What does it mean when the stock market is on a manic trend that is contrary to the underlying economic climate?
Who makes all these bubbles that suck the savings out of America and where does the money go?
Most importantly: What should you DO about it?
Here's the post-show video:
NOW LISTEN TO THE SHOW! (Click the podcast below)
MP3 File
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Surviving the Next 10 Years in America's Economy!
Why are the stock market and the economy so disrelated in their future outlook? What do investors do when they took a beating in the market from '08-09, and now they sit on the sidelines while the current rally back up is getting right past them?
Special FREE offer at the end of this video.
If you have substantial retirement savings and are wondering what to do now that we are seeing the first "green shoots" after the worst recession since the 1930's WATCH THE VIDEO ABOVE. What could be next? Will stocks fall again from a "W" recovery? Will Hyper-Inflation rear its ugly head?
A Special FREE Educational video for the listeners and fans of Straight Talk Wealth Radio. Visit us at straighttalkwealth.com
Special FREE offer at the end of this video.
If you have substantial retirement savings and are wondering what to do now that we are seeing the first "green shoots" after the worst recession since the 1930's WATCH THE VIDEO ABOVE. What could be next? Will stocks fall again from a "W" recovery? Will Hyper-Inflation rear its ugly head?
A Special FREE Educational video for the listeners and fans of Straight Talk Wealth Radio. Visit us at straighttalkwealth.com
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
YOUR IRA IS A TICKING TAX TIME BOMB!
James Johnson give us a taste of the strategies he's learned from Ed Slott to extract hard working people from living a tax nightmare when they retire. Very informative. Bruce is wacked, as always.
MP3 File
MP3 File
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Why Would HARRY DENT Say, "NOW is the time to SELL"?
This week's show had a lot of substance. You're going to hear exactly what data and analysis that market forecaster, Harry Dent, bases his predictions on. This is VITAL information if you've been thinking about getting back into the market. You might think twice after hearing what Mr. Dent has to say.
Determine for yourself how right or wrong he may be.
Featuring Harry Dent's Orange County affiliate, Scott Warner, of Life Design Financial.
MP3 File
Determine for yourself how right or wrong he may be.
Featuring Harry Dent's Orange County affiliate, Scott Warner, of Life Design Financial.
MP3 File
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Retirement Road Map
Did you know that 2.4 million people lost their jobs in 2008? In such unstable times, it seems impossible to beat risk and volatility. But there are things you can do to ensure you are living with safe money, and we want to share them with you.
MP3 File
MP3 File
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Employers Face New Legal Threat from 401(k)s
L.A. Times reports today "High Court Allows Workers to Sue Over 401(K) Losses" . If you missed it you can dig it up from the Saving and Investing News Section of my website.
What does this mean? It may mean that a gaping liability has opened up for small and mid-size business owners that don't have the funds for high-powered attorneys to defend them against employees that are ticked off that the stock market often and predictably does go down.
I started in to this article with my curiosity piqued, turning to utter dismay as I plowed through. Seems that a Texas man had instructed his 401(k) administrator to move his stocks and mutual fund allocations toward bonds, and thereby hedging some protection from the stock market tumbling. Oops, the administrator dropped the ball and didn't get it done. Dumb---! A couple of months down in the stock market and $150,000 in retirement losses later, it was now the employer's job to mop up a very expensive mess, by order of the court.
Now definitely, somebody needs to be responsible for dropping the ball on this worker. You don't ignore trading orders. That's inexcusable. But look for what's missing in this report and you'll see the elephant in the drawing room. We don't know who the administrator was, and what their relationship was to the employer. Unless this was a rather unusual circumstance, the poor employer is getting nailed for what had been mishandled by the people whom he has hired and paid for their services to correctly and responsibly deal with administering the plan.
In most cases, the business owner just wants to provide a benefit to help their employees plan for retirement. He or she is running the construction company, or the tech services group, or the plant. Come one, they're not an investment consultant. No, they hire Oppenheimer, or American Funds, or someone like that to take care of all that for them and they pay fees for it. But typically, it's the group they hire that administrates the plans, not Joe Jones of Jones Construction.
So if Acme Financial Services fails to live up to their fees that Joe Jones pays, then Joe Jones deserves to be sued for it? What sense does that make? You might think it makes "deep pockets" sense, but I'm not even sure that's true. Most of the financial services giants are going to have a lot deeper pockets than Joe Jones.
The articles continues that "This opens the door to a variety of worker lawsuits, including challenges to the fees that workers are charged to administer their savings plans". Oh yeah, right - the owner pays the big fees for Acme to administer the plan, but gets sued for the fees that Acme charges the employees if they don't like them or don't read what they're signing.
Please get this - I'm not complaining that the workers have a right to sue someone for ignoring trading orders or hiding excessive fees. I have not one iota of disagreement with it. What I don't understand is why they are suing the employers who were also let down by the administrators, for the administrators' negligence.
So what's the take-away here? Well, first of all, you better understand that any Qualified Retirement Plan (SEP's, Simple IRAs, Profit Sharing Plans, etc) is going to carry the same liability to whatever develops from here. It's certainly not exclusive to 401(k)s.
Second of all, as the article mentions, being as this will make it easier for workers to be compensated for someone negligently screwing up their retirement plan, there's going to be a period of defining what qualifies for "screwing up", so to speak. And there will be a wave of court battles to expect for it.
But my take-away is more personal. For years I have been advocating that most business owners and key executives tend to have a completely different personal economy than the rank and file. As such, they begin with a tactical mistake in trying to fit their own retirement planning into a retirement plan designed by Congress to favor the rank and file - and set their future on a course for critical tax nightmares when they retire, and now add to that a whole heap of newly gained legal liabilities for the administrators they hire.
Retirement plans for the rank and file may not be the best choice for owners, officers and key executives. Fact is that there are a world of alternatives out there to reduce taxes and better leverage corporate wealth than a pedestrian Profit Sharing or 401(k) plan. I still don't get why they're so little known about.
Point is, if you want a benefit plan for your employees, get a Qualified Retirement Plan in place and just make sure to allocate just a little bit more to your legal defense fund ahead of time. But if you're starting with a plan for the boss, there may be better ways to go.
What does this mean? It may mean that a gaping liability has opened up for small and mid-size business owners that don't have the funds for high-powered attorneys to defend them against employees that are ticked off that the stock market often and predictably does go down.
I started in to this article with my curiosity piqued, turning to utter dismay as I plowed through. Seems that a Texas man had instructed his 401(k) administrator to move his stocks and mutual fund allocations toward bonds, and thereby hedging some protection from the stock market tumbling. Oops, the administrator dropped the ball and didn't get it done. Dumb---! A couple of months down in the stock market and $150,000 in retirement losses later, it was now the employer's job to mop up a very expensive mess, by order of the court.
Now definitely, somebody needs to be responsible for dropping the ball on this worker. You don't ignore trading orders. That's inexcusable. But look for what's missing in this report and you'll see the elephant in the drawing room. We don't know who the administrator was, and what their relationship was to the employer. Unless this was a rather unusual circumstance, the poor employer is getting nailed for what had been mishandled by the people whom he has hired and paid for their services to correctly and responsibly deal with administering the plan.
In most cases, the business owner just wants to provide a benefit to help their employees plan for retirement. He or she is running the construction company, or the tech services group, or the plant. Come one, they're not an investment consultant. No, they hire Oppenheimer, or American Funds, or someone like that to take care of all that for them and they pay fees for it. But typically, it's the group they hire that administrates the plans, not Joe Jones of Jones Construction.
So if Acme Financial Services fails to live up to their fees that Joe Jones pays, then Joe Jones deserves to be sued for it? What sense does that make? You might think it makes "deep pockets" sense, but I'm not even sure that's true. Most of the financial services giants are going to have a lot deeper pockets than Joe Jones.
The articles continues that "This opens the door to a variety of worker lawsuits, including challenges to the fees that workers are charged to administer their savings plans". Oh yeah, right - the owner pays the big fees for Acme to administer the plan, but gets sued for the fees that Acme charges the employees if they don't like them or don't read what they're signing.
Please get this - I'm not complaining that the workers have a right to sue someone for ignoring trading orders or hiding excessive fees. I have not one iota of disagreement with it. What I don't understand is why they are suing the employers who were also let down by the administrators, for the administrators' negligence.
So what's the take-away here? Well, first of all, you better understand that any Qualified Retirement Plan (SEP's, Simple IRAs, Profit Sharing Plans, etc) is going to carry the same liability to whatever develops from here. It's certainly not exclusive to 401(k)s.
Second of all, as the article mentions, being as this will make it easier for workers to be compensated for someone negligently screwing up their retirement plan, there's going to be a period of defining what qualifies for "screwing up", so to speak. And there will be a wave of court battles to expect for it.
But my take-away is more personal. For years I have been advocating that most business owners and key executives tend to have a completely different personal economy than the rank and file. As such, they begin with a tactical mistake in trying to fit their own retirement planning into a retirement plan designed by Congress to favor the rank and file - and set their future on a course for critical tax nightmares when they retire, and now add to that a whole heap of newly gained legal liabilities for the administrators they hire.
Retirement plans for the rank and file may not be the best choice for owners, officers and key executives. Fact is that there are a world of alternatives out there to reduce taxes and better leverage corporate wealth than a pedestrian Profit Sharing or 401(k) plan. I still don't get why they're so little known about.
Point is, if you want a benefit plan for your employees, get a Qualified Retirement Plan in place and just make sure to allocate just a little bit more to your legal defense fund ahead of time. But if you're starting with a plan for the boss, there may be better ways to go.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Sorry to Say "I Told You So"
San Fernando Valley Business Journal – December 24, 2007 I saw Jason Schaff at the 50 Fastest Growing event last month, and he just about turned white when he looked my way, like he’d just seen a dead man walking! I haven’t written for the Journal in over a year and Jason thought he might need to start checking the obituary pages for my name.
Believe me, it wasn’t easy for me to sit silent. But I have had two excuses. One - good year for business. I’m an advisor to my clients first and a big mouth editorialist second.
The second excuse relates to the first indirectly. And that is, I already told you so! Why should I say it all again and again?
Back in early 2006 I kept screaming “It’s over! End of real estate boom.” Seems like no genius now, but back then I suggested some rather serious medicine be taken to preserve home equity values, even if that was still early enough for the majority to wait and see. And all that’s been going on newsworthy since that time is exactly what I said would happen. That big sucking sound!
So what’s your home equity look like today? Had enough? Well, sorry to remind you that the worst may be yet to come. Consider that in 2008 about half a trillion dollars' worth of Option ARMs are due to reset to a higher mortgage rate as their two-year teaser rate period comes to an end. (Good thing that my opinions don’t necessarily reflect those of the SFVBJ. Please keep buying the Journal, real estate brokers.)
Last year, I quoted John R. Talbott, visiting scholar at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management, in his book Sell Now, The End of the Housing Bubble, (2006 St. Martin’s Griffins) when he wrote:
…you need to know that today’s high housing prices are an abnormal bubble about to burst…”
Talbott nailed it when he demonstrated in his book that outrageously low interest rates combined with obscenely easy credit had falsely inflated the housing markets, and it was coming to an end in a big way.
What I didn’t tell you about then is when he also said:
It is not fair to say that the current boom [2000-2005]will fully reverse itself, but is accurate to say that if it does not, it will be the first time in a century tat a boom in real prices actually stuck. (Note: Talbott has removed relative inflationary increases from the equation.)
But personally I don’t really even care about investment losses and gains and strategies in the short run. What I DO care about is this, and it is no small concern: There are 78 million Baby Boomers heading into retirement soon enough, and the average 401K balance is about $50,000! Sure, you guys have done better, but that means that a lot of Boomers have done worse! And the ONLY wealth they have fortuitously accumulated over recent years is (was) the equity in their home! Bye-bye.
My point is that the worst part of the real estate crash is that what little shot at a comfortable retirement a lot of the working class may have accumulated despite themselves, it’s now on the final run to vaporize right in front of their eyes, and they don’t even know it.
But that’s the trick. Now you’re talking inflation, weak dollar, unstable markets, and Uncle Sam’s increasing cut. I guess I need to write more next issue. I’ll tell you how to duck those problems, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
