Recently, I had the distinct privilege to join Sheinelle Jones on the Today show, discussing some rapid-fire personal finance issues in Simple Money style. Is now a good time to buy stocks? Is it a good time to buy, sell, refinance or renovate a home? We even discussed a version of the Simple Money Portfolio and my top two picks for cash flow apps that can improve your financial situation. Click HERE or on the image below to view the segment.
Just for fun, Google the words “market pullback.” There are over 2.2 million results–most of them market predictions–and the first page of results is dominated by calls for an imminent market reversal that the simple desk calendar has already proven false.
However, despite their worthlessness, market predictions remain as predictable as market opens and closes. (And I predict no end in sight.)
First, there’s a clear profit motive. Apparent urgency leads to activity, and activity is still how most of the financial services industry makes its money.
“Bullish predictions encourage investors to pour fresh money into the markets, helping asset management companies to enjoy rising profits,” the New York Times reported, noting that the Wall Street forecaster’s consensus since 2000 has averaged a 9.5% increase each year. They accidentally got it (almost) right in 2016, but in 2008, the consensus prognostication missed the mark by 49 percentage points (an outcome that makes your local weatherman seem like a harbinger of accuracy)!
But not everyone’s positive either. My colleague and the co-author of the new book “Your Complete Guide To Factor-Based Investing,” Larry Swedroe, analyzed Marc Faber’s perpetually cataclysmic proclamations and rendered the good doctor “without a clue.”
It’s old news that we’re busy and that we wear our busyness as a badge of honor. But a new study found that Americans, in particular, are actually buying it. Specifically, the study concluded that Americans who always say they’re “busy” are actually seen as more important. Unfortunately, it’s all a charade.
Numerous studies have shown that busyness isn’t actually good business, and here’s the big reason why: It makes us less productive. We’re all susceptible to it, but If I’m saying to myself (and I have), “Woo, I’m busy; really busy,” I’m likely being distracted from the most important, most productive work that I could be doing. I may feel like I’m doing more, but the net result is actually less. And it often feels like it.
But not everyone wears busyness as a status symbol. In response to the research and their own well-informed gut feelings, many are finding enjoyment in more productive work at a less busy pace. I wanted to know how these people recognize when they’re devolving into busyness and what they do to stop the downward spiral, so I asked 12 thought leaders who’ve inspired me two simple questions:
- How do you know when you’ve gotten too busy?
- What is a technique that you use to “unbusy” yourself?
Here’s what they had to say:
In 1967, the Beatles released the song, “When I’m Sixty-Four.” The lyrics are a preemptive plea to secure a relationship even when the realities of old age set in. Now, as the nation’s largest generation whistles this tune into retirement, the question seems less rhetorical:
Who is going to take care of us in retirement?
Not everyone will need long-term care insurance (LTC), but everyone needs a long-term healthcare plan. Your long-term care plan should incorporate the following: facts about you (and your spouse, if applicable), your age, your personal health, longevity of lineage, your retirement income and assets, your tolerance for risk, the costs and demographics of long-term care in your geographic area and information about any long-term care insurance that you own or have considered owning.
This post is the second in a two-part series. You can read the first on Long-Term Disability (LTD) by clicking HERE.
Long-Term Care Insurance
One very important thing to remember is that Medicare does not cover the costs of most long-term care needs. Allen Hamm, in his book, Long-Term Care Planning, shares the following statistics:
- 71 percent of Medicare recipients mistakenly believe Medicare is a primary source for covering long-term care.
- 87 percent of people under the age of 65 mistakenly believe their private health insurance will cover the cost of long-term care.
As an educator in the arena of personal finance, I generally avoid matters of public policy or politics because they tend to devolve into dogma and division, all too often leaving wisdom and understanding behind. But occasionally, an issue arises of such importance that I feel an obligation to advocate on behalf of those who don’t have a voice. The issue of the day revolves around a single word: “fiduciary.”
At stake is a Department of Labor ruling set to take effect this coming April that would require any financial advisor, stock broker or insurance agent directing a client’s retirement account to act in the best interest of that client. In other words, the rule would require such advisors to act as a fiduciary. The incoming Trump administration has hit the pause button on that rule, a move that many feel is merely a precursor to the rule’s demise.
Why? Because a vocal constituency of the new administration has lobbied for it—hard. They stand to lose billions—with a “b”—so they’re protecting their profitable turf with every means necessary, even twisted logic.
The good news is that informed investors need not rely on any legislation to ensure they are receiving a fiduciary level of service. Follow these three steps to receive the level of service you deserve:
1) Ask your advisor if he or she acts as a fiduciary.
It’s not a good sign if you get the deer-in-headlights look followed by “Fid-oo-she-WHAT?” If your advisor gets defensive, telling you that you’re better off with the status quo, that’s also concerning.
2) Ask your advisor if he or she acts ONLY as a fiduciary.
One of the biggest challenges facing investors today is that many advisors with a genuine fiduciary label are actually part-time fiduciaries. This is where it gets tricky, because there are at least three different regulatory requirements in the financial industry.
Those beholden to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and regulated by the SEC are fiduciaries already, and they have been for a long time. Those who sell securities—typically known as stock brokers and regulated by FINRA—are held to a lesser “suitability” standard. Those who sell insurance products may be beholden to an even lesser standard—caveat emptor, or “buyer beware.”
But what if your advisor is like many who are licensed sufficiently that they may act as a fiduciary when they choose, but may also take off the advisory hat and sell you something as a broker or agent? Do they tell you when they’ve gone from one to the other?
You want a full-time, one-hat-wearing fiduciary.
3) Determine if your advisor is a TRUE fiduciary.
This may be the hardest part, because it requires you to read between the lines. There are advisors who now realize that it’s simply good business to be a fiduciary. And while there’s nothing wrong with profitable business, you don’t want to work with someone just because they’ve realized fiduciary mousetraps sell better than their rusty predecessors.
Not everyone who is a fiduciary from a legal or regulatory perspective is a fiduciary at heart, and yes, it is also true that there are those who are fiduciaries at their core even though they don’t meet the official definition in their business dealings.
You want a practitioner who’s a fiduciary through-and-through—a fiduciary in spirit and in word.
“The annulment of the government’s fiduciary rule would clearly be a setback for investors trying to prepare for retirement,” says sainted financial industry agitate Jack Bogle. “But the fiduciary principle itself will live on, and even spread.”
Yes, the good news—for both advisors and investors—is that there is a strong and growing community of fiduciaries, supported by the Certified Financial Planner™ Board, the Financial Planning Association (FPA) and the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (NAPFA).
Advisors can join the movement. And investors can insist on only working with a true, full-time fiduciary.
The Trump administration’s move to delay implementation of the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule has inspired me to delay implementation of my commitment to remain silent on matters of public policy and politics. It’s that important.
It seems pretty obvious that those in the financial establishment who oppose the rule do so primarily out of self-interest. After all, it’s estimated that they will lose billions in profits if the final rule goes into effect. I get it.
But I was fascinated recently when a member of the media wondered aloud if my advocacy for a wider fiduciary standard was also simply an outgrowth of my own bias.
Indeed, who’s to say I’m not just grinding my own axe on this issue? Maybe I’m in favor of all financial advisors being held to a fiduciary standard because I’m a fiduciary financial advisor and part of a national community of financial advisors that supports the fiduciary standard.
That would be a convenient rebuttal from the anti-fiduciary community, but here’s the (huge) problem with that rationale:
While those in the financial services industry opposed to the rule understandably don’t want it because it cuts into their profits, the fiduciary community as it currently stands actually loses a clear competitive advantage if everyone has to be a fiduciary. Why? Apparently informed consumers actually like the idea that their advisor has to do what’s best for them. Imagine that!
Here’s how financial industry maverick Jack Bogle put it in his recent New York Times Op-Ed:
It simply doesn’t seem like a good business practice for Wall Street to tell its client-investors, ‘We put your interests second, after our firm’s, but it’s close.’
It’s bad business to be publicly against your clients’ best interest—and it’s good business if your competition takes such a stance.
Perhaps, then, fiduciary advisors are for the fiduciary rule simply because they’re, uh, fiduciaries.
Much—too much—has been said and written about the relative superiority of Roth IRAs versus Traditional IRAs. The debate over which is better too often involves the technical numerical merits. In truth, the Roth wins in almost every situation because of its massive behavioral advantage: a dollar in a Roth IRA is (almost) always worth more than a dollar in a Traditional IRA. This is true regardless of one’s age, but the Roth IRA is even more advantageous for Millennials.
I must first disclaim that you can disregard any discussion of Roth or Traditional IRA if you’re not taking full advantage of a corporate match in your employer’s 401(k)—free money is still better than tax-free money. But after you’ve “maxed out” the match in your corporate retirement account, here are the top three reasons Millennials should consider putting their next dollar of savings in a Roth IRA:
1) Life is liquid, but most retirement savings isn’t.
Yes, of course, in a perfect, linear world, every dollar we put in a retirement account would forevermore remain earmarked for our financial futures. But hyperbolic discounting—and the penalties and tax punishments associated with early withdrawal from most retirement savings vehicles—can scare us away from saving today for the distant future. The further the future, the more we fear.
The Roth IRA, however, allows you to remove whatever contributions you’ve made—your principal—without any taxes or penalties at any time for any reason. Therefore, even though I’d prefer you to generally employ a set-it-and-forget-it rule with your Roth and not touch it, if the privilege of liquidity in a Roth helps you save for retirement, I’m all for it.
2) There are too many competing priorities.
Millennials are dropped into the middle of a financial should-fest. You should pay down school loans, save up for a home down-payment, drive a cheap ride, purchase the proper level of insurance, enhance your credit and save three months’ worth of cash in emergency reserves. All while supporting a healthy Apple-products habit and maintaining your commitment to sample every India Pale Ale micro-brew in production? No chance.
Most personal finance instruction tells you what your priorities should be, and if you’re looking for that kind of direction, I’m happy to help in that regard as well. But it’s also not a mortal money sin to employ some Solomonic wisdom and compromise between, say, two worthy savings initiatives—like short-term emergency reserves and long-term retirement savings. Therefore, while I can’t go so far as to suggest that you bag the idea of building up cash savings in lieu of a Roth, I’m comfortable with you splitting your forces and dipping into your Roth IRA in the case of a true emergency. The challenge we all face is to define “true emergency” without self-deception. (And no, upgrading your vinyl collection or investing in beard balm aren’t true emergencies.)
3) Roth contributions cost you less today than they will in the future.
Despite my sincerest attempt, I couldn’t avoid the more technical topic of taxes—and nor should I, in this case. That’s because it only stands to reason that you’re making less money—and therefore paying less in taxes—at the front end of your career than you will be in the future.
Therefore, in addition to beginning tax-free compounding sooner, Roth IRA contributions—which are not tax-deductible—will likely “cost you” less as a career newbie than they will as a seasoned executive. At SpaceX. On the first Mars colony. Furthermore, you can also make too much to contribute to a Roth IRA, progressively phasing out of eligibility at income of $118,000 for an individual and $186,000 for a household.
Like Coachella tickets, the opportunity to invest in a Roth IRA may not be around forever. Tax laws and retirement regulations are constantly evolving, and who knows what the future may hold. This increases their value for everyone, but especially for those who could benefit from them the most—Millennials.
In a recent Forbes post, I offered five reasons for why analog task management can be more productive than a digital alternative. But in addition to the WHY, I pledged to offer specifics on exactly WHAT and HOW I’ve applied the Bullet Journal system in my own pursuit of productivity.
For fans of my online productivity system hack using Trello, please know that it still works just fine! You will see the familiar blend of Steven Covey as well as David Allen’s GTD principles in my analog system, with just a few modifications and some new Bullet-friendly verbiage.
Before you jump in, I do recommend that you watch a short video in which Bullet Journal founder Ryder Carroll explains the system in his own words. Then, here is precisely how I’ve adapted the concept for my own purposes as a financial advisor, writer, speaker and productivity seeker:
Michael Brundage had everything working for him: a great marriage, healthy children and a successful career in commercial real estate. But something—something big, but invisible—was missing, and the result was a depressive streak that led my friend and colleague to pursue therapy.
Then, in the middle of an early session, his therapist discerned the problem, which she immediately shared with Michael: “You hate your job. That’s the problem.”
Initially, Michael protested, somewhat confused. He was good at his job—very good—and it paid well, ensuring a more than comfortable lifestyle for his family. Wasn’t that what a job was supposed to be about? Indeed, several generations of Americans have bought into the notion that our work is primarily—if not solely—a means, not an end in itself.
“As a culture, we’ve collectively bought into the lie that work has to be miserable,” writes career expert Jon Acuff in his newest book, Do Over.
Michael had learned, in his words, “what a long shadow not liking your job can cast over the rest of your life.” So he decided to do something about it.
He read voraciously, including Do Over, in which Acuff offers a method to career management regardless of where you stand on the love/hate job continuum.
Acuff’s counsel applies to four different types of career transitions that everyone faces:
Investing is a pursuit best liberated from short-term analysis that tends to mislead more than edify. But 2016 was one of those rare years that provided a lifetime’s worth of education in a brief period.
Here are the three big investing lessons of 2016 that can be applied to good effect over the long term:
1) Discipline works.
January was greeted with panic-inspiring headlines like, “Worst Opening Week in History.” While hyperbolic, the truth in headlines such as these may have been more than enough to scare off investors frustrated by seemingly unrewarded discipline in recent years.
With threats of international instability (Brexit) and domestic volatility (historically wacky election cycle), there were ready reasons to cash in even the most well-conceived investment plan, opting for observer status over participant. But to do so would’ve been a huge mistake.
Indeed, the S&P 500 logged an impressive 11.9% for the year, with small- and value-oriented indices pointing even higher.
2) Diversification works.
How can a simple, balanced 60/40 portfolio have better outcomes than investors who try to “beat the market”? Through diversification. In 2016, a portfolio that invested 40% in watching-paint-dry short-term U.S. Treasuries — and that also diversified its equity holdings among asset classes that evidence indicates expose investors to outperformance — had a good chance of matching or even topping the S&P 500’s return for 2016.
Ordinarily, translating any single year’s performance into a lifelong investment strategy would be a regrettable mistake, but in 2016 the market mirrored the historical evidence suggesting that certain factors direct us to particular investment disciplines worthy of emulation. Or in simpler terms, stocks make more than bonds, small-cap stocks make more than large-cap stocks, and value stocks make more than growth — and it may be a good idea to reflect this in your portfolio.
3) Prognostication doesn’t work and punditry doesn’t help.
“Man plans and God laughs,” according to a Yiddish proverb. No, I’d never attribute divinity to the imperfect market, but I’m happy to attribute fallible humanity to those who attempt to divine the market’s next move.
Every year, Wall Street oracles discern what the market will do through notoriously errant forecasts. Every day, an endless stream of talking heads rationalize the meaning of past market moves and presume to postulate its future direction. More often than not, they’re just plain wrong.
Or, as my colleague Larry Swedroe bluntly advises, “You should ignore all market forecasts because no one knows anything.”
Great Britain’s exit from the European Union was supposed to unhinge the global economy, but most have already forgotten the meaning of Brexit. The market then sent clear signs that it preferred one presidential candidate over the other, followed by a rash of recessionary predictions in the case of an upset. But the markets processed the monumental election surprise before the next day’s market close — doing precisely the opposite of what the “smart money” said it would do.
I don’t mean to suggest that the market will always ignore macroeconomic events and political surprises in search of higher ground. But.
The market is going to do whatever the heck it wants, regardless of the balderdash-du-jour pundits and prognosticators say it will do. It will peak when it “should” plummet and it will sink when it “should” sail.
The market’s most predictable trait is its unpredictability. But that, of course, is why we also expect a higher long-term reward for enduring the market’s short-term risk.
Again, there is more danger in drawing too many conclusions from a single year’s worth of market history, but these lessons learned in 2016 are worthy of application every year.
American retirees are screwed. The 401(k) experiment has failed. Social Security’s going bust. Savers haven’t saved nearly enough and don’t have the means to improve the situation.
However hyperbolic, this is the message that has been sent and, for many, is indeed the way it feels. But how do the facts feel?
- Many companies have abdicated the role they once played in helping support employees’ retirements through defined benefit pension plans by promoting and then under-supporting defined contribution plans, like the 401(k).
- Most pensions that remain — even those run by states and municipalities — are “upside down,” lacking sufficient funds to pay what they’ve promised. The entity conceived to insure underfunded pension plans is also underfunded.
- Some large financial firms have filled many of the 401(k) plans they manage with overpriced, underperforming funds, and offered little in the form of substantive education for the masses now left to their own devices.
- After a six-year effort to ensure that financial advisors who manage retirement assets would be required to act in the best interests of their clients, there’s a corporate and political movement afoot for firms to reclaim potential lost profits if they were forced to do right by their clients.
- Even some of the individuals who initially conceived the 401(k) concept and lobbied for it have recanted their support, regretting it ever started.
Social Security Facts:
- The program intended only to be a safety net has become the primary financial resource in retirement for too many.
- The surplus funds received when the huge baby boomer generation paid in — which are now being used to help replace the inherent shortfall of smaller generations — are projected to run out in 2034, thereby reducing the system’s ability to pay benefits by 25 percent.
There — how does that feel, now?