Reservation Rewards and FTD.com are scam artists, beware
Update to this post: Web Loyalty, Inc. customer service/ consumer affairs has contacted me and offered a full refund. UPDATE 2: They followed through on their words and I have received $210 back. I encourage you to request your money back in full, and post any updates in the comments below, if you have no other means of getting your voice heard as to this “scam.” I truly feel I was scammed even though they returned my money.
If you don’t pay close enough attention to your checking account you could be getting scammed like myself. I purchased flowers from FTD.com back in March of 2007, and just finally caught a recurring charge for $10 a month. FTD willingly allowed me to be ripped off as I did not sign up for any offer, however, I was entered into a subscription and they gave reservation rewards my card number and uthorization. I called reservation rewards, aka Web Royalty, Inc. and was able to get back 6 months worth of fraudulent charges.. but beyond that it’s my loss. Basically, those $50 flowers for my wife ended up costing over $200. This pisses me off to no end and I do not reccomend doing business with FTD at all.
Suze Orman, what exactly are your credentials?
I’ve been somewhat dumbfounded at the popularity of Suze Orman, since I posted an article about her on Larry King several months ago I continue to receive a ton of traffic. So, I started looking into the glimpse of stupidity I witnessed through her on Larry King to see that in fact, there is more to the story. It seems this lady is pure marketing genius, without much in the form of credentials. It seems to me, someone handing out financial advice as often as she does should have some sort of eduction. However, looking everywhere for any mention of education proved futile. It seems, unless proved otherwise, she is strangling women all over the country with her words as truth, simply because she is a woman, rather than on any merit. That’s not to say that some of Suze’s common sense tips and advice aren’t all fine and dandy, and helpful to some or many – but they aren’t based on anything but her word.
I found an article written over 10 years ago at Forbes that highlighted this fact quite well.Evidently, anyone can call themselves a financial planner, without actually having to obtain any necessary licenses. This just goes to show, be wise and consider the source – even if they are an award winning author – it doesn’t mean they actually know what in the hell they are talking about or that you should listen to them.
Thrift Savings Plan
The Federal Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP, is a retirement savings plan for civilians who are, or previously were, employed by the United States Government and for members of the uniformed services. The TSP encompasses many millions of investors and has substantial assets. As of July 2007, the TSP had US$224,000,000,000 among 3.77 million investors.[1]
The TSP is a defined contribution plan administered by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. In most ways, the TSP closely resembles the dynamics of 401(k) plans. The retirement assets derived from a TSP account will depend on how much has been contributed to the account (both by the employee, and if applicable, his or her agency) during the account holder’s working years and the earnings on those contributions. The government will make automatic and matching contributions, for certain (FERS) civilian employees, based on the employee’s contributions. Employees under the CSRS (Civil Service Retirement System) may participate in the TSP, but are not eligible for matching contributions. The typical FERS matching formula is: 1% regardless of employee contribution (even if zero), then 1% for each 1% contributed by the employee (to a maximum of 3%), then 0.5% for each 1% contributed by the employee (to an additional 1% match maximum). In other words, the employee may receive up to 1%+3%+1% = 5% matching contributions. Military members are generally not eligible for matching contributions.
Prior to 2006, the amount that could be contributed was limited to a certain percentage of basic pay. In 2006, this percentage limit was removed; the only remaining restriction on contributions is that imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. However, matching contributions, as outlined above, are limited to 5%.
The TSP offers the same type of savings and tax benefits that many private corporations offer their employees under 401(k) and similar plans. TSP regulations are published in title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1600 — 1690, and are periodically supplemented and amended in the Federal Register.
TSP funds
The TSP offers investors the following choice of funds:
- Individual funds
- G fund[2] – Government Securities fund. These are unique government securities, backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government, available only through the G Fund.
- F Fund[3] – Fixed Income Index fund. Invested in Barclays U.S. Debt Index Fund. Tracks the Lehman Aggregate Bond Index.
- C fund[4] – Common Stock Index fund. Invested in Barclays Equity Index Fund. Tracks the total return version[5] of the S&P 500 index.
- S Fund[6] – Small Capitalization Stock Index fund. Invested in Barclays Extended Market Index Fund. Tracks the float-adjusted total return version[5] of the Wilshire 4500 index.
- I Fund[7] – International Stock Index fund. Invested in Barclays EAFE Index Fund. Tracks the net version[5] of the MSCI EAFE index.
- Lifecycle (L) funds, described below, which maintain a dynamic melange of the Individual funds, appropriately and frequently rebalanced in anticipation of employee’s retirement date.
Four of the Individual funds, managed by Barclays Global Investors, are trust funds open only to tax-exempt employee benefit plans. These funds are not mutual funds and are not open to individual investors. As such, there are no tickers for the funds reported in the financial press.
In 2005, the TSP introduced the Lifecycle funds (L2040, L2030, L2020 L2010, L Income), which are composed of percentages of the five Individual funds based on target retirement year. The composition of the L funds will shift more to the G and F Funds as the target years approach. For instance, around 2010, the L2010 fund will be given a makeup similar to the current L Income fund, and an aggressive L2050 fund will be established. These asset shifts are automatic and the advantage of the L funds.
The following percentages indicate the initial breakdown of the L funds at the time of their creation. According to TSP literature, these funds are rebalanced on a quarterly basis, becoming less risky (higher percentage in the G fund), as they eventually align with the initial L Income percentages by their “target dates”.
- L2040 [8] – 5%G, 10%F, 42%C, 18%S, 25%I
- L2030 [9] – 16%G, 9%F, 38%C, 16%S, 21%I
- L2020 [10] – 27%G, 8%F, 34%C, 12%S, 19%I
- L2010 [11] – 43%G, 7%F, 27%C, 8%S, 15%I
- L Income [12] – 74%G, 6%F, 12%C, 3%S, 5%I
Options and features available to TSP investors
- TSP members may, if they switch to non-governmental employment, roll-over their TSP accounts into qualifying retirement accounts with their new employer.
- It is also possible for those moving into federal employment to roll-over their existing 401(k) into the TSP. The TSP also allows participants who are active employees to move assets from regular IRAs into the plan.
- Any TSP member may change the fund allocation of future contributions at any time. He or she may also redistribute the existing assets into any of the TSP funds at any time which is called an “Interfund Transfer” or IFT. If the IFT is submitted before 12pm Eastern, then the IFT is effective at close of business that day. If the IFT is submitted after 12pm Eastern, then the IFT is effective at close of business the following day. The Thrift Savings Plan will implement restrictions on the number of interfund transfers a participant can make per month in order to curb frequent trading and its associated costs to TSP participants. However, the TSP does want to provide the opportunity for participants to rebalance their accounts and to permit unrestricted access to the Government Securities Investment (G) Fund. Accordingly, the restrictions would be as follows:
Participants can make two (2) interfund transfers per calendar month. After that, they may only move money from the Fixed Income Index Investment (F) Fund, the Common Stock Index Investment (C) Fund, the Small Capitalization Stock Index Investment (S) Fund, the International Stock Index Investment (I) Fund, and the L Funds to the G Fund. [13]
- TSP members may, upon retirement, purchase various kinds of annuities with some or all of their account assets.
- TSP members may, during their working years, take out two types of loans against the assets of their account, which must be repaid via payroll deduction at a self-paid interest rate based upon the current G fund return.
- The TSP web site provides account access at all times, including the most recent quarterly participant statements.
- At the employee’s option, detailed quarterly participant statements may be mailed to the address of record.
- Account information, share prices, and plan news/materials can be obtained at the TSP web site and via the toll-free access number: 1-TSP-YOU-FRST (1-877-986-3778).
TSP history
- Lifecycle funds were introduced in 2005.
- Andrew Saul is confirmed by the United States Senate as Chairman of the Federal Thrift Retirement Investment Board.
- On October 30, 2000, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398) was signed into law. One provision of the law extended participation in the TSP to members of the uniformed services.
- The United States Congress established the TSP in the Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986.
External links
- The Official TSP Home Page, maintained by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
- FRTIB.gov, official site of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
- Historical daily prices of TSP funds.
- Official: Starting in June 2003.
- Unofficial: Starting in January 1995.
References
- ^ [1]
- ^ [2]
- ^ [3]
- ^ [4]
- ^ a b c “TSP Individual funds“. Retrieved on 2008-12-22.
- ^ [5]
- ^ [6]
- ^ [7]
- ^ [8]
- ^ [9]
- ^ [10]
- ^ [11]
- ^ TSP: FAQ Ch 14, IFT Restrictions; 2008 Apr 24
- The text of this article has been adapted from http://www.tsp.gov/uniserv/features/chapter01.html, a work of the United States government and thus in the public domain.
ERISA and your 401k; Employee Retirement Income Security Act
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (Pub.L. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829, enacted September 2, 1974) is an American federal statute that establishes minimum standards for pension plans in private industry and provides for extensive rules on the federal income tax effects of transactions associated with employee benefit plans. ERISA was enacted to protect the interests of employee benefit plan participants and their beneficiaries by requiring the disclosure to them of financial and other information concerning the plan; by establishing standards of conduct for plan fiduciaries; and by providing for appropriate remedies and access to the federal courts.
ERISA is sometimes used to refer to the full body of laws regulating employee benefit plans, which are found mainly in the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA itself.
Responsibility for the interpretation and enforcement of ERISA is divided among the Department of Labor, the Department of the Treasury (particularly the Internal Revenue Service), and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
History
The history of ERISA can be said to have begun in 1961 when President John F. Kennedy created the President’s Committee on Corporate Pension Plans. The movement for pension reform gained some momentum when the Studebaker Corporation, an automobile manufacturer, closed its plant in 1963; the pension plan was so poorly funded that Studebaker could not afford to provide all employees with their pensions. The company created three groups. Group 1 consisted of 3,600 workers who reached the retirement age of 60. They got full pension benefits. Group 2 consisted of 4,000 workers, aged 40-59, who had ten years with Studebaker. They got lump sum payments that roughly equated to 15% of the actuarial value of their pension benefits. Group 3 was a residual group of 2,900 workers with no vested pension rights. They got nothing.
In 1967, Senator Jacob Javits proposed legislation that would address the funding, vesting, reporting, and disclosure issues identified by the presidential committee. His bill was opposed by business groups and labor unions, both of whom sought to retain the flexibility they enjoyed under pre-ERISA law.
A turning point in the history of ERISA came in 1970, when NBC broadcast Pensions: The Broken Promise, an hour-long television special that showed millions of Americans the consequences of poorly funded pension plans and onerous vesting requirements. In the following years, Congress held a series of public hearings on pension issues and public support for pension reform grew significantly.
ERISA was enacted in 1974 and signed into law by President Gerald Ford on September 2, 1974 — Labor Day. In the years since 1974, ERISA has been amended repeatedly.
Coverage
Pension plans
ERISA does not require employers to establish pension plans. Likewise, as a general rule, it does not require that plans provide a minimum level of benefits. Instead, it regulates the operation of a pension plan once it has been established.
Under ERISA, pension plans must provide for vesting of employees’ pension benefits after a specified minimum number of years. ERISA requires that the employers who sponsor plans satisfy certain minimum funding requirements.
ERISA also regulates the manner in which a pension plan may pay benefits. For example, a defined benefit plan must pay a married participant’s pension as a “joint-and-survivor annuity” that provides continuing benefits to the surviving spouse unless both the participant and the spouse waive the survivor coverage.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation was established by ERISA to provide coverage in the event that a terminated defined benefit pension plan does not have sufficient assets to provide the benefits earned by participants. Later amendments to ERISA require an employer who withdraws from participation in a multiemployer pension plan with insufficient assets to pay all participants’ vested benefits to contribute the pro rata share of the plan’s unfunded vested benefits liability.
Health benefit plans
ERISA does not require that an employer provide health insurance to its employees or retirees, but it regulates the operation of a health benefit plan if an employer chooses to establish one.
There have been several significant amendments to ERISA concerning health benefit plans:
- The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) provides some employees and beneficiaries with the right to continue their coverage under a health benefit plan for a limited time after certain events, such as the loss of employment.
- The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) prohibits a health benefit plan from refusing to cover an employee’s pre-existing medical conditions in some circumstances. It also bars health benefit plans from certain types of discrimination on the basis of health status, genetic information, or disability.
Other relevant amendments to ERISA include the Newborns’ and Mothers’ Health Protection Act, the Mental Health Parity Act, and the Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act.
During the 1990s and 2000s, many employers who promised lifetime health coverage to their retirees limited or eliminated those benefits.[1][2] ERISA does not provide for vesting of health care benefits in the way that employees become vested in their accrued pension benefits. Employees and retirees who were promised lifetime health coverage may be able to enforce those promises by suing the employer for breach of contract, or by challenging the right of the health benefit plan to change its plan documents in order to eliminate those promised benefits.
Pension vesting
Before ERISA, some defined benefit pension plans required decades of service before an employee’s benefit became vested. It was not unusual for a plan to provide no benefit at all to an employee who left employment before retirement (age 65 or perhaps age 55), regardless of the length of the employee’s service.
As of 2007, employees’ benefits in a defined benefit pension plan must become vested at 100% after five years or under a seven-year graded-vesting schedule (20% a year for each year of service beginning with the third year of service and ending with 100% after seven years).
Under the Pension Protection Act of 2006, employer contributions made after 2006 to a defined contribution plan must become vested at 100% after three years or under a six-year graded-vesting schedule (20% a year for each year of service beginning with the second year of service and ending with 100% after six years). Different rules apply with respect to employer contributions made before 2007. Employee contributions are always 100% vested.
Pension funding
Under ERISA, minimum funding requirements were established for defined benefit plans. By their nature, defined contribution plans are always fully funded, even if the employee has not yet become vested in the employer contributions.
Before the Pension Protection Act (PPA), a defined benefit plan maintained a “funding standard account”, which was charged annually for the cost of benefits earned during the year and credited for employer contributions. Increases in the plan’s liabilities due to benefit improvements, changes in actuarial assumptions, and any other reasons were amortized and charged to the account; decreases in the plan’s liabilities were amortized and credited to the account. Every year, the employer was required to contribute the amount necessary to keep the funding standard account from falling below $0 at year-end.
In 2008, when the PPA funding rules went into effect, single-employer pension plans no longer maintain funding standard accounts. The funding requirement under PPA is simply that a plan must stay fully funded (that is, its assets must equal or exceed its liabilities). If a plan is fully funded, the minimum required contribution is the cost of benefits earned during the year. If a plan is not fully funded, the contribution also includes the amount necessary to amortize over seven years the difference between its liabilities and its assets. Stricter rules apply to severely underfunded plans (called “at-risk status”).
The PPA has different funding requirements for multiemployer pension plans, which preserve most of the pre-PPA funding rules including the funding standard account. Under PPA, increases and decreases in the plan’s liabilities will be amortized, but the amortization period for benefit improvements adopted after 2007 will be shortened. As with single-employer plans, multiemployer pension plans that are significantly underfunded are subject to restrictions. The restrictions, which may limit the plan’s ability to improve benefits or require the plan to reduce employees’ benefits, vary depending whether a pension plan’s funding status is termed “endangered”, “seriously endangered”, or “critical”. The restrictions accompanying each deficient funding status are progressively more severe as funding status worsens.
ERISA pre-emption
ERISA Section 514 preempts all state laws that relate to any employee benefit plan, with certain, enumerated exceptions. The most important exceptions — i.e. state laws that survive despite the fact that they may relate to an employee benefit plan — are state insurance, banking, or securities laws, generally applicable criminal laws, and domestic relations orders that meet ERISA’s qualification requirements.
A major limitation is placed on the insurance exception, known as the “deemer clause”, which essentially provides that state insurance law cannot operate on employer self-funded benefit plans. The Supreme Court has created another limitation on the insurance exception, in which even a law regulating insurance will be pre-empted if it purports to add a remedy to a participant or beneficiary in an employee benefit plan that ERISA did not explicitly provide.[3]
Hawaii Prepaid Healthcare Act exemption
ERISA contains an exemption specifically regarding the Hawaii Prepaid Healthcare Act, which was enacted by that state a few months before ERISA was signed into law. As a result, private employers in Hawaii are bound by the rules of that state law in addition to ERISA. The exemption also freezes the law in its original 1974 form, meaning the Hawaii legislature is not able to make non-administrative amendments without Congressional approval.[4][5]
The Statute
Title I: Protection of Employee Benefit Rights
Title I protects employees’ rights to their benefits. The following are some of the ways in which it achieves that goal:
- Participants must be provided plan summaries.
- Employers are required to report information about the plan to the Labor Department and provide it to participants upon request. The information is reported on Form 5500, which is available for public inspection and may be viewed at websites such as freeERISA.com and Free5500.com.
- If a participant requests, the employer must provide the participant with a calculation of her or his accrued and vested pension benefits.
- Employers have fiduciary responsibility to the participants and to the plan.
- Certain transactions between the employer and the plan are prohibited.
- A pension plan is barred from investing more than 10% of its assets in employer securities.
Title I also includes the pension funding and vesting rules described above.
Title II: Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code Relating to Retirement Plans
Title II amended the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). The changes include the following:
- The addition of various requirements for a pension plan to be tax-favored (”qualified”), including:
- the plan must offer retirees the option of a joint-and-survivor annuity,
- benefits under the plan may not discriminate in favor of officers and highly-paid employees,
- and plans are subject to the pension funding and vesting rules described above.
- The imposition of maximum limits on the annual benefit that may be paid from a qualified defined benefit pension plan and the annual contribution that may be made to a qualified defined contribution pension plan.
- The creation of individual retirement accounts (IRAs).
- Revision of the rules concerning the maximum tax deduction allowed with respect to a contribution to a pension plan.
- The imposition of an excise tax if the employer fails to make a required contribution to a pension plan or engages in transactions prohibited by ERISA.
Title III: Jurisdiction, Administration, Enforcement; Joint Pension Task Force, Etc.
Title III outlines procedures for co-ordination between the Labor and Treasury Departments in enforcing ERISA.
It also created the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, which licenses actuaries to perform a variety of actuarial tasks required of pension plans under ERISA. The Joint Board administers two examinations to prospective Enrolled Actuaries. After an individual passes the two exams and completes sufficient relevant professional experience, she or he becomes an Enrolled Actuary.
Title IV: Plan Termination Insurance
Title IV created the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to insure benefits of participants in underfunded terminated plans. It also describes the procedures that a pension plan must follow in order to terminate.
Single-employer plans
Standard termination
An employer may terminate a single-employer plan under a standard termination if the plan’s assets equal or exceed its liabilities. If the assets are less than the liabilities, the employer must contribute the amount necessary to fully fund the plan. A standard termination is sometimes referred to as a voluntary termination because the employer has chosen to terminate the plan.
In a standard termination, all accrued benefits under the plan become 100% vested. The plan must purchase annuity contracts for all participants. If the plan permits the payment of lump sums, employees may be offered the choice of a lump sum payment or an annuity.
If any assets remain in the plan after a standard termination has been completed, the provisions of the plan control their treatment. In some plans, the excess assets revert to the employer; in other plans, the excess assets must be used to increase participants’ benefits.
Distress termination
An employer may terminate a single-employer plan under a distress termination if the employer demonstrates to the PBGC that:
- the employer is facing liquidation under bankruptcy proceedings,
- the costs of continuing the plan will cause the business to fail, or
- the costs of continuing the plan have become unreasonably burdensome solely because of a decline in the employer’s workforce.
If the PBGC finds that a distress termination is appropriate, the plan’s liabilities are calculated and compared with its assets. Depending on the difference between the two values, the termination may be treated as if it had been a standard termination or as if it had been initiated by the PBGC.
Termination initiated by the PBGC
PBGC may initiate proceedings to terminate a single-employer plan if it determines that:
- the employer has not made its minimum required contributions to the plan,
- the plan will not be able to pay benefits when due, or
- PBGC’s long-term cost can be expected to be unreasonably higher if it does not terminate the plan.
A termination initiated by the PBGC is sometimes called an involuntary termination.
The benefits paid by the PBGC after a plan termination may be less than those promised by the employer. See Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation for details.
Multiemployer plans
A multiemployer plan may be terminated in one of three ways:
- It may be amended so that participants receive no credit for future service,
- All contributing employers may withdraw from the plan or stop making contributions to it, or
- It may be converted into a defined contribution plan.
Non-ERISA status and bankruptcy
In 2005, Public Law 109-8[1] amended the Bankruptcy Code, by exempting most organised retirement plans, even those not subject to ERISA, and accorded them protected status, claimable as exempt property by a debtor declaring bankruptcy under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
Now, most pension plans have the same protection as an ERISA anti-alienation clause giving these pensions the same protection as a spendthrift trust. The only remaining unprotected areas are the SIMPLE IRA and the SEP IRA. The SEP IRA is functionally similar to a self-settle trust, and a sound policy reason would exist to not shield SEP IRAs, but many financial planners argue that a rollover (or direct transfer) from a SEP IRA to a rollover IRA would give those funds protected status, too.
Finding statutes
Portions of ERISA are codified in various places of the United States Code, including 29 U.S.C. ch.18, and Internal Revenue Code sections § 219 and § 408 (relating to the Individual Retirement Account) and sections § 410 through § 415, and § 4971, § 4974 and § 4975. A cross-reference between the sections of the ERISA law and the corresponding sections in the U.S.Code can be found at http://www.harp.org/erisaxref.htm.
See also
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
- Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Vivien v. Worldcom
- Bankruptcy in the United States
- Department of Labor 2003 “interpretive bulletin,” Field Assistance Bulletin 2003-3, May 19, 2003, concerning allocation of expenses in a defined contribution plan. See http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fab_2003-3.html
External links
- Employers use ERISA to deny benefits
- Guide to ERISA rights from the United States Department of Labor
- LA Times, 21 August 2005,
- Text of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act – 29 U.S. Code Chapter 18
Footnotes
- ^ Costello, Daniel (October 18, 2004). “Not a future they expected“. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2004-10-19. Retrieved on 2008-04-12.
- ^ Schultz, Ellen E. (November 10, 2004). “Companies Sue Union Retirees To Cut Promised Health Benefits“. The Wall Street Journal p. 1. Retrieved on 2008-04-12.
- ^ Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004)
- ^ Hawaii Institute for Public Affairs. “Prepaid Health Care Act“. Retrieved on 2007-11-08.
- ^ Cornell University Law School. “§ 1144“. Retrieved on 2007-11-08.
DJIA down over 8% since start of 2009
The DJIA started the year slightly under 8,800 or around 8,780 and as of today (10 AM CDT – Jan 15,2009) the market average is down to 8,060 or a decline of around 8.2%. With reatil sales down and foreclosures up, we’re still in for a rough ride. Hopefully we are able to to turn things around here shortly.
Would you rather work hard for your money, or have your money work hard for you?
Donna Summer (whom maybe a foreign name to my readers) sang a song that will help me illustrate an important point many of the younger generation should seriously listen to:
She works hard for the money
So hard for it honey
She works hard for the money
So you better treat her right
You know you’ve heard it, right? Well, when I listen to this song I picture a lovely young black gal, bustin her butt waitressing, night after night and day after day. This hardworking lady is caught up in the grind, and probably lives paycheck to paycheck. She can never figure out why she works so hard for that money, but never seems to get anywhere, like “Groundhog Day” with Bill Murray repeating the same shit day in and day out. Alright, I’m certain I’ve beat it into your head by now, all that hard work is senseless. If only that poor gal took some of her money, even if it was only $100 a month, and invested the same amount for a few years, she would have several thousand dollars making her money without her doing hardly a thing. Granted, she had to work to get her funds flowing into her investments, but after only the first investment, that money is making her money.
There are two types of people in this world, people who work for money, and people who have money working for them. There are some small upfront sacrifices, perhaps not being able to buy the next trendy thing to wear. However, given the time, your money will be making you money and you could buy those dresses or new slacks with money you’ve earned with your money.
Check out my calculator above, mess around with the numbers, see the power of compound interest and investing for yourself. With proper discipline and time, before you know it you could be sitting back watching your stack grow without lifting a finger. Don’t kill yourself working hard your whole life, rather stash that loot in the market and watch it explode.
Right now more than ever is a wonderful time to get in the market, stock bargains are a dime a dozen and prices are so incredibly low you could easily retire in 10-15 years if you manage your money right.
My 401k, 403b, 457b is losing money; It’s down, shrinking, tanking, falling, a scam and I don’t know what to do
I’ve heard it all, and have to say I agree as I’m feeling the pinch too. I watch my contributions disappear and my portfolio continue to erode, however, there is one important thing to keep in mind; If history is a good indicator, things will turn around and you will recover most if not all of your losses in just a couple of years, and certainly more than you’ve lost in most cases. In a previous article I wrote about the last 10 bear markets and the most recent one back in the early 2000’s lasted around 2 and a half years and saw a nearly 50% loss in that time period that ultimately recovered all losses and added gains. Most of the people fretting over this are newer to investing or haven’t really paid attention in the past.
To truly understand what is going on now, and why it is important to stay course, you must understand how markets and sentiment work. Moreover, you must understand how this economic recession is no great depression, rather a normal economic cycle.
For simplicity in understanding the impact of investor sentiment (as well as consumer sentiment), you need a brief understanding of what a stock price really represents, but before you can understand that, you must understand how a stock is created and sold. For a better explanation than what I will provide below, I have written another article that explains the process a company takes in “going public” in order to raise money to operate their business.
Why would a company want to go public? Because they know (or think they know) they have a business model that only needs more money to make a bunch more money. Take a hot dog vendor for example; Say the man has one stand on the corner of a street in downtown St. Louis, and his one stand does so well that he can’t keep up with all the business. He knows if only he could afford to open more, he could make much more money. The only problem being, he is limited in his ability to open multiple stands, because he only has the cash flow from selling hot dogs at one stand to support one stand. He knows though, if he were able to get a loan, he could open many more stands and become a millionaire. Now, your idea has to be good enough that investment bankers are convinced going public would be a better option than simply seeking private investments, but that is a different conversation all together.
After the decision to go public is made, the company sells shares at a price they think will sell to the general public. After they have completed selling their goal, or as close to it as they can, they collect the proceeds and issue shares of the company. From there, secondary traders (you and me and our mutual fund companies and investment banks) buy and sell those shares between ourselves. In essence, we are buying and selling them based upon future expectations. What the stock was purchased for originally has little to do with the price of the stock you see now, because many things have happened to the business, as the management maybe managed the initial public offering money well, or not, and the economy may have gotten better or worse. We are constantly changing our perception of the companies stock value based upon multiple factors, and in many cases that is based upon fear, rather than fundamentals.
My point in saying all of this is that there are numerous companies if not a good majority of them that are ran really well, consistently making money, that are even selling for less than the money they have in the bank. Moreover, a large portion of the stock market and it’s associated value is simply down because of investor fear and ignorance. The majority of what you see as a loss in your portfolio is simply a result of people pulling their money from the stock market, and putting it into government and other bonds because they feel like it is safer. Instead of looking at the businesses and its value as it relates to stock prices, people illogically jump ship and hurt themselves, the stock market, and employment.
One great indicator of how under or overvalued a stocks price is as it relates to its future earning power or future value is to look at P/E ratios (price to earning ratios). Below, you will see what a particular number would indicate, below that I will show you the P/E ratios of a number of publicly traded companies as an average based on the Dow Jones, to prove they are mostly all currently undervalued, because of fear in the market.
N/A A company with no earnings has an undefined P/E ratio. By convention, companies with losses (negative earnings) are usually treated as having an undefined P/E ratio, although a negative P/E ratio can be mathematically determined.
0–10 Either the stock is undervalued or the company’s earnings are thought to be in decline. Alternatively, current earnings may be substantially above historic trends or the company may have profited from selling assets.
10–17 For many companies a P/E ratio in this range may be considered fair value.
17–25 Either the stock is overvalued or the company’s earnings have increased since the last earnings figure was published. The stock may also be a growth stock with earnings expected to increase substantially in future.
25+ A company whose shares have a very high P/E may have high expected future growth in earnings or the stock may be the subject of a speculative bubble.
DOW JONES AVERAGES INDEX FUNDAMENTALS
Now to understand boom and bust or economic cycles (or stock market cycles) you have to have a greater knowledge of economics than you probably care for. So, I will make you use some common sense and real life examples to help you understand, if you want a greater explanation, here is a quick and excellent article from investopedia, and also more information from wikipedia. I want you to think of the economic cycles like a product cycle. Don’t worry, this is easier than it sounds. Take a company like Apple, and their recent product the iPhone, this product will have a life cycle of probably no more than a year or two, due to technology. When the product was first launched, they couldn’t keep it on shelves, so they produced more and more, eventually the vast majority of people whom wanted the iPhone and who could pay for it got it, then Apple had saturated the market and the supplies they had left had to be sold at a discount or risk not being sold at all. So, the product was hot, then not so much. However, Apple surely has something else up their sleeve, and the next big thing will launch before you know it, and go through the same cycle. Now, the stock market faces the same challenges, as new companies pop up and become sensations, their stock prices will go up and then down, depending upon a multitude of factors. Apple, like the other companies on the stock market, will grow over time, expanding and contracting in size, with an overall continued growth over time. Just look at the market over the last 80 years below, you will see many ups and downs, but over the long haul, these companies accumulate wealth, and either continue to grow or are sold to companies that do.
Now, you’re asking me how can I say this is not the second great depression in the making? I can say that because it seems we have learned from history. The response to the 1930’s recession led to the great depression, and we’re not making the same mistakes twice. Hoover and Roosevelt raised taxes, while the government allowed thousands of banks to fall, all while tightening the money supply. This was a recipe for disaster, as markets essentially froze and companies fell one after another, contributing to massive unemployment. Now, this may sound similar to today, however, what is happening now has happened multiple times without us entering into another depression. The fact is, US regulators and the Federal Reserve have ensured tax cuts, helped ailing financial institutions stabilize, and have helped keep unemployment at much more reasonable levels so that consumers can help reverse course and avert disaster. Here is an excellent article with more detail on this subject.
I hope this helps squash some of your fears, and realize that it is simply a matter of time until a rebound, so don’t move your money and take those losses, leave it alone it will come back!
Companies that are good indicators of the entire economy; Intel, Wal-Mart, Pulte Homes, Caterpillar
An interesting article over at CNN pointed out Intel’s revised forecast showing a further downturn in their businesses stood as an overall economic indicator that the economy was worsening. Their thought process behind this was that Intel reaches nearly all aspects of the world in consumers and businesses alike. While this seems to have some merit, it seems like there are some major risks in assuming this is true. Namely, you are assuming that their competition has nothing to do with any downturn in their business as well as many other factors such as operational efficiency and so on. This article will attempt to identify a few other publicly traded companies that tend to reach across multiple industries around the world in hopes of coming up with a better indicator than just relying on a single, technology company as an indicator of future expectations.
Wal-Mart, with operations in nearly every civilized country of the world, seems like a good option to start with, as they seem to be representative of retail sales giants alike. It maybe necessary and diligent to keep in mind that Wal-Mart may somewhat benefit from economic downturns, being a low cost alternative. Having said that, the impact of a recession would still likely have some negative impact on their business.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Summary

However, over the last year or so, specifically around their last reproted Quarter, their stock price has dropped based upon their performance and expecations. Lately though, you can see that expecations must be turning around. Their next earnings release will be in mid Feb, and in my estimation could be an even greater indicator of the future health of our economy than Intel.
Pulte Homes, Inc.
Summary
Caterpillar Inc.
What does it cost for a small business to start their own 401k
A reader wrote in with some good questions about starting up a 401k for their small business. Shelly wrote the following (edited for clarity):
Hi, Mark,
I have two C corporations, one has employees from time to time, and another has no
other employees except myself. I am thinking about setting up a 401k for the one
which there are no employees in it. My questions are:
1) Is it permissible and economical for a company to setup a 401k plan when it
only has one employee?
2) If so, what is the procedure in doing so?
Thank you in advance for your help.
———————————————————
Hi Shelly,
I am happy to try and help you. In doing so, I will take some guesses as to what you are getting at, and try and answer that for you. In addition, I will provide some options for those in similar situations, which may include yourself.
First question you had was:
1) Is it permissible and economical for a company to setup a 401k plan when it
only has one employee?
I’m really wondering what you’re asking me Shelly:
So I’ll break your question into two answers, I’ll answer is it ethical, legal and smart for your business to setup a 401k plan for one person, the owner. Next, I’ll tell you if the same is true for an owner of a small business to offer a 401k plan to just one employee, or two, or even more.
To answer your question, we need to setup some basic assumptions though. To see if something for a small business is economical, you need to know what you can afford. For example, for one employee, your annual fixed cost would be no more than an $800 setup fee, and no more than $500 for administration fees, or $1,300 in total fixed. Now, say you offered an average %5 match to the employee, who made $30,000 a year, it would cost another $1,800 per year. So, for that one employee, the cost would be $3,100 to your business per year. Is it worth it? That maybe too hefty a cost for you, or not. If you as an owner are doing this for yourself, I would say you are wasting half of that money in fees, when you can go to a bank and setup a personal IRA, and do the same thing without paying all the fees. Now, if it were for an employee, it maybe a different situation, where you’ll have to compare costs to what you’re getting in return. You would have to tell me.
Now, to answer if it is smart for a single employee or more, here you go. I could tell you that employees are attracted and retained by that offer. It just depends if it is worth it to you and your business. The fixed cost for having up to 50 employees won’t cost more than an $800 setup fee and $2,500 and admin charges, plus match amount times their salary.
Some examples of the different plans available to you include the “Individual(k)”, “Solo 401(k)”, “Uni-K Plan”, “Self-Employed 401(k)”, SBO-401(k), and various others like Keogh plans. Your business is eligible for them all. Not to mention, explore your own options in investing in an IRA through your local bank or investment company.
Something to keep in mind, you do have tax savings to the business that counter those costs, which may help you recover 20% or so of those costs.
These options apply to you as an owner wishing to establish a savings plan for yourself, and or for an employee. They are not only legal and ethical, they are smart if cost effective. Although, without putting the numbers together, nobody could tell you.
How do you do it? You have a number of options: Check them all out for your best price, if it is for an employee.
For the small business owner interested in looking into the benefits of offering a 401k for your employees as a recruitment and retention tool check out:ShareBuilder 401(k) . It’s completely free to get a quote, and there are numerous tax benefits for your company (even if it is only for you).
http://www.401k-easy.com/prices/ is another one found on an easy google search. Try the same and you will find many other options.
If you are doing it for yourself, go setup an IRA or Roth IRA at your local bank or investment bank. They can easily help direct you.
Good luck, and keep asking away.
Your trusty accountant,
Mark









