Looking for a Financial Planner or Adviser in Richmond, Newport News, Roanoke, Lynchburg, or Arlington?

The stock market drops 50 percent and comes up 50 percent, so you are back where you started, right? Not so right. After a moment of thinking about it, you probably realized the real math does not add up that way, but consumers see it that way in their “mental accounting,” a phenomenon that affects how people spend, save and invest their money.
The faulty stock market perception can be illustrated with the following equations.

If you were to ask people what the average of 3 and 5 is, they typically respond as follows: (3 + 5 = 8)/2=4. The average is 4.

If you were then to ask them for the average of a negative 50 and a positive 50 they would do the equation the same way. So the typical investors assume that if they are getting positive returns and negative returns that they are still doing fine.

So what if you were then to ask them, “What is the impact of losing 50 percent one year and gaining 50 percent the following year? Back to your starting amount, right?” Actually, that would work out like this:
• $10,000 down 50 percent is $5,000
• Then up 50 percent is $7,500
• This is a 25 percent loss (13 percent annualized) after “offsetting” years.
Let’s look at an example in which the gaining percentage is greater than the losing one. A return of +66 percent followed by -50 percent would seem to add up to an 8 percent return. But actually:
• $10,000 up 66 percent is $16,600
• Then down 50 percent is $8,300
• +66 percent followed by -50 percent produces a negative 9 percent annualized return.
But look at the compounding gain of two 8 percent years:
$10,000 x 1.08 = $10,800 x 1.08 = $11,664

So, many people wrongly think that if they are getting a greater return than a loss, then they are doing well. But obviously that’s not true. Another misperception is just how deep a hole is created by losses. A 100 percent return would be necessary to offset a 50 percent loss. But a 300 percent return is required to offset a 66 percent loss. And then 400 percent for a 75 percent loss.

So, the next time you’re thinking about taking a risk, make sure you are doing an accurate mental accounting.

If you are looking forward to retirement and tax-free Social Security income, you might be surprised when the IRS comes around for a bite. Yes, way back when Social Security was a young program, President Franklin D. Roosevelt promised no income taxes would be exacted, but that promise ran out in the 1980s for some people whose income exceeds certain levels.

Now the federal government considers the retirement entitlement as taxable income when your other income plus half of your Social Security exceed an amount based on your filing status ($32,000 if you filed jointly, $25,000 for single filers). First, only 50 percent of your benefit above a certain threshold is taxable. When you exceed the first threshold, up to a maximum of 85 percent of your benefit can be taxed.

You can continue to work and still receive retirement benefits. Your earnings in (or after) the month you reach your full retirement age will not reduce your Social Security benefits. But your benefits will be reduced if your earnings exceed certain limits for the months before you reach your full retirement age.

If you work for someone else, only your wages count toward Social Security’s earnings limits. If you are self-employed, the federal government counts only your net earnings from self-employment.
Income from other sources is not counted, such as other government benefits, investment earnings, interest, pensions, annuities and capital gains.

If you work for wages, income counts when it is earned, not when it is paid. If you have income that you earned in one year but the payment was made in the following year, it should not be counted as earnings for the year in which you received it. Some examples are accumulated sick or vacation pay and bonuses.

If you are self-employed, income counts when you receive it—not when you earn it—unless it is paid in a year after you become entitled to Social Security and earned before you became entitled.

Health care reform is beginning to take effect, but little attention has been paid to the effect on prescription drugs. The law spells out new benefits and regulations affecting the whole pharmacy arena. Prescription drug changes will be phased in between now and 2020, many starting within the next 12 months.
Some of the more significant changes, such as in Medicaid and Medicare, may shift costs to patients, employers and health plans. Many of the significant changes in the prescription drug field will be starting in this year:
• Medicare Part D coverage gap rebate checks go out. One of the first steps to gradually eliminating the coverage gap, or the doughnut hole, in Medicare Part D benefits will be to give Medicare patients whose drug costs reach the coverage gap in 2010 a one-time $250 rebate check from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
• Retiree drug tax exemption will be eliminated. The tax exemption to employers that receive the Retiree Drug Subsidy for providing prescription drug coverage for retirees eligible for Medicare has been eliminated. The actual change does not occur until 2013, but many companies are accounting for the liability now. Many large companies have already indicated they anticipate taking an earnings hit as a result of this change. As a result, companies may consider other ways of providing benefits or could even cut benefits to lessen the impact.
• Lifetime limits will be disallowed. By the end of September, health plans will not be allowed to put lifetime limits on the dollar amount of coverage provided to their members. This provision extends to prescription drug benefits.
• Federal upper limit changes begin. The federal upper limit on pharmacy reimbursement for multiple-source drugs has changed from 250 percent of the average manufacturer price (AMP) for the least-expensive therapeutically equivalent drug to 175 percent of the weighted average, as determined by the most recently reported monthly AMPs of multiple-source drugs available at pharmacies.
• The Early Retiree Reinsurance Program starts. This $5 billion fund helps employers defray the cost of their retiree health insurance. This temporary reinsurance program will reimburse 80 percent of claims between $15,000 and $90,000 for employer-sponsored retiree coverage of individuals 55-64 years old who are not active workers or eligible for Medicare. For employers to take full advantage of the program, they will have to merge their pharmacy and medical claims data, which is typically handled by two different vendors.

The legal and tax information contained in these articles is merely a summary of our understanding and interpretation of some current provisions of tax law and is not exhaustive. Consult your legal or tax advisor for advice concerning your particular circumstances.

When investors consider mutual funds, they often hear warnings about the impact of fees and expenses on returns. But these seem invisible to investors, so what really is the impact?

A mutual fund’s fees and expenses may be more important than an investor might realize. Ads, rankings and ratings will often emphasize how well a fund has performed in the past. But according to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), studies show that the future often is different. Fees and expenses can be a reliable predictor of mutual fund performance.

When considering a mutual fund, one of the most important numbers is the expense ratio, which tells you how much the fund costs. The ratio shows how much of the fund’s assets are paid to the portfolio manager and for other operating expenses. Typically, a fund pays an average of 1.5 percent of assets annually.

Three things typically figure into this ratio. The investment advisory fee pays the managers of the fund, which accounts for .50 to 1 percent. Then, administrative costs cover services such as record keeping, mailing and maintaining a customer service line, which can range from .20 to .40 percent. And often a fund will charge a 12b-1 distribution fee, which covers marketing, advertising and distribution services. This ranges from .25 percent to 1 percent of assets.

The upper range of these fees shows how high an expense ratio can be. And even though the fee seems to be just a few percentage points, it is charged in down years, when it can represent a significant slice of the return. Also, over time, the fee can cut the ultimate return by nearly 50 percent, according to one analysis. With an initial $10,000 invested after 30 years of 10 percent returns (a bit optimistic, perhaps), the fund has made $174,494, but with a 2.5 percent expense ratio, it has lost $86,944, according to an analysis by Moolanomy.com.

But even that isn’t the bottom line. There are still transaction fees incurred by the buying and selling of assets in the fund that go unreported, and that can double or triple the cost, according to Richard Kopcke of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

Of the 100 largest stock funds held in defined contribution plans as of December 2007, trading costs averaged from 0.11 percent of assets annually in the quintile with the lowest costs to 1.99 percent of assets in the quintile with the highest costs, with a median of 0.66 percent, Kopcke found. But it is difficult for average investors to determine this percentage, he said.

The SEC has not been able to develop ways to report this percentage in the same way an expense ratio is reported, partly because fund managers say the number is too difficult to determine. One way to get an indication of the percentage is the fund’s turnover. The percentage of turnover shows at what rate stocks in the fund have been replaced. A high turnover rate would mean more fees.

The SEC last year required fund managers to disclose one year of turnover at the front of a prospectus in addition to the already required five years of turnover disclosed in the financial highlights section, according to a March 1 Wall Street Journal article. Turnover of more than 100 percent can indicate trading costs may be high, the Journal reported.

Summer is a good time to improve tax fitness with a few simple exercises.

Consider Roth IRA assets. By keeping assets inside a Roth IRA, they can grow tax free for retirement. Also, this year people can convert traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs. Account holders are no longer subject to the $100,000 modified adjusted gross income limit. With conversions that occur in 2010, they can also split their conversion amounts equally and report them as income for tax years 2011 and 2012.

Take advantage of tax-deferred retirement accounts. If you have a 401(k) or other employer-sponsored retirement plan available, contribute as much as you can afford to contribute. By increasing contributions every time you get a raise, you can increase your savings. The plans are basically funded with pretax dollars, which will reduce taxable income. Also, that money will grow tax free until it is withdrawn. If the contribution is to a Roth IRA, it is made with post-tax money, so the funds can be withdrawn tax free after the age of 59½.

Consider a 529 college savings plan. The annual $13,000 gift would go a long way toward the amount needed to save for education expenses. Contributors may also be eligible for a state tax deduction or credit. They can also take advantage of a special five-year accelerated gifting provision, which is $65,000 in one year per contributor. That covers the current year and the next four years.

Hold assets more than a year. Any capital gain made within a year is considered taxable income, like a salary. But gains taken after a year are considered capital gains, which in 2010 is taxed at the maximum rate of 15 percent. The capital gains rate is almost always lower than the income tax rate. Also, the capital gains rate is expected to go up to 20 percent next year, so some people are taking advantage by taking their gains this year.

Give to charity. Contributing to charities is always a good idea. But if you are planning a gift, it might be best to do it soon, because some in Washington have been looking at cutting back on charitable deductions as a revenue-saving measure.

Employee benefits such as dental insurance did not get much attention during the health care reform debate, even though some consumers have difficulty affording them. In fact, one in four Americans under 65 lacks dental insurance, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

It is not just employees who have difficulty paying for the coverage. Many employers are still struggling in this economy and need to trim expenses wherever possible. In some cases, rather than dropping the coverage, companies will offer voluntary benefits. That means employees pay all the costs but get lower rates through a group plan.

Another option that reduces costs for employers is the discount dental plan. Such plans feature a negotiated discounted rate for typical services such as dental exams, fillings, crowns, root canals and cleanings with participating dentists. Discount dental plans allow savings in the range of 10 percent to 60 percent. Discounts for specialty care such as orthodontia or cosmetic dental procedures range from 15 percent to 20 percent.

That helps employees keep benefits, but total costs still fall to workers. Some employers that want to provide coverage and cut costs can split the difference with a hybrid plan. Hybrid dental plans combine the advantages of a discount plan with the flexibility of a traditional plan. Discounts are extended to members who receive care from an in-network dental provider at negotiated fees once insured benefits have been exhausted, or for adult orthodontia or cosmetic care, which may not be covered by the insured portion. The discount dental plan provides access to care at a reduced fee.

Premiums are often half the cost of a typical insured plan. In addition, the insurance company may not find it necessary to impose the typical annual plan maximum benefit of $1,000 to $2,000.

The legal and tax information contained in these articles is merely a summary of our understanding and interpretation of some current provisions of tax law and is not exhaustive. Consult your legal or tax advisor for advice concerning your particular circumstances.

A central target in financial reform has been derivatives. They have been blamed for the economic meltdown, and many people are calling for their strict regulation. So what are these financial rascals, and how do they affect the economy?

Derivatives protect people from a change in prices of an underlying asset. They began, generally speaking, as a hedge against changes in commodities prices. So, if you are a corn farmer and want to be able to plan on how much you will receive for your crop, you can agree on the price with a miller. The farmer is in a sense betting that the price will be higher or at least the same as the rest of the market at harvest time, and the miller is betting that the price will be lower or at least the same – and the miller is ensured of a supply of corn. The result is stability for both parties. The agreement is derived from the underlying asset of corn. That is the essence of a derivative.

Derivatives also hedge against price changes in other financial instruments and can become far more complicated or “exotic.” An institution can buy a credit default swap (CDS), for example. Institution No. 1 would pay institution No. 2 to ensure that the value of an asset does not fall under a certain level. If the value does drop, then No. 2 would pay No. 1. When the value of real estate plummeted in 2007 and 2008, many No. 1 institutions were banging on No. 2 institutions’ doors to get paid. This was one of the factors leading to the economic collapse, when the overall value of the CDS market dropped from $62.2 trillion at the end of 2007 to $38.6 trillion at the end of 2008, according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association.

Another factor was collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). These are packages of debts such as bonds or mortgage-backed securities. The idea is to reduce risk by spreading it around. But some in finance, such as Warren Buffett, said that they instead spread risky investments to more institutions. So when the underlying, or derived, asset plummeted, the rug was pulled out from under everyone.

Although some, like Buffett, had sounded the alarm on derivatives, many people were surprised by the enormous impact the instruments had on the financial sector in the collapse of September 2008. Regulators were also surprised, because derivatives are often unregulated because they are essentially an agreement exchanged between parties but amount to a $400 trillion market traded over the counter (OTC).

Financial reformers want to shed more light on the market, but on April 21, a Senate committee went even further than that and approved tough standards that would force banks to get rid of their swaps trading operations. That rule might not make it to the final financial reform package, but it is certain that the eventual law will clamp down on derivatives in some way.

When people are working, they might not realize how big an impact taxes will have on their retirement lifestyle. Taxes end up being among the most significant expenses seniors face.

Once you start tallying up the federal, state and local taxes, you can see you have to be aware of how to mitigate the impact. One way is to choose a place to retire that does not have onerous state and local taxes.

For example, nine states have no state income tax, according to the Federation of Tax Administrators. They are  Alaska, Texas, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Wyoming. (In New Hampshire and Tennessee, income tax is limited to dividends and interest income.)

According to the Tax Foundation, the states with the highest tax impact are Maine, New York, Ohio, Minnesota and Hawaii. The ones with the lowest are Alaska, New Hampshire, Delaware, Tennessee and Alabama. The foundation also says that Americans will pay more in taxes in 2010 than they will spend on food, clothing and shelter combined. Another factor to consider, if you have a large inheritance to leave, is whether the state has an estate tax.

If you move, the good news is the tax impact of selling your home is less these days. That’s because Congress changed the rules in 1997. According to the book The New Retirement, by Jan Cullinane and Cathy Fitzgerald, “Some or all of the gain on the sale is not taxable as long as the taxpayers owned the house as their principal residence for at least two years during the five-year period ending with the date of the sale. The amount of gain that is not taxable is limited to $250,000 for a single taxpayer (or a single taxpayer limited separately) and $500,000 for a married couple filing a joint return. Significantly, unlike under the old law, this gain is eliminated from taxable income and is not deferred to reduce the tax basis of any replacement residence.”

Cullinane and Fitzgerald also wrote that the sellers do not have to buy a replacement principal residence, so it especially benefits those wanting to downsize.

The health-care reform legislation has many consequences, but one that has not received much attention is a new calorie-labeling requirement for restaurants and even vending machines.

The law would require restaurants with 20 or more establishments to post the calorie counts on menu boards and next to each item in vending machines. The information will be similar to the information on food products bought at the supermarket. Restaurants were previously exempted from that law.

Some argue this is a key part of controlling obesity, because people are eating out more these days and are uncertain about how many calories they are consuming. In fact, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) said children eat twice as many calories at restaurants than at home.

People might be shocked by some of the numbers. Consumers might not be surprised to find out the Guacamole Bacon Six Dollar Burger at Carl Jr.’s is 1,117 calories (more than half the calories a person should have in a day). But they might be shocked to learn that the double beef taco salad with dressing that they might have had at the Steak ‘n Shake has 1,051 calories.

Research shows people are not very good at judging calories on their own. A Cornell University study found that people make nearly 20 times more daily decisions about food than they are aware of — an average of around 250 each day.

Portion control is another practice the calorie information can encourage. At McDonald’s, for example, a small order of french fries is 210 calories. But supersize that and it’s 610 calories. Consumers might also be misled by the fixings. At Steak ‘n Shake, a junior order of fries is a mere 166 calories. But go for the chili cheese fries and you have consumed a whopping 1,279 calories.

In other words, the calorie labeling is sure to add a whole new dimension to the question, “Do you want fries with that?”

New investors will quickly run across the terms small-, mid- and large-cap companies, and they might wonder why a company is wearing a cap – of any size.

The term means market capitalization – the market value of all of a company’s existing shares. It is basically a company’s shares multiplied by the current market price of one share. Investors gauge a company’s price by this rather than by sales or assets. It is also an effective way to see how the economic downturn of 2008 affected the financial world. The total market capitalization was as high as $57.5 trillion in May 2008, slid to $50 trillion in August and then went down to $40 trillion in September 2008, according to the World Federation of Exchanges.

There are no hard rules about the values of each designation. One gauge says small-caps are less than $2 billion in value, mid-caps are up to $10 billion and large-caps are more than $10 billion. Others say mid-caps start at $5 billion and small-caps start at $1 billion. And still others have added more categories: mega-caps, more than $200 billion; micro-caps, $50 million to $300 million; and nano-caps, below $50 million.

The size makes a difference in investor expectation. Small-cap stock values can grow or shrink quickly. The gain may be great, but so is the risk. These companies can grow into mid- and large-cap companies, taking investors along for the ride. But they also have less to fall back on when times are tough. They can drop in a hurry, again taking their investors with them.

Large-cap companies, which make up half of total market capitalization, tend to be steady in their performance. They are usually the companies that dominate their industry and are not likely to grow any more enormous by percentage, or to shrink, for that matter. These entities are often devoted to maintaining their position. So the investments are usually steady.

Mid-caps are considered a mix of small-cap and large-cap. They often have ambitions to grow into a large-cap, but that drive can also lead them to take risks. The companies are still substantial and are not likely to take ill-advised risks.

Investors should assess their risk tolerance before deciding to invest in stocks. Then they can determine which class of companies to put their money into. Many mutual funds specialize in different groups, so investors can take advantage of company size characteristics but spread the risk at the same time. The funds that track indexes such as the S&P 500 focus on large- or mega-cap companies, which offer stability and slower growth. They usually stumble only in significant downturns such as those after the 9/11 attack and the financial meltdown of 2008.