Pipe Dreams
Samuel Lee is an ETF strategist and editor of "Morningstar ETF Investor". His message is very similar to beliefs of many well known and respected individuals such as Jack Bogle, Warren E. Buffett, Larry E. Swedroe and Carl Richards. Researches by firms such as Morningstar, Vanguard and Dalbar have come to the same conclusions.
Investing is a zero-sum activity. If the seller is wrong the buyer is right. If you prefer, if the buyer is wrong, the seller is right. Each believes their decision to buy or sell is correct. Mr. Lee believes that close to 99% who try to beat the market will fail.
Costs are a significant factor in determining who will make money and who will lose money on any transaction. Trading increases cost and reduces the returns.
Mr. Buffett recently indicated his survivors should put their money in index funds and move on. His annual letter to Berkshire shareholders included the following: … "Both individuals and institutions will constantly be urged to be active by those who profit from giving advice or effecting transactions. The resulting friction costs can be huge and, for investors in aggregate, devoid of benefits. So ignore the chatter, keep your costs minimal, and invest in stocks as you would in a farm."
Warren Buffet is the exception to the rule. He has exceptional skills and access to information and resources not available to most people. Most active mutual funds also do not outperform the market.
John Bogle compares investing to farming. Mr. Bogle compares investing to gardening in his book "Common Sense on Mutual funds. The book references "Chauncey Gardiner" (played by Peter Sellers in the movie) Jerzy Kosinki’s book "Being There". "The seasons of the garden find a parallel in the cycles of the economy and the financial markets, and we can emulate his faith that their patterns …will define their course in the future."
Investing should be based on a plan to achieve your financial goals. It is a long-term process that requires research and patience. Passive investing will improve the returns for most people. Almost everyone believes they are better than most people. The Dalbar studies for the past 25 years are based on real investor returns. Most people think they did better than their actual results.
New Law Offers Special Tax Option for Philippines Relief Donations
Under special legislation enacted last week, taxpayers can choose to treat cash contributions made on or after March 26, 2014, and before midnight on Monday, April 14, 2014, as if made on Dec. 31, 2013. This special provision only applies to charitable cash contributions for the relief of victims of Typhoon Haiyan.
Eligible contributions can be claimed on either a 2013 or 2014 return, but not both. Contributions made after April 14, 2014, but before the end of this year can only be claimed on a 2014 return.
Contributions made by text message, check, credit card or debit card qualify for this special option. Donations charged to a credit card before midnight on April 14, 2014, are eligible contributions even if the credit card bill isn’t paid until after that date. Also, donations made by check are eligible if they are mailed by April 14.
The Philippines Charitable Giving Assistance Act, enacted March 25, 2014, does not apply to contributions of property. Gifts made directly to individual victims are not deductible.
This benefit is only available to an individual that itemize their deductions. The deduction is not available to those that claim the standard deduction.
Contributions must go to qualified charities. Most organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible donations are listed in a searchable online database available on IRS.gov under Exempt Organizations Select Check. Some organizations, such as churches or governments, may be qualified even though they are not listed on IRS.gov.
Contributions to foreign organizations generally are not deducted. IRS Publication 526, Charitable Contributions, provides information on making contributions to charities.
A record of the name of the charity, the date of the contribution and the amount of the contribution are required for any deductible contribution. Donations by text message, a telephone bill will meet the record keeping requirement. Donations of $250 or more, taxpayers must obtain a written acknowledgment by the charity.
IRS Reverses Long-Standing Position on One-Rollover-per-Year Rule
I discussed a Tax Court case, Bobrow v. Commissioner, in my February 25th blog, “Tax Court Says One Tax-Free Rollover per Year Means just That”. I mentioned that one tax-free rollover per IRA per year was permitted by an IRS publication and proposed regulations. The decision held that a taxpayer may make only one tax-free, 60-day rollover between IRAs within each 12-month period, regardless of how many IRAs an individual maintains.
IRS will not apply this new interpretation to any rollover that involves an IRA distribution occurring before January 1, 2015.
Bobrow v. Commissioner
Mr. Bobrow (anecdotally, a tax lawyer) completed numerous rollovers from various IRAs within 60 days. This was consistent with IRS Publication 590 and the proposed regulations.
The Tax Court relied on its previous rulings, the language of the statute, and the legislative history in deciding this case. The Tax Court held that regardless of how many IRAs an individual maintains, a taxpayer may make only one nontaxable rollover within each 12-month period.
The IRS response
The IRS, in Announcement 2014-15, indicated that it will follow the Tax Court’s Bobrow decision, and apply the one-rollover-per-year rule on an aggregate basis, instead of separately to each IRA you own. However, in order to give IRA trustees and custodians time to make changes in their IRA rollover procedures and disclosure documents, the IRS will not apply this new interpretation to any rollover that involves an IRA distribution that occurs before January 1, 2015.
What this means to you
For the rest of 2014 the “old” one-rollover-per-year rule in IRS Publication 590 (see above) will apply to any IRA distributions you receive. So if you have a need to use 60-day rollovers to move funds between IRAs, you have only a limited time to do so without regard to the new Bobrow interpretation.
You can make unlimited direct transfers (as opposed to 60-day rollovers) between IRAs. Direct transfers between IRA trustees and custodians aren’t subject to the one-rollover-per-year rule. So if you don’t have a need to actually use the cash for some period of time, it’s generally safer to use the direct transfer approach, and avoid this potential problem altogether. The tax consequences of making a mistake can be significant, so don’t hesitate to consult a qualified professional before making multiple rollovers.
*Note: The one-rollover-per-year rule also applies–separately–to your Roth IRAs. Roth conversions don’t count as rollovers for this purpose.
The foregoing is provided for information purposes only. It is not intended or designed to provide legal, accounting, tax, investment or other professional advice. Such advice requires consideration of individual circumstances. Before any action is taken based upon this information, it is essential that competent, individual, professional advice be obtained. JAS Financial Services, LLC is not responsible for any modifications made to this material, or for the accuracy of information provided by other sources.
What priority do you place on your retirement?
The New York Times Feb. 28, 2014 article, “Save for Retirement First, the Children’s Education Second”, applies to other financial goals also. Two critical financial planning steps are to identify your financial goals and determine the priority of each. The cost of each goal and when you want to achieve the goal are also needed.
One objective in financial planning is to determine how much is needed to achieve your goals. Saving is almost always the way to have the funds needed. The longer you wait to start to save for financial goals, the harder it is to achieve. That is because more needs to be saved each year.
The challenge to be able to save for retirement becomes more difficult as the number of goals increase. You can borrow for some goals. Borrowing for retirement is generally not an alternative. Financing goals before retirement may decrease the ability to borrow in the future and increases future cash needs.
Children’s education, helping a child with the purchase of a home, helping children with their loans could reduce the amounts needed to maintain a comfortable retirement.
Possibly the expenses can be reduced. Attending local and in-state colleges are generally less expensive than private colleges. Having the children take out student loans also reduces the amount the parents will have to pay.
Contributing less into qualified retirement plans, including IRAs, (Plans) and borrowing from Plans reduces the amount that can be saved for retirement. Contributing to Plans allows the funds to grow free of annual income tax. This allows the income and growth to grow faster in Plans. Borrowing from a Plan reduces the potential return on the amount in the Plan. If the interest rate charged by the Plan is less than the amount a financial institution would charge, the amount of income in the Plan will be reduced.
A reserve account for the unexpected and emergencies should be given a very high priority. Without reserves, these types of expenditures could require the liquidation of investment when their values are low.
There are unintended consequences of not saving for retirement first. Your children may need to support their parents in retirement. A child may need to give up a job to care for a parent if the funds are not available for health care.
Set your priorities for yourself first. Any excess can be left to your heirs.
Back to Top
Tax Court Says One Tax-Free Rollover per Year Means Just That
| Background The Internal Revenue Code says that if you receive a distribution from an IRA, you can’t make a tax-free (60-day) rollover into another IRA if you’ve already completed a tax-free rollover within the previous 12 months. The long-standing position of the IRS, reflected in Publication 590 and proposed regulations, is that this rule applies separately to each IRA you own. Publication 590 provides the following example: “You have two traditional IRAs*, IRA-1 and IRA-2. You make a tax-free rollover of a distribution from IRA-1 into a new traditional IRA (IRA-3). You cannot, within 1 year of the distribution from IRA-1, make a tax-free rollover of any distribution from either IRA-1 or IRA-3 into another traditional IRA. However, the rollover from IRA-1 into IRA-3 does not prevent you from making a tax-free rollover from IRA-2 into any other traditional IRA. This is because you have not, within the last year, rolled over, tax free, any distribution from IRA-2 or made a tax-free rollover into IRA-2.” Very clear. Clear, that is, until earlier this year, when the Tax Court considered the one-rollover-per-year-rule in the case of Bobrow v. Commissioner. Bobrow v. Commissioner On April 14, 2008, he withdrew $65,064 from IRA #1. On June 10, 2008, he repaid the full amount into IRA #1. On June 6, 2008, he withdrew $65,064 from IRA #2. On August 4, 2008, he repaid the full amount into IRA #2. Mr. Bobrow completed each rollover within 60 days. He made only one rollover from each IRA. So, according to Publication 590 and the proposed regulations, this should have been perfectly fine. However, the IRS served Mr. Bobrow with a tax deficiency notice, and the case went to the Tax Court. The IRS argued to the Court that Mr. Bobrow violated the one-rollover-per-year rule. The Tax Court agreed with the IRS, relying on its previous rulings, the language of the statute, and the legislative history. The Court held that regardless of how many IRAs he or she maintains, a taxpayer may make only one nontaxable rollover within each 12-month period. “Taxpayers may rely on a proposed regulation, although they are not required to do so. Examiners, however, should follow proposed regulations, unless the proposed regulation is in conflict with an existing final or temporary regulation (Internal Revenue Manual 4.10.7 issue resolution). “IRS Publications explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors. They typically highlight changes in the law, provide examples illustrating Service positions, and include worksheets. Publications are nonbinding on the Service and do not necessarily cover all positions for a given issue. While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position” (Internal Revenue Manual 4.10.7 issue resolution). This maybe why neither the IRS nor Mr. Bobrow appears to have cited the Service’s long-standing contrary position in Publication 590 and the proposed regulations. So what’s the rule now? And don’t forget–you can make unlimited direct transfers (as opposed to 60-day rollovers) between IRAs. Direct transfers between IRA trustees and custodians aren’t subject to the one-rollover-per-year rule. *The one-rollover-per-year rule also applies–separately–to your Roth IRAs. Roth conversions don’t count as a rollover for this purpose.
The foregoing is provided for information purposes only. It is not intended or designed to provide legal, accounting, tax, investment or other professional advice. Such advice requires consideration of individual circumstances. Before any action is taken based upon this information, it is essential that competent, individual, professional advice be obtained. JAS Financial Services, LLC is not responsible for any modifications made to this material, or for the accuracy of information provided by other sources. |
Privacy Breaches
Two recent articles discuss privacy breaches.
“Sidestepping the Risk of a Privacy Breach”, posted by the nytimes.com February 7, 2014, discussed the security of personal data when using “plastic”. A representative of the American Bankers Association expressed concern that criminals seem to be ahead of the marketplace, the regulators and the consumers.
Starting in 2005, there have been 4.167 known breaches that exposed 663,587,386 records of personal information. Recent headlines have revealed continuing breaches at some very large and sophisticated entities.
Over 30% of people whose information was breached in 2013 became victims of some kind of identity theft. That is an increase from about 12% three years ago.
Emails are increasingly exposing us to the threat of breaches to our privacy. If you receive an email asking for personal information and there is anything that raises concern, go to the website and call the entity. If there is a known breach, it may be on the website or the representative of the entity can tell you if it is legitimate.
“Leading a cash-only life is a theoretical possibility, but it boxes you out of most online shopping and makes traveling difficult. Going cash-only mostly means endless trips to the A.T.M. and all the fees and hassle that come with it”.
“With the right tactics, however, it’s easy enough for most people to greatly bolster their odds of avoiding the worst of the problems.”
Gregory Karp’s article “Think before buying ID theft protection” was in The Chicago Tribune Feb. 9, 2014.
He believes that you probably should not subscribe to identify “protection” services, “if your only concern is a thief fraudulently using your payment card information. Typically, that’s not a big deal, and you won’t lose any money. ”
A representative from the Identity Theft Resource Center was quoted: “You can’t make the blanket statement that all of these services are bad or not worth your while.” A representative of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse indicated the services have “dubious value. It’s fairly expensive, and there are other ways you can protect yourself.”
He noted that Consumer Reports had the following on their website: “Don’t get fleeced by identity-theft protections services.” Gregory noted that some felt the claim of “prevention” and “protection” are exaggerations. The benefit of these services is that they provide more timely alerts to a breach.
If you are thinking of getting this type of service learn exactly what you get. You need to educate yourself and follow through if you do not get this type of service.
Back to Top
Rules Eased for Health FSAs
Recent changes announced by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) modify the “use-it-or-lose-it” rule that applies to health flexible spending arrangements (FSAs). Plan sponsors will now have the option of allowing participants in health FSAs to carry over up to $500 of unused funds in a health FSA to the following plan year.
Background
Health FSAs are tax-advantaged employer-provided benefit plans that employees can use to pay for qualifying medical expenses. While generally funded through voluntary employee salary reductions, employers are able to contribute as well. Prior to the start of a plan year, employees decide how much to contribute to the health FSA (the maximum annual employee contribution to a health FSA that is part of a cafeteria plan is $2,500 for 2014). Contributions to the plan are excluded from income for federal income tax purposes, as are any reimbursements made from the plan for qualified medical expenses, including co-payments, deductibles, and dental and vision care expenses.
Any funds left unspent in the health FSA at the end of the plan year are forfeited–this is commonly referred to as the “use-it-or-lose-it” rule. Plan sponsors have the option of providing for a grace period of up to 2½ additional months after the end of the plan year (e.g., a calendar year plan might cover expenses incurred through March 15).
New rules
In Notice 2013-71, the IRS modified the “use-it-or-lose-it” rule that applies to health FSAs:
Plans may now be amended to allow participants to carry over up to $500 of unused health FSA funds at the end of a plan year.
Any carryover will not count against the $2,500 limit in the next plan year.
A plan may allow participants a grace period, as described above, or the ability to carry over unused funds–but not both.
A plan does not have to allow either the grace period or the carryover option.
To adopt the carryover option, plans must be amended on or before the last day of the plan year from which amounts may be carried over, and may be retroactive to the first day of the plan year, provided certain requirements, including participant notification, are met.
Special rules apply to plan years beginning in 2013–these plans may be amended to retroactively adopt the carryover provision at any time on or before the last day of the plan year that begins in 2014.
Word of caution
A health FSA plan can’t have both a grace period and a carryover option, so plans with existing grace periods will have to be amended to remove the grace period feature in order to add carryovers. Plan sponsors should consult carefully with a benefit specialist before taking any action, however, as eliminating an existing grace period feature raises potential issues relating to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). IRS Notice 2013-71 itself states that “the ability to eliminate a grace period provision previously adopted for the plan year in which the amendment is adopted may be subject to non-Code legal constraints.”
Back to Top
Reverse Mortgage Changes
Several changes have been made to the federally insured Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) reverse mortgage program to shore up the viability of the program. The changes are generally designed to improve the odds that homeowners taking out a reverse mortgage will be able to meet their obligations and not become a burden on the program. The changes are generally effective for new reverse mortgages after September 30, 2013 (but prior rules generally apply to case numbers assigned before September 30, 2013, if closed on or before December 31, 2013). Additional financial assessment and set-aside requirements take effect January 13, 2014.
Initial disbursements limited
One change generally restricts the amount that can be disbursed to you within one year of your obtaining the reverse mortgage. Under the new rules, the maximum amount that can be disbursed to you at closing or during the first 12-month disbursement period is equal to the greater of (a) 60% of the principal limit or (b) the sum of your mandatory obligations plus 10% of the principal limit (not to exceed 100% of the principal limit). Mandatory obligations include items such as the initial mortgage insurance premium, the loan origination fee, recording fees and taxes, credit reports, a survey, a title examination, title insurance, a property appraisal fee, fees for warranties or inspections, funds to pay any required repairs, and amounts used to discharge liens, debt, and taxes. Except in the case of a single disbursement lump-sum payment option, additional amounts can be disbursed in later years, up to 100% of the available principal limit.
New mortgage insurance premium rates
Another change increases the basic initial mortgage insurance premium, and applies an even higher rate if more than 60% of the principal limit can be disbursed to you in the first year. Under the new rules, an initial mortgage insurance premium fee of 0.5% of the maximum claim amount will generally be charged. The initial fee is increased to 2.5% of the maximum claim amount if required or available disbursements to you at closing or during the first 12-month disbursement period are greater than 60% of the principal amount. In either case, there is also an annual fee equal to 1.25% of the mortgage balance.
Financial assessment and set-asides
Finally, changes are made to improve the odds that you will be able to meet certain of your obligations under the reverse mortgage. For case numbers assigned on or after January 13, 2014, you must undergo a financial assessment prior to approval and closing on a reverse mortgage. Based on your assessment and as a condition of loan approval, you may be required to use proceeds from the reverse mortgage to fund a lifetime expectancy set-aside for payment of property charges or authorize the mortgagee to pay property charges from your monthly payments or your line of credit. Property charges include property taxes, hazard insurance, and flood insurance.
Back to Top
New Mortgage Rules Scheduled to Take Effect in January
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has issued new mortgage rules that are scheduled to take effect on January 10, 2014.
In 2008, the rise in home foreclosures was viewed by many as the result of substandard mortgage lending practices. Subsequently, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, which created the CFPB and set forth a number of financial industry regulations aimed at protecting consumers, including some pertaining to mortgage lending. In January 2013, the CFPB issued mortgage rules that implement the mortgage provisions set forth by Congress under the act.
Highlights of the new mortgage rules
The new rules broaden coverage of existing ability-to-repay rules, which require a lender to make a reasonable, good faith determination that a consumer has the ability to repay a loan. The rules extend coverage of the ability-to-repay rules to the majority of closed-end transactions secured by a dwelling (with certain exceptions).
In addition, the rules set forth specific procedures a lender must follow when determining a borrower’s ability to repay a loan, including the consideration and verification of certain consumer information (e.g., income, employment status) and the calculation of the borrower’s monthly mortgage payment.
The rules also center on what are referred to as Qualified Mortgages. According to the Dodd-Frank Act, lenders that issue Qualified Mortgages will receive a presumption of compliance with ability-to-repay rules, thereby reducing their risk of challenge from a borrower for failing to satisfy ability-to-repay requirements.
The rules specify various requirements that a loan must meet in order for it to be considered a Qualified Mortgage, including:
- Limits on risky loan features (e.g., negative amortization or interest-only loans)
- Cap on a lender’s points and fees (3% of the loan amount)
- Certain underwriting requirements (e.g., 43% monthly debt-to-income ratio loan limit)
What do the new rules mean for consumers?
The new mortgage rules were mainly put into place as a way to end irresponsible mortgage lending and ensure that borrowers will only be able to obtain a mortgage loan that they can afford to pay back. Proponents view the rules as welcome industry safeguards that simply mirror responsible mortgage lending practices that are already in place.
However, some mortgage-industry experts fear that the new rules may end up making obtaining a mortgage loan more difficult than it has been in the past–especially for borrowers who have a high debt-to-income ratio. Borrowers may also find themselves burdened with the task of providing lenders with additional documentation that they may not have had to in the past.
For more information on the new mortgage rules, you can visit the CFPB website at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/
Back to Top
Grandfathered Plans: Can You Keep Your Current Insurance Plan?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
