Tag Archives: financial advice

Your Retirement Money

My Comments: If you’ve read my blog posts these past few months and years, you know that I have no idea what is coming next.

What I do know, however, is that anyone who says “it’s different this time” is full of s**t. It’s the nature of the beast for there to be corrections, and it’s just a matter of time for one to appear. On the other hand, telling everyone ‘the sky is falling’ soon gets old, and essentially useless.

My entire focus these days is helping people retire with more money, the opposite of which is to retire with less money. Personally, I’d rather have more money.

If you have any money fully exposed to what I call downside risk, and are uncomfortable with simply ‘staying the course’, here are three articles that appeared in my inbox in the past few days.

You should be interested in preserving your nest egg from a potential downturn, one that will make it harder to pay your bills in the future.

Making informed decisions about your money starts with paying attention and being able to tuck in your tail before the door slams shut.

I make no apologies for any political implications associated with the three articles.

Economics are never 100% divorced from politics. It doesn’t matter who is pulling the strings.

What matters is that the strings are being pulled, and how that pulling will affect you and your bank accounts. These three articles are worth reading if you have any doubts about having enough money when you retire…

The Albatross of Debt: a $67T Nightmare

6 Reasons For Another $6 Trillion Stock Market Correction

Enjoy The Final Ride, Because The Expansion Is Nearing An End


The Market Is Finally Getting the Joke

My Comments: I struggle, day to day, just like you, to figure out what the markets are going to do because so many of my friends and clients are exposed to market risk. Are you exposed to market risk? Does it worry you at all?

If not, you don’t need to read this. But if it does worry you, then perhaps a few minutes reading these comments from Scott Minerd will be good for you. And oh yes, there are ways to shift the risk of a downward correction to an insurance company and by so doing, preserve your principal and market gains from a crash.

Scott Minerd, February 21, 2018

The last two weeks have been pretty exciting, certainly a lot more interesting than anything we’ve been through over the last year. Given the recent market dislocation, there is a basis to rebalance portfolios and do trades to take advantage of relative repricing. At a macro level, it should not surprise anyone that rates have begun to rise—we have been talking about the Federal Reserve (Fed) tightening, we have been talking about how the Fed is behind the curve, how the market has not believed the Fed, and that someday this was going to have to get resolved, probably by the market having to adjust to the Fed’s statements. The market has now gotten the joke. I still don’t think the yield curve is accurately priced, but it is a lot closer today than where it was at the beginning of the year.

The concern, as I explained in A Time for Courage, is that now the market is moving from complacency—where it really did not believe the Fed was going to do what it said it was going to do—to a time when it has begun to realize that the Fed may be behind the curve. The market is now coming to believe that the Fed is not going to make three rate increases this year, it is going to make four. And so, rates start to rise and the whole proposition that the valuation of risk assets is based upon, which is faith in ultra-low rates and continued central bank liquidity, comes into question. As markets lose confidence in that view, investors have started to rearrange the deck chairs by repositioning portfolios.

Anytime we see strength in economic data, we are going to see upward pressure on rates. Upward pressure on rates is going to result in concern over the value of risk assets, and we are going to have a selloff in equity markets, or the junk bond market, or both. Credit spreads will widen. The reality of the situation, however, is that the amount of fiscal stimulus in the pipeline, the U.S. economy fast approaching full employment, the economic bounceback in Europe, and the pickup in momentum in Japan and in China are all real. Against this backdrop, even a harsh selloff in risk assets is not going to derail the expansion.

The Fed knows this, and for that reason the Fed is shrugging its shoulders and saying, “Okay, we don’t have a mandate around risk assets, but we do have a mandate about price stability and full employment. And it looks like we’re at full employment or beyond full employment, and the thing that seems to be at risk now is price stability. We’ve got to raise rates.”

What does that mean for investors? Markets are engaged in a tug of war between higher bond yields and the stock market. In the near term, the two markets will act as governors on each other: Higher bond yields will drive down stock prices, and lower stock prices will cause bond yields to stop rising and to fall.

“The market is moving from complacency about the Fed to realizing that it may be behind the curve.”

Scott Minerd


An analogue to today may be 1987. That year began against the backdrop of 1985/1986, which had seen a collapse in energy prices. In 1986 oil prices were very low, and concerns around inflation had diminished. The Federal Reserve had dragged its feet on raising rates. As we entered 1987, in the first few months of the year the stock market took off. By the time we got to March, stocks were up 20 percent. In April there was a hard correction of approximately 10 percent. As fear overtook greed, market participants became cautious on stocks. Going into that summer the stock market rallied another 21 percent from the April lows. By August we were at record highs; interest rates started to move up; the Federal Reserve was raising rates; the dollar was under pressure; and there were increasing concerns over inflation. The concern was the Fed was behind the curve as it accelerated rate increases. By October things were becoming unhinged. Bond yields had risen in the face of an extended bull market in stocks. The market reached a tipping point and began its infamous slide. By the time we got to the end of the year, the stock market for the year was up just 2 percent. That was the stock market crash of 1987, which wiped out about a third of the value of equities in the course of a few weeks.

Today, investors have the same sorts of concerns they had in 1987. For now, the market has gotten a reprieve. Soon, investors will start to have confidence in risk assets again. Risk assets like stocks will start to take off. Eventually, the perception will be that the Fed is falling behind the curve because inflation and economic pressures will continue to mount. Eventually the Fed will acknowledge that three rate hikes will not be enough, but it is going to raise rates four times in 2018, and market speculation will increase that there may be a need for five or six rate hikes. That will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

This is a highly plausible scenario for this year, but who knows how these things play out in the end. The reality today is that the economy is strong, interest rates are rising, and equities look fairly cheap. The Fed model right now would tell you the market multiple should be 34 times earnings. That is just fair value, not overvalued. And based on current earnings estimates for the S&P this year, the market multiple is closer to 17 times earnings. If stocks go down by 10 percent, the market multiple would drop to 15 times earnings. This would be getting into the realm of where value stocks trade. If there were a 20 percent selloff, you’re at a 14 times multiple. These market multiples don’t make sense. Markets do not price at 14 times earnings in an accelerating economic expansion with low inflation.

What should I do with the $300,000 I am about to inherit?

My Comments: What would you do if you just found out you were getting an extra $300,000? And to whom is this question posed?

The article appeared in a news feed on my phone this morning as I was drinking coffee and getting ready for the day. You can find it HERE.

I’m sharing it with you for other reasons, none of which should imply I’m about to have an extra $300k, because I’m not. Unfortunately.

Since it appeared in a public forum, there are financial advisors across the country, who when asked this question by someone, will immediately think of answers like these:

1. Buy stocks and bonds (I make a commission.)
2. Buy an annuity (I make a commission)
3. Invest in a managed portfolio (I earn a fee or % of the assets invested)
4. Buy a portfolio of mutual funds and let me manage them (I make a commission and a fee)
5. I’m a realtor also, so buy a property and hope it appreciates (I make a commission)
6. Buy a life insurance policy and gain tax advantages (I make a commission)
7. Etc., etc., etc….

To be fair, some of those thoughts crossed my mind since for the past 41 years, I’ve called myself a financial advisor and earned a living from commissions and advisory fees.

On the other hand, offering someone a litany of options, all of which might be valid choices, begs the question that should immediately follow the above question, which is “What are your strategic goals?”.

This implies that someone has developed and articulated their strategic goals, all of which surface when you ask yourself certain questions. For example:

1. I’m a long way from retirement, so do I want to spend it now or do I want to grow it and spend it in the future?
2. I’m close to retirement and this money will help a lot but I have an immediate need to pay down debt. Should I use it for that or perhaps pay off my home mortgage?
3. How much money do I make now and how significant is this $300k in the grand scheme of things when it comes to living my life the way I want to?
4. I know that receiving this money has no current income tax implications for me but if I successfully turn it into $400k, what are the future tax implications?
5. Does having this money present opportunities to limit other existential threats to my financial future like bankruptcy, my future health needs, living too long and being broke, paying more taxes than I need to pay?
6. How much risk am I willing to accept without getting really nervous?
7. Etc., etc., etc….

The lesson learned by me from the article is that there are people who are only in the ‘answer’ business and there are people in the ‘question and answer’ business and if this happens to you, you should first find someone in the ‘question and answer’ business that you can trust and enjoy working with, who will help you first define your strategic goals.

Forecasting the Next Recession

My Comments: I may have retired from providing investment advice but I’ve not yet left the building. What happens in the world of money still interests me both professionally and personally.

Attached to this post, by way of a link to a 12 page, downloadable report, is a projection from Guggenheim that says we’ll experience a recession roughly 24 months from now.

Whether they are right or wrong, the next one is somewhere on the horizon. Knowing in advance when it might happen will help manage the financial resources you have that pay for your retirement.

Just don’t confuse the timing of a recession with the timing of market corrections of 10% or more. While there is some correlation, it is far from 100%. Also keep in mind the stock markets price things based on what people THINK will happen, not what actually does happen.

Here’s the link to download a copy of the report: Forecasting the Next Recession.

The Perfect Storm (Of The Coming Market Crisis)

My Comments: We do not live in a perfect world. Flaws are all around us. As responsible adults, we always try to make good decisions, and mostly we succeed. Until we don’t.

If you expect to live another 20 or 30 years, the money you’ll need to pay your bills has to come from somewhere. If you’ve already turned off the ‘work for money’ switch and retired, you’re dependent on work credits and saved resources. Maybe you have a pension that sends you money every month. Good for you.

If you are still working, you’re probably setting aside some of what you earn so you can someday retire and get on with the rest of your life without financial stress. At least that should be your plan.

This article from Lance Roberts, a professional money manager, needs to be read and understood. I’m not going to copy everything he says, but I do encourage you to follow the link I’ve put below. Make an effort to understand what he’s telling us. Your financial life may depend on it.

Know also there are ways to shift the risk of loss to a third party. For a fee, you get to enjoy the upside and avoid the downside. If you do live for another 20 – 30 years, where is your money going to come from?

Lance Roberts published this today, November 28th, and it can be found HERE.

Don’t Screw Up Index Investing By Making These 3 Mistakes

My Comments: First, my thanks to all of you who wished us well during IRMA’s visit to Florida. We came through unscathed. We were without power for a number of days and believe me when I tell you cold showers every day are not much fun. And we are now watching Maria carefully.

Second, there is increasing evidence that active asset management is starting to pull ahead of passive investing, which is the focus of this article, written a year ago by Walter Updegrave. Some of the references may be out of date but not the underlying message.

Passive investing as a strategy is always ok for some of your money. Overlaying it with some tactical steps to add value is the next step, something that can be done effectively without going all in with skills you perhaps don’t have.

Walter Updegrave – August 10, 2016

For consistently competitive returns, index funds and their ETF counterparts are the way to go. If you doubt that, just take a look at this new Vanguard research paper that lays out the case for indexing and check out the latest S&P Dow Jones Indices index vs. active scorecard, which shows that fewer than 20% of large-company stock funds beat the Standard & Poor’s 500 index over the five- and 10-year periods ending Dec. 31. But just buying index funds and ETFs doesn’t guarantee investing success. To do that, you’ll also need to steer clear of these three all-too-common indexing mistakes.

Mistake #1: Assuming all index funds are cheap. Since index funds simply buy the stocks or bonds that make up indexes like the Standard & Poor’s 500 or Barclays U.S. Aggregate bond index rather than spend millions on costly research and manpower to identify which securities might perform best, they’re able to pass those savings along to shareholders in the form of lower annual fees. Lower fees translate to higher returns and more wealth over the long term. That advantage is especially valuable today given the forecasts for lower-than-usual investment returns in the years ahead.

But not all index funds and ETFs are bargains. While many are available at an annual cost of 0.10% or less, others sometimes charge 10 times or more than that amount, according to Morningstar data. For example, one fund, Rydex S&P 500 Class C, levies a whopping 2.31% in annual expenses, prompting this headline on a recent post about the fund on the American Institute For Economic Research’s Daily Economy blog: “Is This the Worst Mutual Fund in the World?”

Before you invest in an index fund or ETF, make it a point to know how much it charges in annual fees, especially if you’re investing through a broker or other financial adviser. Then don’t buy unless its expenses compare favorably to funds or ETFs that track the same benchmark. You can gauge whether you’re overpaying by seeing how the expenses of the fund you’re considering stack up versus the expenses of the index funds and ETFs that made the cut for the Money 50, Money Magazine’s list of the best mutual funds and ETFs.

Mistake #2: Playing the niche index game. The beauty of index investing is that it allows you to easily and inexpensively create a well-balanced portfolio for retirement savings or other money you’re looking to invest. For example, by combining just three funds—a total U.S. stock market index fund, a total international stock index fund and a total U.S. bond market index fund (or their ETF counterparts)—you have the foundation for a broadly diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds that can get you to and through retirement.

But many investors fall into the trap of believing that the more bases they cover, the more diversified and better off they’ll be. And investment firms are all too willing to oblige them by marketing ever more specialized index offerings, allowing investors to invest in indexes that track everything from wind power and cyber security to obesity and organic foods.

Diversity is a good thing, but you don’t want to overdo it. Once you have a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds, the extra benefit you get from venturing into investments that focus on narrow slices of the market or obscure niches can be minuscule or even disappear, since more arcane investments often carry higher fees. You also run the risk of ending up with an unwieldy and overlapping jumble of holdings that’s difficult to manage. And, let’s face it, a lot of what’s done in the name of broader diversification is really more about riding the latest fad.

In short, the more you stick to tried-and-true index funds that track wide swaths of the market at a low cost and resist the temptation to invest in every new indexing variation some firm churns out, the less likely you’ll end up “di-worse-ifying” rather than diversifying your portfolio.

Mistake #3: Using index funds to gamble rather than invest. When the indexing revolution got underway back in the 1970s, the idea was for investors to track the performance of broad market benchmarks like the Standard & Poor’s 500 index. The rationale was that since it’s so difficult to outperform the market, investors are better off trying to match the market’s return as much as possible.

Today, however, many investors see index funds as vehicles that can help them juice performance by quickly darting in and out of the stock or bond market as a whole or making bets on a sector they believe is poised to soar, be it growth, value, small stocks, energy, technology, whatever. ETFs are especially popular with such investors since, unlike regular index funds, ETFs are priced constantly throughout the day and can be traded the same as stocks.

Problem is, succeeding at this approach requires investors to have the foresight to know where the market or specific sectors are headed. That’s a dubious assumption at best. Consider how investors swarmed into tech and growth stocks at the end of the ’90s dot.com bubble, confident that double- or even triple-digit returns would continue, only to see shares crash and burn. Or, more recently, how pundits were predicting Armageddon for stocks in the wake of the Brexit vote, only to see the market climb to new highs.

Bottom line: Indexing works best when you use low-cost index funds that cover broad segments of the stock and bond markets as building blocks to create a diversified portfolio that matches your tolerance for risk—and that, aside from periodic rebalancing, you’ll stick with through good markets and bad. Remember that, and you’ll be more likely to benefit from all that indexing has to offer.

Why Sign Up for Medicare If I Have Insurance Already?

My Comments: I’m increasingly asked about signing up for Medicare at 65 or not. This happens as more and more of us are still working at age 65 and expect to keep working for several years to come. This article by Matthew Frankel will give you the background necessary to help your decision.

by Matthew Frankel \ Jul 16, 2017

The standard eligibility age for Medicare in the United States is 65. However, many people don’t know if they need to sign up for Medicare if they already have other health insurance coverage, such as through a job, a spouse’s employer, from their former employer, or through COBRA. Here’s a quick guide that can help you determine if you need to sign up for Medicare when you turn 65 or if you can wait longer without paying a penalty.

How Medicare works with your other insurance

When you have more than one insurance provider, there are certain rules that determine who pays what it owes first and who pays based on the remaining balance. For seniors who don’t have other insurance, Medicare is obviously the primary payer. However, when you have other insurance, it’s a little more complicated.

Depending on the type of insurance you have (group coverage, retiree coverage, COBRA, marketplace coverage, etc.), Medicare can either be the primary or the secondary payer. If Medicare would be a secondary payer to your current insurance, you can delay signing up for Medicare Part B. If your current insurance would become a secondary payer to Medicare, you should sign up during your initial enrollment period, which is the seven-month period that begins three months prior to the month you’ll turn 65.

It’s also worth noting that although I’m specifically mentioning Medicare Part B, which is medical insurance, this applies to Part A (hospital insurance) as well. However, Medicare Part A is free to the vast majority of Americans, so it’s probably worth signing up for Part A whether you’re required to or not. On the other hand, Medicare Part B has a monthly premium you’ll have to pay, which is why it can make sense to delay signing up if it’s not going to be your primary insurance.

Who can delay signing up for Medicare?

So, whose insurance remains the primary payer? In a nutshell, if you have coverage through your or your spouse’s current employment, and the employer has 20 or more employees, your insurance plan remains the primary payer.

If you aren’t sure if your employer meets the “group health coverage” criteria, ask your employer’s benefits manager.

If you do qualify, you can delay signing up for Medicare for as long as you (or your spouse) are still working. Once the employment or your employer-based health coverage ends, you’ll have eight months to sign up for Medicare Part B without paying a penalty, which is a permanently higher premium.

It’s also important to note that regardless of whether you’re still working or not, if you’ve already signed up for Social Security benefits, you’ll be automatically enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B when you turn 65. If you don’t want to keep Part B, you’ll need to cancel it (instructions are on the Medicare card you’ll receive).

Who should sign up at 65, even if they have other insurance?

This leaves a fairly long list of other types of insurance that become secondary payers to Medicare. Therefore, if you’re turning 65 and any of these situations apply to you, you should sign up for Medicare during your initial enrollment period.

• You have group coverage through your or your spouse’s employer, but the employer has fewer than 20 workers.

• You have retiree coverage, either through your former employer or your spouse’s former employer.

• You have group coverage through COBRA.

• You have TRICARE, the healthcare program for military service members, retirees, and their families. Retired service members must get Medicare Part B when eligible in order to keep their TRICARE coverage. (Note: If you’re still on active duty, you don’t have to enroll in Medicare until after you retire.)

• You have veterans’ benefits.

• You have coverage through the healthcare marketplace or have other private insurance. Once your Medicare coverage begins, you’ll no longer get any reduced premium or tax credit for marketplace coverage, and you should drop this coverage as you’ll no longer need it (unless you’re not eligible for premium-free Part A, which is not common).

If one of these situations applies to you and you don’t sign up for Medicare Part B during your initial enrollment period, you could face permanently higher premiums when you do.