • Premiums for life insurance coverage purchased under the plan

If you roll over an ERD into a DRAC, you must include first the non-taxed (deductible) funds – but this is also a distribution that is not subject to the 10% early distribution penalty (much like a Roth IRA conversion).  There is no income limit on the conversion.

In addition, just like a Roth IRA conversion, for a DRAC conversion in 2010 you have the option of spreading the tax over 2011 and 2012.  However, you do not have the recharacterization option for a DRAC conversion, as you do with a Roth IRA conversion.

In addition, this new law allows for sponsors of governmental 457 plans to add a DRAC option to their plans in 2011 and later.  Then these plans can be amended to allow the in-plan ERD distribution to the DRAC later on.

Photo by turtlemom4bacon

Expanded Adoption Credit Available for Tax Year 2010

child by mikebairdThe Affordable Care Act raises the maximum adoption credit to $13,170 per child, up from $12,150 in 2009.  It also makes the credit refundable, meaning that eligible taxpayers can get it even if they owe no tax for that year.  In general, the credit is based upon the reasonable and necessary expenses related to a legal adoption, including adoption fees, court costs, attorney’s fees and travel expenses.  Income limits and other special rules apply.

In addition to filling our Form 8839, Qualified Adoption Expenses, eligible taxpayers must include with their 2010 tax returns one or more adoption-related documents, detailed in the guidance from the IRS.

The documentation requirements, designed to ensure that taxpayers properly claim the credit, mean that taxpayers claiming the credit will have to file paper tax returns.  Normally, it takes six to eight weeks to get a refund claimed on a complete and accurate paper return where all required documents are attached.  The IRS encourages taxpayers to use direct deposit to speed their refund.

Photo by mikebaird

The Truth About Health-Care Reform

Income taxThe health-care reform legislation that passed earlier this year was incredibly broad in scope, so it’s probably not surprising that there’s a good deal of confusion, and a number of false or misleading claims being circulated.  Here’s the truth behind two of the claims that have gained the most traction lately.

Tax on Health Insurance

The claim: Beginning in 2011, you’ll be taxed on the value of your employer-provided health insurance.

There are several email campaigns making their way around right now claiming that, beginning in 2011, taxable income on Forms W-2 will be increased to reflect the value of employer-provided health insurance.  A typical email warns: “You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen.  Take your last tax form and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross income does to your tax debt.  That’s what you’ll pay next year.  for many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it’s even worse.  This is how the government is going to buy insurance for the 15% who don’t have insurance and it’s only part of the tax increases.”

The facts: While it’s true that, beginning in 2011, the health-care reform legislation requires employers to begin reporting the cost of employer-provided health-care coverage on an employee’s Form W-2, the cost is included for informational purposes only, to show employees the value of their health-care benefits.  The amount reported is not included in income, and will not affect your tax liability.

Sales Tax on Real Estate

The claim: Beginning in 2013, a new federal sales tax will apply to the sale of a home.

The claim is that, beginning in 2013, all real estate sales will be subject to a new 3.8% federal sales tax.  The emails making this claim generally contain some variation of the following text:  “Under the new health-care bill – did you know that all real estate transactions are now subject to a 3.8% sales tax?  The bulk of these new taxes don’t kick in until 2013… if you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax.”

The facts: This claim, though inaccurate, has a basis in fact.  There is no federal sales tax being imposed on the sale of homes.  But, beginning in 2013, the health-care reform legislation does impose a new 3.8% Medicare contribution tax on the net investment income of high-income taxpayers (individuals with adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeding $200,000, and married couples filing joint returns with AGI exceeding $250,000).  Net investment income will include only gain on the sale of a home.  However, the tax will not apply to any gain that is excludable from income.  Individuals, if they qualify, can generally exclude the first $250,000 in gain on the sale of a principal residence, while married couples filing jointly can generally exclude up to $500,000.  That means that in most cases, at least where a principal residence is concerned, the 3.8% tax would kick in only if your AGI exceeds the threshold above and only if profit on the sale of the home exceeds $250,000 ($500,000 for couples filing jointly).

In Closing

These two claims are good examples of how things can get out of hand when the complete facts aren’t fully understood.  The only way to completely understand what’s going on with the new law is to educate yourself – and to use trusted sources when educating yourself.  It’s important to know that not all emails and internet articles are to be fully trusted.  Know the source of the communication – and make sure that it’s someone you can trust to give you the complete picture.  And if you want to get a second opinion on something you’ve read, just let me know.  I’ll be happy to help out, as always.

Photo by alancleaver_2000

Guidance from the IRS on Flex Spending Plans

drugs by gregorfischer.photographyHere’s one of the opening salvos, brought to you by the Affordable Care Act of 2010: the IRS has now issued guidance regarding changes to Flex-Spending plans (or Flex Spending Arrangements, FSAs), which has changed things for folks who use these plans – specifically the medical expense reimbursements.

In the past, these plans have been eligible to reimburse the owner of the account for a myriad of medical expenses, not only physician expenses, prescription drugs, and other health care expenditures, but also over-the-counter medicines or drugs (not controlled by prescription).

Beginning in 2011, due to the Affordable Care Act, over-the-counter drugs and medicines that are not ordered by prescription will no longer be eligible for reimbursement from a medical Flex-Spending plan.  The change does not affect insulin, even if purchased without a prescription, or other health care expenses such as medical devices, eye glasses and contact lenses, co-pays and deductibles.

This new standard goes into effect for purchases made January 1, 2011 or after, and a similar standard is due to be in place for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and Archer Medical Savings Accounts (Archer MSAs).  But never fear, reimbursements are still going to be available for your 2010 expenditures through March 2011 as always.

If you have one of these FSAs, you’ve probably gotten into a situation in the past (I know I have) where you had too much money set aside through the year for your “regular” medical expenses, and so at the end of the year you make up the difference by stocking up on standard over-the-counter drugs and medicines.  This option will no longer be available to you at year-end in 2011.

Stay tuned as more of this quite helpful guidance comes along.  I’m sure we’ll be collectively satisfied with the results – or but then again, probably not.

Photo by gregorfischer.photography

Tax Scams You Need to Know About

Dirty DozenEach year, the IRS produces a list of tax scams that they have uncovered – which they call the Dirty Dozen.  Unfortunately, this Dirty Dozen doesn’t star Lee Marvin (or any of the others), and it’s nowhere near as much fun to help you while away a Sunday afternoon.  No, these are illegal activities that you need to be aware of, because you can be caught off-guard by some of these, as they can be quite sophisticated, appearing to be legitimate and above-board.

As with all situations, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.  The list below is copied in toto from IRS’ Notice IR-2010-32.

Return Preparer Fraud

Dishonest return preparers can cause trouble for taxpayers who fall victim to their ploys. Such preparers derive financial gain by skimming a portion of their clients’ refunds, charging inflated fees for return preparation services and attracting new clients by promising refunds that are too good to be true. Taxpayers should choose carefully when hiring a tax preparer. Federal courts have issued injunctions ordering hundreds of individuals to cease preparing returns and promoting fraud, and the Department of Justice has filed complaints against dozens of others, which are pending in court.

To increase confidence in the tax system and improve compliance with the tax law, the IRS is implementing a number of steps for future filing seasons. These include a requirement that all paid tax return preparers register with the IRS and obtain a preparer tax identification number (PTIN), as well as both competency tests and ongoing continuing professional education for all paid tax return preparers except attorneys, certified public accountants (CPAs) and enrolled agents (EAs).

Setting higher standards for the tax preparer community will significantly enhance protections and services for taxpayers, increase confidence in the tax system and result in greater compliance with tax laws over the long term. Other measures the IRS anticipates taking are highlighted in the IRS Return Preparer Review issued in December 2009.

Hiding Income Offshore

The IRS aggressively pursues taxpayers involved in abusive offshore transactions as well as the promoters, professionals and others who facilitate or enable these schemes. Taxpayers have tried to avoid or evade U.S. income tax by hiding income in offshore banks, brokerage accounts or through the use of nominee entities. Taxpayers also evade taxes by using offshore debit cards, credit cards, wire transfers, foreign trusts, employee-leasing schemes, private annuities or insurance plans.

IRS agents continue to develop their investigations of these offshore tax avoidance transactions using information gained from over 14,700 voluntary disclosures received last year. While special civil-penalty provisions for those with undisclosed offshore accounts expired in 2009, the IRS continues to urge taxpayers with offshore accounts or entities to voluntarily come forward and resolve their tax matters. By making a voluntary disclosure, taxpayers may mitigate their risk of criminal prosecution.

Phishing

Phishing is a tactic used by scam artists to trick unsuspecting victims into revealing personal or financial information online. IRS impersonation schemes flourish during the filing season and can take the form of e-mails, tweets or phony Web sites. Scammers may also use phones and faxes to reach their victims.

Scam artists will try to mislead consumers by telling them they are entitled to a tax refund from the IRS and that they must reveal personal information to claim it. Criminals use the information they get to steal the victim’s identity, access bank accounts, run up credit card charges or apply for loans in the victim’s name.

Taxpayers who receive suspicious e-mails claiming to come from the IRS should not open any attachments or click on any of the links in the e-mail. Suspicious e-mails claiming to be from the IRS or Web addresses that do not begin with http://www.irs.gov should be forwarded to the IRS mailbox: phishing@irs.gov.

(Additional note from Jim on phishing: ANY time you receive an email with a link to a financial or other protected website (like a credit card, bank, or Paypal), it is much safer to manually type the link in your browser or at least copy and paste the link text into your browser rather than clicking the link.  This is because a link can be misleading – the text you see can be very different from the underlying hypertext link that is enacted upon clicking.  I suggest typing in the link to the site that you know from another source if you can rather than copying, as the safest method.)

Filing False or Misleading Forms

The IRS is seeing various instances where scam artists file false or misleading returns to claim refunds that they are not entitled to. Under the scheme, taxpayers fabricate an information return and falsely claim the corresponding amount as withholding as a way to seek a tax refund. Phony information returns, such as a Form 1099 Original Issue Discount (OID), claiming false withholding credits usually are used to legitimize erroneous refund claims. One version of the scheme is based on a false theory that the federal government maintains secret accounts for its citizens, and that taxpayers can gain access to funds in those accounts by issuing 1099-OID forms to their creditors, including the IRS.

Nontaxable Social Security Benefits with Exaggerated Withholding Credit

The IRS has identified returns where taxpayers report nontaxable Social Security Benefits with excessive withholding. This tactic results in no income reported to the IRS on the tax return. Often both the withholding amount and the reported income are incorrect. Taxpayers should avoid making these mistakes. Filings of this type of return may result in a $5,000 penalty.

Abuse of Charitable Organizations and Deductions

The IRS continues to observe the misuse of tax-exempt organizations. Abuse includes arrangements to improperly shield income or assets from taxation and attempts by donors to maintain control over donated assets or income from donated property. The IRS also continues to investigate various schemes involving the donation of non-cash assets including situations where several organizations claim the full value for both the receipt and distribution of the same non-cash contribution. Often these donations are highly overvalued or the organization receiving the donation promises that the donor can repurchase the items later at a price set by the donor. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 imposed increased penalties for inaccurate appraisals and set new definitions of qualified appraisals and qualified appraisers for taxpayers claiming charitable contributions.

Frivolous Arguments

Promoters of frivolous schemes encourage people to make unreasonable and outlandish claims to avoid paying the taxes they owe. If a scheme seems too good to be true, it probably is. The IRS has a list of frivolous legal positions that taxpayers should avoid. These arguments are false and have been thrown out of court. While taxpayers have the right to contest their tax liabilities in court, no one has the right to disobey the law or IRS guidance.

Abusive Retirement Plans

The IRS continues to find abuses in retirement plan arrangements, including Roth Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs). The IRS is looking for transactions that taxpayers use to avoid the limits on contributions to IRAs, as well as transactions that are not properly reported as early distributions. Taxpayers should be wary of advisers who encourage them to shift appreciated assets at less than fair market value into IRAs or companies owned by their IRAs to circumvent annual contribution limits. Other variations have included the use of limited liability companies to engage in activity that is considered prohibited.

Disguised Corporate Ownership

Corporations and other entities are formed and operated in certain states for the purpose of disguising the ownership of the business or financial activity by means such as improperly using a third party to request an employer identification number.

Such entities can be used to facilitate underreporting of income, fictitious deductions, non-filing of tax returns, participating in listed transactions, money laundering, financial crimes and even terrorist financing. The IRS is working with state authorities to identify these entities and to bring the owners of these entities into compliance with the law.

Zero Wages

Filing a phony wage- or income-related information return to replace a legitimate information return has been used as an illegal method to lower the amount of taxes owed. Typically, a Form 4852 (Substitute Form W-2) or a “corrected” Form 1099 is used as a way to improperly reduce taxable income to zero. The taxpayer also may submit a statement rebutting wages and taxes reported by a payer to the IRS.

Sometimes fraudsters even include an explanation on their Form 4852 that cites statutory language on the definition of wages or may include some reference to a paying company that refuses to issue a corrected Form W-2 for fear of IRS retaliation. Taxpayers should resist any temptation to participate in any of the variations of this scheme. Filings of this type of return may result in a $5,000 penalty.

Misuse of Trusts

For years, unscrupulous promoters have urged taxpayers to transfer assets into trusts.  While there are many legitimate, valid uses of trusts in tax and estate planning, some promoted transactions promise reduction of income subject to tax, deductions for personal expenses and reduced estate or gift taxes. Such trusts rarely deliver the tax benefits promised and are used primarily as a means to avoid income tax liability and to hide assets from creditors, including the IRS.

The IRS has recently seen an increase in the improper use of private annuity trusts and foreign trusts to shift income and deduct personal expenses. As with other arrangements, taxpayers should seek the advice of a trusted professional before entering into a trust arrangement.

Fuel Tax Credit Scams

The IRS receives claims for the fuel tax credit that are excessive. Some taxpayers, such as farmers who use fuel for off-highway business purposes, may be eligible for the fuel tax credit. But other individuals are claiming the tax credit for nontaxable uses of fuel when their occupation or income level makes the claim unreasonable. Fraud involving the fuel tax credit is considered a frivolous tax claim and potentially subjects those who improperly claim the credit to a $5,000 penalty.

How to Report Suspected Tax Fraud Activity

Suspected tax fraud can be reported to the IRS using Form 3949-A, Information Referral. The completed form or a letter detailing the alleged fraudulent activity should be addressed to the Internal Revenue Service, Fresno, CA 93888. The mailing should include specific information about who is being reported, the activity being reported, how the activity became known, when the alleged violation took place, the amount of money involved and any other information that might be helpful in an investigation. The person filing the report is not required to self-identify, although it is helpful to do so. The identity of the person filing the report can be kept confidential.

Whistleblowers also may provide allegations of fraud to the IRS and may be eligible for a reward by filing Form 211, Application for Award for Original Information, and following the procedures outlined in Notice 2008-4, Claims Submitted to the IRS Whistleblower Office under Section 7623.

Photo by GaPony

Tax Credits for Home Improvement

home improvement project by Adventures of Pam & FrankThere were some changes made to the tax law regarding energy efficient improvements to your home, as a part of the ARRA of 2009.  This credit is known as the Nonbusiness Energy Property Credit, and it increased some of the tax credits you could receive for making energy efficient home improvements.  The credit is available for improvements made during the calendar years 2009 and 2010 – after that the credit will revert to the old rules (unless another change is made to the law).

Here are seven things that the IRS wants you to know about the Nonbusiness Energy Property Credit, as written about in the IRS Summertime Tax Tip 2010-16:

  1. The new law increases the credit rate to 30% of the cost of all qualifying improvements and raises the maximum credit limit to $1,500 claimed for 2009 and 2010.
  2. The credit applies to improvements such as adding insulation, energy-efficient exterior windows and energy-efficient heating and air conditioning systems.
  3. To qualify as “energy efficient” for purposes of this tax credit, products generally must meet higher standards than the standards for the credit that was available in 2007.
  4. Manufacturers must certify that their products meet new standards and they must provide a written statement to the taxpayer such as with the packaging of the product or in a printable format on the manufacturer’s website.
  5. Qualifying improvement must be placed into service after December 31, 2008 and before January 1, 2011.
  6. The improvements must be made to the taxpayer’s principal residence located in the United States.
  7. To claim the credit, attach Form 5695, Residential Energy Credits to either the 2009 or 2010 tax return.  Taxpayers must claim the credit on the tax return for the year that the improvements were made.

Homeowners who have been considering some energy efficient home improvements may find these tax credits will get them bigger tax savings next year.

Photo by Adventures of Pam & Frank

Medicare supplements versus Medicare Advantage plans

As efforts to improve the Medicare insurance system progress, it seems that the confusion only gets worse.  In any given city across the U.S. there are literally dozens of insurance companies offering a hundreds of different policies to supplement, or replace the original Medicare plan. For most seniors, reaching the age of sixty five means having to confront this monster and make decisions that will greatly influence your wealth, your health and your well being.  One of the decisions to be made is; “Do you need a Medicare supplement or a Medicare Advantage Plan?” Let’s take a look at some of the differences.

Medicare Supplements

Medicare Supplement policies are designed to cover the “gaps” in coverage left by original Medicare.  These gaps include deductibles, coinsurance, co pays and extended hospital stays to name just a few. Supplement policies are sold by dozens of companies across the country and prior to 1992 all had different coverages and premiums. In an effort to make decisions easier for seniors the federal government standardized Medicare supplement plans.  The standardization makes every Medicare supplement’s benefits the same regardless of which company you purchase from. For example, if two different insurance companies offered a Plan D, the benefits would be exactly the same. The only difference would be in the plan premiums and the level of customer service. The plans were labeled with sequential letters. As of June 2010 we have plans A through N. Not every plan is available in every state and plan M and N were just recently added. To add to the already confusing topic, plans E, H, I, and J will no longer be available to buy. If you already have Plan E, H, I, or J, you can keep that plan. What plan to choose depends on how much and what type of coverage is needed.

Medicare supplements work in conjunction with Medicare Parts A and B.  When a doctor or hospital submits a bill, Medicare will approve (some of it) and pay its part. After that, the supplement will pick up whatever portion of the bill it was designed to pick up. Next, the insured is responsible for the balance, if any.  A good supplement will pick up all of the deductibles and most, if not all, of the coinsurance or co-payments.

One problem with supplements are the plan’s premiums. The premiums on a supplement can be expensive, especially for someone in good or near good health. Medicare beneficiaries in poor health or are regularly hospitalized can benefit greatly from supplements. However, paying those premiums may not be worth it for those seeing a doctor only a few times a year or only carry the insurance in case they may need it. Plus, the premiums go up every year.

Medicare Supplement Pros:

  • There are no networks.  Medicare Supplements are not HMO’s or PPOs. If a doctor, hospital or medical facility accepts Medicare, they accept all Medicare Supplement Plans.
  • No need for a referral to see a doctor or specialist. The doctors generally don’t deal with the Medicare Supplement Company, they submit their claims to Medicare, Medicare pays their part, and then Medicare sends the balance to the Medicare Supplement Company to “Pay the Rest.”
  • Medicare Supplement Insurance pays “after” Medicare pays.
  • There are generally no co-pays when services are rendered.
  • With standardization (plans A through N) you can compare prices from one company to another and know you are comparing the same exact coverage (Plan F with one company is identical to Plan F with every other company).
  • Other than the premiums, there are generally no additional out of pocket costs throughout the year.
  • Medicare Supplement Policies are “Guaranteed Renewable”. As long as you continue to make the premium payments, you can never lose the coverage.
  • If you move to another city or state, your Medicare Supplement policy moves with you.

Medicare Supplement Cons:

  • The average monthly Medicare Supplement policy premium is around $150.00.  Some Medicare Supplement companies offer BIG discounts for things such as No tobacco use, married, spousal discounts, female discounts and others. If you work through an independent broker, he/she will likely be able to help you locate a Medicare Supplement that does offer these types of discounts.
  • Even if you never visit a doctor or hospital during the year, you still pay the monthly premium.
  • Medicare Supplement policies usually do not include Prescription coverage. You need to get a separate Medicare Part-D plan to cover your prescriptions.

Medicare Advantage Plans

Medicare Advantage Plans are a result of the government outsourcing Medicare duties such as administration, claims processing etc. to private insurance companies. What actually happens here is that Medicare contracts with private insurance companies and pays them a “subsidy” (part or all of your part B premium) to take care of people in a specific geographic area. Let us say For example, that it costs Medicare $100 per senior to administer Medicare in Jackson County in Missouri. Medicare contracts with a private insurance company and says it will pay the company $75 per senior in Jackson County to administer and pay all claims coming from those qualified for Medicare. The insurance company must provide everything Medicare covers plus extra benefits. Everybody wins here. Medicare saves money, the insurance company receives more clients and the policy holder pays less for more benefits.

Medicare Advantage plans pay “INSTEAD” of Medicare.  A Medicare Advantage Plan provides Medicare-covered benefits for relatively low premiums and Medicare pays them to provide Medicare-covered benefits. In other words, Medicare Advantage Plans work in place of Medicare. Types of Medicare Advantage Plans include Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), Preferred Provider Organization (PPOs), and Private Fee-for- Service Plan (PFFS). Deductibles, co-pays, and additional premiums may be required for certain services and not all doctors are covered as “in network.” You typically choose your doctor from a network.

Medicare Advantage Pros:

  • Low monthly premiums (average is about $50/month) some as low as $0.00
  • They can be offered with No Monthly Premium to you, because Medicare takes your $96.40 monthly Medicare Part B premium and gives it to the Medicare Advantage Provider. Medicare also pays Medicare Advantage companies additional funds to help cover your Medicare expenses (the money that was deducted from your pay check throughout your working career).
  • If you don’t go to the doctor much, then a Medicare Advantage plan could save you more money over the course of a year than a Medicare Supplement, since the monthly premiums are generally much lower.
  • Some Medicare Advantage plans include prescription coverage. These are called MAPD plans.
  • Some include additional benefits such as coverage for dental (routine cleanings) and vision (routine checkup) health club memberships.

Medicare Advantage Cons:

  • They are NOT standardized. There are hundreds of different varieties of MA plans. Consumers really need to read the fine print to make sure they know what they are getting.
  • MA plans are NOT guaranteed renewable. The company can discontinue the plan at the end of any year. You would then need to get another plan.
  • Even if they accept Medicare, doctors do not have to accept MA plans.
  • Your primary care physician may accept the plan but a specialist that you are referred to may not.
  • Most MA plans have co-pays for almost every visit to a doctor or hospital. For example many will have something like: $20 for doctor visit. $35 for specialist, $250/day for first 5 days of hospital stay.
  • There is generally more paperwork for the consumer. Many co-pays are a percentage of the Medicare approved amount, which is not known until after the bill has been submitted to the Medicare Advantage provider, so you will be billed for your co-pay at a later date, sometime several months later.
  • If you move to another county or state, the plan you have may not be available in that area and you will need to get another plan.
  • If you have a particularly unhealthy year, out of pocket costs could reach your “Out of Pocket Maximum” which could be $4,000-$5,000 or more.

To get more help on deciding on the various options available to you visit www.medicare.gov . There you will find tools and resources to help with the decision and tame the monster. I especially found the “Medicare & You 2010 handbook” very useful.

Photo by NASA

What Does A Fidelity Target Date (Freedom) Fund Invest In?

Note from Jim:  I’m on vacation this week – hope you enjoy the following post from my friend and colleague, Roger Wohlner, CFP® who writes at the blog Chicago Financial Planner.  Roger operates his Fee-Only financial planning practice out of Arlington Heights, Illinois.

Fidelity is one of the largest providers of 401(k) plans and like many fund company platforms it is common for their plan sponsor clients to offer several or all of Fidelity’s Target Date funds known as the Fidelity Freedom funds. These funds have target dates from 2005 every five years out to 2050 with an even shorter-term Retirement Income fund. The premise behind these and other Target Date funds is that a plan participant will choose a fund with a date close to when he or she might retire, invest their contributions and let the fund manager do the rest. The funds typically lighten up on equity investments as the target date draws nearer, at some point they go to a “glide path” into retirement typically at the target year. This means the fund at that point is geared to the typical life expectancy of someone retiring in that year, the allocation allows the fund shareholder to “glide” into retirement.

There has been much controversy as to whether Target Date funds work as advertised. My purpose in writing this post is not to comment on these issues one way or the other. Rather I want to take a look at how the Fidelity Freedom Funds actually invest shareholder’s money.

The Freedom Funds like many Target Date funds are funds of funds. Each Freedom Fund has its own mutual fund ticker symbol. Unlike many mutual funds which make direct investments into individual stocks or bonds, the Freedom Funds invest in a variety of Fidelity mutual funds. Which funds and the percentage held of each fund will vary by Freedom Fund. I made a list of their underlying holdings using Morningstar’s Advisor Workstation. I then used the Fi360 Toolkit to rate these funds based on their 11 point criteria:

• Fund inception date (at least three years)
• Manager Tenure (min. 2 years)
• Minimum fund size
• 2 measures relating to fund investment style and asset composition
• Expense ratio
• 2 measurements of risk-adjusted return
• Trailing 1,3,5 year returns

All funds are rated relative to other funds in their peer group.

In looking at the 26 Fidelity mutual funds that I found as holdings of the various Freedom Funds I found the following for the ranking period ending 12/31/09:

• Three of the funds received the highest ranking of 0. This means no deficiencies, they passed all criteria.
• An additional four funds earned a score ranging from 1-25 indicating that they passed most of the criteria. This would indicate that these funds rank in the top 25% of all funds in their peer group with enough data to be ranked.
• Four funds had scores ranging from 26-50 indicating that they did not pass in a couple of areas but these funds overall rank in the top half of their respective peer groups based upon the ranking criteria.
• Five of the funds had a ranking in the 51-74 range indicating that they were deficient in several of the criteria and overall place in the lower half of their peers with enough history to be ranked.
• One fund had a score of 87 meaning that it was deficient in most areas and ranked in the bottom 13% of its peers. A ranking in this range indicates that strong consideration should be given to replacing such a fund.
• Nine of the funds did not have enough history to be ranked. These funds are all Fidelity Series funds. This appears to be a new group of funds that Fidelity has designed for use in their Freedom Funds. The funds all have anywhere from a month’s worth of history out to about a year. They would flunk the inception date test for the amount of time the fund has been around. These may ultimately prove to be good funds over time, but as an advisor I am generally loath to invest client money in new, untested funds unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
• Noticeably absent from the underlying funds within the Freedom Funds are any of Fidelity’s low cost core index funds covering areas such as the S&P 500; total domestic stock market; international equities; or their total bond market index fund. These are by and large solid, low cost holdings. Also absent are several top Fidelity funds such as Contra, Low-Priced Stock, and others.

In their defense of the 11 numbered Freedom Funds, 10 earned a score of 0 for the most recent ranking period and the other one earned a top quartile score of 20. Keep in mind; however, these rankings are within the target date peer groups via Morningstar. All of these groupings have a small number of funds and there is not a lot of history in some cases. A really good or really bad quarter or two can skew a target fund’s relative ranking. Additionally the peer groupings have changed and been revamped at least twice in the past several years.

Should you invest in these funds? As a plan participant you need to understand the fund’s investment philosophy, the glide path concept, and the fund’s underlying investments. Remember just because a particular fund has a target date closest to when you might retire, you can go with a closer date fund if you want to be a little less aggressive or a longer-dated fund if you want to be a bit more aggressive.

Plan sponsors it is incumbent upon you to monitor the Target Date funds in your plan as closely as you would review any plan investment choice. In the case of a Fidelity plan you may or may not be limited to the Freedom Funds.

Again I am not saying the Freedom funds are good or bad. Clearly they did well relative to their peers in 2009. Participants and Sponsors need to understand these funds and what they can and cannot offer.

Photo by Paul Keleher

Additional Social Security Resources

swamp_leaves-t1There are a few resources, above and beyond the guides available at socialsecurity.gov, that I’ve located for you – to help you as you make decisions and learn about your Social Security benefits.  The good folks over at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College have developed several resources that you can find at their website.

Specifically, there is a guide to help you as you face the decision of when to apply, called the Social Security Claiming Guide.  This electronic booklet provides you with all the background information you need – as well as answering some of the common questions that arise with this process.

The other publication of note at this website is called the Social Security Fix-It book.  In this guide you’ll find a review of the overall Social Security system, what’s presently wrong with it and what the future looks like, as well as several alternatives that could be put in place to fix the system.

Happy reading!

Photo by Photos8.com