In A Proper Accounting: The Real Cost of Government Loans and Credit Guarantees, the editors of the online newsletter Knowledge@Wharton point out that while our attention has been focused like a laser beam on the U.S. government’s enormous debt and the danger of falling off the Fiscal Cliff, we’ve ignored the massive costs and risks embedded in the government’s lending programs.
The article notes that “flaws in the way the government accounts for its loans and credit guarantees” underestimate the costs for student loans and other credit programs totaling more than $2.5 trillion, plus more than $5 trillion in mortgages backed by the federally owned companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. According to the Financial Economists Roundtable (FER), a group administered by the Wharton Financial Institutions Center, if the government used accounting methods accepted by most businesses, our budget deficit would be even larger.
Said Deborah J. Lucas, finance professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management and FER member, “The federal government is the world's largest financial institution, but policymakers and [government] managers are handicapped by an accounting system that is seriously deficient. The accounting standards that the government sets for private financial institutions require far greater transparency than the rules that it imposes on itself.”
According to the FER, the 2008 collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, private companies that operated as government-sponsored enterprises, is a “recent and costly example where the government treated its implicit loan guarantees as having no cost.” When the federal government stepped in and took over Fannie and Freddie, the price tag for taxpayers was more than $120 billion.
The roundtable insists that government accounting practices create the “budgetary illusion that government credit programs reduce the government deficit.” They point to a group of lending programs that includes student loans and mortgages guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration that the Congressional Budget Office projects to reduce the federal deficit by about $45 billion in 2013, while an accurate accounting would show them likely to cost $11 billion.
Imagine if you ran your household finances like that? The article concludes with some good news. H.R. 3581 addresses necessary accounting adjustments has passed in the House, and awaits action in the Senate.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
A Consultative Financial Advisor
There are a variety of characteristics a successful client-advisor relationship should have. Chief among them is that the relationship must be consultative. In my practice, that involves much more than simply working together with clients in an open and honest partnership to meet their goals. Importantly, we also work hand-in-hand with our clients’ estate planning attorneys, accountants and other financial professionals. This is our expansive professional network--a talented team of trusted advisors who offer specific expertise and objective counsel when necessary.
Notably, our consultative approach isn’t limited to professionals. Although many times one spouse functions as the point person when it comes to finances, it’s imperative that both partners understand and participate in the management of the family finances. In fact, many of our clients broaden their family’s involvement by bringing their children into the planning process. Even very young children can learn something about managing the household finances, and sharing the estate planning process with adult children can be especially fulfilling.
While there’s no question that in today’s challenging market you may require the expertise and counsel of a range of financial professionals, it’s crucial that when you assemble such a team, you designate a quarterback or your personal chief financial officer. In fact, recent research from State Street Global Advisors and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania found that many investors who work with multiple financial advisors without a lead advisor shoulder additional portfolio risk.
How so? Think about it. Without a consultative quarterback to foster communication and coordinate your financial plan, multiple advisors could cloud your financial picture. For example, without communication between advisors, overlapping exposures could create an unintentional overexposure to a single stock or asset class that increases your overall portfolio risk. Or, if you worked with two advisors and one underweighted small cap, while the other overweighted the asset class, you’d have an unintended market neutral exposure. Additionally, over time, your portfolio would be prone to style drift, or a critical need to rebalance might go unmet.
If you work with multiple financial professionals, we recommend designating someone like us as your quarterback or personal chief financial officer.
(Note: For a discussion of the six core characteristics--Six Cs--an advisor should have, read What Makes a Great Financial Advisor? and the Six Cs blogs on this topic.)
Notably, our consultative approach isn’t limited to professionals. Although many times one spouse functions as the point person when it comes to finances, it’s imperative that both partners understand and participate in the management of the family finances. In fact, many of our clients broaden their family’s involvement by bringing their children into the planning process. Even very young children can learn something about managing the household finances, and sharing the estate planning process with adult children can be especially fulfilling.
While there’s no question that in today’s challenging market you may require the expertise and counsel of a range of financial professionals, it’s crucial that when you assemble such a team, you designate a quarterback or your personal chief financial officer. In fact, recent research from State Street Global Advisors and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania found that many investors who work with multiple financial advisors without a lead advisor shoulder additional portfolio risk.
How so? Think about it. Without a consultative quarterback to foster communication and coordinate your financial plan, multiple advisors could cloud your financial picture. For example, without communication between advisors, overlapping exposures could create an unintentional overexposure to a single stock or asset class that increases your overall portfolio risk. Or, if you worked with two advisors and one underweighted small cap, while the other overweighted the asset class, you’d have an unintended market neutral exposure. Additionally, over time, your portfolio would be prone to style drift, or a critical need to rebalance might go unmet.
If you work with multiple financial professionals, we recommend designating someone like us as your quarterback or personal chief financial officer.
(Note: For a discussion of the six core characteristics--Six Cs--an advisor should have, read What Makes a Great Financial Advisor? and the Six Cs blogs on this topic.)
Monday, January 21, 2013
Good News for IRA Owners
On January 2, 2013, President Obama signed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 also known as the Fiscal Cliff Bill into law. While tax rates grabbed all the headlines, the bill also included some good news for charities – and for philanthropically inclined Individual Retirement Plan (IRA) owners.
You might remember the Qualified Charitable Distribution (QCD) provision. Well, this tax-free distribution of otherwise taxable dollars from your IRA to a qualified charitable organization is back! As established in 2011, individuals ages 70½ and older can give direct gifts up to $100,000 to qualified public charities from their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) -- without paying taxes on the distribution.
In fact, the newly-dubbed “IRA Rollover provision” allows IRA gifts made between December 31, 2012 and February 1, 2013 to be counted for the 2012 tax year. It also permits people who made qualifying transfers from their IRAs to charities in December of 2012 to treat the transfers retroactively as eligible rollovers. Finally, it extends the IRA charitable rollover provision through December 31, 2013, when it will sunset.
And, yes, these gifts will count toward your Required Minimum Distribution (RMD).
Who benefits the most? Charities benefit, of course, but this strategy can make sense for both donors who itemize deductions and whose charitable contributions would be reduced by the percentage of income limitation or by the itemized deduction reduction. This is beneficial since the QCD is not included in the taxpayer's Adjusted Gross Income.
You might remember the Qualified Charitable Distribution (QCD) provision. Well, this tax-free distribution of otherwise taxable dollars from your IRA to a qualified charitable organization is back! As established in 2011, individuals ages 70½ and older can give direct gifts up to $100,000 to qualified public charities from their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) -- without paying taxes on the distribution.
In fact, the newly-dubbed “IRA Rollover provision” allows IRA gifts made between December 31, 2012 and February 1, 2013 to be counted for the 2012 tax year. It also permits people who made qualifying transfers from their IRAs to charities in December of 2012 to treat the transfers retroactively as eligible rollovers. Finally, it extends the IRA charitable rollover provision through December 31, 2013, when it will sunset.
And, yes, these gifts will count toward your Required Minimum Distribution (RMD).
Who benefits the most? Charities benefit, of course, but this strategy can make sense for both donors who itemize deductions and whose charitable contributions would be reduced by the percentage of income limitation or by the itemized deduction reduction. This is beneficial since the QCD is not included in the taxpayer's Adjusted Gross Income.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Learning from Successful People
It’s a new year and we’ve likely all made resolutions to improve ourselves. If you’re striving to do better in the workplace, you’ll find the observations and advice offered in 8 Things Remarkably Successful People Do interesting and useful.
The author Jeff Haden insists that successful business people work differently, putting in more hours than most and viewing an achieved goal as a “launching pad for achieving another huge goal.” Those are certainly admirable traits, but a few of Haden’s other observations really resonated with me.
Hade writes, for example, that successful business people “avoid the crowds.” “Joining the crowd--no matter how trendy the crowd or ‘hot’ the opportunity--is a recipe for mediocrity.” Of course, the same is true of investing. Jump on the hot stock bandwagon and you’re sure to be in for a disappointing ride.
Haden also observes that successful business people “start at the end.” He writes, “Aim for the ultimate. Decide where you want to end up. That is your goal. Then you can work backwards and lay out every step along the way.” Of course, these instructions are encapsulated by the financial planning process. And research shows that investors with a written plan and specific goals not only make better decisions, but have the fortitude to stay invested in choppy markets.
Of course, if you read the article, you will likely find other observations that relate more directly to your own work. However, Haden’s final point about successful business people applies across all lines of work: “They are never too proud to admit they made a mistake…say they are sorry…have big dreams…admit they owe their success to others…poke fun at themselves..ask for help.” No matter how hard we work, it’s impossible to know all the answers--and the best and the brightest always seem to know when to ask for help.
The author Jeff Haden insists that successful business people work differently, putting in more hours than most and viewing an achieved goal as a “launching pad for achieving another huge goal.” Those are certainly admirable traits, but a few of Haden’s other observations really resonated with me.
Hade writes, for example, that successful business people “avoid the crowds.” “Joining the crowd--no matter how trendy the crowd or ‘hot’ the opportunity--is a recipe for mediocrity.” Of course, the same is true of investing. Jump on the hot stock bandwagon and you’re sure to be in for a disappointing ride.
Haden also observes that successful business people “start at the end.” He writes, “Aim for the ultimate. Decide where you want to end up. That is your goal. Then you can work backwards and lay out every step along the way.” Of course, these instructions are encapsulated by the financial planning process. And research shows that investors with a written plan and specific goals not only make better decisions, but have the fortitude to stay invested in choppy markets.
Of course, if you read the article, you will likely find other observations that relate more directly to your own work. However, Haden’s final point about successful business people applies across all lines of work: “They are never too proud to admit they made a mistake…say they are sorry…have big dreams…admit they owe their success to others…poke fun at themselves..ask for help.” No matter how hard we work, it’s impossible to know all the answers--and the best and the brightest always seem to know when to ask for help.
Monday, January 7, 2013
2012: The Year Pessimism Got Skunked...Again
The election. The fiscal cliff. The national debt. The federal deficit. Slow
(to nonexistent) economic growth. Chronically high unemployment. Superstorm
Sandy, the east coast's Katrina. Impending tax increases. The euro plague,
leapfrogging from Greece to Spain, next perhaps to Italy and even France. The
weak dollar. The Federal Reserve continuing to push on a string. The China
slowdown. The LIBOR scandal. The Facebook IPO fiasco. Yet another new strain of
flu virus. The end of the world foretold by the Mayan calendar. Two thousand
twelve was certainly a banner year for catastrophe, was it not?
How very odd, then, that the broad equity market—which started the year at 1277 on the S&P 500 and has flirted with 1450 as I write on the winter solstice—so signally failed to get the message. With dividends, it seems to be on track to have returned something like fourteen percent in this seemingly most relentlessly dismal of years. How shall we account to ourselves for this dichotomy, which seems on its face not merely inexplicable but downright weird? Well, I can think of two possible explanations.
The first and most obvious is that the stock market is just dead wrong: that it has recklessly ignored the plethora of real and impending disasters that are bearing down on us with each passing day, and which will surely swamp our economy and precipitate a market meltdown…any day now. For simplicity's sake, let's call this Door Number One: Pessimists Right, Market Wrong.
But then there's that other possibility. Which is, of course, that the pessimists have not just been momentarily wrong: they've been fundamentally—and perhaps fatally—wrong about the whole equation. They have, in short, been focusing entirely on the fiscal, monetary and economic mistakes of countries. But the equity market—as is its wont—has been much more narrowly focused on the variables which always ultimately drive it: the healthy, growing (and by some measures record-breaking) earnings, cash flows, dividends and cash positions of companies. We'll call this, as I'm sure you've already anticipated, Door Number Two: Market Right, Pessimists Wrong.
This is just one armchair observer's opinion, you understand, but—as I have all along—I'm going with Door Number Two. And thereby hangs a tale.
It is fashionable in pessimist circles to note that the equity market as denominated in the Standard & Poor's 500-Stock Index is closing out 2012 just about exactly where it ended 1999, in the mid 1400s—having all these years “done nothing.” This observation, narrowly correct as it clearly is, misses a couple of important things.
The first of these is, of course, that at the close of 1999 the market was within weeks of the bitter end of its greatest two-decade run of all time, during which the Index had gone up quite a bit more than ten times. It was at that point, by any and perhaps every measure, way ahead of itself.
The second and to me even more telling point is that while the Index has been, on net, treading water for these unlucky thirteen years, the earnings and dividends of its five hundred component companies have essentially doubled. (As the late American philosopher Charles Dillon Stengel always said: “You could look it up.”) OK, technically the earnings have a tad more than doubled, and the dividends a tad less, but the point is made: the prices of the great companies in America and the world relative to their earnings and dividends have to all intents and purposes halved, lo these thirteen years past.
One may therefore suggest, not unreasonably, the possibility that the market may in these thirteen years have gotten almost as far behind itself as it was ahead of itself in 1999. And that what it has been doing in 2012 is playing catch-up.
And there is perhaps more to this thesis than most investors may suspect. At the end of 1999, the S&P 500 was completing a year in which it earned about $50. Dividing those earnings by 1450, the Index's earnings yield stood at 3.5%—at a moment when the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond (though falling rapidly) was still around 5%. It could have been argued (and in fact this thesis turned out to be the correct one) that the bond was a better value, or at least a very competitive safe haven.
Today near 1450, with earnings in excess of $100, the S&P 500's earnings yield is about 6.7%, while the 10-year Treasury's is 1.8%, suggesting that the relative values of stocks and bonds have very sharply reversed since 1999. And that's not all.
Dig a little deeper, and we discover a couple of very intriguing facts about dividends. The more obvious of these is that—for only the second time since 1958—the current dividend yield of the S&P 500, at slightly higher than 2%, is greater than that of the 10-year Treasury. (The only other time this has happened was during the Great Panic of 2008-09.)
More obscurely but perhaps more importantly in the longer run, since 1871 the average dividend payout ratio—the percentage of their earnings that companies paid to shareholders as dividends—has been 53%. It's currently 29%. This certainly doesn't insure that companies will be significantly raising their dividends anytime soon. But it tells us that, at least historically, they have a lot of room to do so—or to buy back stock, which is simply enhancing shareholder value by another means.
Set aside the staggering economic progress of the developing world—China, India, Brazil and the like—in these thirteen years. Set aside the fact that the cost of computing has fallen by something like 98% since 1999, thereby empowering the rise of a billion global smartphone users. Set aside the stunning reality that the United States has gone from the most abject dependence on foreign oil to a point where it will emerge as the world's leading oil producer by 2020.
And set aside, if you can, the inarguable fact that the fiscal conditions of the West's democracies are an unholy mess. Tocqueville said it 170 years ago, and it's never been truer than it is today: “A democracy will always vote itself more benefits than it is prepared to produce.” Set this aside, I say, because as they become almost daily more genuinely global, the great companies become progressively less dependent on the economies of the older democracies on both sides of the Atlantic. At his confirmation hearings in 1953, President Eisenhower's nominee for secretary of defense could opine (if not in so many words) that what was good for General Motors was good for this country. In 2013, General Motors will sell as many cars in China as it does in the United States. This is not your father's Oldsmobile, and it isn't his stock market, either.
Especially if you have a personal predilection to pessimism, the turn of the year might be a good time to ask yourself—or, even better, to ask your financial advisor—whether, in fact, it might be the market that's right and the pessimists who are wrong. In terms of your own financial planning, and especially of your retirement income planning, this could turn out to be the single most important financial question you ask in 2013.
© January 2013 Nick Murray. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission.
How very odd, then, that the broad equity market—which started the year at 1277 on the S&P 500 and has flirted with 1450 as I write on the winter solstice—so signally failed to get the message. With dividends, it seems to be on track to have returned something like fourteen percent in this seemingly most relentlessly dismal of years. How shall we account to ourselves for this dichotomy, which seems on its face not merely inexplicable but downright weird? Well, I can think of two possible explanations.
The first and most obvious is that the stock market is just dead wrong: that it has recklessly ignored the plethora of real and impending disasters that are bearing down on us with each passing day, and which will surely swamp our economy and precipitate a market meltdown…any day now. For simplicity's sake, let's call this Door Number One: Pessimists Right, Market Wrong.
But then there's that other possibility. Which is, of course, that the pessimists have not just been momentarily wrong: they've been fundamentally—and perhaps fatally—wrong about the whole equation. They have, in short, been focusing entirely on the fiscal, monetary and economic mistakes of countries. But the equity market—as is its wont—has been much more narrowly focused on the variables which always ultimately drive it: the healthy, growing (and by some measures record-breaking) earnings, cash flows, dividends and cash positions of companies. We'll call this, as I'm sure you've already anticipated, Door Number Two: Market Right, Pessimists Wrong.
This is just one armchair observer's opinion, you understand, but—as I have all along—I'm going with Door Number Two. And thereby hangs a tale.
It is fashionable in pessimist circles to note that the equity market as denominated in the Standard & Poor's 500-Stock Index is closing out 2012 just about exactly where it ended 1999, in the mid 1400s—having all these years “done nothing.” This observation, narrowly correct as it clearly is, misses a couple of important things.
The first of these is, of course, that at the close of 1999 the market was within weeks of the bitter end of its greatest two-decade run of all time, during which the Index had gone up quite a bit more than ten times. It was at that point, by any and perhaps every measure, way ahead of itself.
The second and to me even more telling point is that while the Index has been, on net, treading water for these unlucky thirteen years, the earnings and dividends of its five hundred component companies have essentially doubled. (As the late American philosopher Charles Dillon Stengel always said: “You could look it up.”) OK, technically the earnings have a tad more than doubled, and the dividends a tad less, but the point is made: the prices of the great companies in America and the world relative to their earnings and dividends have to all intents and purposes halved, lo these thirteen years past.
One may therefore suggest, not unreasonably, the possibility that the market may in these thirteen years have gotten almost as far behind itself as it was ahead of itself in 1999. And that what it has been doing in 2012 is playing catch-up.
And there is perhaps more to this thesis than most investors may suspect. At the end of 1999, the S&P 500 was completing a year in which it earned about $50. Dividing those earnings by 1450, the Index's earnings yield stood at 3.5%—at a moment when the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond (though falling rapidly) was still around 5%. It could have been argued (and in fact this thesis turned out to be the correct one) that the bond was a better value, or at least a very competitive safe haven.
Today near 1450, with earnings in excess of $100, the S&P 500's earnings yield is about 6.7%, while the 10-year Treasury's is 1.8%, suggesting that the relative values of stocks and bonds have very sharply reversed since 1999. And that's not all.
Dig a little deeper, and we discover a couple of very intriguing facts about dividends. The more obvious of these is that—for only the second time since 1958—the current dividend yield of the S&P 500, at slightly higher than 2%, is greater than that of the 10-year Treasury. (The only other time this has happened was during the Great Panic of 2008-09.)
More obscurely but perhaps more importantly in the longer run, since 1871 the average dividend payout ratio—the percentage of their earnings that companies paid to shareholders as dividends—has been 53%. It's currently 29%. This certainly doesn't insure that companies will be significantly raising their dividends anytime soon. But it tells us that, at least historically, they have a lot of room to do so—or to buy back stock, which is simply enhancing shareholder value by another means.
Set aside the staggering economic progress of the developing world—China, India, Brazil and the like—in these thirteen years. Set aside the fact that the cost of computing has fallen by something like 98% since 1999, thereby empowering the rise of a billion global smartphone users. Set aside the stunning reality that the United States has gone from the most abject dependence on foreign oil to a point where it will emerge as the world's leading oil producer by 2020.
And set aside, if you can, the inarguable fact that the fiscal conditions of the West's democracies are an unholy mess. Tocqueville said it 170 years ago, and it's never been truer than it is today: “A democracy will always vote itself more benefits than it is prepared to produce.” Set this aside, I say, because as they become almost daily more genuinely global, the great companies become progressively less dependent on the economies of the older democracies on both sides of the Atlantic. At his confirmation hearings in 1953, President Eisenhower's nominee for secretary of defense could opine (if not in so many words) that what was good for General Motors was good for this country. In 2013, General Motors will sell as many cars in China as it does in the United States. This is not your father's Oldsmobile, and it isn't his stock market, either.
Especially if you have a personal predilection to pessimism, the turn of the year might be a good time to ask yourself—or, even better, to ask your financial advisor—whether, in fact, it might be the market that's right and the pessimists who are wrong. In terms of your own financial planning, and especially of your retirement income planning, this could turn out to be the single most important financial question you ask in 2013.
© January 2013 Nick Murray. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Happy New Year! The Cliff was Averted
Amid intense political drama, Congress passed the American Taxpayer Relief Act on New Year’s Day to avert massive tax increases for nearly all earners that were slated for January 1st. The best comment I’ve read thus far on the legislation comes from David Lifson, an accountant at Crowe Horwath in New York. He says that the new law “replaces uncertainty with confusion.” Lifson goes on to say that, “Only tax wizards can understand the entirety, especially for people earning between $200,000 and $450,000.”
In fact, the American Taxpayer Relief Act is not as simple as it’s been billed. Yes, the top 1% of taxpayers will bear the biggest burden when the 35% bracket increases to 39.6% for individuals with at least $400,000 of taxable income or couples with at least $450,000. However, many other families will pay more, too. For instance, the most immediate change affects nearly all workers: Congress allowed a two-percentage-point cut for the employee portion of the Social Security tax to expire.
Another major change is with the personal exemption, the amount of money a taxpayer can deduct for him or herself and dependents. In 2013, this exemption is expected to be $3,900, so a couple with three children could deduct $19,500. However, this year the exemption will phase out for people starting at the $250,000/$300,000 income thresholds, and disappear completely for couples with $422,500 of adjusted gross income. So, a couple with three children and adjusted gross income of more than $300,000 will lose some or all of their $19,500 exemption.
Another curve ball is the Pease provision, named after former Rep. Donald Pease (D-Ohio) which could significantly limit charitable donations and mortgage interest for taxpayers above the $250,000/$300,000 taxable income thresholds.
And, there’s plenty more to digest and keep us busy planning as we wait for the Internal Revenue Service to release the new inflation-adjusted tax brackets for 2013…
In fact, the American Taxpayer Relief Act is not as simple as it’s been billed. Yes, the top 1% of taxpayers will bear the biggest burden when the 35% bracket increases to 39.6% for individuals with at least $400,000 of taxable income or couples with at least $450,000. However, many other families will pay more, too. For instance, the most immediate change affects nearly all workers: Congress allowed a two-percentage-point cut for the employee portion of the Social Security tax to expire.
Another major change is with the personal exemption, the amount of money a taxpayer can deduct for him or herself and dependents. In 2013, this exemption is expected to be $3,900, so a couple with three children could deduct $19,500. However, this year the exemption will phase out for people starting at the $250,000/$300,000 income thresholds, and disappear completely for couples with $422,500 of adjusted gross income. So, a couple with three children and adjusted gross income of more than $300,000 will lose some or all of their $19,500 exemption.
Another curve ball is the Pease provision, named after former Rep. Donald Pease (D-Ohio) which could significantly limit charitable donations and mortgage interest for taxpayers above the $250,000/$300,000 taxable income thresholds.
And, there’s plenty more to digest and keep us busy planning as we wait for the Internal Revenue Service to release the new inflation-adjusted tax brackets for 2013…
Monday, December 31, 2012
Congress Pushes Us to the Cliff's Edge
Well, here
we are on December 31 and there’s still no deal on Capitol Hill to avoid the Fiscal Cliff. Negotiations on Sunday had Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell holding closed-door meetings. Their goal was
to reach a compromise by mid-day, but they fell short, even as Vice president
Joe Biden joined in.
Senator Reid announced the Senate would meet again Monday, December 31, at 11:00 AM, noting that “Although there is still significant distance between the two sides, there is still time left to reach an agreement.”
A major point of contention remains individual income-tax rates. President Obama has called for raising taxes on family income above $250,000. In the latest round of Senate talks, Republicans proposed a $550,000 threshold, which Democrats moved to $450,000.
Bitter disagreement on tax increases extends to how the money raised should be spent. Republicans want any tax increase, which they have reluctantly accepted, to go toward reducing the deficit. Democrats want any increased tax revenue to offset spending cuts that are scheduled to kick in as part of the fiscal cliff, and to pay for extending unemployment benefits.
Of course, with this much distance between the two parties on tax rates, there’s little hope of getting any resolution on the estate tax this year.
In the absence of a bipartisan deal later today, Senator Reid has said he will ask for a vote on a bill to carry out President Obama's backup proposal, which addresses only a few items on the long list of tax sunsets and budget cuts. Most significantly, the bill includes extending current tax rates for incomes up to $250,000 for couples filing jointly. Democrats say they could pass the bill through the Senate. However, it’s questionable whether the Republican controlled House would approve it.
We’ll know the outcome in just a few hours. As all the political rhetoric and posturing on the Hill continues, I think Senate Chaplain Barry Black’s opening prayer for last weekend’s session accurately describes the desperate situation our elected leaders have put us in. “We gather this weekend with so much work left undone,” he said. “Look with favor on our nation and save us from self inflicted wounds.”
I will address this once again in the New Year. In the meantime, my wish to you is that you will have happiness, good health and prosperity in the New Year! Happy New Year!
Senator Reid announced the Senate would meet again Monday, December 31, at 11:00 AM, noting that “Although there is still significant distance between the two sides, there is still time left to reach an agreement.”
A major point of contention remains individual income-tax rates. President Obama has called for raising taxes on family income above $250,000. In the latest round of Senate talks, Republicans proposed a $550,000 threshold, which Democrats moved to $450,000.
Bitter disagreement on tax increases extends to how the money raised should be spent. Republicans want any tax increase, which they have reluctantly accepted, to go toward reducing the deficit. Democrats want any increased tax revenue to offset spending cuts that are scheduled to kick in as part of the fiscal cliff, and to pay for extending unemployment benefits.
Of course, with this much distance between the two parties on tax rates, there’s little hope of getting any resolution on the estate tax this year.
In the absence of a bipartisan deal later today, Senator Reid has said he will ask for a vote on a bill to carry out President Obama's backup proposal, which addresses only a few items on the long list of tax sunsets and budget cuts. Most significantly, the bill includes extending current tax rates for incomes up to $250,000 for couples filing jointly. Democrats say they could pass the bill through the Senate. However, it’s questionable whether the Republican controlled House would approve it.
We’ll know the outcome in just a few hours. As all the political rhetoric and posturing on the Hill continues, I think Senate Chaplain Barry Black’s opening prayer for last weekend’s session accurately describes the desperate situation our elected leaders have put us in. “We gather this weekend with so much work left undone,” he said. “Look with favor on our nation and save us from self inflicted wounds.”
I will address this once again in the New Year. In the meantime, my wish to you is that you will have happiness, good health and prosperity in the New Year! Happy New Year!
Monday, December 24, 2012
A Way to Honor the Precious Lives Lost
“When we meet real tragedy in life, we can react in two ways -- either by losing hope and falling into self-destructive habits, or by using the challenge to find our inner strength.” That inspiring thought comes from the Dalai Lama and it is certainly applicable in the wake of the unfathomable tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. Last Friday, as the nation came together to reflect in a moment of silence and ring church bells 26 times to honor the lives lost at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the “26 Acts of Kindness” campaign was gaining steam. The idea’s as simple as it is cathartic -- commit to performing one act of generosity for each of the victims lost at Sandy Hook, and share the results.
NBC journalist Ann Curry, who tweeted about her 20 acts of kindness in honor of the child victims, is leading the charge. “Right now, this country wants to heal,” she wrote in a blog post. “I think the only thing comforting in the face of a tragedy like this is to do something good with it if you can. Be a part of that wave.”
The idea, which invites everyone to carry out acts of kindness has evolved into a viral effort known as 26 Acts of Kindness on Facebook and #26Acts and #20Acts on Twitter.
The Facebook page was started on the day of the tragedy Warren Tidwell, a 34-year-old auto parts salesman. He posted a photo of his first act, giving a box of chocolates to a woman at his local supermarket in Auburn, Alabama. His note read, “To honor the 26 taken from us at Sandy Hook we are doing 26 acts of kindness. You are #1.” Later, he and his four-year old son donated toys to the local firemen's Toys for Tots drive.
“I felt empowered, instead of the helplessness, hurt, and fear,” Tidwell said in an interview with NBC. “I can put the good back in the world that was taken from it.”
Students nationwide, struggling to understand the tragedy and to feel safe in their own schools, spent the days before their holiday vacation trying to do just that. They gathered Christmas gifts for underprivileged kids, collected canned goods for local food banks, acknowledged their own teachers, and created artwork to send to the new Sandy Hook School. All of these efforts are helping our nation to hold on to hope and to heal.
As Ann Curry asks at #26 Acts on Twitter, “An act of kindness, big or small. Are you in?
It's Christmas time. Give charity, spread some smiles and bring cheer to hearts!
NBC journalist Ann Curry, who tweeted about her 20 acts of kindness in honor of the child victims, is leading the charge. “Right now, this country wants to heal,” she wrote in a blog post. “I think the only thing comforting in the face of a tragedy like this is to do something good with it if you can. Be a part of that wave.”
The idea, which invites everyone to carry out acts of kindness has evolved into a viral effort known as 26 Acts of Kindness on Facebook and #26Acts and #20Acts on Twitter.
The Facebook page was started on the day of the tragedy Warren Tidwell, a 34-year-old auto parts salesman. He posted a photo of his first act, giving a box of chocolates to a woman at his local supermarket in Auburn, Alabama. His note read, “To honor the 26 taken from us at Sandy Hook we are doing 26 acts of kindness. You are #1.” Later, he and his four-year old son donated toys to the local firemen's Toys for Tots drive.
“I felt empowered, instead of the helplessness, hurt, and fear,” Tidwell said in an interview with NBC. “I can put the good back in the world that was taken from it.”
Students nationwide, struggling to understand the tragedy and to feel safe in their own schools, spent the days before their holiday vacation trying to do just that. They gathered Christmas gifts for underprivileged kids, collected canned goods for local food banks, acknowledged their own teachers, and created artwork to send to the new Sandy Hook School. All of these efforts are helping our nation to hold on to hope and to heal.
As Ann Curry asks at #26 Acts on Twitter, “An act of kindness, big or small. Are you in?
It's Christmas time. Give charity, spread some smiles and bring cheer to hearts!
Monday, December 17, 2012
Know How Your Advisor Gets Paid
Know what you are paying for; and know how your advisor gets paid.
Amazingly, studies continue to show that many clients of financial advisors have no idea how they pay for the financial advice they receive. That’s certainly not how we transact with our doctors, lawyers, or contractors, so why is it true in the financial services industry? The root of the confusion could be that financial advisors use so many different compensation models.
To set things straight, it’s first necessary to divide the advising world into three camps. First, there are advisors who earn their living by commission and therefore may have an incentive to sell you particular products. Second, there are fee-only financial advisors like Bernhardt Wealth Management that charge clients a percentage of assets under management and operate as fiduciaries who always put the needs of clients first. And third, there are advisors who utilize fee-based accounts but can also earn commissions on other products they sell.
Calculating fees as a percentage of the assets we manage enables us to operate on a relationship basis, rather than a transactional basis. That is, we get to know each client so that we thoroughly understand their values and goals. We then develop a long-range investment strategy that is true to those values and goals, and systematically review portfolios to ensure our clients stay on course as their circumstances and the markets change.
Further, we seek to add value for clients on a range of financial issues, well beyond managing an investment portfolio. Our fee encompasses a broad suite of personalized services, including tax planning, college planning, insurance planning, retirement planning, estate planning and philanthropic planning.
In all aspects of our relationships, we are motivated by one goal: Do what’s right for each and every client. Our clients know what they pay for our advice and that we will always recommend the course of action that is in their bests interests.
(Note: For a discussion of the six core characteristics--Six Cs--an advisor should have, read What Makes a Great Financial Advisor? and the Six Cs blogs on this topic.)
Amazingly, studies continue to show that many clients of financial advisors have no idea how they pay for the financial advice they receive. That’s certainly not how we transact with our doctors, lawyers, or contractors, so why is it true in the financial services industry? The root of the confusion could be that financial advisors use so many different compensation models.
To set things straight, it’s first necessary to divide the advising world into three camps. First, there are advisors who earn their living by commission and therefore may have an incentive to sell you particular products. Second, there are fee-only financial advisors like Bernhardt Wealth Management that charge clients a percentage of assets under management and operate as fiduciaries who always put the needs of clients first. And third, there are advisors who utilize fee-based accounts but can also earn commissions on other products they sell.
Calculating fees as a percentage of the assets we manage enables us to operate on a relationship basis, rather than a transactional basis. That is, we get to know each client so that we thoroughly understand their values and goals. We then develop a long-range investment strategy that is true to those values and goals, and systematically review portfolios to ensure our clients stay on course as their circumstances and the markets change.
Further, we seek to add value for clients on a range of financial issues, well beyond managing an investment portfolio. Our fee encompasses a broad suite of personalized services, including tax planning, college planning, insurance planning, retirement planning, estate planning and philanthropic planning.
In all aspects of our relationships, we are motivated by one goal: Do what’s right for each and every client. Our clients know what they pay for our advice and that we will always recommend the course of action that is in their bests interests.
(Note: For a discussion of the six core characteristics--Six Cs--an advisor should have, read What Makes a Great Financial Advisor? and the Six Cs blogs on this topic.)
Monday, December 10, 2012
Retail Investors, Out of Sync and Stymied by Choices
When State Street's Applied Center for Research recently asked retail investors what steps they needed to take over the next ten years to prepare for retirement, the number one response (40 percent) was to become “more aggressive.” However, when they analyzed the respondents’ portfolios, they found that cash was the number one allocation, at an average of 31 percent. More alarming, when asked to project their allocation 10 years into the future, respondents still chose cash as the dominant asset class. Clearly, these allocations seem out of sync with the stated long-term goal of becoming more aggressive. So what gives, especially as nearly two-thirds of these retail investors rated their current level of financial sophistication as advanced?
It could be that too many investment choices have resulted in cash paralysis. According to the 2012 MFS Investing Sentiment Survey, 40 percent of investors think investment products are “overly complex,” and 34 percent feel “over-whelmed” by the investment choices available.
Psychologist Barry Schwartz has demonstrated that too much choice leads to reduced happiness and a feeling of missed opportunities. As he writes in The Paradox of Choice, “Choice no longer liberates, but debilitates. It might even be said to tyrannize . . . the fact that some choice is good doesn’t necessarily mean that more choice is better.” And in Pension Design and Structure: New Lessons from Behavioral Finance, Sheena Sethi-Iyengar, Gur Huberman and Wei Jiang highlight reported that participation rates in company retirement plans decrease between 1.5 and 2.0 percentage points per every additional 10 mutual funds offered.
The paralyzing effect of too many choices was illustrated again when researchers conducted an experiment in a California grocery store involving a display of jams. In the first test, they featured 24 different jams to taste; on another day they displayed just six. The results? Although more shoppers stopped at the display of 24 jams, just 3 percent made a purchase. And while fewer shoppers stopped to sample at the table of six jams, 30 percent purchased a jar.
Investing doesn’t have to be an overwhelming shopping experience. Working with a trusted advisor, your personal shopper, can narrow your choices and align your investments with your risk tolerance and financial objectives to ensure you meet your short- and long-term goals.
It could be that too many investment choices have resulted in cash paralysis. According to the 2012 MFS Investing Sentiment Survey, 40 percent of investors think investment products are “overly complex,” and 34 percent feel “over-whelmed” by the investment choices available.
Psychologist Barry Schwartz has demonstrated that too much choice leads to reduced happiness and a feeling of missed opportunities. As he writes in The Paradox of Choice, “Choice no longer liberates, but debilitates. It might even be said to tyrannize . . . the fact that some choice is good doesn’t necessarily mean that more choice is better.” And in Pension Design and Structure: New Lessons from Behavioral Finance, Sheena Sethi-Iyengar, Gur Huberman and Wei Jiang highlight reported that participation rates in company retirement plans decrease between 1.5 and 2.0 percentage points per every additional 10 mutual funds offered.
The paralyzing effect of too many choices was illustrated again when researchers conducted an experiment in a California grocery store involving a display of jams. In the first test, they featured 24 different jams to taste; on another day they displayed just six. The results? Although more shoppers stopped at the display of 24 jams, just 3 percent made a purchase. And while fewer shoppers stopped to sample at the table of six jams, 30 percent purchased a jar.
Investing doesn’t have to be an overwhelming shopping experience. Working with a trusted advisor, your personal shopper, can narrow your choices and align your investments with your risk tolerance and financial objectives to ensure you meet your short- and long-term goals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
