There are many points to argue about what is right and wrong when it comes to Social Security and other age based entitled programs. But one point I think we can all agree on without beating the point to death is that Social Security is in serious trouble as we currently use it.

I am not interested in placing blame or running through all the statistical data why it won’t last. Simply put, we borrow from the future to pay for the present but sooner or later the future shows up. Anyone that borrowed against their homes in the last few years knows all to well how that statement rings true.

But what will Obama, McCain or other politicians going to do about it?  How about get real!

According to the American Academy of Actuaries, raising the retirement age to 70 will cut the projected Social Security deficit in half. The statistics back up this age as a base age to use to start benefits with incremental increases built in. The current system increases the social security age one month at a time to age 67 but that is not enough.

The fact of the matter is that people are living longer. In 1935 the retirement age was 65 and you could expect to collect for 12 years. Now that number is closer to 19 years. That’s the type of inflation we can live with, “age inflation”. But that puts pressure on the social programs geared to help seniors with their expenses including Medicare.

According to the National Bureau of Economics the retirement age that is more realistic is closer to 73-74. That might be pushing it a bit and probably impossible to get through politically. The American Academy of Actuaries concludes that long after all the baby boomers are gone the demographics tell us that social security will only cover 75% of its costs. Women will be affected even more since they live longer than men.

But will this be a blow to current generations regarding their expectations for retirement? The answer is no, at least not for those that have given it any thought. Many baby boomers have simply not saved enough for retirement and a large percentage of them do expect to earn some type of income through work during their retirement years.

Financial advisors are also not optimistic about their client’s chances of retiring at the current young age of 65 and having their money last. Inflation and modest investment returns over the last decade have pushed an even greater number of workers into that work longer, save more demographic that will come to dominate those tapping age based social programs.

Raise the retirement age and acknowledge the simple fact that were living longer and we need to make some adjustments to age based entitlement programs.

To the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), there are plenty of modern-day Willie Suttons eager to go “where the money is.” Today, “the money” is largely held by seniors. Hence, regulators say, seniors are the targets of unscrupulous salespeople armed not with pistols, but with professional designations that exaggerate their competence or their concern for seniors’ well-being.

Now some of these individuals are being sought out not by potential clients, but by federal regulators, including the SEC and FINRA. These regulators are making it clear that advisors who use the word “senior” or various synonyms to transact business unethically are squarely in their sights. These individuals are “among [regulators'] top targets,” says Tracy DeWald, general counsel at Securities America, a broker-dealer based in Omaha, Neb. “People age 60 and over are the biggest source of regulatory complaints.”

Targets

Indeed, seniors are targets for all types of unscrupulous vendors. In the financial world, many of those engaged in unethical practices—or merely failing to make adequate disclosures—hold designations that include the words “senior,” “elderly” or “retirement.” contrary to the unethical practices, the designations indicate that the holders are experts in serving the financial needs of senior citizens.

The burgeoning controversy has prompted some reputable firms to take action to avoid being tarred by the same brush. These firms have been limiting the ways their people may use some “senior” designations when doing business. According to NASAA, some product salespeople using “senior” designations typically invite senior citizens to seminars where a free lunch is served along with a presentation on investments. Either at the seminar or through follow-up contacts, some advisors ultimately sell unsuitable investments to some of the attendees.

In April, NASAA introduced a model rule on the use of senior- specific certifications and professional designations. This rule, which prohibits the misleading use of designations that include words like “senior” and “retiree,” has already been adopted by the state of Washington. At press time, New Hampshire was set to adopt the rule and other states are likely to follow suit. A report issued last year by NASAA, FINRA and the SEC lists the popular Certified Senior Advisor (CSA) designation among those it considers misleading or confusing.

That’s not to say that the mere use of the word “senior” will automatically spur regulatory scrutiny. In its model rule, NASAA leaves room for certain designations to be recognized. “Regulators are drawing a distinction between designations that are earned and those that are bought like prizes in a Cracker Jack box,” DeWald says.

What distinguishes a real designation from a specious one? “An authentic designation requires you to pass a difficult test,” DeWald explains.

In addition, DeWald adds, “there are continuing education requirements and you can be kicked out if you violate the rules. On the other hand, there are some designations that you can get by writing a check and spending a couple of hours online. Some are just made up by the person using it.”

NASAA, FINRA and the SEC are by no means the first to recognize the potential abuses of professional designations, especially when it comes to seniors. Some states, including Massachusetts and Missouri, have filed complaints or cease-and-desist orders against people for giving inappropriate investment advice to the elderly while using the “senior specialist” title. Underlying these charges is the idea that certain designations imply specialized knowledge or training, lending credibility to salespeople.

Forbidden Credentials

Some broker-dealers have effectively banned reps from publishing senior-related credentials. Genworth Financial, for example, prohibits its employees and agents from using the CSA designation (the most common senior designation) on their business cards or in their marketing materials.

“We have a similar policy,” says DeWald of Securities America. “In fact, we have lists of which designations are acceptable in published materials and which aren’t. None of the ’senior’ or ‘elder’ designations are on the accepted list. Some of our reps have these designations, which they can mention to clients in conversation. They can’t put the letters behind their names to promote themselves.”

Comparable cautions are in effect at major brokerage firms, says Sean Walters, deputy executive director at the Investment Management Consultants Association (IMCA), which confers the Certified Investment Management Analyst (CIMA) designation. “We work mainly with full-service wirehouses,” he says. “They’re paying a lot of attention to designations, including those aimed at seniors, and deciding which ones should be approved for use.”

Designations are also under scrutiny in the fee-only universe. “At NAPFA, we looked at senior specialist designations,” says Tom Orecchio of Greenbaum and Orecchio, a wealth management firm in Old Tappan, N.J., and chair of NAPFA’s board of directors. “The vast majority were not worth anything, we felt. They don’t require much studying or continuing education. There are too many credentials around; the last thing we need is more clutter,” he says. The one exception, Orecchio notes, is the Chartered Advisor for Senior Living (CASL). “It’s offered by the American College and [courses for it are] taught like courses for the CLU and ChFC.”

9,500 Strong

Of all the senior-oriented designations, the CSA is the only one mentioned specifically by states, including Nebraska, when warning seniors to check the credentials of so-called senior specialists. Several of the individuals identified in state regulatory actions hold a CSA.

The CSA designation is conferred by the Society of Certified Senior Advisors (SCSA), which bills itself as the world’s largest membership organization for professionals seeking to improve their skills in working with seniors. More than 9,500 advisors now hold a CSA designation.

SCSA executives are quick to defend their organization. “We’re aware of regulators’ concerns that certain professional designations may be misperceived by the public,” compliance specialist Bill Kaluza says. “That’s why SCSA requires each CSA to provide a written disclaimer to clients and potential clients.” This statement, while asserting that designees have taken steps to bolster their knowledge of seniors’ financial needs, includes notification that “the CSA designation alone does not imply any expertise in financial, health or social matters.”

Of course, whether all 9,500-plus CSA designees are actually making this disclaimer to every potential client they approach is difficult to determine. Kaluza says SCSA makes an effort to police its designees. “CSAs themselves are often our most reliable reporters about CSAs who do not comply with these rules,” he says.

What’s more, Kaluza claims that when a member of the public contacts the SCSA to inquire about a particular CSA, the organization investigates to see whether the CSA in question actually provided the disclaimer. “To date, we’ve had very little indication that CSAs are not using the statement,” Kaluza says.

By Donald Jay Korn
August 1, 2008

WASHINGTON — U.S. inflation soared to a 17-year-high annual rate in July, a government report showed, led by gains in food, energy, airline fares and apparel.
With energy and commodity prices on the retreat this month and the U.S. dollar strengthening, the report is unlikely to spook Federal Reserve policymakers into raising rates anytime soon as the economy struggles with rising unemployment and soft consumer spending.
Still, a surprising rise in core inflation that excludes food and energy last month will keep officials on edge about the possibility that food and energy prices will become more firmly entrenched in the economy.
The consumer price index rose 0.8% in July, the Labor Department said Thursday. That came on the heels of June’s 1.1% rise, which was the second largest June 1982.
Excluding food and energy, the CPI advanced 0.3% for a second-straight month.
Wall Street economists had expected only a 0.4% rise in the headline and 0.2% core increase, according to a Dow Jones Newswires survey.
Unrounded, the CPI rose 0.818% last month. The core CPI advanced 0.327% unrounded.
Consumer prices jumped 5.6% on a year-over-year basis, the highest rate since January 1991. The core CPI grew a more modest 2.5% compared to July 2007, though that’s still well above the Fed’s long-term goal of 1.5% to 2%. Over the past three months, core inflation rose at a 3.5% annual rate.
Though Fed officials said in a policy statement last week that inflation remains a “significant” concern, they are likely to look past the July data. The Fed is generally expected to keep official interest rates steady into next year, though the rise in core inflation, if repeated in coming months, could put rate hikes later this year back into play.
Many of the forces boosting prices in recent months — particularly high energy and commodity prices and the weaker U.S. dollar — have reversed since mid-July.
In a Dow Jones Newswires interview Wednesday, Minneapolis Fed President Gary Stern said even though the U.S. is “probably…in for a few more sizable increases” in overall prices measures, “assuming we don’t get a resurgence of energy prices, we will see over time a diminution of headline inflation, for sure.”
“As that occurs, I think we’ll also see some diminution of the core,” said Stern, who is considered one of the most vigilant inflation fighters on the Fed.
Energy prices swelled 4% last month, according to Thursday’s report. Gasoline prices spiked 4.1%, and natural gas prices rose 7.4%. Food and beverage prices rose 0.9%.
Medical care prices, meanwhile, increased a modest 0.1%.
But other core items posted sharp gains, a sign that higher headline inflation may have started seeping through the rest of the economy.
Clothing prices, for instance, rose 1.2% compared to June, a 10-year high. Transportation prices soared 1.7% on the month as airline fares swelled 1.3%, reflecting the rise in fuel prices. New vehicle prices advanced a modest 0.2%, reflecting falling demand.
Housing, which accounts for 40% of the CPI index, was up 0.6%. Rent increased 0.3%. Owners’ equivalent rent advanced 0.1%. However lodging away from home rose 0.7%, while home fuel and utilities posted sharp gains.
Services prices rose 0.5%.
In a separate report, the Labor Department said the average weekly earnings of U.S. workers, adjusted for inflation, fell 0.8% in July, suggesting incomes aren’t keeping pace with prices.
That, in turn, could further damp consumer spending which appeared weak in July, according to a retail sales report released Wednesday.
-By Brian Blackstone; Dow Jones Newswires;

WASHINGTON — The prospect of higher taxes on long-term capital gains and dividends may spur a selloff of stocks and other assets by the end of this year, according to wealth-management advisors.

Investors and business owners are on high alert because of a proposal by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, to hike capital gains and dividend tax rates for many investors by between five and 13 percentage points.

Some advisors are telling clients to consider taking gains soon, because tax rates could change next year, particularly if Democrats win the White House and hold on to their congressional majorities.

“For the foreseeable future, you’re not going to get a better chance to move out of appreciated positions, from a tax perspective,” said Hank Alden, an advisor at Everest International Group.

Investment advisors caution that taxes alone should not be the overriding factor in investment decisions and decisions to buy or sell should be made as part of an overall strategy related to one’s portfolio.

But for many investors who have stocks or other holdings that they would otherwise sell in the next several years, the window for doing so at preferential tax rates may be closing.

Obama wants to bump the long-term capital gains and dividend rates up from their current level of 15% to at least 20%, and possibly as high as 28%.

The higher rates would apply only to individuals with income in excess of $200,000 or more, or couples earning more than $250,000.

Jason Furman, economic director for the Obama campaign, said that even for those making more than that amount, “we believe a rate much closer to 20% would be feasible.” That is based on campaign projections that assume that other Obama proposals would also be enacted.

Obama’s opponent, GOP nominee-designate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., favors keeping the capital gains and dividend rates at 15% for all investors, regardless of income level.

Screening for “Insiders” Business owners in particular may accelerate plans to sell their firms because of a looming capital gains increase, wealth advisors said.

“A number of family businesses have asked us the question, if we sold later than 2008, how much would my business have to appreciate just to break even,” or to realize as much profit as they would if they sold in 2008, said Jeff Paravano, a partner at the law firm of Baker Hostetler.

“When they see the spreadsheet, and the additional tax, a number of them have decided to sell this year,” Paravano said.

Some investors are even trying to turn a looming tax increase to their advantage by betting that business owners will sell before the tax hike. Investment advisor Robert Willens said some investors are “screening” for companies where founders or their descendants own a large share of the company stock.

Since those “insiders” are likely to have a low basis, they will be more motivated to avoid the tax hit by selling the business before the higher rate kicks in, he said.

“If investors believe a company will be sold at a premium, they may buy in the hope of reaping gains,” said Willens.

Dividend Rate Hike

Companies that pay dividends and their shareholders also are feeling pressure to act ahead of any tax hike.

Some companies may accelerate their fourth-quarter dividend payment from December 2008 from January 2009, according to Paravano.

In anticipation of a higher tax rate on dividends, investors who hold income-producing stock may want to shift to stock that doesn’t pay dividends and roll that into a tax-preferred savings vehicle such as an individual retirement account. That way the entire investment could appreciate without being taxed until the IRA is cashed out.

But they will be limited by annual contribution limits to IRAs, set at $5,000 for 2008, with an additional $1,000 for individuals over 50.

Uncertainty about how quickly Congress might move to raise taxes, and when higher rates will actually take effect, adds to the urgency. While recent GOP-led Congresses have typically made tax changes prospective from the date a bill is signed into law, that has not always been the practice, according to wealth advisors and economists.

Under current law, the 15% rate on capital gains and dividends is in effect until the end of 2010. But many observers expect Congress to act next year to fix the estate tax. Facing budgetary pressures, lawmakers may move at the same time to hike capital gains, dividend and other tax rates that were cut during President George W. Bush’s first term.

Economic Impacts

Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., said lawmakers will weigh carefully the effect of tax increases on an economy already burdened by high energy prices and credit woes. “We don’t want to do anything that would slow a recovery. But the deficit is a very stubborn fact,” Neal said in an interview.

Economists disagree over the broad economic impacts of an increase in the capital gains and dividend rates. Stephen Entin, president and executive director of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, has argued that a hike in the capital gains rate to 25% could damp the gross domestic product by as much as 6% over the long term.

But Furman of the Obama campaign said there is evidence that measured increases in tax rates that help reduce the deficit, as Obama is proposing, will not have a sustained negative effect on the economy.

Furman also said other Obama proposals will encourage savings and investment, such as an enhanced saver’s credit for lower-income earners.

“What investors should look at is what’s going to happen to overall economic policy. This is a change in economic strategy to emphasize fiscal responsibility in a way that we haven’t seen,” said Furman.

By Martin Vaughan
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON, DC- U.S. Senators Bob Casey (D-PA), a member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, and Herb Kohl (D-WI), Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, today introduced a bill to help protect seniors from investment fraud.  The Senior Investor Protections Enhancement Act would increase penalties for those who commit securities violations against people who are at least 62 years old.

“Everyday, older Americans are targeted for investment scams and they see their life savings go down the drain” said Senator Casey “Pennsylvania has the second highest number of residents over the age of 65 and we must take care of them.  This legislation will help better protect our older citizens from being targeted from fraud.”

“Many seniors are discovering that their life savings may not be enough to last them throughout their retirement.  As they turn to investments to bridge the gap, seniors need to know that they can trust the people who handle their money,” said Senator Kohl.  “This bill will ramp up the punishment for those who advantage of older Americans’ well-earned retirement savings.”

Americans over the age of 65 control an estimated $15 trillion in assets, a large portion of which are investable.  Seniors have difficult and complicated decisions to make on how to stretch their savings throughout their retirement.  Their assets remain at risk from traditional fraud and Ponzi schemes.  Recently, seniors are increasingly offered many new but complicated investment tools such as reverse mortgages and various annuity products.  While these products can be very valuable to Americans generally and seniors specifically, they can also be abused by unscrupulous actors.    

Additionally, many older Americans are targeted by con artists who seek to exploit them through manipulation and fraud.  Seniors already account for more than half of all investor complaints received by state securities regulators.   The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has reported that they are working to improve their ability to prevent fraud and abuse where possible and prosecute it where necessary.   

Under the Senior Investor Protections Enhancement Act, penalties for existing securities violations could include an additional $50,000 civil fine for each violation that is primarily directed toward, specifically targets, or is committed against a senior.  Under the legislation, seniors are defined as persons age 62 or older, the age at which most retirement savings become available for use and investment.  

The bill would increase penalties for those who commit securities violations against seniors - violations could include selling them products that are unsuitable for their age, failing to disclose fees, lock-ups of cash or large penalty charges, switching investments sold with the one marketed or other material aspects of the investment.  The bill would not interfere with legitimate investment advisors who recommend products and investments appropriate for their customers.

Last September, the Aging Committee held a hearing to examine some of the questionable practices used by so-called senior financial investment specialists in order to gain access to the retirement savings of older Americans.  An investigation conducted by the Committee revealed that many seniors targeted by such unscrupulous salesmen have lost their life savings because they were steered toward investment instruments that were unsuitable for them, given their retirement needs and life expectancy.

For more information on retirement income and investing for income visit www.livelongliverich.com and don’t forget to sign up for the free newsletter!

NEW YORK — Your dividend check is probably in the mail.

While the number of companies slashing or eliminating dividends has increased due to crises in the housing, mortgage and credit markets, a great many others continue these quarterly payouts, and some are even raising them.

Dividend-paying stocks remain a safe and attractive holding for investors seeking relief from the seemingly interminable onslaught of negative economic news. For elderly investors on a fixed income, dividends provide an essential stream of steady income — regardless of the vicissitudes of equity markets.

“A company with a long and consistent history of raising annual dividends is the best defense against a weak economy,” said William Schultz, chief investment officer at McQueen, Ball & Associates Inc., in Bethlehem, Pa. “A solid, dividend-paying policy reflects a financially healthy company that is able to grow its earnings in any and all market environments.”

Howard Kornblue, who once ran a mutual fund for Pilgrim America that focused solely on dividend-paying stocks, also believes such securities will serve beleaguered investors very well in today’s jittery environment.

“We sought out companies that not only raised their dividends annually, but also had strong balance sheets, no significant long-term debt and were engaged in businesses with solid outlooks,” he said.

Scott Schluederberg, a portfolio manager at Hardesty Capital Management, thinks the current environment for dividends is “fantastic,” as long as one holds a reasonably diversified portfolio of dividend-paying stocks.

Look around and you will see a wide array of companies boosting their dividends. Stocks as disparate as Rohm & Haas Co. (ROH), State Street Corp. (STT), Coca-Cola Co. (KO) and Target Corp. (TGT) have all recently hiked these payouts.

Dividend increases come from a broad array of industries, even in these troubled times.

Schultz especially likes two sectors with a plethora of dividend-paying firms: pharmaceuticals and consumer staples.

“There are a substantial number of blue-chip companies in these areas — including Procter & Gamble (PG), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) and 3M (MMM) — which have rewarded their shareholders with uninterrupted annual dividend increases for almost five decades,” he said. “It all has to do with their ability to generate consistently growing earnings.”

In one of his investment strategies, Schluederberg keeps a basket of stocks called “Trophy Dividend Growers,” comprising blue-chips which pay out a very comfortable portion of their earnings (30% to 50%) as dividends.

“This gives them a good cushion — they can still pay dividends even in the event of an earnings shortfall,” he said. “We also consider earnings expectations. If the payout ratio starts going above, say, 70% of earnings, then we become concerned and consider exiting the position. We want to make sure the dividend is safe.”

In this strategy portfolio, the collective dividend yield is a very robust 5.2% (versus 2.2% for the overall market). Typically, the yield of this strategy is between 3.5% and 4.25%. “Dividends don’t fluctuate the way stock price does,” Schluederberg noted.

His “trophy dividend” growers include Anheuser-Busch Cos. (BUD). “We bought that stock in the upper $40s when it yielded close to 3%,” he said. “Its value was fully realized when InBev acquired it for $70.”

The best dividend-paying industries, Kornblue asserts, are companies engaged in utilities, essential consumer products, health care, pharmaceuticals, energy, food and beverages. “The managements of these companies are eager to maintain their dividends because they know many of their shareholders invest in them primarily for the dividend yield,” he noted.

But some companies can no longer afford the luxury of handing out dividends.

S&P recently reported that 97 publicly-traded companies (of the 7,000 it tracks) cut their dividend in the second quarter, versus just 18 in the year-ago period. This was the largest figure since the second quarter of 1990, when 108 companies reduced their dividend payouts. Moreover, companies posting dividend increases amounted to 455, a 16% drop from the year-ago period.

Kornblue, now senior portfolio manager at Alpha Fiduciary Generational Wealth Management in Scottsdale, Ariz., thinks dividends will become scarcer as the economy continues to falter. As such, to play it safe, he suggests that dividend-seekers completely avoid stocks in a few distressed industries, particularly financial services, auto makers and home building.

Although the phenomenon of high-profile financial services companies — notably Citigroup Inc. (C), Wachovia Corp. (WB) and Washington Mutual Inc. (WM) — reducing or eliminating dividends has grabbed headlines, the scenario in the overall sector isn’t all that dire.

In fact, according to S&P, for the first half of the year, 7.9% of financial issues shaved their dividends (versus 2.9% for non-financials.) More telling, 20.9% of financial stocks actually hiked their dividends. Still, the losses incurred by the unfortunate shareholders of those financial firms that slashed payouts have been enormous — on the order of $13 billion, S&P estimates.

As for financial services stocks that continue to pay dividends, investors should be extremely cautious. Schultz cites US Bancorp (USB), which has faithfully raised its dividend 36 consecutive years, an impressive stretch. “Given the turmoil in the banking industry, we are waiting to see what they do in the fourth quarter,” Schultz noted.

Kornblue also thinks things will get worse for the financial sector, citing the deepening credit crisis, slowing economy and the ever-unfolding mortgage meltdown. Many financial stocks still paying a dividend carry unsustainably high yields, he warns, strongly suggesting dividend cuts are inevitable.

“There’s a lot of uncertainty here, especially among mid-sized banks,” he said. “More shoes may drop as we learn more about the full extent of their exposure to toxic mortgages.”

But not all financials are bad, Schluederberg insists, especially those companies that have diversified operations, have avoided risky acquisitions, or have too much exposure to mortgages. For example, he likes JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM), which just posted better-than-expected second-quarter results.

“They are well-positioned to survive the current crisis,” he said. “In fact, they served as the backstop for the Federal Reserve’s Bear Stearns rescue. JPMorgan shares have sold off recently, but I think they can sustain their dividend.”

While some investors crave a high dividend yield, this can sometimes be a misleading concept. A steep dividend yield may simply mean that the stock price has fallen too far, but the company is still dutifully paying its dividend. This often equates to an unsustainable situation, because the company may have weakening internal fundamentals and likely will have to cut or abolish the dividend.

“A high dividend yield does not necessarily mean that the company is healthy and fast-growing, although it depends on each individual case,” Schultz said.

“As investors, we are more interested at the rate of growth of the dividend, not the absolute dividend figure itself.”

Indeed, some industries like utilities and big pharma tend to have high dividend yields, but they are hardly “high-growth” industries.

To avoid high-dividend yield traps, Schluederberg looks at future earnings estimates. “If a company is paying a $1 annual dividend and their earnings are forecast to be $1.05, then that dividend is in jeopardy,” he explained.

For more information on investing for income visit www.livelongliverich.com and don’t forget to sign up for the free newsletter!

By Palash R. Ghosh
A Dow Jones Newswires Column

I know that over the years many couples can anticipate what the other feels and thinks about a variety of situations and these successful unions are often the result of a meeting of the minds on many of these issues. But if you are like me, and I suspect many of you are, from time to time, (I am trying to be delicate here as my wife reads this column) caught completely of guard by your spouses reaction to situations you assumed you agreed upon. Since I am a relatively young man, 44 years old, these issues revolve around social issues and not being as sensitive to my wife’s feeling as maybe I should have been. That being said, we do agree on most things.

But when it comes to money and what spouses feel, understand and anticipate, what you expect, well, is probably not what you’ll get.

In a survey conducted with 502 couples that have been married for at least 24 years, with an average age of 54 for men and 53 for women, and nine years from retirement, they had some major disagreements on what to expect and how to get there. 

 61% disagreed on which income source (workplace savings, pensions, Social Security, etc.) would be their primary income source of funds in retirement.
 58% disagreed about whom their spouse would turn to for financial guidance in the event of the other spouse’s death.
 41% disagreed about whether at least one partner would work in retirement.
 39 % differed on the amount of their life insurance coverage.

One way to resolve some of these issues is to sit down and go over some of the more important financial and social issues that will play a major role in your retirement and in your spending habits and expectations. Some questions that each of you should answer separately are:

 How much income can you expect to have?
 Where do you expect to live? Perhaps, where do you want to live?
 What is your vision of retirement? Make sure your goals are in line.
 What is your plan for your estate? Charity? Children? Grandchildren?
 What will we do if one or both of us become ill? Do we want to go to an assisted living center? Nursing home?
 Do you have a living will?

Find the issues that are important to you and write your answers down, once again, I suggest doing it separately, and get back together and compare the results. I also suggest a pot of coffee for this part as I anticipate there to be some answers each of you did not expect from the other.

Another issue is how much of this should you share with your children. I am sure your children are wonderful and would never make a decision that may benefit themselves (i.e. their inheritance) over your good time, but be sure there are those from the “ME” generation that will do just that.

Once you start along this process it is sure to bring up some issues you both will not agree upon. It is best however to identify the issues early and reach a compromise rather that allow your lives to progress towards retirement and collide when it may be too late to adjust.

Communication can be the lifeblood of a successful relationship. Use this process to heighten the level of communication and intellectual debate with your spouse. It will lead to good things and show you care about the others feelings and desires. No amount of disagreement will overshadow that significant benefit to your relationship. 

For more information on retirement planning visit www.livelongliverich.com and sign up for the free newsletter.

The prevailing sentiment among financial planners for several decades now has been that inflation will run at normal levels over time and that investment returns will outpace the erosion of buying power caused by inflation.

But for those at or near retirement, what was supposed to occur has not. Investment returns over the last decade for the S&P have been just over 3 percent. Inflation for real people is 6 percent year over year. Even those that have planned and saved diligently over that period did not plan for such low returns or such high inflation. To be sure the issues facing seniors today are decidedly more complex.

The commonly accepted norms may play out from generation to generation, but today’s retirees unfortunately have to deal with the reality that many will not have enough income generation to last through their investment lives.

This generation can count on Social Security but for 2008, social security payments rose 2.3 percent. Let’s see how far that goes when your air conditioning bill arrives. That sinking feeling many will feel is the realization that they are woefuly under prepared even though they saved and invested like they were supposed to do.

Fact: Americans 65 and older represent the fastest growing group seeking bankruptcy protection.

Fact: In the last 15 years, among households 65 and older, the average amount of credit card debt more than doubled.

Fact: Median amount of mortgage debt for households 55 and older rose 63% in the last 15 years.

Fact: Debt is at an all time high and savings is at an all time low.

Unfortunately, in some cases, hard decisions will have to be made. Will I eat? or sleep well.  Outliving your money is not an option.

So what can you do to help extend the income producing life of your assets? There are several things you can do, basic things that can help. Together, they will add up in your favor.

1) Instead of building debt for fear of liquidating assets, begin a systematic withdrawal from your non-income producing mutual funds. I would rather see you keep the high interest off the books which will eat you alive over time. Your returns through investments may not offset the high cost of that debt.

2) If you have individual stock investments, make sure they pay a dividend so you can receive some type of return and income stream while you wait out a bear market.

3) Use tax-efficient withdrawal strategies from your accounts. Make sure you think of the tax consequenses of your trading activitity. Should that be purchased in my IRA or personal account? Since my tax bracket is low this year, would it be wise to take a larger withdrawal from my IRA instead of the minumum?

4) Ladder your fixed income investments. Invest some in short-term and some in longer-term and some in between. Spreading your investment maturities may increase your income stream.

5) Look into guaranteed lifetime income producing annuities. The annuities of today are not as restrictive or as expensive as those in the past and it may help you sleep at night. Don’t listen to what others say, examine the benefits and costs for yourself and decide if it is right for you and your family.

Every retiree needs to take a hard look at their assets and understand the risks their asset allocation may have on their ncome stream later in life. This is not the time to put your head in the sand. Educate yourself and seek help if you need it. If you examine your options now instead of waitng, it could be the difference between living the retirement you dreamed of, or living in your son-in-laws basement.

For more information about how to create retirement income and easy to use strategies and links to useful information please visit www.livelongliverich.com.

BOSTON– (BUSINESS WIRE) — Unexpected health care costs and inflation are top concerns for pre-retirees and retirees, according to a retirement survey recently commissioned by MFS Investment Management® (MFS®). In line with these concerns, pre-retirees expect to work on average a full decade longer than those already in retirement, with nearly half expecting to work early in retirement and one in three working throughout retirement to bolster their savings.

“Due to the many challenges and concerns facing today’s pre-retirees, they are being forced to reassess what retirement means — working longer and working into retirement,” said William Finnegan, Senior Vice President and Director of Global Retail Marketing for MFS. “We see the changing definition of retirement as a tremendous opportunity for financial advisors to engage their clients about retirement income planning.”

Pre-retirees and retirees alike view unexpected health care expenses and inflation in general as top concerns regarding retirement savings, with more pre-retirees viewing each with greater concern than retirees — 70% to 60% for health care expenses and 64% to 50% for inflation, respectively.

“Inflation concerns — be it outliving ones’ savings, unexpected health costs or lost purchasing power — are clearly on the minds of today’s pre-retirees,” said Finnegan. “We recommend advisors and their clients develop a retirement policy statement, just as they would an investment policy, tailored to the needs and risk tolerance of their clients, which can serve as the basis for a plan designed to help a client’s nest egg continue to grow - keeping pace with inflation while generating the income necessary to meet the challenges of the rising costs of everyday expenses.”

Pre-retirees are redefining retirement. According to the survey, existing retirees retired at an average age of 58, with 40% relying on their pension as the primary source of income. Today’s pre-retirees are approaching retirement differently, fully expecting to work on average a full ten years (age 68) later than current retirees, with roughly the same number relying on pensions (23%) as on workplace retirement plans (25%). While approximately one-quarter (24%) of today’s retirees continue to work or worked early in retirement, nearly half (47%) of pre-retirees expect to continue to work in the early phase of retirement. Of those surveyed, 32% of pre-retirees plan to work throughout their entire retirement as well. That figure drops to one in ten for retirees.

“Baby boomers are going to redefine retirement, and financial advisors need to deepen their involvement in the planning process,” Finnegan added. “With typically low savings rates for the average American and greater potential longevity, combined with the above-cited concerns over inflation, pre-retirees will be living and working longer than previous generations. We are challenged as an industry to develop investment products and strategies to help clients manage their financial picture in a redefined retirement phase.”

Nearly half (46%) of pre-retirees and more than one-quarter (28%) of retirees surveyed reported that neither they nor their advisor have developed a formal retirement income plan, representing a tremendous opportunity for financial advisors. Survey results show that once a conversation about retirement income planning took place, both pre-retirees and retirees took action:

• Half changed investment allocations (53% pre-retirees, 52% retirees);
• One-third (32%) of pre-retirees increased their savings;
• About three in ten consolidated assets to one advisor (27% pre-retirees, 30% retirees).

“Once pre-retirees have engaged an advisor regarding retirement income, many take action,” concluded Finnegan. “In the coming decades, today’s pre-retirees will redefine what it means to be ‘retired’ and extending the planning conversation well into their golden years may benefit them and provide market opportunities for advisors and planners.”

The MFS investor survey was conducted in September 2007, with responses from 204 pre-retirees and 229 retirees, between the age of 55 and 75, who were either working full-time or retired, used a paid financial advisor and reported at least $100,000 in investable assets (excluding retirement and real estate). Similarly, the MFS advisor survey included responses from 206 financial advisors who identified themselves as financial advisors, brokers, investment managers, certified financial planner or wealth managers in September and October 2007. Richard Day Research, Inc., an independent research firm not affiliated with MFS, conducted both surveys and did not identify MFS as the study sponsor.
MFS manages $200 billion in assets on behalf of more than 5 million individual and institutional investors worldwide as of December 31, 2007. The company traces its origins to 1924 and the creation of America’s first mutual fund.

NEW YORK — Seniors are discovering that paying for prescription drugs can be a bitter pill to swallow.

Shelling out for prescription drugs is making a sizeable dent in some retirees’ nest eggs: one in four middle-income retirees spends $1 out of every $10 of monthly retirement income on medications alone, with many in the dark about how to reduce these expenses, according to a study released Tuesday and commissioned by Medco Health Solutions Inc. (MHS), a pharmacy benefits manager.

And one in three retirees polled said they are spending far more on their health care and prescription drugs than they expected, with more than half saying that they completely overlooked medical expenses — which are rising much faster than inflation — when they were planning for their retirement needs.

Fortunately, while it may be too late for retirees to plan, it’s not too late for them to act to cut monthly expenses for medications, experts say. Speaking to your physician about less expensive alternatives to your current medication and optimizing doses you take can make a big difference, as can making changes to how you get medications.

And with enrollment in Medicare prescription-drug plans for 2008 about to start, now has never been a more important time for seniors to think about what prescription drugs they take and how much they are likely to cost under different plan options.

“Retirees can save a bundle just by switching from brand name drugs to generic alternatives, which will be every bit as effective and safe,” says Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers League, a consumer advocacy group in Washington.

Savings from switching to generics can run from $2,300 to $5,000 a year depending on the number of prescriptions and types of medication, according to the Consumer Reports Best Buy Drugs research (www.bestbuydrugs.org). That’s a lot of money, especially if you are living on a fixed income of $30,000 a year or less, she adds.

Cost-Saving Strategies

There are a number of other strategies retirees can employ to reduce their drug costs, but the problem is that many retirees are either unaware of them or reluctant to use them. That’s the main reason why the National Consumer League and Medco are launching a national effort to educate retirees on the importance of actively managing their drug expenses and how to cut their monthly drug costs (www.medicaredadvisor.com).

For example, three out of four retirees polled indicated they were aware of the cost savings benefits of getting their drugs from a mail order pharmacy, but only 40% of retirees said they use this tool to reduce costs.

Woody Eisenberg, chief medical officer of Medco’s Retiree Solutions, says the prospect of using mail order can be a little daunting for the elderly, but it’s actually quite simple to set up. You just mail in your prescription along with name, address and other details. Once you are set up on the system, the mail order company takes the initiative, and will send you advance reminders about prescription refills and renewals. And the savings can be considerable. For example, you might pay just a few dollars for a 90-day prescription of a generic drug compared with dozens of dollars for the same prescription if you pick it up at a pharmacy. The dollar differential for brand name drugs is even bigger, says Eisenberg.

Optimizing drug doses in consultation with a physician is another strategy that can help seniors save money — but only 13% of retirees indicated that they were aware they could take fewer pills or capsules at a higher dose in order to reduce the number of pills or capsules they would need to buy.

In addition, when picking a Medicare prescription-drug plan, 40% of respondents said their primary factor for choosing a plan is the price of the premium, while only 15% consider the range of drugs offered.

“By looking just at the premiums, you can be penny wise and pound foolish,” says Greenberg. “We encourage seniors to line up their prescriptions, call the plans and ask them what they cover and at what percentage.”

The national survey of 1,000 Americans over age 65 was conducted for Medco by Directive Analytics.