Probable Repeal of Roth IRA Recharacterizations at Year-End
The Senate and House of Representatives have both passed versions of the new tax reform law that eliminates the availability of Roth IRA recharacterizations after December 31, 2017.
Benefits of Recharacterization
Recharacterization gives taxpayers a "do-over" opportunity. One use is when a Traditional IRA that is converted to a Roth IRA afterward declines in value – forcing the IRA owner to pay income tax on a converted amount that now exceeds the value of the IRA. Recharacterizing reverses the transaction to eliminate the excess tax.
Typically, we don't know exactly what our total taxable income will be until the end of the year. Because of this, a common strategy is to convert more than you think you will need to “fill the [tax] bracket” or up to whatever the target amount is. If that amount is overshot, we would do a partial recharacterization to bring your taxable income to exactly where it needs to be. Recharacterization can also be done if the taxpayer simply changes their mind and doesn't want to pay the tax.
According to Ed Slott, “It is like betting on the horse after the race is over!”
Until now, the law has allowed recharacterizations to be made as late as October 15 of the following year.
The New “Do It or Lose It” Date Could Change to December 31st
The Final version of the Senate and House bills eliminate this extra time to recharacterize a Roth conversion. Under both versions of the law, it seems that December 31, 2017, may be "the do it or lose it date" for recharacterizations of conversions made in 2017.
If this provision is interpreted in this way this would eliminate the strategy mentioned above for conversions done in 2017. This could pose a problem for those that planned to take advantage of recharacterizing after the New Year.
It seems to me however that there may be room for interpretation here. The following is the excerpt from the final bill regarding the removal of the Roth recharacterization provision:
The House bill repeals the special rule that allows IRA contributions to one type of IRA
(either traditional or Roth) to be recharacterized as a contribution to the other type of IRA. Thus,
for example, under the provision, a conversion contribution establishing a Roth IRA during a
taxable year can no longer be recharacterized as a contribution to a traditional IRA (thereby
unwinding the conversion).276
Effective date.−The provision is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31,
This still seems unclear to me whether it applies to conversions that were already done in 2017. It references the conversion “during the taxable year” that can no longer be recharacterized and the provision is effective for “taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017” which to me means that you can no longer recharacterize Roth conversions done in the taxable year after this date which is 12/31/2017. So then a conversion done in 2018 cannot be recharacterized which is very clear, however, a conversion done in 2017 occurs in the taxable year before the provision ends, so then wouldn’t it stand to reason that a 2017 conversion can still be recharacterized up to the deadline in 2018 as it normally would have in the past? Furthermore, it seems unreasonable that this bill could be signed into law just days before the end of year closes giving effectively no practical time to unwind any conversion before the end of the year to which it is supposedly to apply. For many custodians, we have already passed the cutoff date for guarantee that such transactions can be completed before year end which just doesn’t seem fair or reasonable. But then again when is congress fair or reasonable?
The full bill can be found by going to http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20171218/CRPT-115HRPT-%20466.pdf.
The Unknown May Cost You
In my sole opinion, It is possible that this provision will be effective ONLY for Roth conversions done in 2018 and beyond. However, that is a risk and it may be some time before we receive any clarification
If you have done a Roth conversion in the year 2017, you need to address this with your financial adviser immediately to know whether you should reconsider doing a full or partial recharacterization before year-end assuming it is even possible. If you are confident that there is no reason you'd need or want to recharacterize then there is no action necessary
Contact us ASAP!
The end of the year is very busy. It is critical that you contact us as soon as possible so that we can ensure we have enough time to review your conversion thoroughly. Click here to contact the office nearest you.
Please also keep in mind that all requests to recharacterize a Roth conversion will need to be submitted to the IRA custodian enough in advance to ensure it is accepted and completed before the end of the year and effectively this time may already have passed.
No More Roth IRA Recharacterizations After 2017
Beginning in 2018, it is clear that all Roth conversions will be irrevocable so if you plan to do any Roth conversions, it will require more careful review and possible change in strategy
At Portnoff Financial, we thoroughly review and carefully evaluate your financial situation to make sure a Roth conversion makes sense for you and to be ready and able to pay the expected tax bill. With that being said, when it comes time to discuss future Roth conversions, know you are in good hands.
Jeremy E. Portnoff, MSFS, CFP®, CIMA® was recently quoted in this article from USA Today about Roth 401ks:
Roth 401k is not quite the same as a Roth IRA and it is important to know the difference. If you have any questions about Roth type accounts give us a call.
It has been 10 years since I earned my CFP® (Certified Financial Planner™) credential. Since then I have completed a number of education/credential programs to continue my life long pursuit for knowledge, to be an accomplished and trusted advisor whose education and training exceeds that of the average advisor. I decided it was time to work towards an advanced investments certification, something that would really challenge me, and so I decided to embark on a journey to earn the Certified Investment Management Analyst® (CIMA®) program offered through the Investment Management Consultants Association® (IMCA).
From IMCA: "CIMA professionals integrate a complex body of investment knowledge, ethically contributing to prudent investment decisions by providing objective advice and guidance to individual investors and institutional investors. The CIMA certification program is the only credential designed specifically for financial professionals who want to attain a level of competency as an advanced investment consultant."
CIMA Certification is a rigorous multi-step process that typically takes about 9 months to complete. Once you submit the application and pass a background check you are eligible to take the 2-hour, 50 question multiple-choice Qualification Exam (QE) proctored at an AMP testing center, which typically takes approximately 100 hours of study time. The pass rate for the most recent quarter of first-time takers of the QE was 54% and 61% over the past two years; for re-testers it is only 44%. For the Core Topics list see below.
One you have passed the Qualification exam, then you are eligible to enroll in the education component; a graduate-level executive education course (packed into one grueling week) taught at The University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business Executive Education Program. Successful completion of the course requires passing a 4-hour 25-question essay exam at the end of the program. From there you are then eligible to take the final Certification Exam which is a 4-hour 100 question multiple-choice exam held at the testing center during 4 testing windows each year. The pass rate in the most recent quarter for first-time takers of the CE was 69% and 63% over the past two years; for re-testers it is only 48%. There is no doubt this is a challenging program; According to IMCA, only 1 in 3 who start the program successfully finish!
I began seriously studying in April and passed the Qualification Exam on my first try on June 9th. Since then I've been preparing for Wharton which starts Monday 10/3/2016. If all goes well then I expect to take the final Certification Exam sometime in November. No doubt the next two months will be challenging so I appreciate your understanding and support. I look forward to sharing will all of my client the many things I have and expect to learn through the completion of this program.
CIMA Core Topics
- IMCA Code of Professional Responsibility and Standards of Practice
- Regulatory Considerations
- Statistics and Methods
- Applied Finance and Economics
- Global Capital Markets History and Valuation
- Portfolio Performance and Risk Measurements
- Attributes of Risk
- Risk Measurements
- Performance Measurement and Attribution
- Traditional and Alternative Investments
- Traditional Global Investments (Equity and Fixed Income)
- Fixed-Income Vehicles
- Foreign Exchange Market
- Alternative Investment
- Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives
- Tools and Strategies Based on Technical Analysis
- Portfolio Theory and Behavioral Finance
- Portfolio Theories and Models
- Behavioral Finance Theory
- Investment Consulting Process
- Client Discovery
- Investment Policy Statement (IPS)
- Portfolio Risk Management Strategies
- Manager Search, Selection, and Monitoring
- Perform Portfolio Review and Revisions Process
For detailed information on the CIMA certification process, go to https://www.imca.org/cima.
I just answered a question on www.Nerdwallet.com which was "You can have a Traditional IRA and a Roth IRA; but can you also have a 401k and a Roth 401k, all 4 at the same time?" and thought I'd put this on my blog since it is a common question. Here is my answer:
Yes, you most certainly can have a Traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, a 401k, and a Roth 401k all at the same time. The issue will be which you can contribute to and how much.
For example, the annual contribution limit for IRAs is $5,500 plus $1,000 catch up (CU) if over 50. Let’s assume you are under 50 for my explanation. You can contribute any combination of amounts between a Traditional IRA and a Roth IRA as long as the total does not go over the limit, $5,500. So you could put $3,000 in your Traditional IRA and $3,500 in your Roth, or $1,000 in your Traditional IRA and $4,500 in your Roth.
Anyone can contribute to an IRA regardless of income but your ability to deduct it would be limited if your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) is over $98,000-$118,000 if you file a joint tax return ($61,000-$71,000 Single/Head of Household) being that you are covered by an employer plan. If you make too much to make a deductible contribution then you might want to look to the Roth IRA however your ability to contribute to a Roth IRA is limited if your Modified AGI is $184,000 to $194,000 for joint filers ($$117,000 to $132,000 single/HOH). If you are over this amount then you would consider a non-deductible IRA and potentially convert it to a Roth (no income limit to convert) supposing you have no other IRA funds (if you do a pro-rata rule applies and may not be worthwhile).
The 401k contribution limit is $18,000 with a $6,000 catchup if you are over 50 (which I’ll assume you are not for purposes of this answer). Similar to the answer above on contributing to a Traditional IRA and a Roth IRA, you can contribute to both your 401k and your Roth 401k as long as the total does not go over $18,000. The amount you contribute to the 401k or Roth 401k has no impact on the amount you can contribute to an IRA (but does affect whether you can deduct it or not).
So if you have the money you can put $5,500 ($1,000 CU) to any combination of IRA and Roth IRA plus $18,000 ($6,000 CU) to any combination of 401k and Roth 401k for a total of $23,500 ($30,500 if over 50).
Now whether you should put more in the pre-tax versus the Roth (tax-free) is essentially a function of what your marginal tax bracket is now versus what you think it will be when you take the funds out. If you think you will be in a lower bracket in the future then pre-tax is the way to go, however if you think you will be in a higher bracket and/or you think tax rates are going up (due to terrible government debt) then Roth can be the way to go. If you’re not sure you can diversify to both which is not a bad idea. The pre-tax vs. Roth is really like any other investment except that you are betting on tax rates. One will be better than the other but you won’t know until the future arrives which is the same reason we diversify between stocks and bonds, between US and international and emerging markets, and Large cap and small cap, and growth and value, etc.
Dave Ramsey the financial author, radio host, television personality, and motivational speaker, recently publicly criticized the proposed Fiduciary rule by the Department of Labor (DOL). Ramsey posted on Twitter “This Obama rule will kill the middle class and below['s] ability to access personal advice.”
To read the article from Investment News go to http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160223/FREE/160229982/adviser-twitter-fight-erupts-when-dave-ramsey-bashes-dol-fiduciary.
I think it is simply ridiculous to suggest that if all “financial advisors” were fiduciaries and required to act in the best interests of their clients and disclose all conflicts of interest that would somehow hurt middle class access to financial advice. While I am a fee-only advisor and prefer the model of full disclosure of compensation I do not think commissions are inherently bad. I don’t see anything wrong with selling financial products as long as all compensation, direct and indirect, are fully disclosed so that the client can make an informed decision. Therefore I see no reason why a commission based advisor could not put their clients interest first.
To suggest a fiduciary standard for all advisors would hurt access for middle class investors is like saying doctors who take the Hippocratic Oath (“…With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage…”) would reduce access to doctors by the middle class and the poor. Absolutely Not! This would be akin to doctors who do serve middle class and the poor not having to act in the best interests of their patients based on their judgement, etc. The idea is simply nonsense and I agree with (probably) most who have criticized Dave Ramsey in that those who are against this are so because they have a vested interest in not being required to put their clients’ interests first.
My view might be different in that I don’t think all “financial advisors” should be held to a fiduciary standard, rather that all advisors of any kind should be required to disclose all compensation, direct and indirect, as well as all conflicts of interest so that if the client wants to work with that broker/salesperson and buy their products they can at least make an informed decision. I personally might still choose to purchase a commission based product from a salesperson if they disclosed that they are not required to act in my best interest because I may feel that purchase is in my best interest and as long as I’m aware of that I can make a fully informed decision. For example if I go to buy a car the salesperson is not required to act in my best interest but as long as I have all the information I need (research on the car, truth in lending, etc) I can make a fully informed decision.
So I don’t think applying a fiduciary standard to all “advisors” will fix the problems in the industry nor do I think getting rid of all commission products will either. Rather if we had simple common sense regulations that require the full and clear disclosure on compensation, direct and indirect, as well as conflicts of interest in a manner that is understandable to the clients then we’d make some progress towards protecting the public and people could then choose who they want to work with.
It's not too late to make an IRA contribution for 2015. The deadline is the tax filing date which is Monday 4/18/2015 this year however generally it is not a good idea to wait until last minute.
Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA) are tax deferred, or in the case of a Roth IRA, tax-free savings/investment accounts. Tax deferral allows your money to grow faster without losing some of the growth annually to taxation. Having investments in an IRA also allow you greater investment flexibility to make changes without having to worry about generating any taxable capital gains transactions.
The IRA contribution limit for 2015 is $5,500 to any combination of IRAs and/or Roth IRAs as long as the total doesn't go above $5,500 unless you qualify for the catch-up contribution which is an additional $1,000 if you reached age 50 by year-end 2015.
Anyone is eligible to make an IRA contribution as long as you have earned income and you are under 70 1/2; whether you can take a deduction for a traditional IRA depends of a few factors described below. Eligibility to contribute to a Roth IRA depends on income which is also described below; there is no age limit to make Roth IRA contributions.
Phase-Out Range for IRA Deductibility: If you are considered an active participant in a company retirement plan, your deductibility for an IRA may be limited. If you are married filing jointly the phase-out for deductibility begins for adjusted gross income between $98,000- $118,000; above that there is no deduction. If you are a single or head of household filer the phase-out for deductibility begins for adjusted gross income between $61,000- $71,000; above that there is no deduction. If you are not covered by a company plan but your spouse is, the phase-out range for you is $183,000 - $193,000. If you file married-separate, your phase-out range is $0 - $10,000. If your income falls between the phase-out range, your ability to deduct your IRA contribution will be limited. There is a specific calculation to determine the amount you can deduct so if this applies to you, consult your tax advisor to determine how much you can deduct.
Even though you may not participate in the company plan, you may be considered an "active participant” so it is important to verify before attempting to take a deduction. If you and your spouse (if applicable) are not covered by a company plan, then there is no income limitation to take a deduction for an IRA contribution. SEP and SIMPLE IRAs are considered company plans for these purposes but are not included in the maximum contribution amount as they have their own limits.
Eligibility for Roth IRA Contribution: If you are married filing joint, the phase-out of eligibility to contribute to a Roth IRA is between $183,000 - $193,000 of adjusted gross income; above that you cannot make a Roth IRA contribution. For single or head of household filers, the phase-out for eligibility is $116,000- $131,000. If you file married-separate, your phase-out range is $0 - $10,000. As mentioned above, if your income falls between the phase-out range, then your ability to contribute to a Roth IRA is limited. If you are above, then you cannot contribute directly to a Roth IRA however you are still able to convert IRA funds to a Roth IRA which is discussed below.
Non-deductible IRAs: If you wish to make a deductible IRA contribution but make too much income to be eligible to take a deduction, consider a Roth IRA instead. If your income is above the threshold to make a Roth IRA contribution, you can still make a regular IRA contribution however that contribution will not be deductible. In such a case of a non-deductible IRA contribution, your money goes in after tax but still grows tax deferred and your contributions when withdrawn are not taxable however the interest/gains will be taxable upon withdrawal.
These non-deductible contributions create "basis” in your IRA which when withdrawn come out tax-free in a pro-rata distribution relative to the amount of pre-tax money in your IRA. For example, if you have $100,000 in your IRA, $10,000 of which is after-tax basis, your ratio would be 10%. If you then took a distribution/conversion of $25,000, $2,500 of that would be considered a return of your basis tax-free while the $7,500 would be taxable.
IRA to Roth Conversions: Since 2010 anyone regardless of income can convert an IRA to a Roth IRA. This means that you could make a non-deductible IRA contribution and convert it to a Roth thereby getting after-tax funds in a Roth IRA which is in essence the same as making a Roth IRA contribution. This strategy is referred to as the “Back Door Roth.” It only works if you do not have other IRA funds because if you do, the pro-rata rules described above would apply. It is unknown if this loophole will be closed by congress or if they will allow anyone regardless of income to make a Roth IRA contribution; only time will tell. For now it is still there and people who this applies to should consider taking advantage of this great tax planning opportunity.
Mega Backdoor Roth: The “Mega Backdoor” Roth is similar to what is described above however it is related to employer plans. There are many rules and details to be aware of but the basic idea is this: if the employer plan allows for after-tax contributions, you can theoretically contribute after tax funds up to the maximum Defined Contribution plan limit which is $53,000 for 2015 and 2016 plus $6,000 catch up contribution if over 50. Then, if the plan allows, you can request a distribution of only the after-tax funds paid to you and then deposit to a Roth thereby completing a Roth conversion of after-tax funds which means getting a whole lot of money in a Roth IRA, far more than the statutory annual contribution limit which also is limited by income levels.
For example, suppose you are maxing out your 401k at $18,000 and your employer provides a $6,000 contribution for you. That means $24,000 has been contributed leaving an additional $29,000 that could be put in using after-tax funds ($35,000 if over 50). If you had the ability to, you could contribute that $29,000 from your paychecks and at some point then request a distribution of those after-tax funds and convert to your Roth IRA. That would mean getting $29,000 in a Roth IRA in one year! Well you might say, “I have bills to pay and can’t take that much out of my checks.” Well obviously if you don’t have the funds you can’t do this but suppose you do have $29,000 in a savings or taxable investment account. In that case you would increase your contributions to the plan and use your savings to pay the bills and essentially shifting those taxable savings/investments into tax-free Roth IRA accounts. That’s why this is called the “Mega” backdoor Roth. Certainly many details are left out but this is the basic idea. If you think this could apply to you be sure to give us a call to discuss.
2016 IRA Limits: For 2016, IRA contributions limits stay at $5,500 if under 50 with the additional $1,000 catch-up contribution if you reach age 50 by year end. The phase-outs for IRA deductibility and Roth IRA stayed mostly the same from 2015 with a few exceptions:
- IRA deduction phase-out for active plan participants
- Single $61,000-$71,000
- Married filing jointly $98,000-$118,000
- Married filing separately $0-$10,000
- Spousal IRA $184,000-$194,000 (you are covered but your spouse is not)
- Roth IRA phase-out
- Single $117,000-$132,000
- Married filing jointly $184,000-$194,000
If you have any questions about IRA contributions or wish to make an IRA contribution for 2015 give us a call.
As President’s Day approaches we take a look at President Obama’s final budget proposal which contains 15 provisions related to retirement accounts. All but one of the proposals are simply a repeat of those proposed last year none of which were enacted. The only new proposal would allow certain employers to pool resources to create multi-employer (defined contribution) retirement plans which would create economies of scale and encourage more small business to participate.
Below is a list of the proposals but if you would like to read a full explanation you can go to the (Ed) Slott Report at https://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/final-obama-budget-proposal-heavy-retirement-account-changes-again.
#1 – Allow Unrelated Employers to Participate in a Single Multi-Employer Defined Contribution Plan
#2 - Eliminate the Special Tax Break for NUA
#3 - Limit Roth Conversions to Pre-Tax Dollars
#4 - “Harmonize” the RMD Rules for Roth IRAs with the RMD Rules for Other Retirement Accounts
#5 - Eliminate RMDs if Your Total Savings in Tax-Favored Retirement Accounts is $100,000 or Less
#6 - Create a 28% Maximum Tax Benefit for Contributions to Retirement Accounts
#7 - Establish a “Cap” on Retirement Savings Prohibiting Additional Contributions
#8 - Create a new “Hardship” Exception to the 10% Penalty for the Long-Term Unemployed
#9 - Mandatory 5-Year Rule for Non-Spouse Beneficiaries\
#10 - Allow Non-Spouse Beneficiaries to Complete 60-Day Rollovers for Inherited IRAs
#11 - Require Retirement Plans to Allow Participation of Long-Term Part-Time Workers
#12 - Require Form W-2 Reporting for Employer Contributions to Defined Contribution Retirement Plans
#13 - Mandatory Auto-Enrollment IRAs for Certain Small Businesses
#14 - Facilitate Annuity Portability
#15 - Eliminate Deductions for Dividends on Stock of Publicly-Traded Companies Held in ESOPs
These proposals are just that; proposals, many of which most likely will not be enacted however it does give us a sense of what lawmakers may be going after in the coming years.
Good news from the IRS! (yes I know this is strange that I am excited about this news)
First a bit of background on after-tax funds in an IRA. Suppose you have an IRA worth $500,000 of which $50,000 is after tax funds. Any distribution from the IRA would be a portion of after-tax and pre-tax, whether that distribution is a withdrawal or Roth conversion. For example if the IRA owner took out $10,000, 10% or $1,000 would be considered after-tax. For all practical purposes the pre-tax and after-tax amounts cannot be separated just like cream in a coffee; every sip is a bit of cream and some coffee. Some people who have made after tax contributions to an IRA have mistakenly assumed that they can simply convert that IRA to a Roth tax free however this pro-rata rule applies because all IRAs of the owner are considered one for this purpose.
Ok so here's the situation with 401k's: Suppose instead of an IRA, you have a 401k plan with $500,000 of which $50,000 is after-tax funds same as above. Prior to 2009 it was common for the administrator of the 401k plan to issue two checks; one representing the after-tax funds and one representing the pre-tax funds. Then you would (assuming you were eligible at the time) convert the after-tax funds directly to your Roth IRA by simply depositing the after-tax check into the Roth account while depositing the pre-tax check in your pre-tax IRA. This strategy seemed to be a loop hole to the pro-rata rule above because IRA and employer plan rules while they seem similar do have notable differences.
Then in 2009, IRS issued some guidance on this common strategy (which I won't go into the details here) that basically indicated that the above loophole was not allowed, at least if you wanted to do this you had to go to great lengths to do it right (again I'll skip the details for now) which were essentially not practical thus the common strategy of getting the two checks to convert the after-tax funds directly to a Roth was not allowed. There remained some debate on the subject but most practitioners preferred to go the conservative route with clients and advise that this strategy was no longer allowed however many plans continued to offer the separate checks unaware of the IRS notice that went out in 2009.
Well 5 years later we finally have a definitive answer to this question from IRS notice 2014-54 which is an emphatic YES! This is really great news and makes things quite simpler for those who have after-tax funds in their 401k. It also opens up some planning opportunities that were not previously allowed which I will provide more detail on in the coming weeks after I myself learn more about this new ruling. Expect to hear more about this, and other topics after I attend the Ed Slott Master Elite IRA Advisor Group workshop in the first week of November.
If you have any questions on whether this may apply to you please feel free to contact me directly.
Do you ever wonder if you are taking the right amount of risk in your investment portfolio? Does your portfolio fluctuate more than you are comfortable with but your advisor doesn't seem to validate your concerns? Is your portfolio too risky, not risky enough, or is the risk you are taking just right? How do you know?
Most investors don't have a good sense of whether they are taking the appropriate amount of risk usually because of a lack of, or poor risk analysis tools available. For example, most traditional risk questionnaires ask questions such as how old you are, your time frame for when you need the money, and whether you are focused on growth, income, safety of principal, etc. Just because a young person may have 30 years until retirement doesn't mean he/she should take a lot of risk if they are uncomfortable with high risk. Just the same, just because a 60 year old may be nearing retirement doesn’t necessarily mean they should invest conservatively as there may be other factors involved that allow that person to take more risk than a similarly aged peer. It is these, and other fundamental flaws in traditional risk questionnaires that can result in a misalignment of risk comfort and portfolio design and ultimately taking on more risk or less risk than intended both of which can potentially knock a financial plan off course.
To solve this problem, Portnoff Financial has recently partnered with Riskalyze, a cutting edge technology build on the academic framework that won the Nobel Prize for Economics that pinpoints your acceptable level of risk with unparalleled accuracy to properly align your portfolio with your risk comfort zone.
So how does it work and why is it different?
For starters, the typical flawed questions in most risk questionnaires are either eliminated or carry much less weight. Also it is difficult to understand the impact of percentage based losses or gains without the context of portfolio size so the value of your portfolio is considered and the percentage based losses are translated into actual Dollars so that you can better visualize and understand the risk you are taking. Then Riskalyze will take you through a series of questions (fewer on the simple version and more on the detailed version) aimed at helping you determine just how much downside risk you are willing to expose your portfolio to for the chance to earn a potential gain.
If you want to know if your portfolio design is aligned with your risk comfort zone, take a free brief Risk Quiz at http://www.portnofffinancial.com/free-risk-analysis.phpto pinpoint your exact risk tolerance and receive your Risk Number. After completing the quiz, you will have the option to request a free portfolio review by Portnoff Financial to compare your Risk Number with the Risk Number of your portfolio. If there is a discrepancy between the risk level of your portfolio and your risk comfort zone, Portnoff Financial can re-engineer your portfolio to better align with your Risk Number and provide you with an Investment Policy Statement including a projection for potential gains and losses that you can expect from your re-engineered portfolio.
With Portnoff Financial and Riskalyze you can feel confident that the risk in your portfolio properly aligns with your comfort zone, investment goals, and expectations.
To learn more about your Risk Number, or to request the more detailed Risk Quiz, schedule a 15 minute Introductory Call or a complimentary Discovery Consultation at http://meetme.so/DiscoveryConsultationor call me directly at 732-226-3113(NJ) or 949-226-8342(CA).
Inflation as measured by the CPI was up 0.3% in April, up 2% for the year. Most of this was from rising food and energy costs which does not help economic growth.
Housing starts moved up to 1,702,000 units per year on expectations of 980,000 and was mostly from multi-family housing; single family housing starts barely moved. This surge is likely from a return to building after the Winter and given other statistics on housing such as mortgage applications for purchase, there is not much to be very optimistic about here.
New Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Head Eases Mortgage Rules. The new FHFA head Mel Watt outlined his view that FNMA (Fannie Mae) and FHLMC (Freddie Mac) should encourage lending to less-qualified borrowers by easing recently tightened lending restrictions. Watt wants them to accept lower down payment loans and take other measures aimed at making it easier for people to borrow money to buy homes as if this strategy worked out well the first time. Sure, why not make it easier for less qualified buyers to purchase a home AFTER the market has rebounded over the last few years! This is not going to end well...
Household debt climbs to $125 billion in Q1 of 2014. Mortgages accounted for $116 billion, auto loans $8.2 billion, and student debt increased $31 billion while credit card debt declined. The increase in mortgage debt reflects less foreclosures rather than new mortgages and we all know that student debt is exploding having doubled since 2007. The decline in credit card debt reflects consumers reluctance to spend which will keep economic growth stymied.
I am planning to host a FREE Educational Seminar about Social Security benefits and Advanced Claiming Strategies in the coming weeks. Topics would likely include:
- The Role of Social Security in your Retirement Plan
- How Social Security Works
- Boosting Benefits
- When to Apply: Strategies for Maximizing Lifetime Benefits
- Coordinating Spousal Benefits
- Women & Social Security
- Taxes on Social Security Benefits
- Other Social Security Programs (Dependents' Benefits, Maximum Family Benefits, Disability Benefits)
- How Medicare & Long-Term Care integrates with Social Security
- How and When to Apply for Benefits
- History and Financing of The Social Security System
Please help me by taking the following anonymous survey so that I can plan a great event for you: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/H7BYLVH