Your Boomer Mortgage: Insurance Offers You Don't Need

On a recent episode of Financial Impact Factor Radio, we discussed the topic of insurance. If you have never tuned into this show, I think you will find it interesting and topical. We have a wide range of guests and often discuss the very questions that concern Baby Boomers, their children and their parents. Because being a Boomer is more than just being a certain age. All of our shows on Financial Impact Factor Radio can be found here.

As a Boomer, I am always intrigued by the offers that begin showing up in my inbox/mailbox. Although they don't on the surface seem to be age related, one can't help but read between the lines. Are they talking to me? Are they worried about whether I will make it to the end? That "end" involves satisfying the largest debt any of us will ever own: our mortgage.

Last week I received a letter in the mail from the bank that holds my mortgage that would make most mortgage holders think twice. It was the offer of life insurance. My bank might think there are good reasons for offering this product that is different that many of the other types of insurance offered with these types of loans. For instance, PMI is private mortgage insurance the bank makes you buy if you are putting less than 20% down on a mortgage. The sole beneficiary in this instance is the lender, who knows that if you are going to default, this riskier loan covers their interest in the transaction. Known as PMI, its cost has begun to weigh on borrowers who find their loans underwater. Once you pass 78% mark because the value of your house compared to the amount of your initial downpayment, you can cancel the policy.

There is also mortgage insurance which for some borrowers seems like a good option as well. Essentially the lure of this product is to pay-off the mortgage in the event of your death. The insurer doesn’t pay you directly instead writing a check directly to the mortgage company or lender.

The letter I received offered a term policy that would last until I turned 80 years old, which is about 26 years from now. Like all insurance policies it plays on your fears and comes at a time when the typical term policy is about to expire if you bought insurance in your thirties, which is typically the time when most folks consider coverage. But it isn’t cheap. In fact, this sort of policy has a seven year flat rate, just a few medical questions without an exam and of course the tug-on-your-heart-strings assurance that your loved ones will be taken care of.

So today I thought we’d talk about late in life insurance coverage and whether we should consider it.

Listen to Financial Impact Factor Radio with your hosts:
Paul Petillo of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com and Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng of FinancialFootprint.com

The Boomer Rollover Conundrum

Boomers will be retiring en masse in the coming years. And with that retirement comes options. For the first time their lives, they will be outside the comfortable boundaries of their employer's retirement plans and on their own. The choices are many and often confusing. That is why I thought it would be informative to discuss over the last couple of days, an option you may have considered.

Today on the Financial Impact Factor Radio with Paul Petillo, Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng we continue the discussion we began yesterday about self-directed IRAs. While having control over your retirement is important, how much risk is too much and who can handle the increased potential of loss or gain.

To listen to yesterday's show, click here.

Here are some outtakes from this conversation:

Yesterday we discussed a different corner of the retirement investment world when we talked about self-directed IRA. I suggested that “If there is one thing we all seem to be seeking and at the same time, remains as elusive it is control. Our investments often seem to want us to master its fate, as if simply involving yourself is enough.” T.S.Eliot seemed to agree although we all know he wasn’t talking about your retirement plans when he wrote: "Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far it is possible to go."

Jim Hitt of AmericanIRA.com to discuss the IRA that you control. There is a lot left to be discussed it seems and little clarification is needed in advance. Jim is a third party administrator or TPA. We have had a few professionals who ply their trade as a go-between, somewhat detached from the other two parties but necessary in the legal and tax compliant execution of a retirement plan. Sometimes we need to be reminded that all retirement investments, 401(k)s, 403(b)s, IRAs in all their incarnations are essentially parts of the tax code. And I’d be willing to wager that when taxes are mentioned, there is a certain fear, perhaps caution that moves to the forefront. Self-directed IRAs are no different.

On numerous occasions, we have, in advance of a guest appearing on the show prepped the listening audience, discussed what we knew about the next day’s topic and did so in almost every instance, without the guest’s knowledge. Today, we’re going to look back.

Most of us have had out retirement plans nestled safely – and I’ll describe what I mean by safely in a moment – inside a 401(k). The way these plans are constructed give us a sense that someone else is watching over us. They choose the investments. They made the match. They suggested that they had a fiduciary responsibility to us. I asked Jim if he had just such a responsibility and he simply replied: no.

So we began the discussion there as I asked Dave and Dave if they would like to tell us what fiduciary responsibility is?

Now we all know that risk is something we need and knowing how much of a risk you can take is key in the way you execute your goals. But this is no easy task when it comes to this type of IRA. "Trust your own instinct, “ as Billy Wilder once said: “Your mistakes might as well be your own, instead of someone else's."

As Baby Boomers begin this massive wave of retirement, many are for the first time going to get their life’s retirement account to control. I was caught by one thing Mr. Hitt suggested as to the people who come to him: they come in good times and bad.

The risk of self-directing your IRA is there. Jim discussed using this money for real estate investment purposes, business opportunities and other investments such as gold, commodities, etc. And it all boils down to coordination.

Listen to Financial Impact Factor Radio with your hosts: Paul Petillo of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com and Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng of FinancialFootprint.com

The show is broadcast daily, online at 6amPST/9amEST.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of BlueCollarDollar.com/Target2025.com and a fellow Boomer.

In 2012: What Boomers Can Expect

"Time is free, but it's priceless. You can't own it, but you can use it. You can't keep it, but you can spend it. Once you've lost it you can never get it back." Harvey MacKay

One of the key elements in any financial transaction is time. If you want to retire, you must consider the amount of time. If you want to borrow, how long you have to pay it back can be translated into dollars and cents. Investing; timing they suggest can't be down but is important nonetheless.

If you are twenty, time is on your side. If you are thirty, there is time left. If you are forty, time is of the essence. If you are fifty, time is running out. If you are sixty, where has the time gone. And older than that, time is no longer on your side. It accompanies us through life like some dark passenger. It reflect back on us from the mirror. And when we look at our retirement plan, it stares at us without guilt or shame. Time is the truth.

When I first began writing these predictions, and I've been churning out these year end ditties for over a decade, many were laced with optimism, some with an urging that we learn the lesson and move forward armed with knowledge of past mistakes, and still others were exercises in reality. In 2012, we have some opportunities and some problems awaiting us, left on the table as we symbolically turn the calendar wiping out 2011. But it won't leave quietly.

So I have a few thoughts about what you can do - resolutions of sorts but not the drastic sort we make and break almost within hours of promising ourselves at midnight.

Increase your contribution I start with this obvious chant for two reasons: you aren't making a large enough contribution and two, I would be remiss in not telling you this right from the start. And I'm not just speaking to those with a 401(k).

There are the millions of you who are forced to (and because of that are not likely to) finance your own retirement through an individual retirement account. We lament at the worker who literally only has to sign up at his workplace and doesn't. And far too often, we say little about the person who has to sign-up (after finding a fund), commit with a fortitude that is somewhat lacking and to contribute some of their paycheck via direct deposit every week or month. That effort, it seems is a much more involved hurdle.

In 2012, the investment world will be little changed. It will roil and confuse and gyrate and possibly even nose dive - just as it has for decades. It will react to news - if not from Europe form China or even the presidential elections (which ironically tend to be excellent years to invest). This will have you second-guessing your investments. But this will only apply if you have no idea how much risk you can take.

Pay attention to diversification You may not be capable of rebalancing, the act of making sure that your investments are directed evenly across many investments. This is much harder than it seems. As long as you are involved - and that is YOU in capitals - the struggle to keep balance will not get any easier.

For the vast majority of us, mutual funds will be the investment vehicle of choice. These investments will see more movement towards fee reductions. Which is a good thing. Fees will and always have been a subtraction of gains. This makes an excellent argument for indexing.

Choosing six index funds across the following cross-sections of the markets will not solve the problem of rebalancing (some will do better than others) but it will provide diversification. Index the largest companies (an S&P 500 fund), a mid-cap fund (the next 400 companies in size), small-caps (the next 2000), an international fund (an index of the largest countries (those with established banking systems even if they are currently troubled and will continue to be so in 2012), an emerging market fund (after international funds, the most risky) and a bond index (one that covers as much fixed income as possible).

Some of you will wonder if exchange traded funds (ETF) wouldn't be just as good if not better than simple indexing. In 2012, ETFs will continue to drill down ever deeper into sectors of the markets that add risk along with the illusion of an index. ETFs will become more actively managed in 2012 offering you more risk at a lower cost. Cheap doesn't mean better. 2012 will be year of the ETF. If you are unsure what these investments are, consider this conversation I had with David Abner of Financial Impact Factor Radio recently to help explain what these investments are and how they work.

Focus on your financial well-being This refers to your credit score. It continues to impact your financial future and will become increasingly harder to ignore. A new credit rating service agency will add to the difficulty in 2012 and not only will the current scoring impact costs such as insurance, it will seek to trace the breadcrumbs of your financial life more thoroughly that the big three do.

There is little likelihood that the job market will increase as many of our returning troops will flood the marketplace, taking numerous jobs from your kids just out of college. Which means another year with your kids at home. The only answer to this problem is to continue to tighten down your budgets in 2012. As I mentioned earlier: "If you are forty, time is of the essence. If you are fifty, time is running out. If you are sixty, where has the time gone."

And you must do this understanding that inflation - not the reported number but the real number in your grocery bill - will still chip away at your wealth. This means you will move in two opposite directs in 2012: saving and investing more for your fleeting future (at least 6% but 10% would be best) and spending less in the present (easy of you don't use credit).

And the housing market will improve for those who have repaired any damaged credit or who have saved enough of a down payment to buy a house. people are still buying and selling. These people have found that while the market is not accessible to all, it is for those that have done right by their personal finances.

Do all of that this may not seem like a new year - but it will be a better year!

Retirement Planning: The Statistical Boomer

I understand that it is difficult to sum up all of the issues facing our quest for retirement, from our biases to having to participate in a market that seems almost impossible to embrace. So for the sake of this discussion: Here's the problem facing Baby Boomers. 

Paul Barnes wrote in 1987 that the reason ratios (percentages are used ) is a mathematical one "and is basically used to facilitate comparison by adjusting for size".  What he quickly pointed out was that their use is "only good if the ratios possess the appropriate statistical properties for handling and summarizing the data". It is why, when the information culled from a recent Wells Fargo survey expressed as a percentage, that 25% of the adult population would need to work into their eighties, a postponement of retirement that has become newsworthy of late. The survey even suggested that they accepted the fact.

Now we have always been barraged with percentages: 10% off this, we are the 99%ers that, the markets down such-and-such a percentage for month, the quarter, the year. Whatever it is, it blurs some distinct realities by ignoring, as Mr. Barnes suggested, some important data. And we don't need to go far beyond our own observations to find the underlying reasons why some people (25% evidently) are not retiring historically.

Let's start with the unemployment rate. Expressed as a percentage, perhaps because of the space needed to write such a large number over and over, it is hovering at 8.6%, give or take a re-estimate or revision. And quickly you will be told that to add in the disparaged worker, the underemployed person or even the fully employed person who is getting less and the percentage of people who will not be able to retire based on the typical timeline of a thirty year or even forty year career this number becomes almost impossible to calculate. Estimates push the real unemployment rate to around 14%. If you are older and long past the benefit-of-time growing your savings and a stat in this group, the trouble with these numbers can be even more devastating.

Let's from there move towards the participation rate in 401(k) plans. Or better, how about we look at the number of 401(k) plans there are, which is less than 50% of the workplaces. And that is only for those who don't have access to a 401(k). those percentages get worse when you consider that more than half of this group doesn't do a single thing to prepare for retirement.

And what about the folks that do have a 401(k)? Participation rates are up in some surveys, down in others. Chances are, if you were just hired, you were auto-enrolled in your company's plan. Recent numbers suggest that 90% of those newly hired chose to not opt out. While that is a headline number, the 10% who chose not to participate is more worrisome and adds to the quarter who will not have enough for retirement - although they may not be old enough to embrace the full consequence of that decision. But even auto-enrollment has its problems as two-thirds of those who are automatically enrolled don't do anything to adjust the default investment the plan picked.

Pamela Hess, director of retirement research at Hewitt Associates suggests that "Most employees who are automatically enrolled tend to stick with the employer-provided default contribution rate, so simply getting them into the 401(k) plan at a minimal contribution rate isn't going to help them meet their long-term retirement needs." That minimal contribution rate is often 3% and not close to adequate. In fact, in the larger picture, less that sixty percent of those who are in a plan contribute more than 5% of their pre-tax pay.

Ms. Hess believes that  "Companies should strongly consider increasing the default contribution rate and coupling automatic enrollment with contribution escalation, which automatically increases employee contributions to the 401(k) plan and helps get them to a better savings rate over time." Auto-escalation has helped, a method of putting some or all of the employee's raises into the plan but unless the worker understands the implications of failing to do so, they often don't opt for this benefit.

I have pointed out before that the recovery will need jobs that people want to stay in long enough to benefit from the company match. As much lip service as these plans offer when they match the contribution, vesting is still an issue. Some workers may be deciding to not stay long enough to get the matched contribution, a period that usually last five years and decide to not bother. And many who slashed their contributions have not returned to offering them, pushing participation down in their plans even for those who are fully vested. If these businesses have restored the match, they have often cut benefits elsewhere making the choice of contributing more a financial one with a harsh reality.

So when a survey crosses the retirement radar suggesting that 25% of us are planning to work into our eighties, the number misses some key data. Workers who suggest that a retirement number - a dollar amount base on any number of formulae - is what will determine their time of retirement, the estimates they embrace may be outsized. 

These folks fret over the stock market and construct a worse-case scenario for what might happen if the gains they had hoped for fail to materialize.

And then they turn around and overestimate their comfort zone, attempting to replicate exactly what they have now. Here is where they become discouraged. Previous generations of retirees had something we never had: modest outlooks. Skip back just three generations and the elderly were likely to move in with children in retirement.

When the numbers tell only part of the truth, as if shining a narrow beam of light and describing what it illuminates is all that matters to the discussion, we need to refocus and see what we've been missing. Retiring can still happen when it should - which is when you want and not when your retirement account statement says so based on some target. So embracing a time, which 20% of the surveyed did, is a much more realistic parameter. 

The only question left is how can you do it?

Two answers are worth repeating: you need to become a little more austere in your fifties and save more, much more. The reality of the harsh regime will stiffen your resolve for when work is not what you want to do. It is practice with a safety net. the second is readjusting your expectations and plan for those realities. The investment you make to mentally prepare yourself for this less-than-what-you-had-previously-planned retirement is still a plan and will work. And if its any comfort, the data shows that too many don't even have that!

Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor and Founder of BlueCollarDollar.com/Target2025.com and a fellow Boomer.

Is a Million Dollars Enough?

As long as I have been writing about financial topics, the million dollar mark has been the goal that most every retirement planner suggested was necessary to leave the workforce and have enough to live comfortably for the rest of your life. And then, not coincidentally, the post-2008 landscape changed that configuration, in many instances, actually lowering the goal.

Keep in mind that goals are backward looking even as they are forward reaching. You need one they suggest to know what you need to do to get there. The question that lingers is how much is a goal worth having if the goal creates stress on your well-being, your family dynamic and your overall health? In fact, the answer may eventually answer the question of how long will we live in retirement?

Is a goal worth having?

Yes and no. First it identifies what needs to be done to achieve whatever it is you dream of doing. You want to go to the movies, the goal is to produce the twenty bucks or so it will cost. This is a fixed goal with real tangible numbers to accompany the desire. You know the real cost of going: tickets, concessions, babysitter, etc. You also equate exactly how many hours you may have worked to achieve that goal. Retirement unfortunately is much different.

You don't know what anything will cost. Folks throw out inflation as a concern, healthcare as an untenable cost and your longevity is the long-term savings reducer rather than the concept that it will give you more fruitful lives. 

You do know that you don't want to be newsworthy. You don't want to be headlines: "woman says death preferable to living in poverty" or "man says I didn't plan on being poor". So you do two things that enable what might seem inevitable. You worry and you don't save.

So what is the number?

There is no number. There is just you trying to figure out the day-to-day while ignoring the future. Keep in mind that no retirement plan was ever designed to replace 100% of your current income. Eight-five percent is considered good and seventy percent of your current income would be do-able. You can subtract your projected Social Security Income and you have some sort of idea how much you will need based on how much you need now.

In survey after survey, you have answered with comments that suggest you are no where near where you should be. Of course you aren't. Even if you haven't invested/saved all that much, time will make it somewhat better. Compounding still works. The investments you make now will be better off in the future, even if only slightly so. And the budget you keep now will help you stomach living on less in the future.

In survey after survey, the folks who look at the data, construct the questions and parse the info the answers supply see a landscape littered with dispair and angst. They see people lamenting that they will work until they die. They see people complaining that they will do worse than their parents and suggest that they will do worse than any generation prior to this one. They find that people are unwilling to adjust their dreams and use that as the goal, even if it is wholly unrealistic.

Is the answer your 401(k) plan sponsor's responsibility?

Russell Investments thinks this may be the key. They did a study recently that suggested two things: higher income wage earners will be better prepared for any problems they may encounter in retirement (healthcare costs, market volatility, inflation, etc.) while lower income wage earners will struggle with the day-to-day expenses prohibiting them from finding any available cash in which to save. The study does suggest that Social Security plays a lesser role in the higher pre-retirement income wage earners plan (about 36%) as compared to the lower income worker (about 51% of current income could be replaced).

But where the study differs from other reports on the dire state of this affair is helping the plan sponsor reconstruct their role in the process. Without citing the cost to businesses for retaining older workers (some numbers have put the cost as high as an $50,000 per worker past normal retirement age), focusing on the near-term expenses by making the plan better may be the best way to move this worry into the realm of manageable.

I'll give you the link to the whole study (here) but the element that intrigued me the most was the suggestion that the defined contribution side of the equation, the fiduciary responsibility of the company, could play the role that has been often overlooked. It is easy to say save more without offering the employee any hope of finding the right investments in which to do just that.

The way they suggest it would work is first to induce the employee to use the plan. Rather than a dollar for dollar match up to a certain percentage, they suggest that the employer match 75% of the first 5% contributed. Five percent has long been considered a sort of break even point for the employee providing some contribution without impacting the take-home pay needed by the lower income earning group.

If you were to see it written as a math sentence, it would look like this: A 75% match of first 5% of income creates a savings rate of 8.75% or 5% plus (0.75 x 5%) = 8.75%

But they think the best option would be to not stop there with the incentives. They think a secondary match should kick in once the employee taps the 5% mark. Companies could offer a 25% match on the next 5% contributed.

If you were to see this next stage of the plan, it would look like this: 8.75% plus (0.25 x 5%) = 15% savings rate.

The study goes a bit further suggesting that auto-enrollment and auto-escalation (essentially forwarding pay raise to the plan instead of to the paycheck) would get these hesitant savers on board sooner rather than later. It would also require the plan administrator to refocus on the core demographic of the employees, tailoring the underlying investments towards that group and controlling expenses better in the process.

And that would change the question of whether a million dollars was enough to "aren't we in this together?"

Don't be Tempted to Borrow from Your 401(k)

Under the current laws governing tax-deferred retirement plans such as a 401(k), withdrawing money has consequences. I have mentioned many of them here over the years, not the least of which is the early withdrawal penalty, the payment of taxes on those tax deferred investments and of course the loss of retirement money. Yet, those penalties haven’t stopped many of the people who have found it difficult to make their monthly budget work.

Of course, I am assuming a monthly budget. Without some anchor in reality, not having a budgetcan lead to rash decisions withut considering the far-reaching impact. Without a monthly budget, you will have no idea what could be cut to maintain some level of financial stability when times get rough. It is also safe to assume that if you do not have some sort of monthly accounting of your finances, you probably don’t have an emergency account. Both of these would have served the households with troubled income streams.

Two Georgia Congressmen think that those 401(k) plans might be able to help. Their idea: Hardship Outlays to protect Mortgagee Equity (HOME) Act. Introduced last week, U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia) and U.S. Representative Tom Graves (R-Georgia) want their proposal considered as a way to keep homeowners in their homes. The concept, somewhat like throwing you a lifeline of your own making and designed to rescue you from poverty in the future offers a short-term fix in the near-term. They believe that if you have been a diligent saver, adding to your 401(k) religiously over the years, you shouldn’t be punished for needing the money now as opposed to later.

Rep. Graves is convinced that the housing crisis is the reason the economy has not recovered. Calling up his decades in the real estate business, he suggests: “This bill will help Americans who risk foreclosure use their own resources to make their mortgage payment on time without being penalized by the federal government.” If his assessment of who may need this money now – 23% of those who have mortgages are underwater but not necessarily facing foreclosure – the government should step out of the way and allow these folks to withdraw that money without penalty.

They are proposing that there be a lifetime cap on these withdrawals of $50,000 or one-half of the present value of one’s 401(k) account (whichever is smaller), so long as those funds are used for that purpose within 120 days of withdrawal. This is not the first bill of its kind.

Since the Great Recession began, Congress has struggled with what to do with corner of the financial world. A similar bill was introduced in 2009 and never debated on the Senate floor.

Numerous homeowners should not be in the homes they own in the first place. They may have obtained these residences with fraudulent applications, been unable to afford those homes during what would be considered a normal buying environment and failed to restructure their loans or worse, keep with the terms of their bankruptcy decisions. Because tax-deferred retirement accounts are not considered in these proceedings, some mortgage holders may have been in a position to financially right their own ship. But because of the penalties associated with tapping those accounts, they simply chose not to.

The HOME Act will allow wealthier homeowners to save their residences without penalty, while the rest of us, those that underfunded their retirement accounts or couldn’t wait for Congress to act, have already drained those accounts, paid the penalties and taxes and tried to move on. This effort woud do little to help those currently in the foreclosure vortex or who have been spat out by the continued downturn in housing.

No matter who you are, this last ditch effort is not the way to go. Reducing future retirement payouts (compounding and time suggest that $50,000 in retirement savings would provide only about $290 a month in retirement – a projected shortfall of over $1200) would set the average wage-earner, hardship or no, back decades in support of keeping the house. Few of these folks, given the opportunity and the consequence of this decision will consider the long-range impact of that decision. And if it gets Congressional approval, it will push the real problem further down the road.

On the surface, it might seem like the right thing to do. But beneath the veneer of a tax and penalty holiday the problems this money promises far outweigh the immediate salve it may provide. There are solutions, none of them pleasant.

If you are seeing the problem on the horizon, don’t wait until the day of reckoning. Contact your lender before you run into problems. If the problem has arrived, keep in mind, as devastating as it seems, it is not the end. While temporary may well last several years, longer if you successfully pursue a bankruptcy, protecting your future, a time when this will all be an unhappy bump in life’s road will be worth the sacrifice.

True, protecting your credit is important. Just keep in mind, it wasn’t as important when you bought the house as it is to you now. This too will pass.

The bottom line: those 401(k) provisions were established decades ago when the thinking was to make it painful to withdraw your money all the while giving you the illusion that if need be, you could tap it. Now provision, recent or past will stop you if you have made up your mind. But for those who see this as an exit strategy for a bad decision, this Act will add to the problem.

I know it’s old school but it is worth repeating: get a budget (and figure worse case scenario, not current spending habits to allow a downturn picture to standout), attempt to negotiate before the problem strikes (ironically, most job losses are not a surprise) and divide this time and the future into two separate lifetimes. Borrowing – or in this case, stealing from the future is not a good short-term remedy. It is a bandaid on a gapping wound.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of BlueCollarDollar.com/Target2025.com and a fellow Boomer.

Paul's latest book "ReBuilding Wealth in a Paycheck to Paycheck World" is available at Smashwords

The Laws of the Cartoon World

Remember Saturday mornings, cartoon, pajamas and a bowl of cereal. We entered into a world of animation that had rules in play we knew only existed there. Boomers may have forgotten those laws and have grown up thinking that was then, this is now. But perhaps...

It all seems so otherworldly these days. As if everything that seems familiar isn’t and the laws the govern rational – and often irrational behavior no longer apply. Markets are up then down and then post the worst third quarter in recent memory – and we’re not sure what that means. Does it indicate something wicked this way comes or perhaps the end of the episode? So I turned to some laws that explain the world of finance, retirement and just getting-by in a world gone wacky.

Cartoon Law I.

“Any body suspended in space will remain in space until made aware of its situation.” We basically have two things to focus on: our future and what will happen next. We are continually being told to invest, max-out that 401(k), do everything you can now, pain equals pleasure which has replaced risk equals reward. That is until we chance to look down. And you know what happens next.

Cartoon Law II.

“Any body in motion will tend to remain in motion until solid matter intervenes suddenly.” Our retirement goals have experienced this law firsthand.  Hitting the cartoon telephone pole at full speed is, as this Law II suggests, the only way to stop forward motion with any success. There is the comic slide down the pole immediately following the impact which can only mean two things: we will sit as the cartoon stars whirl around our collective heads, trying to regain our reason for moving forward. Once our heads are cleared, Law II is waiting with the next pole a little further down the road.

Cartoon Law III.

“Any body passing through solid matter will leave a perforation conforming to its perimeter.” If you follow the markets, any markets, no matter how much information you think you have, now matter how timely it seems to be, the person in front of you will create their own cookie-cutter hole, exit, leaving you to get ahead of the problem that no one, including you is sure is a problem.  So instead of leaving by the door, they exit through a wall, evidently not a solid enough surface to allow Cartoon Law II to come into play.  We are at the mercy of speculators it seems who apparently have little regard for laws of supply and demand but understand two things: your predictable behavior and the ability of cartoon physics to protect them.

Cartoon Law IV.

“The time required for an object to fall twenty stories is greater than or equal to the time it takes for whoever knocked it off the ledge to spiral down twenty flights to attempt to capture it unbroken.” This is my favorite axiom of all.  Who among us has not seen the Federal Reserve try and do this?  We are watching this occur as we speak as Fed chairman Ben Bernanke races down the stairs with his latest effort in Operation Twist. Only Cartoon Law IV is a waste of time.  The priceless nature of the economy, the object hurtling through global space in this instance, falls victim to the inevitable comic result: it might be too big to fail but the attempt to catch it will prove unsuccessful as well.

Cartoon Law V.

“All principles of gravity are negated by fear.” I offer last quarter’s frenetic trading as proof that investors can spin their feet so quickly that they do not touch the ground while any news good or bad propels most of them straight up a flag pole. These days many average investors are left scratching their heads as they realize that just the sound of the unknown can change the direction of the market dramatically.

Cartoon Law VI.

“As speed increases, objects can be in several places at once.” You know this one as the cloud of dust and debris brawl, to be witnessed as the candidates begin their battle for the White House.  With the economy hanging in the balance or at least by their telling of the tale, the next year should provide numerous occasions of spinning and throttling as no candidate so far can pinpoint where the nation is right now and offer a plan of where we should be.

Cartoon Law VII.

“Certain bodies can pass through solid walls painted to resemble tunnel entrances; others cannot.” This inconsistency has played itself out to great effect in housing.  The folks who stand at the helm of the economy have painted an imaginary tunnel and allowed millions of Americans to pass through but when those that needed help the most attempted to follow, the surface was once again solid. This trick surface has left many wondering why something cohesive can’t be done. Housing may never recover if recovery is gauged by where it was. Yet so many people are wondering why the supposedly smart financial people who aided and abetted in this financial crime won’t simply understand that they have an option – and it isn’t achieved by raising ATM or debit card fees.

Cartoon Law VIII.

“Cartoon cats have more than the traditional nine lives.” They become like water snapping back to whatever they were prior to their mishap, even assuming the shape of the container if they happen to find themselves in one.   Seems that we alone know this to be true and no matter how many times the economy can be “decimated, spliced, splayed, accordion-pleated, spindled, or disassembled, it cannot be destroyed.” It becomes the equivalent of a cartoon mulligan. Someone please tell those in Washington. They think that what the economy needs is simple: more self-regulation and perhaps a little agency consolidation, a trillion dollar cut in spending here and an entitlement cutback there. We’ve seen it before and it gives us hope. We know that after the economy regains its shape, these set-backs (weak dollar, global slowdowns, market volatility and commodity speculation) will prove there are lessons we haven’t really learned and why should we have. We are pretty confident as a group that we will have another life to do it over again. At  least we hope that this cartoon law is real.

Cartoon Law IX.

“Necessity plus Will provokes spontaneous generation.” This opens the door to the “controversial pocket theory” which  “suggests objects can be drawn from unseen recesses of a character’s costume, or from a storehouse immediately off-screen” or can be borrowed directly from what you will owe at some point in the future.  And then, as if by magic, this future they tell us will just show up as if it “merely defers the question of how any absolutely apt object is instantaneously available”. Of course, you do need to believe in magic and if magic is the suspension of disbelief, saving will help – a lot.

Cartoon Law X

“For every vengeance there is an equal and opposite re-vengeance.” This is the one law of animated cartoon motion that also applies to the physical world at large. The bottom line is that we are not to blame. Each time I talk to an expert on my radio show we are told is our behavior that is the reason we are in the mess we are in. Every nuance we have is examined and studied and plans for re-vengeance are hatched. It has become us versus them. Instead of financial products getting simpler and more easy to understand, they ultimately become more nuanced, more layered with possibilities and as they get less expensive, they don’t become less expensive. It seems that all we want is to fall on the right side of cartoon law.

These laws were borrowed liberally from “Elementary Education” by Mark O’Donnell (Knopf (1985) in the hope that when you encounter these situations, you may fall on the right side of cartoon law.

Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor or Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com and a fellow Boomer.

Remember how You once thought of Old?

Boomers have no problem with admitting they are getting old. They may not want to face the realities of age but the facts are there - if only in the reflection staring back from the mirror.

Remember when old was anything just a generation ahead of you. If you were ten, anyone in their thirties, more often than not, your parents and their friends, your teachers and coaches, were all old to you. It seems that as you got older, the definition of what old was was pushed back further. By the time you were 30, old was fifty. Why do we place such importance on this bookmarkers of passing time? Because each "old" has its own problems, not just health-wise as our bodies age, but financially as well.


Everyone has an answer to the conundrum of age. When it comes to money, the issues seems to double in size and complication and as a result, weigh much more on what our next stage of old will be like. You are told to invest in your retirement early and often even as the only word financial word you have any real acquaintance with is debt. In your early to late twenties, it manifests as college debt and the high cost of flying on your own for the first time. You invest little for retirement and pass up the financial golden ring to pay-as-you-go because you will never be old.

And then, a decade or so later, you are older faced with mortgages and kids and schools, saving for college, insurances and taxes and simply keeping pace with your family. You have begun to invest but in a piecemeal way. You may be auto-enrolled in your company's 401(k) if your workplace has one. If not, you probably haven't done much, at least regularly with investing for old when left to your own devices. You may have lumped summed it, which is bette than having done nothing, by dropping tax returns or bonuses in some IRA. But old costs more than you might have and debt, that first word you learned upon getting your diploma, is probably still a very real participant in your day-to-day decisions.

Forty is better and older but you now feel the bruden, mostly in the form of guilt at having underinvested. Now you struggle with older kids, college realities and aging parents. You probably have refinanced you home and if you are like many Americans, still paying for a vacation you took a couple years back all the while planning on the next. If you are like most, you haven't increased your payroll deduction in your 401(k) since you enrolled and probably haven't done much in the way of rebalancing or choosing the best age-appropriate investments.

Fifty, the real old, hits you like a ton of bricks. You may have some or all of the same problems you did at 30 (I hope not) and at 40 (kids are failing to launch, parents are a real concern) but now you grasp them to their fullest. And with a gasp and a moan, you realize that you will have to work until you are 70. the oldest person alive when you were 10.
Here are five basic things to do if you realized you are old. Or 50.

1. Get your head around any and all debt. Nothing will bring a future to its knees faster than paying interest on borrowed money.
2. Get out a calculator. Not just the physical kind but the online kind as well. As much as I dislike these tools, because one allows this input while another doesn't, just take the raw data: how much is currently in your retirement accounts, estimating that they will grow until you decide to retire at a modest 4% (this accounts for mistakes you can't know about like inflation and taxes) with a modest 4% withdrawal if asked to enter this as well and hit enter. Now take that number, usually expressed as a annual income, divide it by twelve and ask yourself, can you live on this?
3. Ask yourself is this enough? If it is 75% of what you currently need to live on, you aren't just old you're wise too. It its less than that, you will need to rethink your cost of shelter, the amount of money you spend each month and in doing so, channel every available cent to the plan you have in place. It might seem like a huge hurdle and it is. But you are running out of time. It means budget, budget, budget.

Of course, it goes without saying that starting early is best. And it also goes without saying the every age has its own setbacks financially. But every age has its potential for success and as you age, the potential doesn't go away, it simply becomes a little more challenging. Worrying about money as many surveys suggest we do, will not fix the problem. Why? Because worrying is the purview of someone who has no control over a situation happening. This one is all yours and well within your ability to control.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com and a fellow Boomer

The Time of Your Life: Boomers Have Choices to Make

I wanted to take moment to address Baby Boomers, both early and late. Now this doesn't preclude those who fall into the various other generational groups that have emerged on the scene since that term was coined. In fact, those among you that are young(er) could benefit even more by the following retirement planning suggestion than Boomers could. But it is all about the timing.

There are two things which continue to pop up in missive such as these. Diversification is always key and should always be part of the subtle and not-so-subtle conversations about about investments. Although only a few of us actually achieve this, it is still worth the effort. Why do you ask is this simple sounding process, one described as not investing all your eggs in one basket so hard to accomplish?

Diversification is often too easy to explain away, either by the successes you may have achieved while ignoring it or simply by complacency. In other words, you know better but have an excuse why you fail to do anything about it.
Suppose for example you purchased the stock in your company's 401(k) plan because, it was perhaps inexpensive to do so (lower than open market transaction costs might be a reason) or because it is the only match the plan offers to something like I-really-believe-in-the-business you work for also believing it will always be great and therefore, worth investing in).

All good reason to buy the company. Yet we often buy so much that if something did happen and something always does, we create an imbalance in a plan that is meant to last a lifetime. You know better and often only acknowledge the fact after it is too late to do anything. Diversification could be as important as being the eleventh commandment.

The downside consequence of failing to diversify and be reversed in a number of different ways. You could educate yourself about what the plan offers and in doing so, do what you had been promising yourself you would do for a long time. You will find out that if your company is among the top 500, you probably own additional exposure in an index fund, in a large cap equity fund, perhaps in a target date fund and even some exposure in a fixed income fund as well. Combine all of those together and you can no longer claim to be diversified. If you ever could make the claim.

You have a wide variety of funds in a 401(k). Most offer about 20 options and even if those plans are costly (many 401(k)s have boasted that they have found funds with lower expenses and then turned around and raised your administrative costs), they are what you have to work with. So spread out you exposure to one stock across all of those funds. If you have more than 20% of your 401(k) in one stock, you have too much. And there are more than a few of you who have over 70% invested.


Now I mentioned this was directed towards Boomers and I also mentioned there were two things. The other is asset allocation. Diversification and asset allocation are not one in the same yet are close enough to be inseparable. Often, looking to achieve one, you will help fix the other.

Asset allocation suggest that because you can choose from so many different types of investments (stock, bonds, funds that offer both, commodities, and perhaps other investment options as well) you should be taking steps to minimize the risk you may have taken in your youth so as to protect what those risks have rewarded you with. Because there is only so much money to go around, moving from a big exposure in stocks to something more conservative, such as a fixed income investment, could help solve the diversification issue.

Not always though. I'd be willing to wager that if you do begin, perhaps as part of this suggestion to realign your assets, you will probably sell your investment in the company store last. And by doing so, you increase your exposure to one investment and by default, actually decrease your diversification - or what little you had. If you must, put a number that you are trying to get that outsized investment in your company's stock down to and sell it to get there. Perhaps 20% would be as good a goal as none.


Now back to the Boomers. You have two opportunities to help you with both your asset allocation and your diversification issue, if you have any. And it is all about the timing. Coming up in April 1st, those who are 70 1/1 need to begin taking distributions. The first wave of baby boomers officially retired this year as well. If you haven't changed your asset allocation or diversified your investment significantly to protect yourself, choosing which money to begin spending can help.

If you begin disbursements this year, sell off the stock side of your portfolio first. This keeps any failure on your part from becoming bigger as time goes on. The longer you hold on to equities, the longer your risk stays high.
Now some of you close to retirement can achieve somewhat the same effect by investing any tax return (or bonus) into a fixed income fund. You have until April 18th to do this; later if you are filing an extension.

You can also begin to redirect how your money is invested in your 401(k) as well. Less going to stock and more towards protecting what you have earned is always sage advice but few of us actually sell one thing to move into something more conservative. Particularly if there is a nice run on the stock market occurring at the time. Waiting until a bear market simply means you waited too long. Target date funds are attempting this but have yet to prove that they can achieve this.

There is only so much money to go into your retirement account and if you are maxing it out, congratulations. But if you aren't increasing your contribution levels can help you achieve both asset allocation and diversification, simply by choosing something new that fits the concept.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com and a fellow Boomer.

A Birthday Not-so-jubilantly Celebrated: Your 401K turns 30

It seemed like a good idea. But you have to consider where we were in terms of retirement when the line in the tax code was uncovered. We had pensions and companies didn't much like the idea. These defined benefit plans were designed to keep employees in one job over an entire career and add to that, they were costly and unpredictable. For the employee, the time needed to vest was often long, sometimes as much as ten-years, and the pension once vested, although it was yours, could not be brought with you should you find a better job somewhere else.

The pension also represented the ability to increase your retirement income as your pay increased. This trade-off from human capital in the first years of employment to retirement capital in the later years, made the company liable for the investments and the guarantees that the money would be there. Higher paid workers, often in much higher tax brackets than we have today, were allowed to also save money after those taxes.

When Ted Benna found this line in the tax code (section 401(k) 30 years ago, he realized that this was the answer to what his higher paid clients were looking for: the ability to put money away on a pre-tax basis and if the company so chose to do, it could match those dollars. Business saw this as a way to shed those obligations of managing their pensions and shift the obligation of retirement to the employee.

Sure, the company said, we'll help. We'll hire some experts to set up a plan, we'll load it with a bunch of investments and we'll act as fiduciaries. Heck, they said, we'll even provide the incentive of a match - even though these companies would lace it would all sorts of caveats much like the vesting period of the pension. Yet it would, in their minds, be the answer to a question they had not asked but possibly should have.

Even better, these new plans would be portable. You could take the money you had put aside with you when you left. Once again, this was more a win for the company than the employee, who often left before they got the fully vested match and was forced to roll the money into their own IRA. The fully vested match is often something that happens over time, sometimes as long as ten-years, more commonly over five years.

It can work in a number of ways and this information is part of the Investment Policy Statement that every plan has and few people read. During your first year, you might get the company match - in theory - but if you were to leave, it would not go with you; only the money you had invested would be yours. Perhaps by year two, the company would allow you to take 25% of the company match, and each successive year, a little more. Some companies give the full 100% after five years. So consider the employee who finds a new and better job opportunity and decides to quit a week before the five year waiting period is up. They would lose five years of company matching funds simply because they didn't wait.

This line in the tax code also created a multi-layer business to accommodate this plan, from mutual fund houses to insurance companies to brokers at the investment level to third party administrators and lawyers to help with the legalities. This line in the tax code also created some huge problems for the worker.

Now they needed to find investments in those plans to give them the best retirement. They needed to participate beginning as early as possible and stay involved as long as possible. They needed to get historic returns and be disciplined in an endeavor they had little or no knowledge about prior to this shift. It was a great social experiment in self-help that has failed many people. It also helped a great many people who might not have had much otherwise.

But the plan has problems that have never been suitably addressed, in part because of the belief that people wouldn't allow these provisions. One problem that should have been better adressed was the portability part of the plan. Mr. Benna in a recent interview with the Baltimore Sun bemoaned this ability to "take the money with you". He knew that our natures would get in the way of the right choice. Too many people would cash the plan out, pay the penalties and the taxes and squander the early start that these plans depend on. He thinks that the employee would be better served being forced to leave the money at the old employer.

He also knew that if the 401(k) allowed for a borrowing provision, people would use it. Mr. Benna's redesign of the 401(k) would include auto-enrollment and auto-deductions that would begin at 4% and increase until they reached 10%. He also admits to the problems in target date funds (which we have discussed here in previous essays) but thinks the idea is right. People make emotional choices with their investments and target date funds are designed to take that emotion out of your hands.

Of course you could opt-out but history has shown that few people do. He also suggested that this plan should be, in a perfect world, a supplement to a pension plan. But he was quick to point out that companies still have problems with the predictability of pension costs. Much the same way 401(k) investors have difficulty with investment risks.

In either case and even if you are fortunate enough to have both types of plans, the responsibility of your retirement is still with you. Arriving as close to it debt free is still the best approach to retirement. Investing as much as you can and then more, perhaps twice what you think you can afford, is a better plan. Think of retirement as a storm that is approaching. You wouldn't gather enough supplies to last for a day or two. You would get more than you need. Most folks have not filled their retirement pantries with much more than a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter. How prepared are you for a storm that is likely to last for thirty years?

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com and a fellow Boomer

Is Dollar Cost Averaging Old School?

There is a school of thought circulating that dollar cost averaging is not smart investing. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, it is how your 401(k) plan works and why it works so well. You essentially make a contribution determination - usually a percentage of income which is taken before taxes ore levied - and each paycheck, you buy share of whatever investment you have chosen in your retirement account.

The concept is basically simple enough for most every investor to understand, even embrace. One, the investment is steady and in many cases affordable and painless. Because of its automatic nature, you need only check your statement every quarter to make sure the money went into the account and went where it was supposed to go.

DCA also benefits the average retirement investor with some control over the numerous errors that plague most investors. By doling out money evenly, your investments are bought based on affordability and not on the decision of the herd. Herd decision making relies on following the rest ofthe investors as they sell or buy and experience with this sort of mentality suggests that they usually buy when the markets are on the way up and sell as they descend.

DCA does something unique. It allows the investor to buy less as the herd buys more and to buy more as the herd sells. Imagine a share of a mutual fund costing a dollar. You allocate one dollar of your paycheck and you buy one share. But the market goes up and the share now costs $2. DCA restricts your enthusiasm at joining the herd and allows you to only buy one-half a share. the shares you already own have increased in value so you aren't missing the upswing. You just aren't throwing more money at something that may be over valued.

Now imagine the opposite happening. The share falls in value to 50 cents. Your dollar buys two shares and while it is true, your other shares have lost value in the process, the investment thinking here is that over the long-term, there will be more upsides than downsides. This means that you will be buying the same share at a discount.

Are there any downsides to this investment strategy? Some think so. One gentleman I was discussing this with suggested that folks using a 401(k) plan should never forget that this is investing. I couldn't agree with him more on that point. He went on to say that even the most passive investing requires some diligence and dollar cost averaging takes that diligence away. That is a downside but not an insurmountable one.

He thought that all of the money in a given year should be sent to the most conservative fund available in the employee's 401(k) and then redistributed to funds that are doing better. While this may work for some people, few of us know how mutual funds operate, whether the markets are favorable or not and often we find out after the markets have made the decision for us, and lastly, our 401(k) do supply the rapid response some of this thinking implies.

It does require a skill level and command of all of the emotions and biases that plague even seasoned investors. It obligates us to be better educated - but for most of us, we need time to get to that point. It is always my hope that we do attempt to become better acquainted with the way our money is being invested. But in the mean time, the concept of dollar cost averaging serves far too many of the average investors too well to be discarded.

Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor of BlueCollarDollar.com/Target2025.com and a fellow Boomer

Are you planning for retirement when you should be managing it?

Boomers know all too well what it's like to be close to retirement. But I have always been concerned with the phrase. Just saying it make the whole process seem like a carrot on a stick, always within sight; never quite reachable. Why does it have to be like that? is I there perhaps a better way to planning for retirement? Possibly the key is in the management.

From the minute you put your first dollar to work for you in 410(k) or an IRA, you were close to retirement. Age suggested you were closer but we soon learned that it wasn't so much a date on a calendar that determined the retirement scenario. It was the date plus the money you had invested.

Unfortunately, this is sort of backwards. The approach can be forgiven in part because we are constantly exposed to planning as the key to getting from that first dollar to that toes-in-the-sand-drink-in-your-hand place called retirement. Planning offers us some solace that we are doing something. What we find out too late is that "something" in more prone to failure than we had previously anticipated. So we back-off, give-up, resign ourselves, or worse, make the same mistakes again.

Why would we, knowing what failure tastes like continue to make the same mistakes? We are groomed to do what we have always thought was the right thing to do: plan. Fredrich Hayek, the Nobel prize winning economists suggested that you can't possibly know everything at once - there is simply too much data and it is happening too fast. Trying to collect in one place to make a decision is only asking for trouble. There is an African proverb that suggests only a fool test the water's depth with both feet. So why do we think we can jump into retirement using only one tool?

We are conditioned in our business dealings to think that we can control various aspects of the world around us, bending it to our will. But these are simply reactions to what has already passed. And that further conditions us to accept failing as long as, according to Francois Gadenne, CFA, who is the current co-founder, chairman and executive director of the Retirement Income Industry Association in Boston: "To succeed we must fail, early and often -- and cheaply."

Writing in a recent edition of AdvisorOne, Mr. Gadenne sought to reverse the planning of retirement by suggesting that it should be a management of funds. By building what he calls a funded floor, you are essentially unable to make big bets about an uncertain future. He blames the current state of retirement on the idea of central planning. Central planning becomes rationale on top of failed rationale and that is not based on what could happen but rather who is in charge when it did.

He writes: "Retirement income advisory processes should work like market prices rather than like central planning because, once we move beyond didactic examples, central planning cannot be smart enough or large enough or coercive enough to overcome the knowledge problem in the real world." In some ways, he seems to be deflecting the blame, something we are very comfortable doing when it comes to our money. Planners should merely advise and review that advice annually.

This seems to give advisors some distance between what you are doing and what you should be doing it. That chasm can become incredibly wide and because you are mostly conditioned to react to after-the-fact events, it is now you, not those who advise you, who are responsible for your failure to manage while trying to make a plan succeed.

Because retirement planning - or management - is often so far away and the people involved in the earliest stages of this process have probably drifted away, it is a wholly "you" process. You bring the mistakes that you have been conditioned to bring. When things get risky and when the risk costs too much, you take fewer of them because you know that they are less expensive. And because the retirement pundits also suggest that the earlier you start, the better opportunity you have to weather the downturns that await us, we accept them, regret them and learn to move on. And often repeat them.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of BlueCollarDollar.com/Target2025.com and a fellow Boomer.