Tag Archives: investment advice

Class of 2013: Your Degree Doesn’t Mean Squat

My Comments: This headline caught my attention. Perhaps you’ve read recently about student loans and how they can put a noose around the neck of a college graduate, a noose that stymies rational planning for years, including marriage, buying a house, doing a lot of things that I never gave a second thought to when I finished college 50 years ago.

For the past 38 years, I’ve been an entrepreneur in financial services. If I don’t work and earn a living, we don’t eat. I recently spoke with a young woman who had lost her job as a representative for a drug company. Her parents, friends of mine, asked me to talk with her.

She was now working for a local hospital, was not happy and was not making what she thought she was worth. I agreed and began a conversation with her about an opportunity with me where if she applied herself, she could find herself making more money than she was before, setting her own hours, and being responsible only to herself and her clients.

Among the first words out of her mouth was what would be her salary and what benefits would I provide. Needless to say, I didn’t offer her a position in my company. By the way, the image below is of a Bentley with a descriptive license tag.

Ilya Pozin | Founder of Ciplex. Columnist for Inc, Forbes & LinkedIn. 30 Under 30 Entrepreneur.

Simply having a college degree will not get you hired. We need to break away from this idea. In all reality, most employers could care less about your GPA or where you went to school.

Today, getting hired in entry-level positions requires experience and fine-tuned skills, not a 4.0 GPA. This probably isn’t what most new grads want to hear, but it’s the truth.

Many new college graduates enter their job search with a why-wouldn’t-someone-hire-me mindset. But most employers aren’t going to take on an entry-level hire unless they’re certain they’ll positively impact the company.
So the real question for new graduates to consider is this: What can you bring to the table that makes you worth hiring?

Here’s some food for thought for those entering the workforce:
1. Your degree isn’t a golden ticket. We need to put an end to the “silver spoon complex.” Simply obtaining a degree may only help you out if you’re planning to go the corporate route, where companies have more time and money to invest in training programs. But at my company, I don’t even know which of my employees has a degree or not–it makes no difference to me. I care more about the impact my employees have on my company.

I’d much rather hire someone who has been freelancing as a web developer for three years than someone who has a master’s degree in computer science. They’re bound to be more passionate, driven, and profitable in the long run, as they know what it takes to impact the bottom line.

2. It’s all about experience. I started my company Ciplex when I was 17. Throughout college I ran my business on the side, in addition to working in my college IT department. Today, undertaking one internship isn’t enough to prove your experience to employers. The reason so many college graduates can’t find work is because they lack experience.

One simple way to get more experience within your industry is by taking on freelance work and contracting gigs. These types of experiences will help you learn and grow while developing a sense of independence, responsibility, and drive. All of these traits are highly attractive to employers.

3. Passion will help you succeed. If you’re just looking to get hired anywhere, employers will be able to tell. I get emails all the time from job seekers who are just looking to get hired and don’t indicate any passion for their work or my company.

Passion will get you hired. Experience is one way to showcase this, but you also have to learn to properly articulate it on your cover letter, resume, and during networking. If you use the same cover letter for every employer, do you really think you’re conveying your passion for the position you’re applying for? Remember, it’s not just about looking for a job. Employers want employees who are truly passionate about what they do and have a vision to benefit the company.

4. Companies hire the person who is certain to cause the most positive impact. Before you apply to your next job opening, ask yourself the following: What can you do for the company? How can you turn a profit? If you aren’t able to answer these questions, then don’t apply. Employers–especially small businesses and startups–are only interested in hiring someone who is going to positively impact their company.

When I review emails from job seekers, it’s very easy to tell who’s just looking to get hired and who’s actually going to impact my company. Make the effort to prove to employers you’re worth hiring.

5. Go the extra mile. Success doesn’t come to those who wait. You have to give everything you do your all … even if it means working late or on the weekends. Some people describe this as paying your dues, but it’s really just putting in the effort required to make an impact.

What do you wish someone would have told you when you graduated college?

Biggest Retirement Threat? It’s Not Running Out Of Money

Social SecurityMy Comments: This is certainly a different slant on things. As a financial planner and advisor these many years, running out of money has been the major threat for those of us thinking about retiring or who are already retired. How do we make sure we’re not broke before we die?

Just what I need; something else to worry about.

May 15, 2013 • Robert Laura

Some say retirement’s greatest threat is inflation, the cost of adult children or the potential of getting ripped off. As financial professionals, we try to warn clients about these downsides to retirement life by suggesting ways to combat the rising cost of living, to keep Junior from squandering the family fortune, or to run away when something sounds too good to be true. Yet retirees face even greater threats, some of which never get discussed and are rarely planned for, including the loss of one’s ability to see, hear, taste, touch and smell.

When was the last time a client cancelled or rescheduled a meeting because of a 3-cent rise in canned peaches, they needed to pick up or drop off an incapable son-in-law, or they had a meeting come up with a charming snake oil salesman? On the other hand, if your practice is like mine, a week doesn’t go by without at least one appointment change because of a client’s eye, ear, nose, mouth, hand or foot problem. Much to my surprise, many new retirees still don’t realize that medical costs attributable to the three most common senses — vision, hearing and dental — are not covered by Medicare and can siphon much needed savings out of their retirement accounts if problems arise and persist.

I wish I could tell you I always discussed this issue with clients, but its significance has only come to light in recent years. As I have shared before, much of everyday life in retirement is like an iceberg, wherein a large portion of what takes place remains below the surface, or out of mainstream conversations and preparation. The more time I have spent engaging clients and prospects at my Naked Retirement workshops, the more I learn about retirement life. Last year I asked one group to discuss what their biggest retirement fear was. A woman in her early sixties replied, “Losing my hearing and the ability to enjoy my friends.”

I had never heard that response before, so I asked her to expand on her answer. “I’m losing my hearing in my right ear,” she said, “and have trouble following group conversations.” She put an exclamation point to the subject by saying, “I don’t know what I would do if I couldn’t communicate with my family and friends!”

It’s an eye-opening perspective, to be sure, making it more important than ever to encourage clients to do things now instead of assuming that time and their five senses will be on their side throughout retirement.
Continue Reading HERE...

Why Medicare Won’t Cover You Overseas

My Comments: It’s been a few years since my wife and I last travelled out of the country. During this time, she and I both became eligible for Medicare benefits. And given my health history over these past few years, without Medicare we would have been financially stressed.

We still have expectations of visiting family in Europe and fulfilling an item on my bucket list which is a visit to New Zealand. This article adds another element when it comes to making plans to travel overseas.

By Kathleen Peddicord | U.S.News & World Report LP – Mon, May 13, 2013

If you’re an American considering the idea of retiring overseas, your Medicare won’t travel with you. The United States generally prohibits Medicare from paying for medical services for retirees outside the country and its territories. The more than half a million retired Americans living overseas and the millions more who travel extensively abroad must either go without care until they return to the United States or pay out-of-pocket for the care they need.

Many retired Americans who have paid into Medicare their entire working lives and then choose to move overseas find this situation to be unfair. This restriction on Medicare coverage also ignores the potential cost savings to Medicare offered by lower-cost health care options abroad.

Currently about 50 million Americans receive Medicare benefits. In less than a generation, that number will increase to 80 million. In 2012, Medicare spending was $560 billion, about 15 percent of the total federal budget. By 2022, Medicare spending is expected to reach $1.1 trillion, or more than 19 percent of the federal budget. The Medicare Part A trust fund is expected to be exhausted by 2024.

As policy-makers grapple with this financial crisis, may people believe that more of the cost of health care will be shifted to Medicare beneficiaries in a mix of higher deductibles, co-pays and reduced benefits. While allowing seniors to receive Medicare coverage abroad is not a cure-all to this fiscal crisis, the potential savings could be significant. Health care costs for a procedure overseas can be less than half of the cost of the exact same procedure performed in the United States, saving both Medicare and the retiree money.

For example, if a Medicare beneficiary could get a hip replacement performed in Costa Rica, Panama or Israel by a highly-trained (often U.S.-educated) surgeon at an internationally accredited hospital for half of the cost of the same procedure at a U.S. hospital, the Medicare system would realize significant savings.

Studies indicate that the age of retirees living abroad peaks at about 72. One reason that older retirees are less likely to live abroad is that, as healthcare needs and concerns increase with age, they are returning to the United States where Medicare covers them.

The current Medicare rules create a disincentive for Americans seeking a lower cost of living (and lower health care costs) abroad. Medicare-eligible Americans living abroad, even part time, must continue to pay their Medicare premiums but either forgo health care while abroad or pay out of pocket for it. If they pay out of pocket, they are in effect paying twice for health care coverage. If they do not continue their Medicare premium payments, they are penalized upon their return to the United States and enrollment or re-enrollment in Medicare.

This disincentive may also be causing unnecessary costs to Medicare and poorer health outcomes for some Americans. Because of the double cost, retired Americans often choose to forgo health care while abroad, even skipping routine doctor visits until their condition has festered into one requiring extensive and costly treatment. Then they return to the United States to receive Medicare coverage.

A non-partisan group called the Center for Medicare Portability, formed in 2011 and based in Washington, D.C., is working to try to change Medicare’s rules for overseas retirees. The objective of the CMP is to make it possible for retired Americans who live overseas to have access to the Medicare benefits they have paid for throughout their lives.

International health care coverage for American retirees is not new. In fact, it’s fairly common. The federal government already provides health care coverage abroad for retired military and their families, retired federal employees, some veterans and even some Medicare beneficiaries. The CMP hopes that Congress will see that the global health care market offers part of the solution to the Medicare spending crisis.

The CMP does not advocate any one mechanism for Medicare portability, but has proposed several ideas. One option, which could be administratively feasible in countries with large and growing U.S. expatriate retiree communities, would be to set up a traditional Medicare system, including Medicare Part A (mainly inpatient care), Part B (mainly outpatient care) and perhaps Part D (prescription drug coverage).

A Medicare-contracted insurance intermediary (for example, a U.S. insurer that already operates in the specified foreign country and that has a network of providers and administrative capabilities in that country) could manage beneficiary enrollments and relationships, oversee provider accreditation and certification issues, negotiate reimbursement rates (based on usual and customary costs in that country and with Medicare approval), administer billing and payments and manage fraud and abuse.

Another option could be a capitated care system in which a network of providers would agree to provide care to a beneficiary for a set price. That price would be based on the expected actuarial cost of care for the beneficiary in the foreign country, based on age, pre-existing conditions and other factors, just as Medicare Advantage does in the United States.

A third option, possibly the simplest one, would be to create a voucher system for retirees who live abroad. A voucher could be provided to Medicare beneficiaries who agree to receive their care abroad, valued, for example, at 75 percent of the expected cost of care for the beneficiary in the United States. This would immediately save Medicare 25 percent of the cost of covered benefits for that beneficiary, and the beneficiary could use the voucher to purchase a health insurance policy from a private insurer in the country where he or she retires.

Sea Levels in Europe Could Rise up to 1m by 2100, Say Scientists

My Comments: As a resident of Florida, I’m pleased that I chose to live in Gainesville, which is significantly higher above sea level than say, most of the suburbes in the Jacksonville area. And as a planner, I recognize I’ll be long gone in 2100 but probably not members of my family, some of whom do live in Jacksonville.

You can deny global warming ‘till the cows come home, but the reality is the planet is getting warmer, which means the ice at the poles is thawing, and the resultant extra water will first be seen along the coast lines. Which makes my decision to build a solid, permanent home in Gainesville a good one, sooner or later.

By Pilita Clark, Environment Correspondent

Cities around Europe could face sea level rises of a metre or more by the end of the century when storm surges are factored in, according to research that helps address some of the biggest uncertainties about climate change.

A mix of melting ice sheets, warming oceans, storm surges and other drivers mean places such as Sheerness, at the mouth of London’s Thames river, face rises reaching just under 1 metre by 2100 – enough to overwhelm the capital’s existing flood protection barriers – though the risk is relatively low and any increases would be intermittent.

Denmark’s seaport of Esbjerg could experience even higher rises of up to 1.15 metres, according to a four-year programme of study by scientists from 24 leading EU institutions, known as Ice2Sea.

The work was done to try to fill in some of the gaps left after the last big report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body set up to produce regular assessments of the latest state of climate knowledge.

Its 2007 report identified a number of shortcomings in scientists’ ability to predict how ice sheets contribute to sea level rises as they flow towards the coast, break away as icebergs and eventually melt into the sea.

Scientists are relatively confident about how warming oceans and melting mountain glaciers drive sea level rises but have been far less certain about the impact of ice loss from the ice sheets resting on Greenland and Antarctica.

The Ice2Sea work, which has been submitted to the IPCC for its next big report, due in September, suggests this continental ice loss could contribute between 3.5cm and 36.8cm to global average sea level rises up to 2100. There is also a small chance this rise could be as high as 84cm by the end of the century, but the probability is less than 5 per cent.

Though it will not be known for sure how this will affect the projections in the IPCC’s new report for overall sea level rises, it could push it up by about 10cm to 69cm, the Ice2Sea scientists say.

The EU-funded research, which focuses on consequences for Europe, shows sea level rises are likely to differ around the world, sometimes by tens of centimetres. The overall increase around European coastlines is expected be 10-20 per cent less than the global average, though regional variations mean some parts face much higher rises.

The flood barriers built to protect London, for example, are only expected to be breached once in 1,000 years. But a 1 metre rise in the Thames Estuary means “you would take that level of protection down from one in 1,000 years down to one in 10 years”, said the programme co-ordinator Professor David Vaughan, of the British Antarctic Survey.

“Obviously, one in 1,000 is probably acceptable to most people who live in London, 0.1 per cent per year. One in 100 years is maybe not acceptable. One in 10 years is clearly not acceptable.”

3D Printers Now Available for Everyday Consumers

My Comments: Yes, all the recent duscussion about printing a gun or hand grenade in your garage was a little disturbing. Not sure how that will be controlled or if it’s even realistic to think it can be controlled.

But clearly, the geni is out of the bottle so we can all look forward to more fun and games as this technology evolves and becomes less and less expensive.

Travis Andrews | Saturday, May 4, 2013

We talk about 3D printers around here an awful lot, but for most folks it remains a piece of science fiction. It’s fun to read about, but access to a 3D printer remains dubious at best. Until now, when you can simply purchase one from your local Staples.

The office supply chain is the first U.S. retailer to carry a 3D printer for the everyday consumer, meaning the only thing separating you from making your very own cookie cutters (or whatever) is the $1,300 it costs.

The printer Staples will begin stocking in stores next month is The Cube by 3D Systems, a solid 3D printer to keep around the house. It can print objects up to 5.5 inches tall, wide and long and can do so in 16 different colors. Check out the spot below to take a look.

For anyone who can’t wait a month to get his hands on a 3D printer, they’re also available on Staples’ website.

Here’s a YouTube video showing how this model works.

Source:

It’s Scary

healthcare reformMy Thoughts About This: I think today is the day that the House of Representatives is scheduled once again to hold a vote to repeal the PPACA. I find this disturbing, ludicrous, a waste of taxpayer money, grandstanding and any number of other perjorative words.

This opinion by Darwin Carmichael points to the crux of the problem. Namely that the cost of health care in this country was and perhaps is, increasing at a rate that is totally unsustainable. And instead of attempting to get to the root of the problem, something which none of the players in the health care industry have the ability to do, those in Congress who are supposed to be focused US as US citizens, are simply trying to earn points so they can stay in power and get tax breaks and perks that the rest of us cannot enjoy.

I’m reminded of countries around the world where there are more than two political parties vying for control. If one of them wins an election, they have to form a coalition with another party to gain enough seats to possibly control the outcome when it comes to making policy decisions.

Before PPACA, can you imagine how you and I would be treated if the coalition in power to reform the health care delivery system in this country was in the hands of the insurance companies and hospitals. Would they work toward reform that was in our best interest or their best interest?

By Darwin Carmichael | May 13, 2013

Could health policymakers be missing something?

National Underwriter Life & Health recently ran an article about how Obamacare will affect brokers near an article about high hospital costs.

It just seems obvious to me that the real problem here is not with high insurance premiums but with the actual cost of health care.

Most of the members of Congress who created Obamacare just don’t seem to have understood the fact that insurance premiums are driven by actual costs.

When costs rise, insurance premiums must rise.

There was very little attention paid to actual costs in the Obamacare bill. The drafters seemed to want to demonize the insurance companies, and, while doing that, overlooked the real health care cost culprit: The cost of care.
The profit margin of insurance companies is among the lowest for any industry.

When you look at some of the underlying health care costs, it’s understandable that insurance premiums are very high.

Until the consumer becomes more involved in the cost of care the costs will continue to rise. If a consumer pays only $25 to $30 for a $300 prescription, the consumer really doesn’t care what the actual cost of the prescription is.
The same is true for hospital costs.

I recently handled a claim for a policyholder. Let’s call the policyholder “Jane.” (I’m changing a lot of the details here to protect the policyholder’s privacy.) Jane was 57-year-old female who had a heart attack. She died one day after the suffered the heart attack, and her total bill was almost $350,000.

It seems virtually impossible that two days of health care could cost that much.

The insurance company, of course, paid the majority of the bill. Guess what? The cost of that claim is ultimately passed along to the consumer in the form of higher rates.

It’s just really scary that legislators are making all the rules about something of which they have very little knowledge.

Move Over, Saudi Arabia, and Let North Dakota Take Over

My Comments: How many of us saw this coming as little as five years ago?

By Gil Weinreich, AdvisorOne | May 14, 2013

A buyer’s market in oil is in the making and will bring about disruptive market change that should benefit American manufacturers and consumers and prove challenging for Middle Eastern producers and European refiners.

That is the International Energy Agency’s new forecast, released Tuesday in London, and the anticipated supply boom from North American oil fields in particular should contribute to what the IEA terms a “supply shock.”

America’s shale revolution, and abundant capacity in Canada’s tar sands, is well established, but “supply growth is even steeper than previously expected,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven at an oil summit in London launching the organization’s Medium-Term Oil Market Report (MTOMR).

Van der Hoeven noted the irony that the country that was the cradle of the oil industry 150 years go, but which eventually fell into what seemed like irreversible decline, has now become the center of an oil boom.

But today’s oil bonanza in the U.S., she said, has powerful compound effects as well.

“What makes the tight oil boom truly transformative is not just the sheer production volumes unlocked but the combination of volumetric production growth with other factors: the crude’s distinctively light quality, the unconventional nature of both the plays from which it is extracted and the technologies which have unlocked it, the economic and market impact of the new production, and the chain reaction it is creating in the global transportation, storage and refining infrastructure,” a summary of the report says.

While U.S. law continues to ban crude oil exports, the growth in oil supply should be a boon to U.S. refiners in the coming years. Long a top importer of refined products, the U.S. is already a large net exporter, and steep production surpluses are expected to push the U.S. share of refined products up even more.

As a news release announcing the report put it, “The supply shock created by a surge in North American oil production will be as transformative to the market over the next five years as was the rise of Chinese demand over the last 15.”

The report’s scenario was not entirely rosy for the U.S., citing three categories of challenge: infrastructural and logistical, legislative and regulatory, and environmental.

Though the U.S. contribution to oil production growth is expected to grow by 3.9 million barrels a day from 2012 to 2018, the market changes do not spell the end of OPEC but do suggest a lowering of its relative stature.

The Saudi Arabia-dominated oil cartel will also see its capacity rise, but by only 1.75 million barrels a day—about 750,000 barrels a day less than last year’s IEA forecast. The new report cites social and political turmoil in the wake of the Arab Spring as a factor in OPEC performance.

Another key IEA finding concerns the shift in demand from Western to emerging economies. While this development has been forecast before, the actual shift is expected to occur over the coming five years.

While emerging economies will blow past the developed world, the IEA sees a split within the developed economies—“a bifurcation has appeared between a North America energized by cheap natural gas and a euro area plagued by debt issues,” van der Hoeven said.
Beyond its slow growth and consequent tepid demand for oil, Europe will lose out in another significant way in the coming five years—specifically, it will cede its primacy as an oil refiner.

“OECD refining, notwithstanding a renaissance in the U.S., is increasingly relinquishing market share to the non-OECD region, a form of de facto offshoring not unlike the trend in other manufacturing sectors,” a summary of the IEA report says.

“Already most of the world’s refining capacity is located in non-OECD economies. In the next five years, virtually all net crude distillation capacity growth is forecast to take place in the emerging-market and developing economies.”

Stuck in the Mud: Beyond America’s Fiscal Trench Lines

world economyMy Comments: I recall a conversation I had some three years ago where someone asked me if I followed Keynes or did I follow the Austrian approach. Not knowing at the time just what this person was asking, I responded “Keynes” since I knew more or less how Keynes mind worked and had no idea yet about how Hayeks mind worked.

Today that boils down to a political chasm between Democrats and Republicans. It need now be so but it is. And who is ulitmately right or wrong remains to be seen. Perhaps neither to the degree that today they are almost polar opposites. Meanwhile, the folks in Washington, those whom we presumably elected to represent us and every other citizen of this country, are mired in ideology and incapable of looking beyond their own narrow vision. Wish it were not so but …

By Edward Luce | The Financial Times | May 12, 2013

When historians look back on the meltdown of 2008 they will conclude that the country that triggered it – the US – was among the least bad in its continuing monetary and in its initial fiscal response. What a frustration, then, that the US finds itself endlessly relitigating the debate between Keynesians and anti-Keynesians.

In the past few weeks, the intellectual tide has turned sharply towards the former following revelations of errors by Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhardt. This has been assisted by the IMF’s change of heart about the merits of short-term stimuli. Moreover, austerians, such as Niall Ferguson, the Harvard historian, continue to aid their own discrediting by dredging up the canard about John Maynard Keynes’s “childless vision” – linking his homosexuality to an alleged reckless disregard for the long term.

Yet for all the academic sound and fury, US politics is unchanged and apparently unchangeable: mild fiscal contraction is set to dilute the US recovery for at least another year. Democrats are impotent against Republican stonewalling in the House of Representatives. And Republicans can do nothing about Barack Obama’s veto – or Democratic control of the Senate. Which means we are condemned to at least another year of hypothetical fiscal debates. Here, vindicated though they may be on counter-cyclical fiscal policy, Keynesians are guilty of sins of omission.

Like Gresham’s law, the fiscal debate tends to drive out others. Keynesians want bigger deficits. The Tea Party wants smaller government. The more dominant these battle lines, the harder it is to craft ways out. New federal investment may be off the menu. But US companies are sitting on almost $2tn in cash reserves and have almost the same again parked offshore – a multiple of any possible federal investment. Public action could crowd-in private investments without troubling the taxpayer. And the resultant boost to productivity would reduce the burden of future obligations. “What we need is not bigger or smaller government for growth, but narrower and stronger government,” says Paul Romer, the growth economist.

Might there still be ways in Washington around these entrenched positions? Next week, John Delaney, a freshman Democratic congressman, will test that proposition when he launches a bill designed with an eye both on what is economically useful and politically sellable. The Rebuild America Act would give companies that repatriate foreign earnings a tax break on whatever they invest in a new infrastructure fund. Unlike a public bank, the fund would underwrite bonds to fund state, local and municipal projects – there would be no new federal bureaucracy.

It is hard to see how Republicans could object on substance to a bill that gave tax breaks to companies to improve US infrastructure. We shall see if they treat it on merit or politics. It will also be interesting to see how many other Democrats, and Keynesians, embrace its logic. Mr Delaney, who had a long career in private equity, has an accurate diagnosis of US politics. “Intransigent partisanship is getting in the way of our country having a proactive, pro-growth government,” he says. “Our tired fiscal impasse is not only a daily headache in Washington, it’s become a real competitiveness issue for our economy.”

To be sure, his biggest challenge – and that of almost any legislator taking any initiative – will be to get around the scorched-earth caucus in the Republican party, that opposes anything that could be seen as a success for public action. But there are cynics on both sides. Last month, Barack Obama appointed an industry insider, Tom Wheeler, as the next head of the Federal Communications Commission. People who have donated generously to Mr Obama’s campaigns were happy with Mr Wheeler’s nomination. Others less so.

The FCC could make simple changes to stimulate more investment in the cable and wireless sectors, which would help return US average internet speeds to the top of international tables. Mr Wheeler could also accelerate the FCC’s dilatory schedule for auctioning off public spectrum. “In just the same way that mergers result in job losses, creating and licensing multiple platforms for technology will create jobs,” says Reed Hundt, who was Bill Clinton’s highly successful FCC chair in the booming 1990s.

Defenders of Mr Wheeler say he will be keen to establish his distance from an oligopolistic industry that hired him as their advocate. They make the same argument, too, for Mary Jo White, the new chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, who has spent her career representing Wall Street. Recent SEC moves give little cause for cheer. In isolation, bills such as Mr Delaney’s, or the rulings of federal agencies, do not match the importance, or scale, of the fiscal debate. But the US budget is stuck in the mud. And there are other sources of growth.

It is worth remembering that Keynes was a champion of the “middle way”. Yet foes, and occasionally friends, reduce him to a free-spending caricature. “I suggest that the state encouragement of new capital undertakings by employing the best technical advice … and by lending the credit and the guarantee of the Treasury to finance them more boldly, is becoming an inevitable policy,” Keynes wrote in the 1920s. These are the thoughts of an economist looking to the long term. With the possible exception of the final clause, they are also a good description of Mr Delaney’s bill.

Goodbye Capital Gains Tax Breaks

USA EconomyMomentum is building for a tax code overhaul, and lower taxes on stock transactions could be doomed.
By Joy Taylor, May 6, 2013

Tax breaks for capital gains and dividends are likely to end by 2015, as lawmakers look for ways to broaden the tax base, allowing income tax rates on individuals to be cut. There is precedent for this — the tax break for long-term capital gains was axed in 1986, the last time that lawmakers significantly reformed the tax code.

Tax overhaul won’t happen swiftly. Lawmakers won’t have time to complete tax reform until 2014, and when they do finish it, the effective date probably will be prospective, so changes aren’t likely to occur until 2015. There will be plenty of time to mull the impact on your investment portfolio and contemplate actions to minimize the tax wallop.

But discussions will intensify in the coming months. One reason: Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), who heads the Senate committee responsible for writing tax laws, has announced that he’ll leave the Senate when his term ends at the end of 2014. Look for him to push hard for tax reform before he leaves, making a revamped tax code his policymaking legacy.

In the end, we expect long-term capital gains and dividends to be taxed as ordinary income — a big change from the 20% maximum rate they now incur. If President Obama succeeds in winning a top income tax rate on individuals of more than 28%, however, it’s possible that the maximum rate on long-term capital gains and dividends will be limited to 28%.

Consider taking gains before 2015 to lock in the lower rate currently in place. But be careful not to let the tax tail wag the investment dog. Tax savings aren’t the only consideration when culling your portfolio; your moves should also make financial sense. Note that we expect taxwriters to keep the stepped-up basis rule for inherited assets, so 100% of pre-death appreciation on those assets will escape income tax when the heirs sell, regardless of the capital gains rate.

Take care in engaging in installment sales before then. The 1986 law provided that installments received after the capital gains rate rose weren’t protected, even though the sale occurred before the rate change. We expect that a similar rule will be passed this time, too.

Weigh the impact on succession plans for family firms. Corporate redemptions of shareholders’ stock will be hit. Family firms hoping to redeem stock of senior owners to shift control to the next generation will need to take that into account.

Keep in mind that the relative advantages and disadvantages of components in your portfolio may need reevaluating. Dividend paying stocks will lose their tax-favored status if dividends are taxed at ordinary income rates. And there will be no tax disadvantage for having growth stock in retirement plans. Without a capital gains preference, it won’t matter that appreciation on the stock will be taxed as ordinary income when distributed to the owner of the retirement plan or IRA.

And it’s worth noting one other tax reform proposal that affects investors: Stock sellers could lose the right to direct that the highest-basis stock be sold first. They may be forced to use the average basis of their shares to compute the gain or loss recognized on a sale, rather than use the specific identification method. The tax reform plan drafted in the House includes such a provision, and we think it has a good chance of making it into law.

Even Skilled Investors Can Use a Financial Advisor

profit-loss-riskMy Comments: Yesterday, the focus of my comments was that if you want to go it alone, that’s OK. Here, however, are some reasons for not attempting to go it alone and be solely responsible for your decisions. I can confirm, after 38 years in this business, that emotions play a huge role in whether or not you are successful as an investor. It’s not about fees, or lack of skill. It’s whether you can make objective choices when it comes down to YOUR MONEY THAT IS AT RISK.

Steve Garmhausen | Special to CNBC.com | Monday, 29 Apr 2013

In the past ten years, more investors have been turning to professionals for help with their portfolios. One measure of the industry—assets under management at registered advisors—swelled from $22 trillion in 2002 to nearly $50 trillion in 2012.

What’s behind that surge? More people need help as employer-sponsored pensions give way to self-guided retirement plans such as 401(k)s and they realize that investing in a globally linked market is complicated.

Yet, a growing number of investors and experts are embracing financial advisors for a more surprising reason: to help them avoid the most costly error investors can make, which is listening to their emotions.

People tend to buy when markets are on the way up and sell on the way down. That costs the average mutual fund investor nearly 4 percent a year, based on data from research firm Dalbar Inc. If you invested $100,000, losing nearly 4 percent a year would mean you’d end up with about $130,000 instead of $280,000, assuming a 6 percent annual return.

Dalbar found that “psychological factors” account for 45 percent to 55 percent of the persistent gap in investment returns. In short, investors can’t resist running with the herd.

Case in point is the Great Recession. In March 2009, when the markets hit a trough, household net worth had fallen from a high of $64.4 trillion in second-quarter 2007 to $50.4 trillion in first-quarter 2009. Americans’ stock holdings plunged 5.8 percent to $5.2 trillion, and mutual funds holdings slid 4.1 percent to $3.3 trillion, as investors pulled $300 million out of their equity funds at the bottom of the market, according to data from the Investment Company Institute.

“I do think there is a very strong case to be made for a sensible advisor to help you make the right decisions,” said Charles Ellis, founder of consulting firm Greenwich Associates and former chair of the investment committee for Yale University’s endowment, as well as a longtime proponent of buying inexpensive index mutual funds directly.

An advisor may also be able to help you establish a plan you feel comfortable sticking with.

Dalbar President Louis Harvey argues that the seeds of bad buying and selling decisions are planted well before ill-timed transactions. An investment strategy must meet needs as well as risk tolerance, he said.

“We found that when there is a mismatch; you have reactions that lose people money,” Harvey said.

While not a sure-fire solution, a financial advisor can provide a counterpoint and a reminder that staying invested through downturns yields the best returns over time.

“I don’t think there’s any dispute that a lot of people out there could do a good job of investing their own money,” said Michael Branham, president of the Financial Planning Association. But, he added, “there’s so much volatility in the market that it’s easy to get emotionally charged either way.”

The surging stock market is most likely emboldening investors again. Current low bond yields can make it tempting to jump at higher-risk fixed-income investments. It’s tempting to pour in more money, right? But then you’d run the risk of buying high—falling into an emotionally driven move, such as investors who sold during the March 2009 low.

An outside voice of reason can be a major advantage for many investors, said Mark McNabb, clinical professor of finance at the University of Texas at Dallas. “You need someone to act as your filter sometimes,” he said.

Dean Harman, president of Harman Wealth Management, recalled meeting with a client who told him that, on one hand, she didn’t want to lose money. “On the other hand, she was saying, ‘Should I get aggressive so I can make more money?’ ”

Dean reminded her of the long-term goal they had agreed on—funding her retirement to the tune of $56,000 a year.
“I brought her back to what her goal is,” Harman said. “As long as we can deliver the income she needs, and a modest amount of growth, she doesn’t need more than that.”

He said he views an aggressive stance on behalf of this client, who has $1.5 million with Harman Wealth, this way: If it were successful and increased her assets under management to $3 million, her life wouldn’t change that much. But if the posture were to backfire and the portfolio fell to $700,000, “then she’s in real jeopardy of not being able to generate the income she needs to meet her goals,” he said.

“Manage to your goal, not to what the markets are doing,” Harman advised.