31% of Americans have no retirement savings or pensions

According to a report by the Federal Reserve, 31% of Americans have no retirement savings or pension.

The following data is from the Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2013 and 2014 provided by the Federal Reserve.  A comparison of those without retirement plans in 2013 and 2014 by age group are as follows:

2013 2014
% with No % with No
Age Retirement Plan Retirement Plan
18-29 51% 53%
30-44 28% 29%
45-59 23% 23%
60 and older 15% 25%
Overall 31% 31%

In 2014, the percentage of people without retirement plans increased in most age brackets.  This is a missed opportunity for all ages, but more of a miss for those that are younger who can have the biggest impact with compounding.   You will accumulate more by investing more when you are younger and less when you are older.  Unfortunately it is usually the other way around, with many investing less when they are younger and more as they get older.

I was personally surprised that 25% of those age 60 and older have no retirement plan. If you are in this group and you are still working, you should start saving immediately. Every age group should be saving for their retirement.

In the 2014 report, respondents were asked why they did not invest in a retirement plan, to which 42% responded that their employer did not offer a plan, and 6% said that their employer did not match contributions.  Another 29% said that they cannot afford to contribute.

If you are not contributing to a retirement plan because your employer does not offer a plan, then you should open a Roth IRA (if you have at least 5 years to retirement).   With a Roth IRA, it must be invested for 5 years in order to get the tax advantages.  With a Roth, you do not get a tax deduction for the amount you contribute, but when you take the money out when you retire, it is all tax free, (assuming you had the account for at least 5 years).

If the reason you do not have a retirement plan is that your company does not offer a match, you should either participate in that plan anyway or open a Roth IRA as described above.  One advantage to participating in your company plan even without a match is that you are allowed to contribute much more than you can with a Roth IRA.

For those that are self-employed, you have several options.  You can open an individual 401(k),  a SEP IRA, or a SIMPLE IRA.  All of these plans allow you to contribute much more than a Traditional or Roth IRA.

If you are not contributing because you cannot afford it, you should start by investing a small percentage and try to increase it over time.

Everyone needs a retirement plan.   It will be difficult to live on social security alone.

 

Credit Cards – Why you should never just pay the minimum payment

You should always pay your credit cards in full, but since so many people carry a balance, I thought I would give you an idea what you are paying for your purchases when you carry a balance.

The Credit Card Accountability Disclosure Act of 2010 requires that your monthly credit card bill include information on how long it will take you to pay off your balance if you only make minimum payments, and how much you will end up paying.

Bank of America gives an example on their website explaining what happens if you pay only the minimum payment.  In their example, you use your credit card and have a balance of $1,500 and an interest rate of 18%.  The bank charges a minimum payment of $37 per month, which is 1% of your current balance plus interest charges.  If you pay only the minimum payment, it will take you 159 months (13 ¼ years) to pay it off, and you will pay $1,760 for interest – so the total you will pay for your $1,500 purchase, will be $3,260!  In this scenario, you pay more than double your original purchase.

In this same example where the minimum payment was $37 per month, did you know that if you pay just $10 a month more than the minimum payment (you would pay $47 per month instead of $37 per month), you would save $1,202 in interest and pay off the total 10 years sooner!  The example from Bank of America was for a relatively small amount.  With larger amounts you will pay more interest.

I’d like to give you a real life example too.  This summer I purchased a new fence for my yard.  At the store where I purchased the fence, they offered a credit card with no interest for 18 months, but the rate after the 18 months would be 21%.   If you had a balance at the end of that 18 months, they would go back and charge interest for the entire period.  So I put the fence on the card, knowing I would pay it off before that so I would not incur any interest charges.  As mentioned above, the credit card company is obligated to provide information on how long it will take you to pay off your balance if you only make minimum payments, and how much you will end up paying.  The amount I put on the card was $9,770.    As required, they showed that if I paid only the minimum payment, I would be paying for 27 years, and would pay a total of $32,897!  That is 3.36 times the original cost of the fence.  I would be paying $23,127 for interest.  There is no value added for that money.  It is money spent for nothing!

These two examples assume that you do not add any other purchases to the card.  If you continue to charge, and make only minimum payments, you will never get out of debt!

Please look at your credit card bills.  All credit card bills are required to show this information.  It will make you think twice about using your credit card, but especially about paying the minimum payment.  So please pay as much as you can and don’t just pay the minimum payment.

If you have been looking for a way to save money, pay more to your credit cards.  The more you pay, the more goes to principal thereby reducing your interest.  The amount you save will depend on what interest rate you have.  Creditcard.com puts out a weekly credit card report listing the current rates for credit cards.  As of 1/22/16, the national average is 15.12%.

Naming Beneficiaries: When to use “per stirpes” or “per capita”

If you have children and grandchildren, there are two terms you should become familiar with.  Per stirpes and per capita are terms that when used in a will, retirement account or other document, will determine how your estate is distributed.   If you name your children as either primary or secondary beneficiary, then you should decide whether you want to use the designation “per stirpes”, “per capita” or neither.

Example:  If you name your spouse as primary beneficiary and you name your children (you should specifically give their names) as secondary beneficiary (sometimes called contingent beneficiary or alternate beneficiary) you can stipulate that you want “Per Stirpes” or “Per Capita at each generation”  (you don’t have to choose one of these, they are just options).

Basically if you choose Per Stirpes, if your spouse is deceased, your children will inherit equally, but if one child predeceases you, their children would inherit their percentage.  For example, if you have 3 children and 1 is deceased (and the deceased child has children), then the two living children would inherit 1/3 each, and the other 1/3 would be divided equally by the children of the deceased child.  If the deceased child had no children, then the living children would inherit ½ each (unless otherwise stipulated in the will).  In this same example, if 2 children were deceased (and they both have children), then the children of the 1st deceased child would split 1/3 of the estate and the children of the 2nd deceased child would split 1/3 of the estate, no matter how many children either of them have.

If you choose Per Capita at each generation, and if you have 3 children, and 2 are deceased (both having children), the living child would inherit 1/3 of the estate, and all of the children for the 2 deceased children would inherit the same percentage; even if there are 3 children to one family and 1 child to the other family – all 4 children would inherit the same percentage.   The 4 children would inherit 2/3 of the estate divided by the 4 children.  If the deceased children did not have children, then the entire estate would go to the living child.

There is no right or wrong way to name your beneficiaries; it just depends on what your wishes are.

The following definitions and explanations may make this clearer.  The diagrams should help you determine how you would like to list your beneficiaries in your will or other document.  The following definitions, explanations and diagrams are from Wikipedia.org:

 “Per stirpes is a legal term in Latin. An estate of a decedent is distributed per stirpes if each branch of the family is to receive an equal share of an estate. When the heir in the first generation of a branch predeceased the decedent, the share that would have been given to the heir would be distributed among the heir’s issue in equal shares. It may also be known as right of representation distribution, and differs from distribution per capita, as members of the same generation may inherit different amounts.[1]

Example – per stirpes

Per stirpes

Figure 1. A‘s estate is divided equally between each of the three branches. BC, and D each receive one-third. As B pre-deceased AB‘s two children – B1 and B2 – each receive one-half of B‘s share, equivalent to one-sixth of the estate.

Example 1A: The testator A, specifies in his will that his estate is to be divided among his descendants in equal shares per stirpesA has three children, BC, and DB is already dead, but has left two children (grandchildren of A), B1 and B2. When A‘s will is executed, under a distribution per stirpesC and D each receive one-third of the estate, and B1 and B2 each receive one-sixth. B1and B2 constitute one “branch” of the family, and collectively receive a share equal to the shares received by C and D as branches.

 

Per capita at each generation

Per capita at each generation is an alternative way of distribution, where heirs of the same generation will each receive the same amount. The estate is divided into equal shares at the generation closest to the deceased with surviving heirs. The number of shares is equal to the number of original members either surviving or with surviving descendants. Each surviving heir of that generation gets a share. The remainder is then equally divided among the next-generation descendants of the deceased descendants in the same manner.

Example 2A: In the first example, children C and D survive, so the estate is divided at their generation. There were three children, so each surviving child receives one-third. The remainder – B‘s share – is then divided in the same manner among B‘s surviving descendants. The result is the same as under per stirpes because B‘s one-third is distributed toB1 and B2 (one-sixth to each).

Per stirpes and per capita

Figure 2. Comparison between per stirpes inheritance and per capita by generation inheritance. On the left, each branch receives one third of the estate. On the right, A‘s only surviving descendant, C, receives one third of the estate. The remaining two thirds are divided among the descendants in the next generation.

Example 2B: The per capita and per stirpes results would differ if D also pre-deceased with one child, D1 (figure 2). Under per stirpesB1 and B2 would each receive one-sixth (half of B‘s one-third share), and D1 would receive one-third (all of D‘s one-third share). Under per capita, the two-thirds remaining after C ‘s one-third share was taken would be divided equally among all three children of B and D. Each would receive two-ninths: B1B2, and D1 would all receive tw

 

Markets are in a correction – What can we expect next?

The markets continued to decline this week, with both the Dow and Nasdaq markets down 11% off the highs in May, and the S&P 500 down 10% off the May highs.  The Dow lost 1,000 points this week alone.  As they pointed out on CNBC today, you cannot time the bottoms or the tops of markets.  Therefore, we still don’t know if we have hit a bottom.

I attended a live webinar last night given by Vanguard entitled “A Look Ahead to 2016”.  The speakers were Bill McNabb, Chairman and CEO, and Tim Buckley, Chief Investment Officer.   They will be sending the participants an email with the transcript of the webinar, which I’ll share when I receive it, but in the meantime, I’ll share some of the notes I took.  The questions asked in this webinar came from the participants of the webinar, and the answers along with additional comments were given by both Bill McNabb and Tim Buckley.  Some of the comments were:

  1. Volatility in 2016 will continue. More volatility than the last 3 years.
  2. This was the 3rd longest bull market in history so it is not unexpected there would be a pullback.
  3. They don’t see a bubble so should not repeat 2008
  4. There will be low rates globally for the foreseeable future because there is a glut of global money out there that looks for high yields, so all this money pushes the rates lower
  5. We are at full employment (which is good for the US)
  6. Questions asked – Will Fed continue to raise rates? Fed will be cautious but will raise rates (according to the two speakers)
  7. Question was asked, should you invest now with the markets down. Bill McNabb said you should dollar cost average into the market.  Put in the same amount once per month the same day of the month.  It is too hard to predict short term ups and downs.  While Tim Buckley said that a down day is an opportunity.  He indicated that he would buy on a down day.
  8. Question asked – is market too risky for retirees. His answer, if you are 65 you can expect to live 20 to 30 years and you need equities even when retired.  You need growth over time.
  9. There are business cycles, and recessions come about every 5 ½ to 6 years, but you can’t count on that. In the 90’s, the bull market lasted 10 years.
  10. We have a strong dollar now, question asked, how does that affect us? Exports cost more to foreign buyers so it hurts US manufacturing.    Imports are cheaper to US consumers so it helps consumers.  When traveling, your money goes further.
  11. Question asked – how often should you look at your retirement balances? You should not be looking on a daily basis – you should look once a quarter when statements come out.  The reason you look then is to rebalance and reallocate.
  12. Geopolitical issues will continue in 2016. China is the 2nd largest economy in the world (US is #1).  China had double digit growth over the last few years while the US had 2.2% growth per year. Manufacturing in China is slowing adding to their correction.  Prospects in US are good.
  13. Election year may add more volatility to 2016, due to the uncertainty people will feel concerning the political arena.

The best advice I can give is to do nothing, and definitely don’t sell.  Wait it out.  As I mentioned in my last post, if you are still investing in a 401(k) plan, you will be purchasing shares at much lower prices – which is great.  If you have money available you may want to invest more, but be aware we may or may not be at the bottom.

The markets are down – reminder to stay the course!

 

Monday, January 4, 2016

Dow end of day 17,148.94
Dow 52 week high (all time high) (5/19/15) 18,351.40
Dow 52 week low (8/24/15) 15,370.30
S & P 500 end of day 2,012.66
S & P 500 52 week high (all time high) 5/20/15 2,134.72
S & P 500 52 week low (8/24/15) 1,867.01

The Dow was down 276.09 points today (1.58%), and the S&P 500 was down 31.28 points (1.53%).  At the session lows, the Dow was down 467.40 points and the S&P 500 was down 54.26 points, recovering some of the losses in the last half hour or so of trading.

As bad as it seems, we are still not in a correction.  A correction is a decrease of 10% or more.  Currently the Dow is down 1,202 points, or 6.6% off of its highs and the S&P 500 is down 122.06 points or 5.7% off its highs.

When you see the markets down this much, panic can start to set in.  When that happens, look at the opportunity instead of the losses.  If you are still investing through your 401(k) plan, you have the opportunity to purchase shares through your payroll at lower prices, which means that you will purchase more shares than you normally do.  You don’t have to “do” anything.  You have already selected to have a percentage of your paycheck to be deducted and invested in your 401(k) plan.  For as long as the market remains low or goes even lower, you will be purchasing a greater quantity of shares.  This is good news!

If you are close to retirement, this is not the time to get out of the market.  If you sell now, you make it a real loss and not just a paper loss.  The market will come back, and will hit new all-time highs at some point – it always does.

In my case, I had some money sitting on the side, and I invested some of it into the S&P 500 Index fund today because the markets are down so much.  When you purchase a mutual fund, you cannot purchase it at the lows of the day, the trade happens as of the end of the trading day.  (There is a way to purchase the Index at anytime during the day by purchasing an ETF which is an exchange traded fund, but those can be more volatile during the day so I wanted the actual mutual fund.)  So I didn’t push the button on the purchase until the last 5 minutes of the trading day because markets can change direction quickly, and if it had recovered much more, I may not have purchased the shares.   I’m already invested in this fund, but had some money in cash also, and saw this as an opportunity to pick up more shares at a good price.  I may leave this additional amount in the market until it makes a good profit, and then pull it back out again as I still want a percentage of my money in “cash” or “cash equivalents” since I am already retired.

No matter what stage of life you are in, when markets go down, stay the course.  The markets have been much worse than this and history has shown us they always come back.

Be prepared that markets may go down even more tomorrow.  Think about the opportunities and stay the course.