Three common misconceptions to think about.
1 – Assuming retirement will last 10-15 years.
When Social Security was created in the 1930s, the average American could anticipate living to age 58 as a man or 62 as a woman. By 2014, life expectancy for the average American had increased to 78.6. That said, an average like may bely the fact that many retirees could live well into their nineties or beyond.1,2
Assuming you will only need 10- or 15-years’ worth of retirement money could be a big mistake.
2 – Assuming too little risk.
Holding onto your retirement money is certainly important, but so is your retirement income and quality of life. While overall inflation has been below 3% for most of the past 10 years, your personal inflation rate may be higher. In that situation, your dollar gradually buys less and less. If your income doesn’t keep up with inflation – essentially, you end up living on yesterday’s money.
For this reason, a flexible retirement strategy will likely factor in many situations and scenarios; you cannot plan for every single scenario, but considering many possibilities may give you and your financial professional numerous options down the road.
3 – Assuming you will be in excellent health. While it’s true that we lead healthier lives than our ancestors and that medical science and awareness of fitness and nutrition have improved and extended many American lives, that improvement doesn’t cover every issue that comes with advanced age. Extended-care issues can sap away retirement funds.3
Recent findings by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services offer some perspective: over a quarter of all people who have turned 65 between 2015-2019 are probably going to need $100,000 of extended care, while 15% of that same group is looking at $250,000.3
For these reasons, a retirement strategy should include some thinking about paying for extended care of this sort. Yes, Medicare can help you with the basics, but an insurance strategy that can accommodate longer hospital stays and care should also be a part of your thinking.3
Remember that good strategies also change over time, and you will probably want some help along the way. Make time to discuss these common assumptions, and how to avoid them, with your retirement professional.
This material was prepared by MarketingPro, Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting party, nor their affiliates. This information has been derived from sources believed to be accurate. Please note - investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. This information should not be construed as investment, tax or legal advice and may not be relied on for the purpose of avoiding any Federal tax penalty. This is neither a solicitation nor recommendation to purchase or sell any investment or insurance product or service, and should not be relied upon as such. All indices are unmanaged and are not illustrative of any particular investment.
1 - ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html [2/19/19] 2 - pbs.org/newshour/health/american-life-expectancy-has-dropped-again-heres-why [11/29/18] 3 - kiplinger.com/article/insurance/T036-C000-S002-how-to-afford-long-term-care.html [1/31/19]
How do these investment approaches differ?
Ever heard the term “strategic investing”? How about “tactical investing”? At a glance, you might assume that both these phrases describe the same investment approach.
While both approaches involve the periodic adjustment of a portfolio and holding portfolio assets in varied investment classes, they differ in one key respect. Strategic investing is fundamentally passive; tactical investing is fundamentally active. An old saying expresses the opinion that strategic investing is about time in the market, while tactical investing is about timing the market. There is some truth to that.1
Strategic investing focuses on an investor’s long-range goals. This philosophy is sometimes characterized as “set it and forget it,” but that is inaccurate. The idea is to maintain the way the invested assets are held over time, so that through the years, they are assigned to investment classes in approximately the percentages established when the portfolio is created.1
Picture a hypothetical investor. Assume that she starts investing and saving for retirement with 60% of her invested assets held in equities and 40% in fixed-income vehicles. Now, assume that soon after she starts investing, a long bull market begins. The value of the equity investments within her portfolio increases. Years pass, and she checks up on the portfolio and learns that much more than 60% of the value of her portfolio is now held in equities. A greater percentage of her portfolio is now subject to the ups and downs of Wall Street.
As she is investing strategically, this is undesirable. Rebalancing is in order. By the tenets of strategic investing, the assets in the portfolio need to be shifted, so that they are held in that 60/40 mix again. If the assets are not rebalanced, her portfolio could expose her to more risk than she wants – and the older she gets, the less risk she may want to assume.1
Tactical investing responds to market conditions. It looks at the present and the near future. A tactical investor attempts to shift the composition of a portfolio to reduce risk exposure or to take advantage of hot sectors or new opportunities. This requires something of an educated guess – two guesses, actually. The challenge is to appropriately decide when to adjust the portfolio in light of change and when to readjust it back to the target investment mix. This is, necessarily, a hands-on style of investing.1
Is it better to buy and hold, or simply, to respond? This question has no easy answer, but it points out the divergence between strategic and tactical investing. A strategic investor may be inclined to “buy and hold” and ride out episodes of Wall Street turbulence. The danger is in holding too long – that is, not recognizing the onset of a prolonged downturn that could bring losses without much hope for a quick recovery. On the other hand, the tactical investor risks buying high and selling low, for figuring out just when to increase or decrease a portfolio position can be difficult.
Investors have debated which strategy is better for decades. One approach may be better suited than another at a particular point in time. Adherents of strategic investing point to the failure of active asset management to beat the equity benchmarks. A 2018 Dow Jones Indices SPIVA Report noted that across the five years ending June 30, 2018, more than 76% of U.S. large-cap funds failed to return better than the S&P 500. A proponent of tactical investing might counter that by arguing that this percentage might be much lower within a shorter timeframe. Ultimately, an investor has to consider their risk tolerance, objectives, and investing outlook in evaluating both approaches.2
This material was prepared by MarketingPro, Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting party, nor their affiliates. This information has been derived from sources believed to be accurate. Please note - investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. This information should not be construed as investment, tax or legal advice and may not be relied on for avoiding any Federal tax penalty. This is neither a solicitation nor recommendation to purchase or sell any investment or insurance product or service, and should not be relied upon as such. All indices are unmanaged and are not illustrative of any particular investment.
1 - money.usnews.com/investing/investing-101/articles/2018-07-25/whats-the-difference-between-strategic-and-tactical-asset-allocation [7/25/18]
2 - us.spindices.com/spiva/#/reports [2/5/19]
There are those who favor value and those who favor growth.
You might be initially confused by these terms or even suspect they aren’t that different in terms of what each model offers you as an investor, but they are very distinct approaches, and it’s good to understand these two schools of thought as you invest. This understanding could help you make important investment decisions, both now and in the future.1
At first glance, some of the advantages to each approach may not be immediately obvious, depending on what sort of market you are facing. There is an element of timing to both value and growth investing, and that concept may be helpful in understanding the differences between the two.1
Investing for Value. Value investors look for bargains. That is, they attempt to find stocks that are trading below the value of the companies they represent. If they consider a stock to be underpriced, it’s an opportunity to buy; if they consider it overpriced, it’s an opportunity to sell. Once they purchase a stock, value investors seek to ride the price upward as the security returns to its “fair market” price – selling it when this price objective is reached.
Most value investors use detailed analysis to identify stocks that may be undervalued. They’ll examine the company’s balance sheet, financial statements, and cash flow statements to get a clear picture of its assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses.
One of the key tools value investors use is financial ratios. For example, to determine a company’s book value, a value analyst would subtract the company’s liabilities from its assets. This book value can then be divided by the number of shares outstanding to determine the book-value-per-share – a ratio that would then be compared to the book-value-per-share ratios of other companies in the same industry or to the market overall.
Investing for Growth. Growth investors use today’s information to identify tomorrow’s strongest stocks. They’re looking for “winners” – stocks of companies within industries expected to experience substantial growth. They seek companies positioned to generate revenues or earnings that exceed market expectations. When growth investors find a promising stock, they buy it – even if it has already experienced rapid price appreciation – in the hope that its price will continue to rise as the company grows and attracts more investors.
Where value investors use analysis, growth investors use criteria. Growth investors are more concerned about whether a company is exhibiting behavior that suggests it will be one of tomorrow’s leaders; they are less focused on the value of the underlying company.
For example, growth investors may favor companies with a sustainable competitive advantage that are expected to experience rapid revenue growth, effective at containing cost, and staffed with an experienced management team.
Value and growth investing are opposing strategies. A stock prized by a value investor might be considered worthless by a growth investor and vice versa. So, which is right? A close review of your personal situation can help determine which strategy may be right for you.
1 - https://kiplinger.com/article/investing/T052-C000-S002-value-vs-growth-stocks-which-will-come-out-on-top.html [8/2/2018]
Being healthy not only makes you feel good, it may also help you financially.
We constantly hear how important it is to maintain a healthy lifestyle. That is not always easy, especially in the face of temptation or the easy option of procrastination. For some, the monetary benefits of maintaining a healthy lifestyle may provide an incentive.
Being healthy not only makes you feel good, it may also help you financially. For example, a recent Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health study determined that a 40-year-old who simply moves from being obese to overweight could save an average of $18,262 in health care costs over the rest of his or her lifetime. If that person maintains a healthy weight, the average potential savings increase to $31,447.1
If you’re wondering how your health habits might be affecting your bottom line, consider the following:
Regular preventative care can help reduce potential health care costs. Even minor illnesses can lead to missed work, missed opportunities, and potentially lost wages. Serious illnesses often involve major costs like hospital stays, medical equipment, and doctor’s fees. Preventative dentistry may help you reduce dental costs as well.
In a way, staying healthy helps our potential to save for retirement. If your health declines to the point where you cannot work, that hurts your income and your ability to contribute to retirement accounts. The threat is real: the Social Security Administration notes that a quarter of us will become disabled at some point during our working years.2
Overweight workers may be subjected to wage discrimination. A LinkedIn study of almost 4,000 full-time and part-time workers found that the workers whose weights were greater than normal earned an average of $2,512 less annually than the others.3
Higher weight seems to be a factor in overall health care costs for many. Ask the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC notes that per-year health care expenses are about 41% higher ($4,870) for an obese individual than for a person of normal weight ($3,400). The biggest factor in this difference: prescription drug costs.4
Some habits that lead to poor health can be expensive in themselves. Smoking is the classic example. A pack of cigarettes costs anywhere from $5-14, which means ballpark expenses of $2,000-5,000 or more a year in expenses for a pack-a-day smoker. Smokers also pay higher premiums for health, disability, and life insurance.5
By focusing on your health, eliminating harmful habits, and employing preventative care, you may be able to improve your self-confidence and quality of life. You may also be able to reduce expenses, enjoy more of your money, and boost your overall financial health.
1 - https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/healthier-lifestyle-can-save-you-money/ [9/25/18] 2 - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/11/protect-yourself-from-a-career-derailment-that-trips-up-1-in-4-workers.html [11/11/18]
3 - https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/employers-pay-overweight-workers-less-new-study-reveals [11/5/18] 4 - https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=8184975&page=1 [7/28/18] 5 - https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finance/articles/the-real-cost-of-smoking [11/20/18]
Perhaps both traditional and Roth IRAs can play a part in your retirement plans.
IRAs can be an important tool in your retirement savings belt, and whichever you choose to open could have a significant impact on how those accounts might grow.
IRAs, or Individual Retirement Accounts, are investment vehicles used to help save money for retirement. There are two different types of IRAs: traditional and Roth. Traditional IRAs, created in 1974, are owned by roughly 35.1 million U.S. households. And Roth IRAs, created as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act in 1997, are owned by nearly 24.9 million households.1
Both kinds of IRAs share many similarities, and yet, each is quite different. Let's take a closer look.
Up to certain limits, traditional IRAs allow individuals to make tax-deductible contributions into the retirement account. Distributions from traditional IRAs are taxed as ordinary income, and if taken before age 59½, may be subject to a 10% federal income tax penalty. For individuals covered by a retirement plan at work, the deduction for a traditional IRA in 2019 has been phased out for incomes between $103,000 and $123,000 for married couples filing jointly and between $64,000 and $74,000 for single filers.2,3
Also, within certain limits, individuals can make contributions to a Roth IRA with after-tax dollars. To qualify for a tax-free and penalty-free withdrawal of earnings, Roth IRA distributions must meet a five-year holding requirement and occur after age 59½. Like a traditional IRA, contributions to a Roth IRA are limited based on income. For 2019, contributions to a Roth IRA are phased out between $193,000 and $203,000 for married couples filing jointly and between $122,000 and $137,000 for single filers.2,3
In addition to contribution and distribution rules, there are limits on how much can be contributed to either IRA. In fact, these limits apply to any combination of IRAs; that is, workers cannot put more than $6,000 per year into their Roth and traditional IRAs combined. So, if a worker contributed $3,500 in a given year into a traditional IRA, contributions to a Roth IRA would be limited to $2,500 in that same year.4
Individuals who reach age 50 or older by the end of the tax year can qualify for annual “catch-up” contributions of up to $1,000. So, for these IRA owners, the 2019 IRA contribution limit is $7,000.4
If you meet the income requirements, both traditional and Roth IRAs can play a part in your retirement plans. And once you’ve figured out which will work better for you, only one task remains: opening an account.
1 - https://www.ici.org/pdf/per23-10.pdf [12/17] 2 - https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gearing-up-for-retirement-make-sure-you-understand-your-tax-obligations-2018-06-14 [6/14/18] 3 - https://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/new-401-k-and-ira-limits [11/12/18] 4 - https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-ira-contribution-limits [11/2/18]
What all new and prospective homeowners need to know.
If you arrange a mortgage, your lender will want you to have homeowners insurance. This coverage is critical for protecting your home and personal property against various potential liabilities.
A homeowners insurance policy is actually a package of coverages. These policies commonly offer the following forms of protection:
*Dwelling coverage insures your house and any attached structures, including fixtures such as plumbing and electrical and HVAC systems, against damages.1
*Other Structures coverage is included to compensate you for damage to structures unattached to the main dwelling on your property, such as a detached garage, tool shed, or fence.1
*Personal Property coverage addresses damage to your personal possessions, such as your appliances, furniture, electronics, and clothes.1
*Loss of Use coverage reimburses you for additional living expenses if you are unable to live in your home due to damages suffered.1
*Personal Liability coverage is designed to pay out claims if you are found liable for injuries or damages to another party. As an example, say someone attends a barbeque held in your backyard, then stumbles over a tree root and breaks a wrist or an ankle.1
*Medical Payments coverage pays the medical bills incurred by people who are hurt on your property, or hurt by your pets. This is no-fault coverage. If someone is hurt at your house, any resulting medical bills may be sent by that person to your insurer.1
These coverages pertain only to losses caused by a peril covered by your policy. For instance, if your policy doesn’t cover earthquake damage, then losses will not be reimbursed.1
The types of covered perils will depend on the type of policy you buy. Special Form policies are the most popular, since they insure against all perils, except those specifically named in the policy. Common exclusions include earthquakes and floods. Typically, flood insurance is obtained through the National Flood Insurance Program, while earthquake coverage may be obtained through an endorsement or a separate policy. Some homeowners are reluctant to buy flood or earthquake coverage; they think it is too expensive and may never be needed. The thing is, the future cannot always be guessed by looking at the past.2
Your policy will of course limit the amount of covered losses. If you have a valuable art collection or jewelry, you may want to secure additional insurance on those items.
When you scrutinize a policy, see if it insures your residence for replacement cost or actual cash value. Actual cash value is less preferable: it may not cover all your losses, as the value of your personal property can be affected by wear and tear, and your home’s value can be affected by housing market fluctuations. If your home is insured for replacement cost, then the insurance carrier will pay the expenses of using materials of similar kind and quality to rebuild or repair your home.3
As a last note, you may also want Umbrella Liability coverage. Do you consider yourself wealthy? You may find the liability limits on your current homeowners policy inadequate. For a greater degree of coverage, you might elect to complement it with an umbrella policy.4
1 - https://www.iii.org/article/what-covered-standard-homeowners-policy [12/3/18]
2 - https://www.valuepenguin.com/types-homeowners-insurance [9/25/18] 3 - https://www.thebalance.com/replacement-cost-insurance-vs-actual-cash-value-4154015 [11/18/18] 4 - https://www.kiplinger.com/article/insurance/T028-C000-S002-why-you-need-an-umbrella-insurance-policy.html [9/25/18]