Articles for March 2016

Reducing the Risk of Outliving Your Money

What steps might help you sustain and grow your retirement savings?

“What is your greatest retirement fear?” If you ask retirees that question, “outliving my money” may likely be one of the top answers. Retirees and pre-retirees alike share this anxiety. In a 2014 Wells Fargo/Gallup survey of more than 1,000 investors, 46% of respondents cited that very fear; 42% of the respondents to that poll were making $90,000 a year or more.1

Retirees face greater “longevity risk” today. According to an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, the average retirement age in this country is 65 for men and 63 for women. Many of us will probably live into our eighties and nineties; indeed, many of our parents have already lived that long. In 2014 (the most recent year for which Census Bureau data is available), over 72,000 Americans were centenarians, representing a 44% increase since 2000.2,3

If your retirement lasts 20, 30, or even 40 years, how well do you think your retirement savings will hold up? What financial steps could you take in your retirement to prevent those savings from eroding? As you think ahead, consider the following possibilities and realities.

Realize that Social Security benefits might shrink in the future. Today, there are three workers funding Social Security for every retiree. By federal estimates, there will be only two workers funding Social Security for every retiree in 2030. That does not bode well for the health of the program, especially since nearly one-fifth of Americans will be 65 or older in 2030.4

Social Security’s trust fund is projected to run dry by 2034, and it is quite possible Congress may intervene to rescue it before then. Still, the strain on Social Security will mount over the next 20 years as more and more baby boomers retire. With this in mind, there’s no reason not to investigate other potential retirement income sources now.3

Understand that you may need to work part-time in your sixties and seventies. The income from part-time work can be an economic lifesaver for retirees. Suppose you walk away from your career with $500,000 in retirement savings. In your first year of retirement, you decide to withdraw 4% of that for income, or $20,000. At that withdrawal rate, not even adjusting for inflation, that money will be gone in 21 years. What if you worked part-time and earned $20,000-30,000 a year? If you can do that for five or ten years, you effectively give your retirement savings five or ten more years to last and grow.3

Retire with health insurance and prepare adequately for out-of-pocket costs. Financially speaking, this may be the most frustrating part of retirement. We can enroll in Medicare at age 65, but how do we handle the premiums for private health insurance if we retire before then? Striving to work until you are eligible for Medicare makes economic sense. So does building some kind of health care emergency fund for out-of-pocket costs. According to data from Health Affairs, those costs approached $16,000 a year in 2014 for Americans aged 65-84, and $35,000 a year for Americans aged 85 or older.4

Many people may retire unaware of these financial factors. With luck and a favorable investing climate, their retirement savings may last a long time. Luck is not a plan, however, and hope is not a strategy. Those who are retiring unaware of these factors may risk outliving their money.

Mike Moffitt may be reached at ph# 641-782-5577 or email: mikem@cfgiowa.com
Website: www.cfgiowa.com

Michael Moffitt is a Registered Representative with and Securities are offered through LPL Financial, Member FINRA/SIPC. Investments advice offered through Advantage Investment Management (AIM), a registered investment advisor. Cornerstone Financial Group and AIM are separate entities from LPL Financial.

This material was prepared by MarketingPro, Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting party, nor their affiliates. This information has been derived from sources believed to be accurate. Please note – investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. This information should not be construed as investment, tax or legal advice and may not be relied on for the purpose of avoiding any Federal tax penalty. This is neither a solicitation nor recommendation to purchase or sell any investment or insurance product or service, and should not be relied upon as such. All indices are unmanaged and are not illustrative of any particular investment.

Citations.
1 – usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/09/24/investors-fear-outliving-retirement-savings/16095591/ [9/24/14]
2 – thestreet.com/story/13468811/1/here-rsquo-s-how-to-make-your-money-last-in-retirement.html [2/23/16]
3 – marketwatch.com/story/so-whos-going-to-pay-for-you-to-live-to-be-100-2016-02-17/ [2/17/16]
4 – thinkadvisor.com/2016/02/22/6-ways-to-prevent-going-broke-in-retirement [2/22/16]

Should We Break Up the Big Banks?

One Federal Reserve official says we should rethink our financial system.

The newest Federal Reserve policymaker just put forth a radical proposal. Neel Kashkari thinks America’s big banks should be broken up, the sooner the better.

This opinion comes from the man who once directed TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program that bailed out giant banks in the Great Recession. Kashkari was assistant secretary of the Treasury at that time. This year, he became president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, two years after running for governor of California.1

On February 16, Kashkari spoke at the Brookings Institution and delivered, as one Bloomberg article put it, “a speech that [read] like a cover letter on a resume sent to the White House c/o Bernie Sanders.” Specifically, he called for “serious consideration” of three ideas.1

The first: “Breaking up large banks into smaller, less connected, less important entities.” The second: “Turning large banks into public utilities by forcing them to hold so much capital that they virtually can’t fail (with regulation akin to that of a nuclear power plant).” The third: “Taxing leverage throughout the financial system to reduce systemic risks wherever they lie.”1

While the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 increased regulation of behemoth banks, Kashkari is hardly satisfied with it. As he told the Washington Post recently, “Policymakers have been telling Congress, or maybe Congress has been telling the American people, that Dodd-Frank has solved too big to fail. And I’m saying I don’t believe it.”2

The above reforms would require the approval of Congress. So Kashkari wants to deliver a proposal to Capitol Hill, with input from “leaders from policy and regulatory institutions [and] the financial industry.” All of these parties would convene to “offer their views and to test one another’s assumptions” pursuant to a bill.1

Is this kind of reform necessary? Many voices on Wall Street contend that Dodd-Frank was actually unnecessary, that the credit crisis of the late 2000s never would have occurred if markets, regulators, and Congress had simply abided by existing rules.1,2,3,4

Others have called for big bank downsizing before this, including some Fed officials. In 2012, the Dallas Fed put out an annual report entitled Choosing the Road to Prosperity: Why We Must End Too Big to Fail – Now. Its president, Richard Fisher, has talked of restructuring large banks into “multiple business entities.” St. Louis Fed president James Bullard once introduced the idea of limiting the size of individual U.S. banks to a percentage of annualized Gross Domestic Product.3,4

Of course, not too long ago the federal government helped make the biggest banks even bigger. As it decided certain financial institutions were “too big to fail” during the credit crisis, it also brokered some deals: Bank of America bought up Merrill Lynch and JPMorgan acquired Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns. JPMorgan and Bank of America both received significant help from TARP as a consequence. Taxpayers made a profit on TARP, and Kashkari says TARP was the right move at the right time. However, he prefers that history not repeat.1,5

The “too big to fail” idea contends that the nation’s largest banks need a federal backstop if threatened with collapse, because their failure would wreck the economy. Its adherents argue that a giant bank is a better bank, providing more services here and in emerging markets, benefiting from economies of scale that make their services cheaper than services of smaller banks. These banks, the thinking goes, deserve a safety net in a catastrophe.1,2,3,4

To other observers, the top U.S. banks have grown frighteningly large. An analysis conducted by SNL Financial last year found that just five banks held almost 45% of the U.S. banking industry’s total assets in 2014, about $7 trillion. To put this in perspective, World Bank data shows the entire 2014 U.S. GDP at $17.4 trillion.6,7

In time, market forces may actually accomplish what Kashkari would prefer to see. With TARP long gone, the largest banks have had to bolster their capital ratios, a potential disadvantage as they compete with smaller banks and online lenders. So new competitors (and new lending and financial services platforms) could soon emerge to take away some of their business.1

Kashkari does not want to wait. With the economy in comparatively good health, “the time has come to move past parochial interests and solve this problem,” Kashkari said in his February 16 speech. “The risks of not doing so are just too great.”5

Mike Moffitt may be reached at Ph# 641-782-5577 or email: mikem@cfgiowa.com
Website: www.cfgiowa.com

Michael Moffitt is a Registered Representative with and Securities are offered through LPL Financial, Member FINRA/SIPC. Investments advice offered through Advantage Investment Management (AIM), a registered investment advisor. Cornerstone Financial Group and AIM are separate entities from LPL Financial.

This material was prepared by MarketingPro, Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting party, nor their affiliates. This information has been derived from sources believed to be accurate. Please note – investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. This information should not be construed as investment, tax or legal advice and may not be relied on for the purpose of avoiding any Federal tax penalty. This is neither a solicitation nor recommendation to purchase or sell any investment or insurance product or service, and should not be relied upon as such. All indices are unmanaged and are not illustrative of any particular investment.

Citations.
1 – bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-02-17/let-s-make-sure-neel-kashkari-s-right-before-splitting-up-banks [2/17/16]
2 – washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/17/neel-kashkari-oversaw-the-bailout-of-the-big-banks-now-he-wants-to-break-them-up/ [2/17/16]
3 – business.time.com/2012/03/22/break-up-the-banks-dallas-fed-president-calls-for-the-end-of-too-big-to-fail/ [3/22/12]
4 – bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-16/fed-s-kashkari-floats-breaking-up-big-banks-to-avert-melt-down [2/16/16]
5 – money.cnn.com/2016/02/17/news/economy/neel-kashkari-breaking-up-too-big-to-fail-banks/ [2/17/16]
6 – cnbc.com/2015/04/15/5-biggest-banks-now-own-almost-half-the-industry.html [4/15/15]
7 – data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD [2/18/16]

In-Kind Distributions from IRAs

Yes, you can take an IRA distribution in the form of an investment.

This may surprise you: you can take an IRA distribution in a form other than cash. This may seem unorthodox, but it can make financial sense for some older IRA owners as well as IRA heirs.

An in-kind distribution from a traditional IRA is fully taxable, just as a cash distribution from a traditional IRA becomes taxable income. Just how is the cash value of the in-kind withdrawal determined? The fair market value of the asset is reported to the IRS as a step in the distribution.1,2

Why would you want to make this type of IRA withdrawal? In certain cases, it may be preferable to withdrawing cash, especially when it comes to Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) for traditional IRAs.

Maybe you want to keep shares instead of selling them. There are times when you may be reluctant to sell some or all of an investment to satisfy an RMD, because the investment is really performing well. An in-kind withdrawal is an alternative. The amount of the distribution will be treated just like taxable income, but you will still own that asset once it is outside of the IRA. Those shares now have a chance to appreciate further, and you can also elect to donate them to charity.2,3

Maybe you have a cashless IRA. If 0% of your IRA assets are sitting in cash, then one option is to take either a partial or full in-kind withdrawal to satisfy the RMD requirement. You will still retain ownership of the asset(s) distributed in-kind.2

Maybe you see a loser turning into a winner. You hold a poorly performing investment in your IRA, but you sense it will turn around, you suspect its value will soon rise. Rather than liquidate it, shares of it could be withdrawn from the IRA as an in-kind distribution. They will be taxed at their current value when distributed from the IRA as in-kind distributions are treated like taxable income, but in future years, they will only be subject to capital gains tax rates rather than (higher) income tax rates.4

Maybe the IRA has little value. Some “stray” IRAs are not worth very much. If an IRA holds an investment that has so little worth that it seems pointless to have the IRA in the first place, an in-kind distribution may offer a solution. If you own a traditional (or Roth) IRA and make this move before age 59½, you are likely looking at an early-withdrawal penalty as well as taxes. Even so, you may prefer that to keeping up the IRA for years, or carrying a loser investment in the IRA for any number of years while paying attached account fees.2

In-kind IRA distributions can be tricky, as they often involve shares. Share prices fluctuate, and if you are trying to precisely meet your RMD amount with a distribution of shares, there is the risk of coming up short or long. If you come up short, you will need another transaction to satisfy the RMD. If you come out long, that could increase the income tax attached to the RMD. This is the risk you take.5

Mike Moffitt may be reached at ph# 641-782-5577 or email: mikem@cfgiowa.com
Website: www.cfgiowa.com

Michael Moffitt is a Registered Representative with and Securities are offered through LPL Financial, Member FINRA/SIPC. Investments advice offered through Advantage Investment Management (AIM), a registered investment advisor. Cornerstone Financial Group and AIM are separate entities from LPL Financial.

This material was prepared by MarketingPro, Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting party, nor their affiliates. This information has been derived from sources believed to be accurate. Please note – investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. This information should not be construed as investment, tax or legal advice and may not be relied on for the purpose of avoiding any Federal tax penalty. This is neither a solicitation nor recommendation to purchase or sell any investment or insurance product or service, and should not be relied upon as such. All indices are unmanaged and are not illustrative of any particular investment.

Citations.
1 – tinyurl.com/hsdkwgn [1/19/14]
2 – newdirectionira.com/ira-info/distributions/what-is-a-distribution [2/3/16]
3 – azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumers/2015/12/22/right-size-your-portfolio-coming-year-nancy-tengler/77780344/ [12/22/15]
4 – time.com/money/2791159/how-are-stocks-taxed/ [2/3/16]
5 – marketwatch.com/story/should-you-take-stock-to-meet-required-minimum-distributions-2014-11-03 [11/3/14]