Tag Archives: financial advisor

Behold the ‘scariest chart’ for the stock market

My Comments: By now you’ll perhaps realize that whatever I say about what is likely to happen in the markets is wrong, and that you’d be better off doing just the opposite.

That’s OK. And if you are young and retirement is a few decades away, it’s OK to ride it out. But if you’re no longer young and foolish, then articles like this one from Sue Chang need to be read. What you do about it is up to you.

by Sue Chang, August 9, 2018

A lot has changed since the stock market crash of 2000. Apple Inc. has gone from being just another computer brand to becoming the most valuable company in the world, Amazon.com Inc. went from being an e-book retailer to a byword for online shopping and Tesla’s Elon Musk has risen from obscurity to Twitter stardom.

Yet some things never change and Doug Ramsey, chief investment officer at Leuthold Group, has been on a mini-campaign highlighting the parallels between 2000 and 2018.

Among the numerous similarities is the elevated valuation of the S&P 500 then and now, which Ramsey illustrates in a chart that he has dubbed as the “scariest chart in our database.”
“Recall that the initial visit to present levels was followed by the S&P 500’s first-ever negative total return decade,” he said in a recent blog post.

Price-to-sales ratio is one measure of a stock’s value. It isn’t as popular as the price-to-earnings ratio, or P/E, but is viewed as less susceptible to manipulation since it is based on revenue.

He also shared a chart which he claims is “unfit for a family-friendly publication” that shows how in terms of median price to sales ratio, the S&P 500 is twice as expensive as it was in 2000.
“Overvaluation in 2000 was highly concentrated; today it is pervasive, with the median S&P 500 Price/Sales ratio of 2.63 times more than double the 1.23 times prevailing in February 2000.

In a follow-up post, he then reiterates how 2018 is starting to increasingly look like 2000.

“The statistical similarities between the two bulls are on the rise, and the wonderment surrounding the disruptive technology of today’s market leaders seems to have swelled to maybe 1998-ish levels,” he writes.

That upward trajectory of the market isn’t sustainable, he warns. Ramsey admits that history isn’t the best guide for the future but the S&P 500’s performance since it touched its peak on Jan. 26 is closely mirroring what happened 18 years ago.

“In the earlier case, a volatile five-month upswing that began in mid-April ultimately fell just a half-percent short of the March 24th high by early September. This year, a similarly choppy, six-month rebound has taken the S&P 500 to within 1% of its January 26th high,” Ramsey said.

(At this point, if you are still interested in this idea, I’m going to send you to the article as it first appeared. Here’s the link: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/behold-the-scariest-chart-for-the-stock-market-2018-08-08 )

Advertisements

7 Myths About Variable Annuities: Exposing Their Dark Side

My Comments: Anyone now retired or thinking about retirement spends time and energy coming to terms with how to manage their money.

Increasingly, fees charged by advisors and/or their companies are perceived as a threat somewhere along the way. However, unless you have the skills to do it all yourself, you are necessarily going to have to pay fees to gain the peace of mind you crave.

But there are fees and there are fees. My experience with variable annuities suggests they are generally excessive and you can gain the same positive outcome at a lower cost using a different approach.

These comments from Craig Kirsner are not definitive. But if you have variable annuities in your portfolio or are being encourage to buy one, I advise you to think again.

by Craig Kirsner, July 31, 2018

One of the most misunderstood investment strategies I’ve come across over the past 25 years is the variable annuity. When I audit existing variable annuities, I get the facts about them by calling the insurance company directly rather than the broker who sold them. Why? Because I believe you should trust but verify, and I like to get my information directly from the horse’s mouth.

When I call the insurance company, among other questions, I ask: What are all the fees? What is the risk? What are the features? After going through that drill numerous times, I’ve pretty much seen it all. Based on my experiences over the past 25 years, the following are the seven most common myths I’ve learned about variable annuities and the facts dispelling those myths:

Myth #1: A variable annuity is a suitable investment for a retiree

I typically work with high-net worth clients, but regardless of your means, your investing goals and strategies evolve as you grow older.

Early in life, you were probably happy to ride with the ebb and flow of the market, waiting and hoping to hit that investment “home run.” And why not? Suffering a loss now and then didn’t bother you because you were certain of a rebound, and you knew you had plenty of time to recover, long before retirement.

But years pass and investing approaches change. Entering retirement, most people start thinking about protecting and preserving what they have, not making a big splash in the market.
You may have heard it said that these days the return OF your principal is more important than the return ON your principal, and that is definitely true for most of our clients. That’s why the variable annuities some retirees count on for a regular income may not be the best route to take. Which brings us directly to Myth #2.

Myth #2: Your money is safe

People are often led to believe by their brokers that with variable annuities their money is safe, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Your money is invested in mutual funds with no real protection of your principal.

The name of the annuity pretty much sums it up: “Variable,” as in the principal varies, unlike a fixed annuity, where the principal is guaranteed by the insurance company.

Continue reading HERE: https://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/T003-C032-S014-7-myths-about-variable-annuities.html

Vanguard’s Chairman Sees Muted Decade for Stocks After Long Rally

My Comments: Little is said these days about those who are investing for the future and are still working vs those investing for the future who are no longer working. Think of it as being defined as the accumulation phase of your life vs the distribution phase of your life.

Different rules apply. Vanguard Funds founder John Bogle famously suggested that the bond part of your portfolio, presumably the ‘safe’ part, should be equal in percentage terms to your age. If you were 70, for example, 70% of your portfolio should be in bonds.

Demographics, interest rates, and the profusion of new financial products has largely put Bogle’s dictum to bed. But it does illustrate the continued confusion caused by those who fail to recognize the difference between someone in their 50’s working hard to accumulate a sufficient pile of money for retirement from someone in their 70’s trying to make sure they don’t run out of money before they run out of life.

We are currently conditioned to positive returns from the markets, except for 2015, that started as we emerged from the Great Recession of 2008-2009. Those of you in the distribution phase of your life need to heed the warning expressed here.

By Nico Grant | January 17, 2018

F. William McNabb, Vanguard Group’s chairman, cautioned investors to consider reducing their stock exposure before the nearly 9-year-old rally ends.

“We would expect the next decade to actually be very modest on the equities side in the U.S., a little less so in Europe and a little less so in Asia,” McNabb said in a Bloomberg Television interview that aired Thursday. “But it’s still overall lower than long-term historical averages.”

Stock markets reached a fever pitch in 2017 as the S&P 500 Index hit record highs and the rally has continued this year. The advance, buoyed by low interest rates around the world, economic growth and the U.S. tax overhaul, has sparked concerns that valuations have gotten stretched, spurring some investors to brace for a decline.

McNabb, whose firm oversees about $5 trillion, said long-term investors may benefit by holding balanced portfolios with bonds as well as stocks.

“No one can predict what’s going to happen in the next 12 months,” he said. “Having just said that, I’m sure the equity market will continue to skyrocket for the next few months.”

McNabb, who ceded the role of chief executive officer of the Valley Forge, Pennsylvania-based firm to Tim Buckley this month, spoke to Bloomberg in Beijing, where Vanguard is eager to take advantage of China’s opening to foreign financial-services companies. The country’s government said it plans to remove ownership limits on banks and allow overseas firms to take majority stakes in local ventures.

“With some of the changes, it looks like there may be a path to doing retail mutual funds, depending on how things get interpreted,” McNabb said.

China’s assets under management are poised to climb more than fivefold by 2030 as the world’s second-biggest economy grows, according to estimates from Casey Quirk by Deloitte.

Welcome, Immigrants. The U.S. Really Needs You

My Comments: For the past 18 months, there has been a war on immigration, fostered by Donald Trump and most Republicans. It portends an economic disaster for the US economy.

Yes, open borders will inevitably allow some bad people into the country. But it will also allow some really good people in as well, and we need them if we are going to leave a healthy economy for those that follow in our footsteps.

Keep in mind that virtually every population segment has bad apples. Whether you’re a physician, a CPA or an insurance salesmen, there are always going to be those whose ethical standards are compromised. Some would argue it also happens among politicians.

These words from Scott Minerd explain clearly why we need immigrants. Without them, we can kiss out ass goodby in terms of maintaining a healthy and growing economy going forward.

by Scott Minerd, Global CEO of Guggenheim Partners, July 30, 2018

Recessions usually occur because the economy hits constraints, causing prices to rise and leading the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates. Today the dominant constraint in the U.S. economy is the size of the labor pool. To sustain continued growth, increasing corporate profits, and rising living standards, while maintaining relative price stability, policymakers must approach labor differently. First among the priorities for achieving long-term prosperity is a rational immigration policy.

Labor shortages are already appearing in key parts of the economy, with about half of small businesses reporting few or no qualified applicants for job openings. For the first time since the government began tracking job openings in 2000, available jobs exceed available workers. This isn’t just among highly skilled workers. For instance, homebuilders report a shortage of workers, especially in areas like framing and drywall, which is crimping the supply of new housing and helping to drive up home prices, reducing affordability.

The growth rate of the American labor force is decelerating sharply. U.S. population growth has slowed, reflecting declining fertility rates and reduced net immigration inflows. The population also is aging. In 1960, 38.6 percent of the population was below 20, while 23.3 percent was 50 or older. Today 25.1 percent is under 20, and 35.3 percent is over 50. By 2040, just 23 percent of the population will be younger than 20, and 38.9 percent will be over 50. The domestic labor pool is projected to increase by an anemic 0.5 percent per year over the next 20 years, compared to growth rates of more than 2.5 percent in the 1970s.

How can the U.S. invest in building a strong labor force? Job training and education play an important role in enhancing worker productivity and output, and programs need to be designed to incentivize our aging baby boomers to remain in or return to the workforce. But one of the most important components is immigration.

Immigrants and their children have contributed more than half of the growth of the working-age population over the past two decades. These new arrivals aren’t just an untapped source of labor but add to America’s economic dynamism through high rates of entrepreneurialism and technological innovation. If the United States is to succeed in the 21st century and retain its global hegemony, then rational immigration and deportation policies are critical elements to its success. A dynamic policy that increases the pool of working immigrants could raise annual U.S. growth by one percentage point or more for decades to come.

This isn’t to suggest throwing open the borders. Border security could always be tighter. Instead, the situation requires a pragmatic, economically driven immigration approach that makes it easier for immigrants to come in legally, resolves the status of undocumented workers and Dreamers, and establishes appropriate policies and controls around future immigration.

Immigration policy must recognize that the demand for workers will fluctuate based on economic conditions, so it must be organized to be responsive to the needs of those industries or regions that demonstrate persistent labor shortages. In these instances, there should be employment-driven strategies and sponsorship programs that can match new immigrants with the economic activities and regions that need them.

We need workers across the skills spectrum, but the ability to select from the best and brightest, particularly from those already studying at U.S. universities, could enhance U.S. productivity growth, as well. Foreign students who attend American universities for undergraduate or graduate studies and have employers ready to sponsor them should automatically be granted multi-year employment-based visas after routine background checks. Highly skilled workers already qualify for H-1B visas, but there aren’t enough of them. In April, the demand for these visas was so strong that the Congressionally mandated application cap of 65,000 for the year was reached in just five days. This cap should be either significantly increased or eliminated.

Not only do we need to find ways to attract new immigrants. We must also work to avoid deportation for those undocumented resident immigrants who are law-abiding, contributing members of our economy. Rather than outright deportation, pathways can be established for undocumented workers to earn legal status, which would draw them out of the shadows and make them productive, tax-paying participants in our prosperity.

Let me be clear: Coming into this country illegally is a crime, and conditions for avoiding deportation and earning legal status should include a penalty. For example, workers who come to this country illegally, in exchange for receiving permanent legal status, should have to pay taxes and contribute to Social Security and Medicare, just like working citizens. However, they could be restricted from receiving many social benefits provided to taxpaying U.S. citizens, and shouldn’t be eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits for a much longer period, perhaps until age 75.

When economically focused, rational immigration policy is combined with productivity gains from recent tax reform, efficiency gains from improved infrastructure, and native population growth, real growth in America could reach a sustained rate of 5 percent or more. This will ensure that the U.S. expansion continues, while averting the needless boom-bust cycles of expansion and recession. With smart and creative ideas to grow the U.S. workforce, the full effects of current economic policies could flourish uninterrupted for generations to come.

Source: https://www.guggenheiminvestments.com/perspectives/global-cio-outlook/us-economy-needs-more-immigrants

The Bull Market Could Be Speeding Right Into a Brick Wall

My Comments: I’ll admit to having done poorly as an investment advisor these past few years. My history was and has been shaped by our collective experience following what became known as Black Monday on October 10, 1987. On that day, we were glued to the radio or TV as the DOW dropped over 22% and fear gripped the country.

For the past three years, I’ve been expecting and counseling clients to expect another, and as a result, I’ve not been positioned correctly as the markets have defied my expectations and largely continued to rise. I’m reminded of how a broken clock is right twice every 24 hours.

But over the past few weeks, in meetings with clients and prospective clients, each time someone other than I have brought up the question of another dramatic price drop. And each time I’m reminded of my inability to offer anything other than caution.

Some of that advice includes the understanding that a recession and a stock market crash, while related, are not synonymous. But it can be argued that either can trigger the other.

It’s also colored by the fact that I’m now in my 70’s and those I’m talking with are either in or are approaching retirement. A mistake now will be far more painful that it would have been 30 years ago. Then we had time to wait for a recovery. Today, not so much.

The so called tax cut passed by Congress and signed by Trump will likely make the next crash worse. That’s because so much of the impetus for the current gains is driven by corporations buying back stock from the general public with their tax savings. This extra demand pressure is driving stock prices up. The story we got was it would be spent on employee raises, new hiring, or benefits. The con job continues.

by Brian Sozzi – July 30, 2018

Too much hot money is concentrated in surging FAANG stocks (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Alphabet’s Google), and it may be about to end badly for investors.

Facebook’s (FB) post-second quarter earnings meltdown has shed light on increasingly narrow market breadth — an often negative development for stocks — explains Goldman Sachs strategist David Kostin. Narrowing breadth has been masked by the out-sized appetite for tech stocks such as Facebook and Netflix (NFLX) . The top 10 contributors in the S&P 500 have accounted for 62% of the S&P 500’s 7% year to date return. Of these 10 stocks, nine are tech or internet firms.

The tech sector alone accounts for 56% of the S&P 500’s year to date return, or 76% including Amazon (AMZN) and Netflix.

Stock Spotlight

Nvidia shares have trailed the Nasdaq Composite since late June as investors book profits ahead of second quarter earnings on August 16. Remember, Nvidia saw a mixed response to its strong first quarter results back in May. At the time, investors called out some weakness in the auto chip business and in chips used in cryptocurrency mining to head for the hills. But given the company’s widening competitive advantages in the chip space, it will be hard for investors to stay away from Nvidia for too long.

“We see many reasons to maintain our 2-year-old bullish thesis on Nvidia,” says Arthur Wood analyst Jeff Johnston. “They are the leader in some of the fastest growing areas in tech and should continue to be so for the next several quarters. Additionally, they are well positioned to maintain/grow their dominant market share position in their legacy markets.”

The call from yours truly: Softbank will buy Nvidia within the next three years (It has a 5% stake in the company that it took in 2017).

We’re nearly at zero: The US just passed another flashing-red indicator on the way to recession

My Comments: Anyone of you who has money invested or is dependent on cash flow from your investments to pay your bills needs to be concerned. What follows is a very good explanation for anyone who whose time horizon for retirement is less than 10 years.

Uncertainty is the biggest driver of global pullbacks in interest rates and growth numbers. Right now, not only from a normal cyclical ebb and flow of economic activity but from the uncertainty generated by the confusion promoted by Trump, we are on the cusp of a significant pull back.

Me, I’m moving my money into cash over the next few weeks. If not sooner… One reason is that people tend to anticipate what will happen to their money before it becomes obvious. Which means that a market crash will precede the economic downturn.

By Jim Edwards, July 16, 2018

The yield on 10-year US Treasury notes declined for a fifth consecutive week, taking the US economy yet another step toward recession. A contraction in America would hurt growth across the planet.

Treasury yields don’t automatically trigger recessions, of course.

But there has been a worrying historical correlation between the moment that the percentage yield on the two-year Treasury becomes greater than the yield on the 10-year note. That phenomenon is called a “yield curve inversion,” and it means that investors are so worried that they’re much less likely than normal to bet on short-term assets.

In layman’s terms: Bonds are about safety for investors. If you buy a two-year note, you can be reasonably sure that you’ll get your money back in two years’ time. Two years isn’t very far away, after all. The near-term is easier to predict than the long-term. So yields (the amount you get back) are lower for short-term notes, because the risk is lower, and thus the reward is lower too.

Ten-year notes represent the opposite bet. They are riskier because who knows what will happen in 10 years’ time? So yields on long-term notes are higher because there is more uncertainty until you get your money back.

When the opposite happens — and investors signal that the short-term feels riskier than the long-term — something must be wrong. If investors say they have less idea of what’s going to happen in two years than 10 years, then they must be very worried about the near-term — and that is a pretty good signal of an impending recession.

When the two-year exceeds the 10-year, recessions tend to follow in short order.

This chart from FRED shows it best. We’re closer to an inverted yield curve than at any time since 2005-2007, which was right before the great financial crisis of 2008:

At the moment, we’re still above the zero-percent-difference line. But only just. The yield curve is flattening, not inverted. We’re trading at 25 basis points on Monday, the flattest since 2007.

There is one reason not to panic. The yield curve doesn’t say that a recession will come imminently. Just … sometime soon. Macquarie analyst Ric Deverell and his team told clients recently that even if the curve was inverted, a recession might not show up until 2019, based on the historic record:

“Historically, the term spread has been one of the best indicators of a forthcoming recession … Indeed, each of the five most recent recessions were preceded within two years by an ‘inverted’ yield curve, with only one false signal (the yield curve very briefly dipped into negative territory in mid-1998, during the Russia crisis and the collapse of Long Term Capital Management, around 33 months before the cyclical peak).”

“On average, the lag between yield curve inversion and the onset of a recession is around 15 months. … Even if the current trend pace of flattening since 2014 were to persist, the curve would not invert until the middle of 2019.”

The global economy doesn’t look like it’s facing a recession — there is widespread GDP growth in the US, Europe, Asia and China. Nonetheless, the current expansion is one of the longest on record, and the economy tends to move in boom-bust cycles. We’re due for a bust, frankly.

There is another big difference between today and 2005: Central banks the world over have been buying bonds like crazy for nearly 10 years to keep interest rates down and to fuel the economy via so-called “quantitative easing.” That has artificially depressed bond yields, and it means that this time around the yield curve is not the reliable predictor of recession it used to be. That’s the position of UBS economist Paul Donovan, for instance.

Of course, when smart people start saying a recession won’t happen because “this time it’s different” — that’s also an indicator of impending recession.

7 Social Security “did you know” moments to consider

My Comments: For millions of us, Social Security is a critical component and source of income as we attempt to flourish and enjoy our retirement. For those of you who decry the idea of ‘socialism’, I encourage you to attempt to finish your life without every cashing one of your monthly checks.

Yes, you might prefer to have never paid into the system, but pay in your must. Years ago, people we elected to serve in public office at the national level determined that it was in society’s best interest that the elderly not be reduced to living in the streets or under bridges.

Over time, it’s appropriate for us to re-evaluate those decisions. That’s what we’re doing now. I have confidence the aforementioned choices made by our elected leaders will be confirmed and re-affirmed. Democratic Socialism is a viable economic model for us to follow.

Sean Williams, The Motley Fool Published 7:00 a.m. ET May 5, 2018

Social Security arguably is the most important social program in this country, but you wouldn’t know that by quizzing the American public on their knowledge of the program.

Back in 2015, MassMutual Financial Group did just this and found that only 28% of the more than 1,500 respondents could pass its straightforward, 10-question, online true-false quiz with at least seven correct answers. Such poor results suggest that most seniors are likely to leave money on the table or make a non-optimal claiming decision during their golden years.

The fact of the matter is that the American public doesn’t know much about Social Security. And while there’s a laundry list of things they don’t know, the following seven facts stand out most of all.

1. Did you know that Social Security is only designed to replace 40% of your working wages?

To begin with, you may or may not be aware that Social Security is not meant to be a primary source of income for retired workers. When it was signed into law in 1935, its purpose was to provide a financial foundation for lower-income workers during retirement.

Today, the Social Security Administration (SSA) suggests that benefits be relied on to replace about 40% of working wages, with this percentage perhaps a bit higher for low-income workers and lower for well-to-do workers. By comparison, 62% of current retirees lean on Social Security to account for half of their monthly income. That’s a bit worrisome, as the average check for retired workers is only $1,410 per month.

2. Did you know that the Social Security Administration can withhold some or all of your benefits, depending on when you claim?

Claiming benefits before your full retirement age — the age where you become eligible to receive 100% of your monthly benefit, as determined by your birth year — may entitle the SSA to withhold some or all of your benefits. If you won’t reach your full retirement age in 2018, the SSA is allowed to withhold $1 in benefits for every $2 in earned income above $17,040. Meanwhile, if you’ll reach your full retirement age in 2018 but have yet to do so, the SSA can withhold $1 in benefits for every $3 in earned income above $45,360.

The good news is you’ll get every cent withheld back in the form of a higher monthly payment once you hit your full retirement age — likely between 66 and 67 years old. The bad news is it’ll prevent most folks from double dipping with working wages and Social Security income prior to hitting their full retirement age — i.e., between the ages of 62 and 66 to 67.

3. Did you know that Social Security benefits may be taxable?

Believe it or not, your Social Security benefits may be taxable at the federal and/or state level. If your adjusted gross income plus half of your Social Security income totals more than $25,000 as a single filer, half of your Social Security benefits are taxable at federal ordinary income tax rates. For couples filing jointly, this figure is $32,000. A second tier allows 85% of Social Security benefits to be taxed above $34,000 for single filers and north of $44,000 for couples filing jointly.

What’s more, 13 states tax Social Security benefits to some extent. A few, like Missouri and Rhode Island, have exceptionally high income exemptions, allowing most retired workers to escape state-level taxation. Others, like Vermont and West Virginia, mirror the federal tax schedule and can act as a double whammy for seniors.

4. Did you know that Social Security offers a mulligan?

You probably aren’t aware that there’s a do-over clause built into Social Security if you regret claiming benefits early. Beneficiaries are allowed to undo their claim within 12 months of receiving benefits if they file Form SSA-521 or a “Request for Withdrawal of Application.” The catch? First, you only have 12 months to make this choice, and second, you’ll have to repay every cent you’ve received from Social Security in order to undo your original filing.

The benefit of this mulligan is that it’ll allow your benefits to grow once again at 8% per year, until age 70. It’s as if your claim was never made. Seniors who wind up going back into the workforce shortly after they start receiving Social Security income usually benefit the most from SSA-521.

5. Did you know that your claiming decision may be about more than just you?

Deciding when to take benefits might be one of the most important decisions a senior citizen will make. However, it may be an equally important decision for their spouse.

In addition to providing retired worker benefits, Social Security provides benefits to the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers. If a high-earning spouse passes away, a lower-earning spouse may be able to claim survivor benefits based on their deceased spouse’s earnings history, assuming the survivor benefit pays more per month that the low-income worker’s own retirement benefit. If a high-earning spouse enrolls for benefits early — i.e., before his or her full retirement age — it can adversely impact the survivor benefit that the lower-income spouse receives.

6. Did you know Social Security isn’t going bankrupt?

Surprise! Despite a pervasive myth that Social Security is spiraling into bankruptcy, I can assure you that it’s not.

Social Security is funded three ways:

  • A 12.4% payroll tax on earned income up to $128,400, as of 2018.
  • The taxation of Social Security benefits.
  • Interest earned on almost $2.9 trillion in asset reserves.

The secret sauce here is the 12.4% payroll tax, which accounted for 87.3% of the $957.5 billion collected by the program in 2016. As long as Americans keep working and Congress leaves the funding mechanism for the program as is, there will always be money collected that can be disbursed to eligible beneficiaries.

Mind you, this doesn’t mean the current payout schedule is sustainable. Social Security’s Board of Trustees projected last year that sweeping benefit cuts of up to 23% may be needed by 2034 to sustain payouts through 2091.

7. Did you know it’s been 35 years since the program’s last overhaul?

Finally, were you aware that it’s been 35 years since Congress last enacted a sweeping overhaul to the Social Security program? Sure, it’s tweaked a few things over the years, but it hasn’t made any major adjustments in over three decades.

That’s disturbing for one big reason: Social Security is facing a $12.5 trillion cash shortfall between 2034 and 2091, and lawmakers are simply kicking the problem under the rug. Make no mistake about it, Democrats and Republicans each have a core fix for Social Security that works. Unfortunately, with politics in Washington highly partisan, no middle-ground solution has been reached.

While there’s much more to learn about Social Security, these seven facts offer a solid foundation on which to build your wealth of knowledge.