Quantcast Kimmunications: Social Security
Kim Snider

Get Email Updates

  • Add your email address and you will be emailed every time a new post is added to this blog. As always, you have my solemn promise that I will never, ever share your email address with anyone.
Enter your Email


Powered by FeedBlitz

 

Powered by TypePad
Member since 09/2004

April 22, 2007

Mortgage Mess

I am still traveling so this will be short and sweet. I'd like to point out an excellent article by Laura Rowley over on Yahoo Finance. It is titled, "Footing the Bill for the Subprime Fiasco."

And while we are on the topic of messes, you might also have a look at Scott Burns' article on the federal deficit. (Free registration required) According to government figures, the entire deficit problem boils down to unfunded liabilities in the Social Security and Medicare programs. He goes on to point out t"if the federal government confiscated all the land in the United States along with all of its improvements – buildings, highways, plants and equipment, and other durable assets built on it – and sold them at auction to foreign investors, it would still fall more than $20 trillion short in present value of the monies required to satisfy its future budget."

Give these a read and let me know what you think. Gotta go. I have a plane to catch!

 

Kim Snider, Kim Snider Financial Communications, Chronim Investments and/or Snider Advisors make no representation that the information and opinions expressed are accurate, complete or current. The opinions expressed should not be construed as financial, legal, tax, or other advice and are provided for informational purposes only. Call 866-952-0100 to request the Snider Investment Method™ Owner's Manual, which includes a description of the Snider Investment Method, investment objectives, risks, suitability and other information. Please read and consider carefully before investing. All investments are subject to risk including possible loss of principal.

October 11, 2006

10-11-2006: Items of interest for the Family CFO

Investing And Retirement

 

In an effort to shore up U.S. workers' retirement savings, the Labor Department has proposed new rules making it easier for companies to automatically enroll employees in 401(k) and other retirement plans. Retirement policy think tanks like the Center for Retirement Research and the Employee Benefit Research Institute have been advocating this for years based on studies that have found it increases participation. (MarketWatch.com)

 

Ben Stein talks about a fundamental principle of successful investing -- whether you are talking real estate or paper assets -- you buy, not bail when markets are going down. Conversely, rising markets are the time to sell, not blindly follow the herd. (Yahoo Finance)

 

Any fool can lose money on an investment. Any fool can make money in rising markets. The trick is how to make it every day -- day in and day out -- no matter what. Robert Kiyosaki makes the case for cash flow in, Learn To Invest Like a Pro.

 

How many opportunities have a 50% expected rate of return with no risk? Scott Burns talks about the impact of deferring Social Security benefits, even just a few years. (Dallas Morning News)

 

Scott Burns also talks about the increasing number of lawsuits against companies, for failing to live up to their fiduciary duties as sponsors of 401(k) plans. At issues are high fees which over time drag down performance. Suits have been filed against Bechtel Corp., Caterpillar Inc., Exelon Corp., General Dynamics Corp., International Paper Co., Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman and United Technologies Corp. Can more be far behind? (Dallas Morning News)

 

Mutual funds have always reported their performance as a time-weighted return. Morningstar has announced it will begin reporting the dollar-weighted return which more accurately reflects the money investors made in that fund and are typically lower than the time-weighted return. You should read Mark Hulbert's article for a nice run-down of the difference between the two and the implications to investors. (MarketWatch.com)

 

The LA Times reports on "pension envy." While private-sector pensions are being slashed, leaving pre-retirees to fund a 30 year retirement on their own, public sector employees still enjoy rich pensions. The problem is, many of them, like private sector pensions, are under-funded. Guess who has to pay for the under-funding? Taxpayers. The same tax-payers who are having their retirement funds cut. Some taxpayers are getting really pissed off about it. (LA Times)

 

Managing Lifetime Risks

 

Does Tony Soprano need more life insurance than Mike Brady? If you answered yes, you are not alone and it could be costing you money. A survey, by the KRC Research firm, which asked people to choose which of five TV dads needs the greatest amount of insurance, illustrates a mistake many folks make when it comes to insurance: focusing on the chance that they will die instead of examining the financial losses their family would suffer if they do. (MarketWatch.com)

 

No question healthcare costs are the big X factor in retirement planning. But, it is not totally out of your control. Robert Powell, editor of Retirement Weekly, gives us a rundown of seven steps outlined by the CEO of AARP, in his new book, that America and Americans can do to mitigate health-care costs in retirement. (MarketWatch.com)

 

 

Market Sentiment and Investor Psychology

 

Barry Ritholtz comments on the re-appearance of Dow 36,000 author James Glassman. He was on CNBC last week. Can anyone really take CNBC seriously anymore? What a farce. If there has ever been a better contrarian indicator of sentiment, I haven't seen it. (The Big Picture)

 

Something I learned later in life than I should have is that our psyche plays itself out in how we handle our money. Laura Rowley gives us a nice article on the three aspects of Money Maturity. Are you mature or immature when it comes to money? Read this article to find out. (Yahoo Finance)

 

The Economy 

 

Jim Mahar gives us an overview of the speech, by Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, on how the aging Baby Boomers will affect the economy. (Finance Professor.com)

 

Kim Snider, Kim Snider Financial Communications, Chronim Investments and/or Snider Advisors make no representation that the information and opinions expressed are accurate, complete or current. The opinions expressed should not be construed as financial, legal, tax, or other advice and are provided for informational purposes only. Call 866-952-0100 to request the Snider Investment Method™ Owner's Manual, which includes a description of the Snider Investment Method, investment objectives, risks, suitability and other information. Please read and consider carefully before investing. All investments are subject to risk including possible loss of principal.

September 07, 2006

Are You Relying On A Pension?

DuPont and Tenneco continue the long line of companies who are shuttering or altering healthy pension plans in order to avoid the obligations and risks of defined benefits to retirees. DuPont will reduce benefits of current workers to 1/3 their current levels. New employees are not eligible for pension. Tenneco has frozen their plan for non-union workers effective January 1, 2007. Both companies will offer employees 401(k)s with a company match instead.

 

This is a continuation of a trend that has been accelerating. Verizon froze its plan in June and IBM will be freezing its plan effective January 1. Freezing means employees receive no further benefits but they do not lose benefits that are vested.

 

Why would a healthy company shutter a healthy pension plan? DuPont estimates that the changes will improve earnings by about 3 cents per share in 2007 and 5 cents per share beginning in 2008. Wall Street's response? DuPont shares rose on the news. Tenneco says their move will contribute as much as $7 million to fourth-quarter earnings and $11 million a year before taxes starting next year.

 

The bottom line is pension cuts increase corporate profits because they reduce the obligations companies carry on their books for future pension payments. Reducing the liability creates a gain, which is recognized either immediately or over time, depending on its structure.

 

Time and time again, I talk to people who are not saving money for retirement because they believe they work for a company with a healthy pension plan. In my view, you just can't count on that. Look at the Delta Airlines employees who thought they had a healthy retirement just ten years ago and now have to live on 60% less than they were promised.

 

If September 11th taught us anything it is that our world can change in a matter of seconds. Depending on someone or something else for your standard of living thirty years into the future just makes no sense to me at all. That includes pensions, Social Security, Medicare and inheritances.

 

If you are not prodigiously saving for retirement, in vehicles that are totally within your control, you are begging to live out the end of your life at the mercy of others.

 

Have you lost a pension or other retirement benefits unexpectedly at the last minute? It happens. How did that effect you? What did you do to make up the shortfall? Help others learn from your experience. Share your story with others below.

 

SOURCES:

 

1. Theo Francis "DuPont Aims To Slash Pension Plan"; Wall Street Journal; 28 August 2006; p A2

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115677667042447307.html

 

2. "DuPont To End Pension For New Hires"; MSNBC; 28 August 2006

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14559723/>

 

Kim Snider, Kim Snider Financial Communications, Chronim Investments and/or Snider Advisors make no representation that the information and opinions expressed are accurate, complete or current. The opinions expressed should not be construed as financial, legal, tax, or other advice and are provided for informational purposes only. Call 866-952-0100 to request the Snider Investment Method™ Owner's Manual, which includes a description of the Snider Investment Method, investment objectives, risks, suitability and other information. Please read and consider carefully before investing. All investments are subject to risk including possible loss of principal.

August 09, 2006

Boomers Aren't Getting Needed Advice

If you are like most Americans, you don't feel the financial services industry has the ability to meet even your most basic needs when it comes to retirement planning. Less than one-third of adults in a new survey by McKinsey & Co., said they had gotten even a bare minimum of advice about retirement from brokerage firms, financial planners and insurance companies. Most of us, including me, believe that advisors are only interested in pushing products and are putting their own financial interests ahead of their clients.

 

Baby boomers face a minefield of issues, unprecedented in the last eighty years. The employer sponsored pension system is on its last leg. Healthcare costs are rising four times the rate of other goods and services. And the federal government is effectively bankrupt given the future obligations it has under Medicare and Social Security.

 

In my view, there is only one answer. Americans must make financial education and financial accountability a priority. No one is going to take care of you. It is up to you to create your own financial plan. The highest priority within that plan must be a permanent and dependable source of income that will support a reasonable standard of living throughout thirty years of retirement.

 

So let's do our own informal survey. How many of you feel you have gotten good retirement planning advice from the mainstream financial services providers? What do you think motivates the advice you receive? Take the polls below. You will see the poll results when you click "Vote Now". Thanks for playing!

 

SOURCE:

 

1. "Boomers Doubtful About Retirement Advice"; Financial Advisor; August 2006; p 32

 

Kim Snider, Kim Snider Financial Communications, Chronim Investments and/or Snider Advisors make no representation that the information and opinions expressed are accurate, complete or current. The opinions expressed should not be construed as financial, legal, tax, or other advice and are provided for informational purposes only. Call 866-952-0100 to request the Snider Investment Method™ Owner's Manual, which includes a description of the Snider Investment Method, investment objectives, risks, suitability and other information. Please read and consider carefully before investing. All investments are subject to risk including possible loss of principal.

August 07, 2006

The Power of a Portfolio Paycheck

Suppose I buy a diversified portfolio of stocks hoping that over time they will increase in value so I can sell them. Until that happens, and I have consummated the sale, I have not made one thin dime. So, until that happens, I sit and I sweat. I worry about interest rates, the dollar, the economy, the possibility of terrorism. Everything is a potential boogie man lurking under the bed. No wonder investors are manic depressive!

 

Suppose instead I buy a portfolio that generates enough passive income, year after year, to pay all my bills and then some. Suddenly, interest rates, the dollar and geo-political events become much less scary because my standard of living is not at risk.

 

Now suppose we experience a ten year bear market. Both portfolios lose 80% of their value. The stock portfolio just sits there - dead - for ten years, doing nothing. It is not contributing to your well-being in any way. In fact, the opposite is true. You stress over it every day.

 

The income portfolio, on the other hand, is also down 80% in value but it continues to generate enough cash flow each year to pay all your bills, and then some. Which do you feel better about? Which causes the most anxiety? Which sounds like the better alternative for you and your family?

 

That is the power of a portfolio paycheck. It is the power to make your portfolio a source of comfort rather than a source of anxiety. It is the power to make work a choice rather than a necessity.

 

If an understanding of any two words has the power to change your financial situation, I believe it is income, or cash flow, versus capital appreciation. Let's recap:

 

Capital appreciation is when you buy something for a dollar and hope it goes up to two dollars so you can sell it to someone else. The difference between what you bought it for and what you sold it for is known as capital appreciation. An example of capital appreciation investing is buying a piece of land in hopes that its value increases and you can sell it to someone else for more.

 

Income, or cash flow investing, is when you buy something for its ability to generate passive cash flow. Income investing is the farmer who buys the land, never intending to sell it, but buys it instead for its ability to grow crop that can then be sold for cash, over and over again.

 

In the past, we have thought of income investing primarily in terms of real estate (rental properties), bonds (coupon payments) and dividend paying stocks. Today, there are many more ways to safely generate portfolio income with much higher yields than what were available in the past.

 

I believe one of the reasons most of us are so stressed out by our investments is we have been taught to focus on capital appreciation investments instead of cash flow investments. Capital appreciation focuses on a number to gauge success - either account value, return percentage, or both. Income investing is focused on outcomes - can I live comfortably without fear of running out of money?

 

One of the biggest disservices done to investors was brain-washing them to believe that income investing is only appropriate as you approach retirement. Income investing is not only appropriate at all ages, I believe it is essential. Here's why:

 

The biggest risk we face is not market risk. Our most valuable asset is what economists call our human capital. It is the skills and abilities we possess, which we trade in the form of employment, for money. Our biggest risk, therefore, is disability, losing our job or obsolescence.

 

There is no law that says you have to spend portfolio income. When you don't need the income, because you have a W-2 paycheck coming in, you re-invest the income to create growth. But what a portfolio paycheck does for you that capital appreciation portfolios can't, is it limits conversion risk.

 

Suppose you lose your job in your company's most recent lay-off. Imagine that you are approaching retirement age and so you are finding it difficult to get a new job because no one wants to invest in training you only to have you retire a few years from now.

 

The good news is that you have saved a lot of money over the years and have invested it in stocks. The bad news is the market recently declined 50%. In order to live off that money, you have to sell those stocks at a depressed price. Once you convert the assets, the lost value can never be regained. That is what I refer to as conversion risk.

 

Now imagine, instead, that you had a portfolio of income producing investments that generated enough income to pay all your bills. While you were working, you just re-invested the income to get growth. Again, you are laid off and again the value of your portfolio is down 50%. But now, there is no need to convert assets and lock in the losses. You simply divert the income to your checking account and use it to pay the bills, leaving the assets intact. This allows you to participate in the long term growth of the stock market, which we all know doesn't go up in a straight line, while at the same time protecting your standard of living.

 

Maybe, at that point, you decide to just hang it up and retire. You hadn't planned on it, but the point is, you can - because a portfolio paycheck makes work a choice, not a necessity. When you decide to finally move on to the next phase of your life, there is no stressful reorganization of your assets. You already have the means in place to harvest the wealth you created. Whether the S&P is at 1000 or 1500 is no longer a consideration when you are deciding when to retire.

 

Modern Portfolio Theory, the most widely accepted investment theory, was developed in the 1950s. These are not the 1950s. Our parents and grandparents lived in a very different world. They went to work for a company and stayed there until they retired and got the gold watch. Today's worker has changed jobs nine times by the age of 32! Pension? Social Security? Do you want to count on that? Not me!

 

Capital appreciation investing may have been appropriate when we our sources of income - both before retirement and after - were guaranteed. But today, if there is one thing I know to be true, there are no guarantees. That means it is up to you to create your source of permanent income that you can count on, both now, and in the future.

 

 

SOURCE:

 

1. Elaine Chou. "Working Together to Build the 21st Century Workforce" Speeches by Secretary Elaine Chou, Department of Labor website; 15 Nov 2002.

http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/speeches/20021115_GHWB_Library.htm

 

Kim Snider, Kim Snider Financial Communications, Chronim Investments and/or Snider Advisors make no representation that the information and opinions expressed are accurate, complete or current. The opinions expressed should not be construed as financial, legal, tax, or other advice and are provided for informational purposes only. Call 866-952-0100 to request the Snider Investment Method™ Owner's Manual, which includes a description of the Snider Investment Method, investment objectives, risks, suitability and other information. Please read and consider carefully before investing. All investments are subject to risk including possible loss of principal.

 

May 26, 2006

PBS Program Creates Controversy

The documentary, entitled "Can You Afford to Retire?", was broadcast on the PBS show Frontline May 16. The program examines the looming retirement crisis and, like many of us, concludes that Americans are in for a rude shock.

 

The entire program, along with FAQs, polls, discussion groups, additional analysis and articles, interviews with industry insiders and retirement experts, and case studies of employees featured in the story are all included on the PBS web site.

 

Here is the introduction from the Frontline web site:

 

"I think this is a crisis in the making," says Alicia Munnell, director of the Boston College Center for Retirement Research. "I think 10 or 15 years from now, people who approach their early 60s are simply not going to have enough money to retire on."

 

"I would say, unless you're fortunate to be in the upper-income quartiles, that you're probably going to be in for a very rough ride," adds Jack VanDerhei of the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI). "You're not going to have sufficient monies to pay the predictable expenses -- your housing, your utilities, your food -- plus the potential catastrophic medical care costs."

 

Half of America's private sector workforce has no employer-sponsored retirement plan; among the half that does, twice as many workers have contribution plans like 401(k)s than have lifetime pensions, a complete reversal from 25 years ago. The move from lifetime pensions to 401(k) plans has meant that employees now bear much more of the cost -- and risk -- for saving for retirement. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, in 1978 workers put in only 11 percent of total contributions to retirement plans, while corporations put in 89 percent; by 2000, the employee share had leapt to 51 percent and the company share had fallen to 49 percent.

 

A major driver behind this shift is a corporate bankruptcy strategy that enables companies to terminate lifetime pension plans through Chapter 11 bankruptcy. "Chapter 11 has become an effective tool for reorganizing a business," says Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law School professor and specialist in bankruptcy law. "It's like a knife on the surgeon's table. Bankruptcy is the official, federal, formal way to take legal promises and just slice them off."

 

FRONTLINE takes viewers inside the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of United Airlines. United dumped its pension plans, which were underfunded by nearly $10 billion, on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the federal agency insuring pensions that is running a $23 billion deficit. Because the PBGC only insures pensions up to a certain amount, many United employees and retirees saw their pensions slashed dramatically.

 

Robin Gilinger, a 42 year-old United flight attendant, has seen her pension drop by nearly 30 percent and her other benefits cut. Gilinger says she now expects to have to work five to 10 years longer than she originally planned. "I feel very uneasy about where I'm going to be in 20 years," Gilinger says, "And I'm afraid that I'm going to end up having to work my golden years doing things that I didn't necessarily want to be doing."

 

With their lifetime pensions gone, the current workers of United have joined the millions of Americans trying to save for retirement in 401(k) plans. "Most people we interviewed have no idea what it costs to replace a lifetime pension," says Hedrick Smith. "And they don't realize that as they're living longer, there is an impact on their nest egg."

 

To maintain their standard of living, experts say Americans will need to save ten times their annual pay in their 401(k)s by the time they retire. That means saving 15-18 percent of their salaries, every year, over an entire career.

 

By this standard, most Americans are simply not saving enough. According to VanDerhei of the EBRI, the typical baby boomer is approaching retirement with only three times annual salary -- enough to last seven or eight years. But with life expectancies after age 65 approaching 18 years, many retirees may be living on nothing but Social Security for a decade or more.

 

"The nightmare I have," says pension expert Brooks Hamilton, "is the vision of people … outliving their retirement income and being down to Social Security." And the shock waves may reverberate through the entire economy. "What holds up our economy," says Hamilton, "is consumer spending. When retirees are 20 percent of the population and run out of money, then 'poof,' there goes the economy."

 

The change is already happening, as retirees find they are having to go back to work to make ends meet. Pat O'Neill, a retired United Airlines mechanic, is now driving a truck after his pension and benefits were cut. Winson Crabb and Gil Thibeau, two National Semiconductor retirees with widely different financial results from their company's 401(k) plan, are both still working in retirement.

 

"What is the meaning of retirement if the only way you can live is to work?" asks Notre Dame professor Teresa Ghilarducci "The answer is there is no meaning to retirement anymore. We are now shifting from lifetime pensions to lifetime work. It's the end of retirement."

 

On Tuesday, the Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America (PSCA) issued a statement calling on workers to disregard the program, which was critical of the employers and retirement plans represented by PSCA, saying it "objects to the conclusion reached by the PBS Frontline program".

 

On Wednesday, Dallas Salisbury, President of the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) issued a statement suggesting that PBS re-air the program over and over and that he hoped the program would make its way into schools and be distributed by employers. Salisbury's statement says, in part:

 

While the Frontline special stressed points that I would not have chosen in some cases, and did not include others that I would have, it was a strong message to individuals to pay attention, have a retirement plan, watch fees, save a lot, beware of salesmen offering the next sure thing, and be cautious of anyone who says, ‘Trust me—I will take care of everything for you’. The end message—‘the end of retirement’—might have been a bit strong; but the Retirement Confidence Survey® and other EBRI research makes it clear that millions of baby boomers and younger generations are living in a dream world thinking they can retire on what they now have, or on what they will have based upon the savings they are now doing.  Years of our surveys and simulation work document that workers have a high level of false confidence and that most need to dramatically increase their rate of savings to just be in a position to meet basic expenses, let alone have adequate retirement income to maintain their pre-retirement lifestyle.

 

I hope you will watch the program yourself and then let me know your thoughts. Is retirement, as we know it, a thing of the past? Was FRONTLINE overly sensational or do you think they are right on target? Let us know what you think. Post your thoughts and comments below.

 

Kim Snider, Kim Snider Financial Communications, Chronim Investments and/or Snider Advisors make no representation that the information and opinions expressed are accurate, complete or current. The opinions expressed should not be construed as financial, legal, tax, or other advice and are provided for informational purposes only. Call 866-952-0100 to request the Snider Investment Method™ Owner's Manual, which includes a description of the Snider Investment Method, investment objectives, risks, suitability and other information. Please read and consider carefully before investing. All investments are subject to risk including possible loss of principal.

May 01, 2006

Poverty and the Elderly

MSN is carrying a good article by syndicated Dallas Morning News columnist Scott Burns on poverty and the elderly. The numbers come from the Congressional Research Service, "Income and Poverty Among Older Americans in 2004" report.

Some of the highlights of the report, as detailed in Scott Burns' article:

  • Poverty is, well, poverty. The good news is that only one senior in 10 lives in poverty. The bad news is that the poverty threshold for a single person 65 or older is $9,060 a year. For a couple, the figure is $11,418. This isn't shabby chic or senior funky. It's hunger.
  • Senior fat cats are those with incomes of $50,000 or more. The data for this report comes from the Current Population Survey done by the Census Bureau. Someone 65 or older with an income of only $26,777 is in the top 25% of all seniors. They're in the top 50% with an income of only $15,199.
  • Most income comes from Social Security. Seven in 10 seniors received at least half their income from Social Security. Nearly four in 10 received at least 90% of their income from Social Security. In 2005, according to the report, the monthly average Social Security check is $963 for a single person, with a couple collecting $1,583.
  • Very little income comes from personal savings and investments. For all the exhortations to save from the investment/retirement complex and for all the Savings-Bond drives at work, most seniors don't have much interest, dividend or capital gains income. The median reported amount (half have more, half less) was $1,000. In today's markets that implies a nest egg of about $25,000 or less. Except for the genuinely wealthy, seniors have most of their net worth in their houses, cars and other possessions. There isn't much of a cash cushion out there.
You can read the full text of the article on MSN. You can probably also find it online at the Dallas Morning News but DMN requires registration. MSN does not.

Thanks to Snider Method investor James Massey for the heads up on the article.

 

Kim Snider, Kim Snider Financial Communications, Chronim Investments and/or Snider Advisors make no representation that the information and opinions expressed are accurate, complete or current. The opinions expressed should not be construed as financial, legal, tax, or other advice and are provided for informational purposes only. Call 866-952-0100 to request the Snider Investment Method™ Owner's Manual, which includes a description of the Snider Investment Method, investment objectives, risks, suitability and other information. Please read and consider carefully before investing. All investments are subject to risk including possible loss of principal.

April 29, 2006

Financial Advisor Symposium: Choosing Which Retirement Account to Tap First

Choosing Which Retirement Account to Tap First

2nd Annual Financial Advisor Symposium - Las Vegas, NV

Saturday, April 28, 2006

 

 

David Carter, President, Carter Asset Management, Inc.

 

There is NO one formula that fits everyone's solution.

 

Some Deciding Factors in Choosing Which To Tap First

Qualified accounts and tax sheltered annuities will be taxed as ordinary income

Dividends and long term capital gains are taxed at 15%

Tax on social security benefit

Roth IRA money is not taxable

Is client over 70 1/2 and into required minimum distributions

Is client under 591/2 and taking 72(t) distributions

Clients desire to reduce income for their decedents

Clients desire to leave an estate for charity or heirs

 

Some people are really resistant to taking RMD's but if you look at the tables, the amounts are really very low that you are required to withdraw

 

Fredrick Adkins, CEO, Arkansas Financial Group

 

What's deducted?

What's taxed?

How is it taxed?

 

The problem with tax deferred accounts is they convert long term capital gains and dividends to ordinary income that could be taxed as high as 35% in the top tax bracket. Variable annuities do the same thing. Tax deferral is a "sucker bet"

 

Asset classes that were shunned in the accumulation phase are now favored in the distribution phase.

 

Peter Lynch, years ago, got a lot of press for suggesting that you should never own bonds in an investment portfolio. When you got to distribution, you just took capital gains and lived on those. Anyone who followed that advice was devastated in 2000 - 2002.

 

If you put qualified versus non-qualified on a pie chart and equity versus fixed income on another chart, the closer those two charts match up, the easier distributions are. Ideally you would prefer equities in the non-qualified and fixed income to match up to the qualified.

 

Bond interest is tax neutral - it is taxed the same whether it comes form qualified or non-qualified accounts. (True of Snider Method income as well.) That is not true with equities. Rule of thumb is to take fixed income assets first and move towards equity.

 

Gregory Sullivan, President, Sullivan, Bruyette, Speros & Blayney, Inc.

 

There is a world of difference between a plan that assumes linear returns, in other wrods, just takes the average return and running it out to some estiamted longevity number. In the scenario Greg showed, using the average return, the client could live to 95 and still have 1.2M left.

 

But if you run a Monte Carlo simulation, which takes into account volatility, or non-linear returns, there is a very real possibility that same client could run out of money, even while achieving the average assumed in the linear. As I demonstrate in all my speeches and information sessions, this is the hidden cost of risk.

 

If you simply look at taxes, you may get the wrong answer. It is a broader question than tax. Letting tax rule the decision making could run the client out of money.

 

If you have a $1M IRA and a $1M taxable account, you cannot have the advisor withdraw the fees for both from the IRA. IF the fee was $10K per, and you withdrew $20K from the IRA, $10K of it would be considered a withdrawal. In the other hand, you could take all $20K from the taxable to pay fees on both. It goes one way but not the other.

 

Interesting side note, all three speakers were adamantly opposed to the use of variable annuities.

 

Kim Snider, Kim Snider Financial Communications, Chronim Investments and/or Snider Advisors make no representation that the information and opinions expressed are accurate, complete or current. The opinions expressed should not be construed as financial, legal, tax, or other advice and are provided for informational purposes only. Call 866-952-0100 to request the Snider Investment Method™ Owner's Manual, which includes a description of the Snider Investment Method, investment objectives, risks, suitability and other information. Please read and consider carefully before investing. All investments are subject to risk including possible loss of principal.

 

April 27, 2006

Financial Advisor Symposium: Investing for Retirement in a Low-Return Era

Investing for Retirement in a Low-Return Era

2nd Annual Financial Advisor Symposium - Las Vegas, NV

Rob Arnott, Research Affiliates - April 27, 2006

 

The Arithmetic of Returns

 

Any investment has three components of return

Yield

Real growth in earnings

Multiple expansion

 

Real rate of return on stocks will be3% (the return over and above inflation) over the next five years

Real rate of return on bonds will be 2% over the next five years

TIPS will have 3% real rate of return

REITS will have 2.5% real rate of return

 

No place to hide! No major markets are priced to deliver the 5% or higher returns we all seek

You can't earn an investment return on money you haven't saved

Hope is not a strategy

 

Is this the end of the storm or the eye of the storm for equities?

 

  • Earnings Quality Far Lower Than Investors Believe
    • Non-expensed stock options
    • Unrealistic pension return expectations
  • Valuation Still High by Historical Standards
  • Equity Risk Premium - still not far from zero
  • Demographics - Require Lower future returns

 

Arnott believes these factors point to early stages of a secular bear market. "It is very dangerous for us to invest our clients money in a fashion that this scenario leads to ruin. We must invest their money so that they can weather this sort of scenario."

 

Historically, secular bear markets have lasted fifteen to twenty years. Doesn't mean you prepare your clients to prosper in a twenty year bear market but instead you prepare them so they survive a twenty year bear market. You prepare them so that they are going to be OK either way, meaning you have to give up some of the upside if the bear market doesn't materialize. That is not the case in an equity-centric model like the one we have adhered to historically.

 

Demographics - People Are Living Longer

 

We have gone from a life expectancy of 43 years at the beginning of the century to 78 at the end of the century

 

We have gone from a world in which most people didn't make it to retirement to one in which most do, it is expected to last fifteen to twenty years, and there are more of us than ever.

 

The big pension story of the first quarter century will be the abrogation of the pension promise. America cannot afford for people to retire at 65. People are living longer, they are healthier and therefore will have to work longer. What will make us work longer, as a generation, is that our assets will not last long enough to allow us retire at 65.

 

What Do We Do To Improve Returns

 

Stocks and bonds are not the only choices

Unconventional assets can be priced to offer better returns

Seek alpha - find managers who can beat their markets

Avoiding losses is just as important, if not more, than beating the market

Include alternatives in the asset mix

 

"Markets do not reward you for being comfortable." Move some money to areas which are out of favor or not mainstream. They are usually priced more attractively to reward you for moving away from the herd.

 

Which Risk Do You Want To Control?

 

"It's not assets that define wealth. It is what spending stream or standard of living those assets can support."

 

2001-2005 was only a bear market for those with an equity-centric portfolio

 

High risk strategies are on the tails. Risk is a double edged sword. In order to get return, you have to be willing to take some risk, but contrary to popular belief, risk does not guarantee you a higher return. It often creates a lower one, with potentially big negatives.

 

"The essence of investment management is the management or risk, not the management of returns" ~Benjamin Graham

 

"Investing is a "loser's game" in which the winner is often the investor who makes the fewest errors." ~Charley Ellis

 

Beating Andre Agassi at tennis very is easy. All you have to do is keep the ball in play and not make any mistakes. You have to ask yourself, "Who is on the other side of the trade and why are they willing to lose so that I can win?" Few people approach investing from this perspective. Instead they analyze markets, companies, news, fundamentals, etc. In other words, I don't have to outrun the bear. I only have to outrun you.

 

Rob Arnott and Anne Casscells; "Will we retire later and poorer?" Journal of Investing; Summer, 2004

 

Retirees don't actually consume money. They consume goods and services. As we save for retirement, we are saving assets in hopes they can eventually provide goods and services.

 

The way society will impose a stable support ratio is simple supply and demand. Asset prices will move to a price where the average 65 year old will look at their assets and say, "We don't have enough. We have to work a little longer."

 

When companies retain most of their earnings, 10 year earnings growth is negative. When companies retain a little, earnings growth is positive. The idea that today's low dividend rates are going to help us out with earnings growth in the future is not borne out by the data.

 

What if we took your liquid investable assets and divide it by your life expectancy? That is how much they have to spend. Anything you spend beyond that is speculation that future return will be greater than 0%.

 

If plan spending that way, your customer will never run out of money. It is also not what a customer wants to hear.

 

Going back to the idea of "Who is on the other side of your trade?", those that have the greatest confidence that they can pick stocks and pick stocks well are those that are probably the worst stock pickers. Those that have the least confidence are probably the best.

 

Commodities have a modest place in an investors portfolio as an insurance policy only - with no expectation for profit. If Saudi Arabian oil was wiped out by a dirty bomb for two years - 20% of the world's oil went offline - what would happen to commodities and what would happen to stock prices? Commodities are a hedge because they are non-correlated but should not be bought as speculative.

 

BIOGRAPHY:

 

Robert Arnott is chairman of Research Affiliates, LLC, and editor of Financial Analysts Journal. Recently, he introduced the concept of Fundamental Indexation, built on a theoretical foundation that challenges some of the core assumptions of modern finance. Previously, Mr. Arnott joined forces with PIMCO, serving as a sub-advisor, to offer the first global asset allocation product to make active use of alternative markets, beyond conventional stocks, bonds, and cash. Prior to this, he developed quantitative asset management products and teams as chairman of First Quadrant, LP, global equity strategist at Salomon (now part of Citigroup), president of TSA Capital Management (now part of Analytic), and vice president at The Boston Company (now PanAgora). Mr. Arnott has received five Graham and Dodd Scrolls/Awards, awarded annually by the CFA Institute, and two Bernstein-Fabozzi/Jacobs-Levy awards, awarded by the Journal of Portfolio Management and Institutional Investor, for the best articles of the year. He has authored over 70 refereed articles for journals such as the Financial Analysts Journal, the Journal of Portfolio Management, and the Harvard Business Review. Mr. Arnott has also served as a visiting professor of finance at UCLA, on the editorial board of the Journal of Portfolio Management and two other journals, and on the product advisory board of the Chicago Board Options Exchange and two other exchanges.

 

Kim Snider, Kim Snider Financial Communications, Chronim Investments and/or Snider Advisors make no representation that the information and opinions expressed are accurate, complete or current. The opinions expressed should not be construed as financial, legal, tax, or other advice and are provided for informational purposes only. Call 866-952-0100 to request the Snider Investment Method™ Owner's Manual, which includes a description of the Snider Investment Method, investment objectives, risks, suitability and other information. Please read and consider carefully before investing. All investments are subject to risk including possible loss of principal.

 

April 26, 2006

Are You Properly Factoring in the Cost of Healthcare?

Fidelity Investments thinks a 65-year old couple retiring today without employer health benefits will need $200,000 for out-of-pocket health expenses during retirement. Others say that figure is way too low. The Employee Benefits Research Institute estimates people could need twice that much because Fidelity based its estimates on a life expectancy of 82 years for men and 85 for women.

 

EBRI figures that you will need $216,000 if you live to 80, $444,000 if you live to 90 and $778,000 if you survive to 100. Don't think that is likely? Think again. Most people badly underestimate how long they will live. A 65 year-old man today has a 50% chance of being alive age 85 and a 25% chance of making it to 92. A 65 year old woman has a 50% chance of being alive at 88 and a 25% chance she will still be alive at 94. Finally, if both husband and wife are still alive at age 65, there is a 25% chance one of them will live to see 97!

 

These healthcare estimates include Medicare premiums and co-pays for exams and prescription drugs. It does not include over-the-counter medicine, dental care or long term care. It also does not take into account the fact that Medicare premiums are expected to rise.

 

Many people wrongly assume they will have employer-provided healthcare coverage or that Medicare will cover more than it does. Fidelity says that is why they publish these numbers. People frequently neglect to properly account for healthcare in their retirement planning.

 

How about you? Do you have it in your plan? How concerned are you about the cost of healthcare and the impact that could have on your standard of living. As always, I 'd like to hear from you. Leave your thoughts and comments below.

 

SOURCE:

 

1. "Health Costs a Wildcard." Financial Advisor April 2006, p34.

 

Kim Snider, Kim Snider Financial Communications, Chronim Investments and/or Snider Advisors make no representation that the information and opinions expressed are accurate, complete or current. The opinions expressed should not be construed as financial, legal, tax, or other advice and are provided for informational purposes only. Call 866-952-0100 to request the Snider Investment Method™ Owner's Manual, which includes a description of the Snider Investment Method, investment objectives, risks, suitability and other information. Please read and consider carefully before investing. All investments are subject to risk including possible loss of principal.

April 17, 2006

Why Planning for Retirement is So Hard

While the need for retirement planning is obvious, few people do it. A study by Merrill Lynch and gerontologist, Dr Ken Dychtwald finds 42% of baby boomers do not know how much money they will need to be able to live comfortably in retirement.

 

While the need seems ubiquitous, it is also fairly recent. Individual retirement planning was unnecessary in a world where the replacement rate was 100%. Thirty years ago, retirement income was fully funded by employer pension plans and Social Security.

 

Not only is it necessary, it is hard. The reason it is hard is it is based on assumption - not just one assumption, either - a bunch of assumptions. The problem, of course, is that none of us has a crystal ball, what happened in the past is not predictive of what will happen in the future, and if we are wrong in our assumptions the results can be catastrophic.

 

A March 27, 2006 article in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) outlines seven factors that will determine the validity of your planning. They are: inflation, taxes, spending, health care, longevity, assets and investment return.

 

INFLATION

 

The rate of increase in the cost of living is a vital factor to consider when planning your retirement readiness. Deciding what rate to assume, however, can be tough.

 

The most commonly used number for financial planning purposes is 3%, but that's just an estimate based on historical norms. Actual rates of inflation can vary widely. In recent years, a 3% rate of inflation has made sense. In the '70s and '80s, however, inflation soared to double-digit levels, hitting nearly 14% in 1980.

 

While you can't predict how the economy will affect costs during your retirement, you can try to make your estimate more accurate by tailoring it as closely as possible to your specific needs.

 

Inflation rates are really just a compilation of costs derived from the consumer price index, or CPI, which is based on a basket of goods and services bought by typical urban consumers. Some of the costs in that basket will have a greater impact on you than others.

 

One way to get an idea of how inflation might affect you is through a Web page of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The site, at http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=cu, lets you see how specific costs have risen over time. The site can be hard to use, however. To get your inflation rate, first select the goods and services that interest you. Then, under "more formatting options," you want to click "12 month percentage change."

 

If you need help with the site, contact the Bureau of Labor Statistics office of public affairs at 202-691-5902.

 

Where you live will also have an impact on your personal inflation rate. The Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site allows you to adjust for location, but it doesn't have comprehensive information for all the locations listed.

 

To get a better sense for how location can affect your costs, play with the cost of living calculator at www.inflationdata.com. It will show how much you need to maintain your lifestyle in different cities across the country.

 

Also consider whether some of your retirement income will come with inflation protection. Social Security benefits, for example, have built in cost-of-living increases. Some employer-sponsored pension plans come with cost of living increases, but that's increasingly rare.

 

Fixed-income investments may appeal to conservative individuals, but they run the risk of failing to keep up with inflation. In recent years, most short-term fixed-income investments have lagged behind the general increase in costs. One alternative is bonds that protect against rising inflation, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, or TIPS.

 

Stocks are generally assumed to be the best investment for fighting inflation because they do a better job than bonds of keeping up with the rising cost of goods and services. Just be sure to factor inflation into your return assumptions so you don't overestimate how much you will earn on your stock investments.

 

"If you're expecting a 7% rate of return on an investment today and inflation is 4%, your real return is just 3%," says William Arnone, a retirement expert with the consulting and accounting firm of Ernst & Young in New York.

 

TAXES

 

Taxes, too, automatically reduce income. Imagine you are expecting $50,000 in pension income if you retire at age 65. If your combined state and federal taxes lop 20% off your income, you'll have $10,000 a year less to live on.

 

Yet some retirement-planning calculators don't even consider the impact of taxes, or they don't allow you to adjust for the fact that taxes will differ depending on what your investments are and where you plan to live during your retirement. When using these calculators, you want to add the cost of taxes to your spending or income needs.

 

As you make your calculation, assume for now that you should be able to pay 15% long-term capital gains rates on your taxable stock investments, but you will pay federal ordinary-income taxes on withdrawals from pensions and traditional 401(k) and IRA accounts.

 

Roth 401(k)s and Roth IRAs are free of taxes on withdrawals. Social Security, meanwhile, is taxed only at certain income levels. You may be subject to a tax on between 50% and 85% of your Social Security benefit if your income (as defined by the Social Security Administration) exceeds a certain level.

 

For more information, you can go to the Social Security Administration's Web site, www.ssa.gov.

 

Each state, on the other hand, takes a different approach to taxing retirement income. Currently, nine states -- including Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota and Texas -- have no personal income tax for anyone. As such, they can be great for retirees who want to reduce their costs.

 

Other states offer reduced income taxes on retirement income. In Illinois, for example, income from qualified retirement plans and IRAs isn't taxed, according to John Logan, senior state-tax analyst with tax-information provider CCH Inc., Riverwoods, Ill. In Hawaii, income from employer contributions to pensions and profit-sharing plans is tax-free. In New York, taxpayers over age 59½ can exempt $20,000 of their pension income from taxes annually. And some states, like California and Maryland, exclude all Social Security benefits from state income taxes, says Mr. Logan.

 

Once you get a good sense of your tax picture in retirement, try toying with how it might change if you move to another state. You might find that a move to Florida, for example, could allow you to retire sooner than you anticipated.

 

Just be careful about retaining two residences in retirement. If both states can claim you as a resident, your retirement income might still be subject to state income taxes.

 

SPENDING

 

To estimate your spending in retirement, it's best to get a handle on what you're spending now. This means creating a budget. It can be easily done with expense-tracking software like Intuit Inc.'s Quicken or Microsoft Corp.'s Money.

 

A free tool for tabulating retirement expenses, taking taxes into account, can be found at www.financialcalculators.com, owned by Financial Calculators Inc. in Riverton, Utah.

 

Your spending will change once you reach retirement, so you need to adjust accordingly. Work-related expenses, such as dry cleaning, transportation, lunches and work clothes, will decline or disappear. Certain fixed expenses, like the mortgage, life-insurance premiums and contributions to retirement savings accounts, might also disappear. Other expenses could increase, such as travel costs and medical care.

 

Consider costs that are unique to you. Might you need to care for an elderly parent during your retirement, or contribute to a child's college tuition? Some people may want a bigger home in their retirement, or a new car. Tailoring the computation to your specific spending needs is an important part of the planning process.

 

According to a new study using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, many people may overestimate the amount of money they will spend in retirement. The study found that retirees' total spending, after an initial drop from pre-retirement levels, doesn't rise with inflation -- it generally remains steady. That's because even though inflation pushes prices higher, the elderly tend to consume less as they age.

 

The study's author, Ty Bernicke, of Bernicke & Associates in Eau Claire, Wis., found that health-care spending increased, but this rise was offset by a decline in other spending. It's a trend that spans all income brackets, not just retirees who need to count their pennies, says Mr. Bernicke.

 

The prospect of a spending level that remains constant is at odds with the scenarios depicted by many financial planners, who tend to assume that spending increases with inflation from the first year of retirement on.

 

HEALTH CARE

 

In Mr. Bernicke's research, the cost of health care was the wild card. Two individuals' experiences and health can be wildly different, and with health-care costs rising faster than the rate of inflation, it's important to consider how potentially high medical costs might affect your retirement plan.

 

First, there's the cost of insurance. If you retire before age 65, you'll need health insurance until you're eligible for Medicare. Once you're eligible for Medicare, at 65, you'll also need insurance to cover the gaps in coverage, known as Medigap insurance. It can be expensive, even for people who have employer-sponsored retiree health care, because of the fast deterioration of these plans.

 

When Ed Beltram of Woodland Park, Colo., took early retirement from Lucent Technologies Inc. in 2001 at the age of 56, he was paying premiums of $42 a month for dental and medical care for both himself and his wife.

 

Just five years later, those monthly premiums have jumped to $690, not including dental coverage. The reason: Mr. Beltram's employer -- which promised a cap on employee contributions when he retired -- stopped covering dependents in 2004.

 

"We really had a curveball thrown to us," says Mr. Beltram, who is the spokesman for the Lucent Retirees Organization, an organization created in 2003 by the company's retirees.

 

Lucent's director of corporate media relations, Mary Ward, responds that the soaring cost of health care "is something everyone in this country has had to deal with. The fact is, Lucent simply could not afford to continue covering virtually the entire cost of health care for 114,000 retirees and their dependents and remain competitive."

 

Despite the cuts, Ms. Ward says, Lucent still provides better benefits to its retirees than most U.S. companies.

 

Indeed, few retirees in the U.S. even have access to an employer-sponsored health plan. In 2002, 13% of private-sector employers offered health benefits to retirees who were eligible for Medicare -- down from 20% in 1997, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. For early retirees, 13% offered benefits in 2002, down from 22% five years earlier.

 

Long-term nursing care can be another wild card. The national average cost of a private room in a nursing home was $70,080 a year in 2004, or $192 a day, according to data from New York insurer MetLife Inc. The most expensive state was Alaska, where nursing care averaged $204,765 a year. Meanwhile, the national average stay in a nursing home for current residents was 2.4 years, making the average cost $168,192.

 

It's an easy cost to overlook, since not all retirees will need nursing care in old age. But the financial implications of disregarding this risk can be devastating.

 

One solution is long-term care insurance, which is especially appealing to middle-income retirees. Those wealthy enough to pay for their own health care can generally bypass this insurance, as can low-income retirees, who qualify for Medicaid coverage of long-term care costs.

 

LONGEVITY

 

How long you expect to live is another important factor. Payments from Social Security and defined-benefit pension plans should last as long as you do, but your 401(k) and other personal savings will need to be doled out carefully.

 

Say you're a 65-year-old woman who's about to retire. At that age, you can expect to live roughly 20 more years on average. But if you start tapping your nest egg at a rate that will deplete it in 20 years, you may be underestimating how long you'll need income. You could easily live years beyond the average, without any assets of your own to provide income in the later years.

 

So, what life expectancy should you use as you begin to draw on your savings? Stuart Ritter, a certified financial planner with T. Rowe Price Group Inc., Baltimore, recommends that people always plan to live until at least age 95. The reason: Of four 65-year-old couples, one person will live to age 95, he says.

 

Indeed, 41% of women age 65 will live to 90, 19% will make it to age 95, and 5% will celebrate their centennial, according to Ro