Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Congress Overhauls Your Portfolio - Retirement Plans

By Eleanor Laise

Stable-value funds, the most conservative investments in many 401(k) plans, are left in a regulatory gray zone.

These funds typically consist of a diversified bond portfolio and bank or insurance-company "wrap" contracts, which allow investors to trade in and out at a relatively steady value. As the bill was being hammered out, the stable-value industry lobbied hard to keep these wrap contracts from being categorized as "swaps," a type of derivative subject to a slew of new rules. Instead of making a final decision, lawmakers called for regulators to study the issue within 15 months.

A swap designation would make stable-value wrap contracts more complex to issue and more costly, stable-value experts say, ultimately dragging down 401(k) participants' returns. That outcome "would have an immediate and very troubling effect on 401(k) plans across the country," says Kent Mason, partner at Davis & Harman LLP and outside counsel to the American Benefits Council. The regulatory uncertainty itself could potentially make issuers more hesitant to offer the contracts, he says.

Stable-value contracts are in short supply already, since issuers became more reluctant to offer them in the wake of the financial crisis. But since demand for the contracts remains strong, fees for these wraps have increased significantly.

Congress Overhauls Your Portfolio - Mutual Funds

By Eleanor Laise

With all the talk of "systemic risk" and "too big to fail," small investors might assume that the landmark Dodd-Frank financial overhaul bill has little bearing on their portfolios.

They would be wrong.

Buried in the bill's 800-odd pages are the most sweeping regulatory changes for ordinary investors in decades, affecting everything from mutual funds and retirement plans to single-stock investments and other holdings.

The legislation has the potential to make brokers more accountable to their clients, shine light on hedge funds and improve the transparency of the complex derivatives on which many mutual funds and pension plans rely to hedge their risks.

What's more, the bill's full effects on small investors likely won't be known for some time. Many provisions call for regulators merely to study certain issues or give them the power, but not the obligation, to make certain rule changes.

But in the meantime, investors can prepare for some significant changes in their mutual funds, hedge funds, retirement plans, brokerage accounts and single-stock holdings. Here are the important factors to watch:

Though mutual funds are barely mentioned in the Dodd-Frank bill, the legislation could affect everything from funds' bond and derivatives holdings to how these products are advertised to investors.

Mutual Funds

For bond funds, the bill creates some uncertainty and could even boost volatility in certain types of holdings, managers and analysts say. That is because it gives the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which can seize troubled financial institutions, leeway to pay investors holding identical bonds issued by that institution differing amounts. If investors aren't sure how they will be treated in such a scenario, they may demand higher yields, which means lower bond prices, or dump the bonds at the first sign of trouble, money managers say.

The provision "can have all sorts of unintended effects," says Bob Auwaerter, head of fixed income at mutual-fund firm Vanguard Group. If mutual funds are trying to sell bonds as the issuer tumbles toward default, the potential for unequal treatment of bondholders "will reduce liquidity and lower the price," Mr. Auwaerter says.

One little-noticed provision in the bill could be critical for mutual-fund investors prone to poor market-timing decisions. It calls for the Comptroller General to study mutual-fund advertising, including the use of past performance data, and recommend ways to improve investor safeguards. Academic research suggests that "short-term performance ads really do drive investor dollars, and unfortunately not in a good way," says Ryan Leggio, fund analyst at investment-research firm Morningstar Inc. "Those usually lead investors to the hot fund of the month or the year."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704682604575369750342795016.html?mod=WSJ_PersonalFinance_PF2

Monday, July 19, 2010

China Tops U.S. in Energy Use

By Spencer Swartz & Shai Oster

China has passed the U.S. to become the world's biggest energy consumer, according to new data from the International Energy Agency, a milestone that reflects both China's decades-long burst of economic growth and its rapidly expanding clout as an industrial giant.

China's surging appetite has transformed global energy markets and propped up prices of oil and coal in recent years, and its continued growth stands to have long-term implications for U.S. energy security.

The Paris-based IEA said China consumed 2.252 billion tons of oil equivalent last year, about 4% more than the U.S., which burned through 2.170 billion tons of oil equivalent. The oil-equivalent metric represents all forms of energy consumed, including crude oil, nuclear power, coal, natural gas and renewable sources such as hydropower.

China's economic rise has required enormous amounts of energy—especially since much of the past decade's growth was fueled not by consumer demand, as in the U.S., but from energy-intense heavy industry and infrastructure building.

China's rapidly expanding need for energy promises to have major geopolitical implications as it hunts for ways to satisfy its needs. Already, China's rising imports have changed global geopolitics. Chinese oil and coal companies have been looking overseas in their quest to secure energy supplies, pitching the Chinese flag in places like Sudan, which Western companies had largely abandoned under international pressure.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720504575376712353150310.html?mod=e2fb

Sunday, July 18, 2010

To retire comfortably, under-40 workers need to seriously bulk up savings

By Jonathan Kern
Special to The Washington Post
Sunday, July 18, 2010

If your junior-high soundtrack was more Bangles or Britney than Beatles, I am going to try to scare some sense into you with three words about life in retirement, based on personal experience: The paychecks stop.

I retired last year after 30 years as a broadcast journalist. Unlike most baby boomers who have retired, I do not receive a pension. This surprises and appalls my fellow early retirees, who are either enjoying income from a spouse who's still working or receiving checks from old employers.

If you're, say, under 40 -- and especially if you're under 30 -- you probably have worked only at firms or agencies that offered 401(k)s or their nonprofit cousin, the 403(b). That means that when you finally do retire 25 or 35 years from now, you will be responsible for providing for your own income. No pension for you!

Much has been written telling you how to prepare for that day -- namely, to save every cent you can.

A recent study shows that most people ignore that advice. In the wake of the recession, the Employment Benefit and Research Institute found that, among other things, fewer workers are saving for retirement, a quarter of those surveyed have nearly no savings (i.e., less than $1,000), most workers don't know how much they'll need to retire and more than half say their total savings is less than $25,000.

Clearly, all those thoughtful lectures about the need to prepare are falling on deaf ears.

So I'll say it again: The paychecks stop. Every day, every week and every month of your retirement, you'll use up some of the money you accumulated while you were working.

Specifically, imagine that every week you have to pay for food with cash from savings. And it's the same with your electricity, cable, phone, gas, credit card and other recurring bills. Because your health care is no longer subsidized by your employer, you write a big check each month to an insurance company as well. If you earn a few bucks on the side, even the taxes have to come out of your savings; no one else withholds federal and state tax from every paycheck.

Sure, if you work until you can collect Social Security, you'll get some money from the government, but it's a fair bet that your No. 1 source for retirement is going to be you. If you are not saving assiduously now, you are going to be much, much poorer in retirement. Restaurants, cable TV, BlackBerry service, travel abroad -- even things like beer, fast food and haircuts -- all will be fond memories of youth.

Retirement does not have to be this way.

I glimpsed my own future more than 20 years ago, when my wife and I worked for the federal government. In 1987, it introduced the Thrift Savings Plan -- basically a 401(k) for government employees. When we left government service, we withdrew our contributions and invested the money ourselves. My next employer offered no pension, only a 403(b).

In other words, although we are both baby boomers -- born in 1946 and 1953, respectively -- we are living the Gen X or Gen Y retirement.

Over the past year, I have learned a few things about how to retire successfully without a pension.

First, take a moment to think about how much money you will need each year after you stop working. Start by itemizing your usual expenses. Estimate your rent or your mortgage and property tax. Make reasonable assumptions about what you spend on food, utilities, essential travel, clothing, car repairs and so on. I assumed that my single biggest expense would be health insurance and budgeted more than $10,000 a year.

Whatever figure you come up with -- let's say, $50,000 -- consider it a minimum. Divide it by 26 to come up with your biweekly retirement income -- about $1,925. Your figure will probably be much less than the usual 80 percent of your current income that most financial advisers say you'll need. We're talking about getting by; any extra will only make life better.

So without a pension, how much do you need to get $50,000 (before inflation) each year? Simply put: a bundle. If you plan to retire at 65 and hope to have at least 30 years in retirement, you'll probably need something like $1.5 million in today's dollars. Even a little inflation could push that to $3 million if you're two or three decades from retirement. For the moment, let's leave inflation out of the calculation.

In other words, if you have saved just $25,000 -- and remember, that describes about half of all workers -- you are less than 2 percent of the way toward your goal. Your future definitely doesn't include cable.

Here's more bad news: Just saving a lot isn't going to be enough. Let's say you're 30 years from retiring, you earn $100,000 now and you guess that your income will go up by about 3 percent a year. Even if you earmark 10 percent of every paycheck for your retirement and your employer adds another 5 percent, you'll have set aside only about $713,000 by the time you stop working. That's half of what you'll need for that $50,000 annual income.

To live comfortably in retirement, whatever you save has to grow -- and its growth has to beat inflation by at least a percent or two. Here's where time is your ally. Take the example above, where you're earning $100,000 a year: That first $10,000 you set aside in 2010 will have become more than $30,000 in 2040 if it grows by 4 percent each year. If it grows by 6 percent, you'll have more than $50,000. And whatever your employer put in will have tripled or quintupled as well.

The bottom line is that the only way to ensure that decades from now you will have enough money to live on is to invest wisely.

So it's imperative to educate yourself. You should understand what a bond is, how to select a mutual fund, how inflation affects your investments and so on. Even if you turn to a financial planner, you'll need to evaluate the advice and make your own decisions about where to put your money. Bernie Madoff's clients wouldn't have been so easy to scam if they'd understood that it's simply impossible to get 12 percent returns, year after year, in vastly different economic climates.

That's a key point: Economic conditions change, and you will need to take advantage of those changes. If the next 30 years are even remotely like the past 30, inflation will swing from low to high and back. There will be stock market booms and crashes. As an investor, I've endured the crash of 1987, the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000 and the terrible bear market of 2008-09. I've also seen 13 percent annual inflation, which gave us 16 percent mortgages but also money markets with yields of 15 to 20 percent.

So do a little research about when it's smart to buy bonds -- and whether they should be Treasuries, corporate bonds or municipals -- and when it's better to invest in stocks, bank certificates of deposit or commodities. Learn how to recognize when investments overseas are strong. Over 20 or 30 years, you'll want to diversify and rebalance your investments so that the inevitable market tsunamis create relatively small waves in your portfolio. You're surrounded by this information. Read books about how the markets work, go to Web sites with primers on stocks and bonds or just watch business channels on TV.

Finally, even when times are tough -- especially when times are tough -- don't ignore that quarterly 401(k) statement. That's when you can see whether all your planning is working -- cushioning the blow of a bad stock, bond or real estate market -- or whether you need to explore different investments.

Think of all these do's and don'ts as a warning from your (not-so-distant) future. You can't just cross your fingers and hope that things turn out, or that someone else will take care of it. Start thinking about retirement now. Your life -- or at least your future standard of living -- depends on it.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

"...an account has been set up..."

How many times do you watch the news and see a family struck by tragedy? Tragic and untimely death or disability of a parent or spouse. More and more those stories are followed by "...an account has been set up..." to help the survivors meet funeral and living expenses.

Then what?

In the event of your own family tragedy (God forbid...) do you want your family to rely on the charity of others to make ends meet? Will their standard of living drop them below the poverty line? Will they have to give up the house for an apartment?

For many people, the cost of a decent life insurance policy would be less than a monthly cell phone bill. A small price to pay for the piece of mind of knowing you and your family will not need "...an account has been set up..."

Friday, July 16, 2010

Despite money fears, few hire a financial adviser

By Rebecca L. McClay, MarketWatch

While more Americans are concerned about their finances now than they were two years ago, they're not flocking to financial planners for help, according to a survey by the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, released Tuesday.

More than 43% of Americans said that financial planners are "more important" since the financial crisis hit, but the overall use of planners has been almost stagnant. About 28% of the population uses a planner now, down from 29% two years ago, according to the survey of 1,002 respondents.

People may be overwhelmed at taking the first step in choosing someone to manage their money during a volatile time, or they may have the impression that financial planners are just for the wealthy, said Robert Glovsky, chairman of the CFPBS and president of Mintz Levin Financial Advisors in Boston.

"We would have expected to see people going to financial planners," Glovsky said. "People are realizing they need help, but they don't know where to turn. It's hard to find someone to trust and work with."

About 65% of Americans said they're more worried about their money now than they were two years ago, according to the survey. Still, about 37% said they expect to see their situation improve in the next six months, while 46% said they expect to hold onto what they currently have and 16% expect to lose money in the next six months.

When asked about the overall economy, about 44% of respondents said they expect it to improve in the next six months, while 28% said things will get worse, and 22% said they expect no change.

The top three financial planning issues for Americans are retirement, education costs, and savings, according to the survey.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/despite-money-fears-few-hire-a-financial-adviser-2010-07-14?siteid=nwhpm

Thursday, July 15, 2010

How the expiring Bush tax cuts affect you

Higher tax rates for all

You may have been led to believe that only individuals in the top two brackets will face higher federal income taxes when the Bush cuts go bye-bye. Not true! Unless Congress takes action and President Obama goes along, rates will go up for everyone -- not just a sliver of the wealthiest Americans. The current six rate brackets of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. Just a few months ago, it seemed like a safe bet that Congress would make a fix to keep the existing 10%, 15%, 25% and 28% rate brackets to help out lower and middle-income folks. That bet is now looking iffy.

Higher capital gains and dividends taxes for all

Right now, the maximum federal rate on long-term capital gains and dividends is only 15%. Starting next year, the maximum rate on long-term gains will increase to 20%. The maximum rate on dividends will skyrocket to 39.6% unless action is taken to limit the rate to 20%, as the president has repeatedly promised. Plan on 39.6%, and hope I’m wrong.

Right now, an unbeatable 0% rate applies to long-term gains and dividends collected by folks in lowest two rate brackets of 10% and 15%. Starting next year, those folks will pay 10% on long-term gains and 15% and 28% on dividends (compared with 0% now) unless a change is made. Otherwise, taxes on long-term gains and dividends will go up for everyone.

Return of the marriage penalty

Right now, the standard deduction for married joint-filing couples is double the amount for singles. For this, we can thank the Bush tax cuts, which included several provisions to ease the so-called marriage penalty. The penalty can force a married couple to pay more in taxes than when they were single. Starting next year, the joint-filer standard deduction will fall back to about 167% of the amount for singles unless Congress takes action and the president approves. We don’t know if that will happen. If not, lots of lower and middle-income couples will face higher tax bills.

Now, the bottom two tax brackets for married joint-filing couples are exactly twice as wide as those for singles. That ratio helps keep the marriage penalty from biting lower- and middle-income couples. Starting next year, the joint-filer tax brackets will contract, causing higher tax bills, unless a change is made.

Return of phase-out rule for itemized deductions

Before the Bush tax cuts, a nasty phase-out rule could eliminate up to 80% of a higher-income individual’s itemized deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable donations. The rule was gradually eased and finally eliminated this year. Next year, it will be back in full force unless Congress takes action -- which is unlikely. So if you itemize and have adjusted gross income above about $170,000 ($85,000 if you use married filing separate status), be ready for this phase-out rule to take a toll.

Return of phase-out rule for personal exemptions

Before the Bush tax cuts, another nasty phase-out rule could eliminate some or all of a higher-income individual’s personal exemption deductions. The rule was gradually cut back and finally eliminated this year. But it will be back with a vengeance next year unless Congress blocks it. So be ready for another tax hike if your adjusted gross income exceeds about $252,000 if you file jointly; about $168,000 if you’re single; about $210,000 if you’re a head of household; or about $126,000 if you use married filing separate status. (For 2010, personal exemption deductions are $3,650 each, and they will be about the same next year.)

The bottom line

The Bush tax cuts don’t just offer tax relief to the wealthiest Americans. They offer it to just about anyone who pays federal income taxes. Their scheduled demise next year will raise the tax bill of nearly every taxpayer, unless Congress makes changes and the president jumps on board.

https://news.fidelity.com/news/article.jhtml?guid=/FidelityFeeds/pages/expiring-bush-tax-cuts-and-you&topic=taxes