Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Will America’s New Heroes Stand UP!

By Forrest Wallace Cato

 

Financial Planners Emerging As America's New Heroes

 

According to recent issues of The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and The New York Times (among others): "The over-all national image of financial planners continues to improve despite major frauds being perpetrated by scoundrels like Bernard Medoff and others in the financial world. Their frauds are being exposed as stocks and real estate values tumble." America's planners and our military personnel have long been my heroes. There are a few bad apples in America's military but they are a very small minority. All-in-all we can be extremely proud of America's financial planners and service men and women.

 

Lew Nason, founder of the famous Insurance Pro Shop, explains, "Reliably measured trends now indicate that more-and-more insurance agents eventually become financial planners. Most planners today come from the insurance industry. This trend helps improve the ranks of planners. The average planner sells more insurance than does the average agent! The old self-promoting financial planner clown is becoming a relic of the past. This positive trend is being lead by Registered Financial Consultants, many of whom are considered industry role models. Of course these professionals are members of the emerging International Association of Registered Financial Consultants (IARFC)."

 

Here is a fact that more people should know…

…Financial Planners take an oath to act in the best interest of their clients. Independent professional "ethics studies" about the financial industry, show that planners do not routinely take advantage of people and exploit them as do many other financial professionals. In many-many cases, financial planners help more people than do any other financial professionals, including attorneys, accountants, bankers, and people in the brokerage business. Why do accountants enjoy such a good image when they charge the hell out of people? And lawyers never do for their clients in one visit what they can do for them in three visits, while some brokers needlessly buy-and-sell (churn) stocks in the client's portfolio. It seems that these professionals charging fees and commissions go on-and-on.

 

 

 

Marvin Schur Froze To Death

 

Ninety-three year old Marvin Schur of Bay City, Michigan, froze to death in his home a few weeks ago. He owed the local municipal electric utility a thousand dollars in past-due bills. The greedy utility turned off his electricity during freezing weather. The thousands of dollars that Marvin Schur paid the utility over many years counted for nothing during the recent blizzard. Living in a town of 35,000, about 80-miles from Detroit, in the USA today, he was forced to gradually freeze to death because of money he owed.

 

What a miserable way his life was ended just because he could not pay his most recent electric bills on time. Will you eventually expire like he did? Will some of your loved ones go to their death like this? No less than eight financial planners e-mailed me, or phoned me, to talk about this tragedy. Their responses did not surprise me. They were upset because they cared about this 93-year old citizen, though they did not know him.

 

The first financial planner to mention this incident to me was T. Jerry Royer, RFC, of Group 10 Financial in Haines City, Florida. T. Jerry Royer is considered by many in the financial planning industry to be a consummate role model. Jerry Royer's compassion, concern, and caring for his clients and fellow man, is outstanding amongst financial advisors and consumer activist groups.

 

Like the post office, the cable company, the phone company, and many other USA monopolistic "service" corporations, the only apparent major concern of that money-grabbing utility was to periodically raise prices and forever get still more bucks out of the elderly Mister Schur.

 

My first three immediate thoughts, after learning of this tragedy, were:

(1) This is another horror caused by "free enterprise" run amuck. Please read this complete article before you quickly disagree.

(2) What a perfect retirement cottage Mr. Schur lived in. His house was small, neat, clean, and well-kept, in a middle class neighborhood. From the appearance of his modest home I assumed that he had been very responsible during his life and had planned well.

(3) Fat politically-connected old white men are usually in charge of any utility. And old people tend to be rigid and set in their ways.

Oddly enough I also quickly even visualized the appearance of those typical, fat, politically-connected white men who are the top executives of most any American utility. Every top executive at any utility that I have ever seen was always a soft and bloated, politically-connected, self-important, old white man who was over-paid. The greedy people in leadership positions on Wall Street, banking, mortgage companies, auto companies, and other corporations, that I have met, or seen, mostly appear (to me) to be fat, politically-connected, and self-important, old white men -- a trend I predict will soon change to include plump and complacent old rigid and pompous people of other races. These dull old farts are so inflexible and uncreative. You're right, I'm not a fan.

 

Myths About Who Really, Helps America's People!

 

There are many rapidly fading American myths about who actually helps the people in our country. These myths have grown over the past hundred years having been promoted by people the myths benefit. Finally our citizens are wising-up:

 

Wall Street doesn't help people. People at most every level along Wall Street help themselves. Wall Street pays-off greedy politicians in Washington so they will pass laws and regulations that enable Wall Street to exploit people and grab more-and-more of the investor's money. Financial planners help people.

 

Banks do not help people. Banks help themselves. The banking industry pays-off crooked politicians so they can get laws passed that enable banks to legally take more-and-more money from the people. The banking industry has gotten every law passed, that they wanted passed, for the last 85-years. All of these laws and regulations make it possible for banks to further exploit the people. Financial planners help people.

 

Mortgage Companies do not help people. Over half of the mortgage companies actually cheat people while claiming to be "making the American dream possible!" How wonderful mortgages are. You can easily buy a hundred and fifty thousand dollar house and eventually pay half a million dollars (or even more) for it. But the repossession rate keeps rising and rising, so don't count on ever getting your house paid-off. Not one person in a hundred actually understands the mortgage he or she has. This is no accident. Mortgage companies pay-off worthless Washington politicians so mortgage companies can get laws and regulations passed that enable mortgage companies to steal and exploit people. Mortgage companies establish resolution departments to guarantee that they win every dispute. It has long been well-known that over 50% of all mortgages in effect today are excessively exploiting the customers yet the disgusting politicians do nothing about this! Mortgage companies over-pay their top executives. You could often get a better deal from organized crime. In fact, why are so many criminals in the mortgage business? Financial planners help people.

 

American Auto Corporations do not help people. Car companies take advantage of people. American auto companies pay-off stinking politicians in Washington to pass laws and regulations enabling the car industry to make mostly inappropriate and over-priced junk products. Car companies highly exploit their customer base. They over-pay their top executives. Financial planners help people.

Corporations do not help people. Corporations exploit people. Corporations pay-off the lying politicians in Washington so corporations can get laws and regulations passed that enable corporations to squeeze every dollar they can out of their customers. Many corporations obscenely over-pay their top executives. If a hamburger can be worth three hundred dollars then a top corporate executive can be worth over five million dollars. The greedy corporate executives – who are the shame of America -- grab this excessive amount of money and perks because they can. Financial planners help people.

 

The Drug industry does not really help people. Drug companies exploit people to the max! They have corrupted medicine and meaningful regulation by paying-off the rotten people in Washington. The paid-for politicians pass any and all laws the drug industry desires. And they desire laws that enable them to over-charge and exploit consumers. Financial planners help people.

 

Lawyers do not really help people. Lawyers exploit you if you have a legal problem or need. They stand ready at this moment to take advantage of you. They created the legal mess and got the laws and regulations passed (by paying off your "so-called" representatives in Washington) and guess what – these laws require you to need and use their services and to pay for them at their rates and on their terms. All this even though mere lawyers can not stand-up to the massive unlimited powers of the feds. Financial planners help people.

 

Oil and gas industry leaders, executives and managements do not help people. This giant industry helps itself. The oil industry pays-off dishonest Washington politicians so they can get laws and regulations passed that make it legal for the oil and gas industry to charge massive prices and gouge, and gouge, and gouge, and gouge. Financial planners help people.

 

Congress does not help people. Elected representatives help the special interest that pays them money! Politicians mostly tell you untruths and pretend they are honest and worthy. They pass laws and regulations that make it legal for you to be robbed, exploited, cheated, used, abused, etc. Financial planners help people.

 

The Georgia Governor Asked Me To Help

 

The Governor of Georgia appointed me to serve on the Consumer Utility Counsel. Our job was to find help for people who could not pay their gas, water, or electric bills. Our objective was to assist troubled folks in resolving their financial problems with utilities. Over the years, America's utilities paid-off state and federal politicians, this enabled them to get many laws and regulations passed allowing them to exploit their customers. I'm not a trained social worker. But like a good financial planner, I know what is acceptable and decent, though I am not a financial planner.

 

You don't allow people to freeze, or starve, or to be cheated, simply because corporate entities are greedy, politically connected, and can routinely pay-off despicable politicians to pass laws so that utilities can mistreat the people. But that is what has been taking place in America more and more, year-after-year, as "free enterprise" is abused due to a lack of enforced meaningful regulation, plus a lack of honest government. Our present dreadful economic conditions did not happen overnight.

 

We – the members of the Georgia Consumer Utility Council, based in Atlanta, -- gave-up our salaries, so that even that money could go to help those in need.

 

Once again, the profession that called me the most – when they learned of someone needing assistance – was financial planners. Dentists, doctors, lawyers, ministers, and Congressional members never called. The planners called because they cared. Over-and-over I reacted by calling on different financial planners to help people in need who were not their clients.

 

Perhaps that was because financial planners were the professionals I know best.

 

And many planners responded and helped because they were good and decent men and women. They managed to find time in their busy schedules to help rescue desperate people, who the greedy elements of our society do not care about. Actually these overly-greedy elements of our society do not care about you, they only care about the money they can get from you. I knew the moral fiber of financial planners. I thought they would help. I was not disappointed. They did help.

 

During my lifetime I have only been cheated by one New York financial planner. One, -- out of the many hundreds of planners I have known, -- is not bad odds.

 

Most financial planners I know are honest, smart, concerned, disciplined and intelligent people who want to help others. But we need careful and enforced financial regulation because a few "who call themselves" financial planners are only hustlers out to grab some more dollars -- even if this means saying anything, promising anything, concealing anything, or selling an inappropriate annuity to an easily confused senior citizen. These clowns are becoming a "dying breed" because consumers are finally wising-up. They are a very-very small minority. And they are detested by real planners.

 

Loren Dunton, the founder of financial planning, once told me, "My greatest regret is the clowns who call themselves financial planners and have plagued our industry since inception." The clowns contribute nothing to the industry associations, except possibly complaints. Clowns do not support anything, they don't pay their membership dues, attend their own conventions, purchase books with state-of-the-art information about their supposed specialty, research and write articles, support projects that encourage college students in the study of financial planning, or do anything for the profession they claim to be a part of. Loren Dunton was most proud of the financial planners who helped protect and defend the people. This concept of "doing the right thing, by acting in the best interest of the client," played a large part in what Loren Dunton envisioned as the role for this new profession.

 

Only one professional group persistently phones me with complaints about excessive Wall Street greed. These immoral Wall Street hustlers and banker thieves actually feel entitled to take this money in the form of obscene bonuses! They have been actually stealing taxpayer bailout money. The one group that calls most often with complaints about the present obvious excessive corporate over-payment, bonuses, and other money misuse is – you guessed it – financial planners!

 

"Financial planners are important. Planners control a multi-trillion dollar industry.

More than any other profession, planners help people the most with their money goals." Lew Nason, LUTC, FMM, RFC

 

It bothers financial planners to see money stolen from the people and then hear Americans told that this is acceptable. These callers are not people who misuse the title of financial planner to help them hustle more people. These are real financial planners who are responsible financial professionals that care. They have studied and have become qualified with appropriate knowledge to properly practice their craft. They are not mere product pushers.

Do You Agree With Carl Marx?

 

Guess who once said, "Capitalism enables greed and exploitation to run amuck." The person credited with making that statement was Karl Marx (1818-1883, the founder of communism). So not to sound like a Communist, I used the words "free enterprise" instead of Capitalism. I never thought I would ever agree with Karl Marx about anything. But obviously what we have today in the USA is an abuse of the Capitalistic system through greed and exploitation with a lack of adequate regulations being enforced. We have basically evolved into a system of unaccountability.

 

Why does corruption flourishes in our system?

 

What produced our recessive economy was, is, and remains, greed and exploitation running unchecked at all levels, in ways small and large. What Wall Street, and the mortgage industry, and banking, are all most reflective of today, is greed, corruption, and exploitation operating without meaningful controls. They are not willing to accept both transparency and accountability. One of the leading causes of the lack of enforcement is the so called "revolving door policy," that allows the special interest groups to flourish by going unchecked from the private to the public sector and visa-versa. Our government – let's call it the federal government because it is not really ours any longer – is what happens when greed and exploitation are out-of-control, causing regulation to be circumvented and thus suppressed, enabling special interest to purchase the passage of any laws they desire.

 

Citizens are badly exploited and harmed when capitalism is abused by greedy special interest that purchases the prevailing laws and regulations. Ask the person on the street if he or she is happy with what is going on. Financial planners are also not happy about this because they serve the people's best interest. Planners are the good guys here.

 

James D. "Beau" Henderson, RFC, of Fiduciary Capital in Gainesville, GA, is a financial planner who is active in civic, social, fraternal, religious, and educational works, all of which are involved in one-time-only efforts or ongoing projects that benefit people of all ages in his market area. "Beau" Henderson often speaks to groups warning them about the many ways in which they are now exploited.

 

Here is an example of what James D. "Beau" Henderson says: "When money crosses hands the politicians quickly forget the perils of unfettered capitalism. They sell out and forget you. Today we see the results of deregulation. The results are obvious. Government is the problem and not the solution. This is the era when contaminated (salmonella) peanut butter is officially discovered; people are warned about it -- but it is sold anyway. Virtually everyone knows that you cannot serve two masters at once. A federal agency like the Food and Drug Administration, having been infiltrated through the revolving door policy, (like most government agencies) is destined to become incompetent, uncaring, and not held accountable."

 

Beau Henderson continues, "Can anyone in government be accountable to both the private and the public sector at once? It currently appears as if no one in government is accountable for anything. They can even refuse to accept federal subpoenas. You can not do that, but they can and do. Don't hold your breath until someone in a federal agency gives up their big salary to help. Don't expect a first time event like government employees working late at the office some night."

 

"Doublespeak," first mentioned in George Orwell's 1984, is alive and well here and now. Wall Street paid ratings agencies to declare that questionable financial offerings were sound. They took the money and did so. Again-and-again planners, -- financial professionals truly in the trenches with the people, -- sounded the alarm to deaf ears in governments at all levels. For years planners told me, "This is insane! The housing bubble will pop! Our economy will be a disaster."

 

At first I wondered why most everyone I knew lived in a mansion?

 

As I said before, it is estimated that more than half the mortgages now in effect cheat and exploit the people paying for them. Planners have railed about this. Yet nothing was done. America's financial planners decry this prevailing practice standard even now, still nothing is done. What happened to federal protection or state scrutiny? Why do states approve bad products to be sold in their states? Is this the result of "money getting results" again? What happened to our system of checks and balances and other built in "safety nets"?

 

Other than financial planners, who is concerned about the people? Is anyone else, anywhere, concerned about anything except endlessly taking money from the people? The financial planners I know and respect are very concerned about the many present massive abuses of capitalism that make excessive greed fulfillment possible.

 

Bailout tax money goes to the special interests that control the federal government. Thus, even the obscenely greedy can further enrich themselves. Plus, the special interest can better serve their greedy purposes. There was little in the stimulus program to help the consumer, private citizen, individual, poor, or middle-class. Apparently, the tax paying citizen is not even a real concern of Washington. Money is taken (in taxes) then given to special interests so that the special interests can continue to shaft the consumers who pay the taxes.

 

Do you really want another over-priced, gas-guzzling, American made car that you know is lacking in quality? An over-priced car actually made to exploit you! Arrogantly the easily deluded Americans laughed at Toyota, Kia, and Hyundai when they began competing here. Now these are the three top sellers. Do you really think there is any point in going to an American bank for anything? Are most places in America going to help you or harm you? If you think they are not going to exploit you to the max then let me tell you about a big bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn. America's financial planners are not happy about what is going on because they care about their clients and fellow man.

 

Allowing capitalism, as it currently exists, to police itself, can only result in more harm, ciaos, and corruption. What could we expect if the inmates in a mental institution for the criminally insane were to exchange places with the staff and then asked to regulate and police their institution? As long as we allow special interests groups to flourish through a revolving door policy the institutions will not work the way they were intended.

 

These special interests groups are winning at the people's expense. Each corporation will forever squeeze every possible dollar out of you and your elderly parents and your children. When you have no more money left you can simply freeze to death. Our present system has become brutal to our people. Past money they took means nothing to the takers. It is future money they demand, and now. To hell with you if you can not pay! To hell with your children! To hell with your grandchildren! If they can not pay more and more then let them freeze!

 

Greater oversight of commerce and industry is highly needed but will be fought with money from commerce and industry. And money, -- just like the banking or credit card industry, -- always wins in Washington. Fifty thousand citizen voters do not have the influence of one lobbyist with cash. American is like a candy bar. This country keeps getting smaller with more phony ingredients. The United States Postal Service, which seems to raise its prices every six months, now wants to discontinue delivering mail on Saturday.

 

The many abuses of capitalism mean that little-by-little, America is going out-of-business, unless this trend can be stopped or reversed. These abuses of capitalism even mean that the existing form of government is no longer working as originally intended. Capitalism -- the greatest system of all -- is now even becoming dysfunctional due to the money pay-offs to politicians that end-up causing capitalism to allow greed and exploitation to run wild.

 

Cato's Conclusion: Financial planners and many other responsible Americans are alarmed. Historically, the financial planning industry has seen the "handwriting on the wall" while others in the financial industry become part of the problem. Many planners have been outspoken critics of this system gone awry. Many financial planners, at great peril to themselves and their families, speak truth and reality to the lies of the controlling powers that enable endless predatory practices. Realities that became obvious during this decade of greed and corruption are causing Americans to realize that capitalism, as we now know it, is allowing people to be harmed because of the many abuses by special interest, and most financial planners are among the very few who are actually on the people's side. CNN reported, on January 31, 2009, "One profession that is certain to be in great demand in the USA during the next ten years is financial planning. Financial planning is certain to grow and even flourish during the difficult days ahead."

Monday, February 16, 2009

The New New Deal

Welcome to the newest beginning of the same old end.

U.S. taxpayers and their progeny are $790 billion dollars poorer today than they were on Friday. The stimulus plan, all 1,071 unread pages of it, raced through Congress like a streaker across a cricket pitch on the weekend. Before anyone was able to compute the vulgar image flashing before their eyes, it was out the door and stamped on the pages of regrettable historical moments.

And you can get ready for more naked embarrassment too. Obama says the mammoth package is "just the beginning" of his effort to buttress America's crumbling economy. We seem to recall expressing disgust at a spending package of similar size last year. What ever happened to that? Hmm, so much for "change."

But we shouldn't be too surprised. The path to peril - be it moral, political or economic - is well trodden with the footprints of fools...and everyone plays their part. Just how different, for instance, is Obama's Newer New Deal from Roosevelt's Old New Deal?

FDR's policies won approval (after pesky pro-constitutionalist Supreme Court justices died off and the bench was stacked with New Deal comrades) on the promise that his massive government-spending program would generate jobs and liberate the economy from the claws of the Great Depression. So, did it?

Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, writing in The Wall Street Journal, provide some facts:

"In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office. Total hours worked per adult, including government employees, were 18 per cent below their 1929 level between 1930-32, but were 23 per cent lower on average during the New Deal (1933-39)."

What happened to the typical peak-trough cycle that both fascinates free-market enthusiasts and infuriates meddling do-gooders? Well, the meddlers won, of course. And any time world improvers clamp down on peaks and troughs, booms and busts are only just around the corner.

In his column today, Bill Bonner lends us his eye to the past and examines the epic battle between those struggling for freedom and those who seek to plan, monitor and control every move for them. Beware, for history has a tendency to repeat...

 

-----------------------------------------

Bankers Pull Another Fast One

By Bill Bonner

Last week, the New York Times proposed "10 Questions Bank CEO's Should Face." Among them:

"The Treasury has proposed a $500,000 cap on executive compensation... Many of you have complained that you will lose your top talent. Are those the same people that helped lose your banks billions?"

Oh, you jokers at the NYT . Touché!

Yes, it's "open season" on bankers. And check the new dictionary. The word 'banker' has become synonymous with "reptile" or "scalawag." Drivers will soon be using it on the street. "F**** banker!" they will yell to the car that cuts them off. "Scumbag Millionaires," the Sun called them.

English bankers got slapped around on Monday. Then, on Wednesday, it was the Americans' turn. They were summoned to Washington by Congressman Barney Frank; be prepared for a "public flogging," the New York Times warned them.

In Paris, meanwhile, the bankers tried to stay ahead of the lynch mob by proposing to cut their own bonuses.

Everybody wants to kick the bankers when they are on the ground. Heck, we'd do it too...but the crowd around them is so thick; we can't get a boot in edgewise. Besides, there are bigger charlatans still standing. After all, bankers were just doing their jobs – separating fools from their money. What about those who were supposed to be protecting the fools?

But we are in a depression. And everyone has to play his part. The politicians feign moral outrage. The bankers feign contrition. The spectators feign to know what was going on and have a good time. It's a show with a subplot, we think. In the interest of seditious mischief, here we undertake to deconstruct it.

First we begin with a critic's remark: this is a well-rehearsed storyline. When the losers are unhorsed, they are almost always spat upon. Louis 16th's severed head was held up and subjected to "atrocious and indecent gestures"...Mussolini was hung on a lamp post. The bankers seem to be getting off easy.

Now, a comparison: the farce of '09 is nothing compared to the great show put on following the '29 crash. The weakness of the present spectacle is the cast. The chief American protagonist – Barney Frank – is no match for his role model, Ferdinand Pecora. Pecora was "the most brilliant lawyer of Italian extraction in the US," said the TIME magazine report of March 6, 1933. He "finished public schools at 12. At 18, after loping through his brother's law books, he was managing clerk of a law firm. Even on the most complex cases (which he, tireless, likes best) he never needs notes, never forgets a word of testimony once it is on the record... At 47, his black eyes flash, his black hair bristles."

But then, the victims are no match for Charles Edwin Mitchell either. "Billion Dollar Charlie" earned more than a million dollars in '29, when a million dollars was still real money. Senator Carter Glass said that he "more than 50 other men is responsible for this stock crash." But, as TIME reported, "neither the directors nor any other Manhattan banker knew anyone who, they believed, could do an equally good job of carrying the bank safely through storm and strife. That he has done the job, Ferdinand Pecora would be the last to deny. The statement of National City Bank [Mitchell's] was, on Dec. 31, 1932, the envy of nearly every bank in the US."

Still, the depression was on and Mitchell was damned for it. By 1933, he was out of a job. And now Jamie Dimon, Lord Stevenson, Andy Hornby, John Mack, Vikram Pandit, and Sir Fred Goodwin are in the dock.

'Yes, we have erred and strayed like lost sheep,' the bankers chant. "We are profoundly, and I think I would say unreservedly, sorry..." said Lord Stevenson, formerly of HBOS, on Tuesday. But "UK bankers find sorry is not enough," judged a headline on Wednesday morning. "I want groveling," wrote an opinionist to the LA Times . "I want show-trial sweating and stammering. I want their nine-figure bonus checks endorsed over to the rest of us...I want blood..."

Be careful not to over-act, is our advice. Viewers might catch on. In London, the Guardian announced its own 12 questions to put to the bankers, including "why should profits be private, but losses be socialized?" Uh...that is a good question, but it is put to the wrong person. Why the bankers would want to offload their mistakes is a question even a Guardian reader could answer. Why else would they humiliate themselves publicly? Why would not a one of them dare show any fight? The pols control the money now; the bankers know it.

The question is better put to the inquisitor than to his victim. Why would the government wish to take on the losses? There, the answer is fairly easy too – power. Besides, it's not their money; it belongs to the same mouth-breathing yahoos who are enjoying the show. In fact, we have other questions we'd like to put to Barney Frank, John McFall and the rest of these sanctimonious meddlers: How many of you jackasses went short the financial sector? And if you're so smart, why didn't you warn the public about the housing bubble and the toxic asset meltdown? If your committees...and your armies of regulators at the SEC, FHA, FDIC, FSA or other agencies... could do nothing to prevent the crisis, what good are they? And how cometh it to be that the biggest financial fraud of all time took place right under your own employees' noses?

So you see, dear reader, how deliciously the plot turns? In the bubble years, the bankers ripped off the public...pretending to make them rich, of course...while the regulators looked the other way. Now, the politicians create a distraction, pretending to punish the bankers, while together they pick the public's pocket for $3 or $4 trillion more. The bankers are judged guilty; but the audience hangs.

Joel's Note: We've just got word that Bill and Addison are in the process of updating their widely acclaimed book Financial Reckoning Day, for rerelease. We'll keep an eye on when that will be available and let you know. In the meantime, might we suggest taking a few minutes to read over our equally popular Gold $2,000 Report . It details five ways to invest in our favorite metal, including one play that lets you nab some of it at as little as a penny per ounce.

--- Dan Amoss' Strategic Short Report ---

New Research Source Reveals...

The Bear Market Strategy So Powerful, Governments Have Tried to OUTLAW It At Least Three Times

This controversial and little-used "paddle strategy" once launched the family fortunes of a U.S. President...

Last year, it made as much as $10.96 million per day for one astute investor...

And it now stands behind the top three most profitable market moves in history...

For the first time, we're revealing the five-step secret that lets you do this...

-----------------------------------------

[Rude Endnote: "When are you going address the fact the U.S. owes China 1.5TRILLION in U.S. Govt Bond, and the Chinese do not want any more of our 30 year bonds at 3% interest yields?" cautions one reader.

"They WILL soon demand to be reimbursed in gold. The official price of $62.22 set in the 1970's, would wipe out the U.S.'s complete gold reserve.

"So Obama will call in or confiscate the gold in the hands of the American Public at large, pay them a mere 900 and ounce, make gold ownership a felony, then further devalue the U.S. Dollar by making the fixed price of gold $10,000 an ounce."

Rude: Oh dear reader, that hasn't happened since this first New Deal. This is the NEW New Deal. Sure, the Roosevelt administration called in the nation's gold – making it a crime for private citizens to hold the yellow metal – and then revalued gold upwards. Sure, in a stroke of a pen, debts denominated in dollars were clipped 60%.

But that was the OLD New Deal…THIS time it's different. (Choke, splutter, cough...)

We'll see you tomorrow.

Until then...

Cheers,

Joel Bowman

The Rude Awakening

Friday, February 6, 2009

America’s Financial History – How This Financial Mess Started

Money For Life!

   

The History, Root Cause, and Possible Way Out Of the Current Economic Swamp...

21st century Americans can trace the condition of the nation's economy in 2009 back to two major currents in American legal and political history.

The Law and Corporations...

A long series of US Supreme Court decisions relating to corporations, and dating back to the 1809 US Supreme Court case before the Marshall Court of Bank of the United States vs. Deveaux, gave corporations citizenship by proxy. Numerous subsequent decisions affirmed and clarified that corporations had standing as citizens because their shareholders were citizens. These decisions also confirmed the long-standing concept of limited liability from English Common Law.1

The Manipulation of The Monetary System and The Income Tax System by the US Congress...

Although the attempts to manage the US monetary system date back to the founding of the country2, it was not until the Wilson Administration in 1913 that the establishment of Federal Reserve Banking System was enacted into law.3

Congressional actions relating to the monetary system [banking and investing], especially the formation of the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1933 and the passage of  The
Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, and its subsequent repeal in 1999, created the failed corporate banking and investment environment that is damaging your personal economy and the economy of America today.

Congressional tinkering with the tax system is legendary. Its failures are apparent. Its irresponsibility is blatant. Its lack of morals and ethics are clear. The Pork Barrel Bail Out of 2009 demonstrates once again that congressional self-interest is the very fabric of the culture of the Dolts in DC [my fond term for the elected aristocracy who run and ruin our government].

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA] passed by the US Congress in 1974, and its seemingly unceasing amendment, is the most far-reaching and damaging law to your personal economy.

Tying Them Together...

This essay is not comprehensive. That would require an entire book. Rather, it aims to raise questions and draw a blueprint for you to follow in your own pursuit of the truth. The following observations are, therefore, presented succinctly and without comment.

The standing of corporations and their executives and major shareholders is the background of the story that is unfolding.

* The laws referenced above regulate corporations and corporate decision makers. They apply equally to the banking and investment businesses.

* High-level executives recognize that their personal liability is limited to the value of their holdings in the companies they operate.4

* Since the compensation of these "C" level executives is significant and since they can use that compensation to purchase other assets, they can reduce their risk of personal loss relative to the failure of the enterprises they manage to just that portion of their substantial net worth that they directly invest in the companies they run.

* They can also liquidate some portion of their ownership in the enterprises they operate5


The IRS, through the power Congress invested in it through ERISA, plays a special role in this melodrama when it comes to your money that is in the possession and under the control of the banking and investment businesses mentioned above. This is especially true relative to the money you borrow from the IRS when you contribute to retirement accounts. and use the proceeds to purchase protected assets. This gives these executives the freedom to behave in ways that you and I could not.

The most notable business frauds and failures in recent history were among companies that were directly or indirectly involved in businesses that relied on government and government regulation imposed by the US Congress:

* Public Utility related businesses

· Enron, MCI, Qwest, etc.

 

* Banking and Finance

· FannieMae, FreddieMac,
Bear   Sterns, Lehman Bros, CitiCorp, etc.

All of these factors and the businesses that relied on them conspired to distort Americans view of their personal economies. Americans developed a mindset over the past 30+ years that has led them individually and collectively into a dungeon of debt. It has also distorted the simple and true path to a successful personal economy.

The role of the US Congress in this debacle is paramount and readily apparent in the - Pork Barrel Bail Out of 2009. Congress is institutionalizing and bureaucratizing of the Debt Paradigm that has created the problem the Pork Barrel Bail Out of 2009 claims it intends to solve.

1 My apologies to legal scholars and historians for abbreviating a couple of hundred books on this subject.

2 Robert E. Wright and David J. Cowen, Financial Founding Fathers: The Men Who Made America Rich, University of Chicago Press, 2006

3 Some conservative financial thinkers and economists believe this was a disastrous decision based on the greed of a few powerful bankers. Read a review of the book Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin


http://www.brianrwright.com/Coffee_Coaster/03_Book_Reviews/2007/070829_Jekyll_Island.htm

Buy it on Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/CREATURE-JEKYLL-ISLAND-Federal-Reserve/dp/B00181HBR0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232910015&sr=1-1


4 Of course that does not relieve them of liability when they act illegally, as has been the case with failures like Enron, MCI, etc. 5 There are limits and reporting requirements that, when violated, constitute illegal acts.

  

 

The History and Root Cause of the Debt Paradigm...
Greed!

Especially corporate greed. You might have guessed that greed is the root of today's financial failure. Let me explain why. This will be brief and leave out a great deal of detail. I encourage you to fill it in yourself.

In the early to mid 1970's America was in a deep recession. The financial services industry as we know it today did not exist. There were banks, stockbrokers, and insurance agents. The disciplines were separate. Each served a vital function in the economy of the typical American family.

Then 1974 arrives and, in response to a variety of factors in the marketplace and the perennial penchant of the US Congress to make life worse for most of us while trying to make it better for some of us, America is burdened with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act - ERISA. ERISA is a wide-ranging law that was supposed to protect the retirement income and other benefits of American workers.

The reality is that ERISA has made the government and the investment community wealthy. It concurrently added tremendous burdens on employers, tricked American employees into moving trillions of dollars from their own pockets into the accounts of financial Behemoths, and created an immense future tax liability for the American retiree in the process.

Before ERISA, Americans followed a wealth creation and money management model that valued saving money and creating equity. The typical American family had money in a savings account at the local bank, in one or more whole life insurance policies, a car that was free from any loan, and a house that would soon be paid for.

Since ERISA, a different model took over - The Debt Paradigm. The Debt Paradigm doesn't value saving or equity building. In fact, it discourages them. Instead it encourages debt in all its forms; big mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, college loans, and worst of all, tax deductible savings in 401(k)'s and IRA's - loans from the IRS that have to be repaid at a later date at an unspecified interest/tax rate.

The onslaught of enemies of the financial model that Americans followed for two centuries - I call it the Money for Life Model - continued to grow. In 1977 a financially naïve high school coach launched an all out war on saving. Don't save, he entreated his lemming-like followers. Take your money out of safe and secure vehicles like whole life insurance policies, buy some expensive term insurance [from me], and buy some very unreliable mutual funds [from me] with the difference. The result was less money controlled by individual Americans and more money in the accounts of the Behemoths.

Then, along came EF Hutton. EF Hutton dreamed of capturing more of America's money by promoting Universal Life Insurance with promises of high interest rates. EF Hutton and other ill informed or simply greedy insurance companies and investment firms implanted the myth that universal life is more flexible and offers better returns than its 100+ year old senior, Whole Life Insurance.

EF Hutton failed and Americans lost money. Several insurance companies that were selling only universal life insurance failed and Americans lost money. Eventually the failure of universal life destroyed almost all of the large mutual companies in America and transferred
even more of the money from individual Americans into the accounts of a growing number of corporate financial Behemoths.

"But wait" as the pitchman on television shouts, "There's more."

In 1986 ERISA is amended, as it will be time and again by our self-interested US Congress Persons. This time, the Behemoths seduce the Congress to take a real bite out of the Money for Life Model. The IRS Code is amended to deny American savers the opportunity to save as much as they want of their own after-tax money in whole life insurance policies. This frees up billions for the Behemoths.

It also creates a bit of a problem for the Behemoths. They succeeded in less than a decade at sucking much of the savings out of America's pockets for deposit in their accounts. They needed a new source of money. Enter the emphasis on the 401(k) to fatten their accounts. Not only do the Behemoths want your savings, they want your income too. The max-out myth begins.  Americans are lulled into a sense of safety by a current tax deduction that is worth ten times to the IRS when you retire compared to what you save in current taxes.

Now, not only do the financial Behemoths have all of your money and a good chunk of your income, but the IRS [the biggest Behemoth of all] has also, surreptitiously, taken control of a very big chunk of your retirement income.

As we pass through the financial euphoria of the 1990's, mutual funds multiply like bacteria in a petri dish as more American money moves from the control of Americans to the accounts of the Behemoths. Larger and larger incomes allow the Behemoths to swell their holdings and give the unsuspecting American, as well as the Behemoths, a false sense of prosperity.

You'd think that the end is near, but there are still a couple of chapters.  The protective wall between the Behemoths in banking and investing - The Glass-Steagall Act - is torn down.
Greed multiples.  The recession of 1999, followed by the damage to America's psyche on 9/11, and the ensuing two plus years of devastating market losses hurt all Americans in one way or another. It also bothered the Behemoths. Americans hesitated; reduced 401(k) contributions; shied away from mutual funds.


The Behemoths needed a new way to pilfer money from Americans. "What's left?" they wondered. We have all the savings. We have all the income we can get. Aha! There's one source left: home equity. We can convince America that real property, especially the homes they cherish so much, will increase in value forever. We'll convince the US Congress, especially the folks on the banking committee; to encourage lending money to anyone who wants it. Then we'll convince the borrower to use the shadow equity in their homes to finance other purchases and even investments.

And so it was. And so it is. Now the country is broke. The banks and investment firms are broke. Americans are broke. But there are exceptions. Remember the corporate shield that many executives hid behind? It worked. They are not broke.

A Possible Way Out of The Swamp for the Rest of Us...

There are other exceptions among financial entities. Mutual insurance companies are doing quite well. Owners of mutual insurance policies are doing quite well. Credit unions seem to be doing OK, too.

Their policy owners and members own these financial businesses. These financial businesses focus on the Money for Life Model - save first and secure your equity. Investing - giving control of your money to a Behemoth - is not necessary or even appropriate for most Americans.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

IRA/401k Education

Educate yourself@ www.ira401krolloverexpert.com

Where Should You Be Investing Your money

Where Should You Be

Investing Your Money?


In recent years, you have not been able to pick up a newspaper, or magazine that doesn't have an article touting the benefits of investing in mutual funds. 


While the first mutual fund was invented back in the 1930s, they didn't really become popular until the great bull market of 1982 to 2000.  Since then, mutual funds have been pushed by many financial advisors as "the only way to invest!"  Almost everyone has owned mutual funds at some point, if only through their company 401k or personal IRA.  Many people still own mutual funds in spite of the recent stock market declines and the current scandals surrounding the investment industry.


In the past 50 years, mutual funds have gone from an $18 billion also-ran in the financial-services industry to a $12 trillion titan.  Mutual Funds now enjoy an unchallenged position of leadership, with 90 million US investors.


Most of the growth of mutual funds is attributed to introduction of the 401(k) and other qualified plans during the past two decades.  Today, 10% of household financial assets are invested in 401(k) and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), up from 6 percent in 1990, and mutual funds manage 47 percent of those assets.  Households also have invested in mutual funds outside of qualified plans.  Mutual funds manage $4.4 trillion of assets that households hold in those taxable accounts.


And, it's no wonder mutual funds became so popular in the 80's and 90's, when the media and investment houses were reporting huge unprecedented returns, in the US stock market.


In the 80's the S&P 500 Index
(the benchmark everyone compares to) went from 107.94 to 353.40.  That's an average annual return of 12.59% over those 10 years.


In the 90's, we had one of the best times in the history for the U.S. stock market.  The S&P 500 Index went from 353.40 to 1469.25.  That's a staggering total return of 347% in just 10 years, or an average annual return of 15.31%.


Now compare that to the lack luster years of the 60's and 70's:


In the 60's the S&P 500 Index went from 59.89 to 92.06.  That's an average annual return of 4.39% over those 10 years.


In the 70's the S&P 500 Index went from 92.06 to 107.94.  That's an average annual return of only 1.60% per year, over those 10 years.


If you had actually received annual returns comparable to those of the S&P 500 Index during those 40 years (1960 though 2000) you would have averaged 8.33% per year.


However, when you consider that most mutual funds won't even come close to matching the S&P 500 Index over 30 or 40 years, and then you subtract the annual fees, it gives you an entirely different view of the validity and benefits of investing in mutual funds. 

Average Mutual Fund Expenses…

Sales charge                                  1.01%

12b-1 fees                                     0.37%

Expense ratio                                 1.35%

Transaction costs*                         1.32%

Total                                             4.05%


*The average turnover of all mutual funds is 110%.  The average transaction fee is estimated at 1.2%.  This is an estimate only as mutual funds do not have to reveal this number and therefore do not.

So, even if you were lucky enough to find a mutual fund that had a total return comparable to that of the S&P 500 Index over the past 40 years, your net return after expenses would only be 4.28%.  (8.33-4.05)  Remember, you'll pay those expenses each year, whether your investment makes money or not.


To fully understand the impact of expenses… Glorianne Stromberg, a financial services expert was quoted as saying  "Every 1% you pay in fees or charges will reduce your capital by about 20% over 25 years.  That could mean the difference between being comfortably well off and struggling to make ends meet."


As an example, at 10% per year, a $10,000 investment compounded over fifty years would yield $1,170,000. The same investment compounded at only 8% would yield just $470,000.  That is a whopping sixty-percent difference amounting to $700,000.


And, we haven't even considered that from the beginning of 2000 through 2008, the S&P 500 Index has gone down from 1,469.25 to 903.25.  That's a total loss of (-48.53%)… or average annual loss of (-5.90%) over those 8 years.  Overall, the average mutual fund plunged 30 percent in 2008, and many didn't fare as well as the S&P 500 index, which fell 38 percent for its worst year since 1937.


If you add in the last 8 years, the average return for the S&P 500 Index over the past 48 years is only 5.82%.  Now, subtract the average expenses of 4.05% and your net return is only 1.77%.  And, that's only if you were lucky enough to have found a mutual fund that performed as well as the S&P 500 Index over those 48 years.


What's your chance of you having picked a mutual fund that performed as well as the S&P 500 Index?


Since 1960, the mutual fund industry has grown from 160 funds and $18 billion in assets under management to today where there are over 8,000 stock mutual funds with combined assets of $12.356 trillion.  During the 1990s, 55% of equity funds failed, almost four times the 14% failure rate of the 1960s.


Most people tend to pick a mutual funds based on recent performance history.  When do you think a mutual fund company decides to advertise a specific fund - just after a bad period or a great period?  Of course, they advertise a fund just after it has had a great return and typically, just as it's about to cool off.  These hot funds historically do very poorly after their best period.  After studying mutual fund performance figures over a 20 year period, I have found that over the subsequent 3, 5, and 10 year periods, a whopping 80% of these "star" funds performed worse than the average similar fund.


Unfortunately, according to the folks at the Motley Fool, only 10 of the ten thousand actively managed mutual funds available today, managed to consistently beat the S&P 500 Index over the past ten years.  Remember, history tells us that very few, if any, of these top performing mutual funds will manage to beat the S&P 500 Index in the next 10 years.


The recent dismal performance of mutual funds' has contributed to the anguish of most retirement investors who saw a slump in their 401Ks that will probably prolong their working lives.  And, with the losses in the retirement accounts, many retirees are being forced to go back to work.  Disappointment understandably runs deep among investors who together have $9.4 trillion in U.S. mutual funds.


Warren Buffet
, the world's greatest investor, said it best;  "I would not invest in mutual funds, but if I did, I would choose an index fund.  For most small investors who don't have time to research individual companies, cheap index funds are the best way to invest in the stock market."


First, an Index Mutual Fund is much cheaper to run than a typical actively managed mutual fund, because they track a target benchmark, rather than constantly buying and selling securities in an attempt to outperform the market.  Thus index funds generally have lower advisory fees, operating expenses, and trading costs than actively managed funds.  Once you eliminate those analysts' salaries, an index fund can cut its costs tremendously and those savings can be passed along to investors in the form of higher returns.


Second, Index Mutual Funds perform better than most actively managed funds.  During the 1990s, in one of the best times in history for the market, the S&P 500 Index provided an annualized return of 17.3%, (including reinvestment of dividends and capital gains) compared with just 13.9% for the average equity mutual fund.  During the 1990s, the total shortfall between actively managed mutual funds and the market as measured by the S&P 500 Index was a whopping 3.4% per year.  And, that doesn't take into account the expense ratios, fees and loads in those funds, which would bring the return down to 9.85%.  And that is in one of the best times in history for the stock market!


In more recent history, only 4% of diversified US stock mutual funds have beaten the performance of the S&P 500 Index, over the past 10 years ending in 2007.


Of course, investing in an index mutual fund guarantees that you'll never outperform the overall market.


So, where should you be investing your money?  Where would you have fared better with your investments over the past 28 years?


$100,000 Invested On Dec. 31, 1980 In A Hypothetical S&P Index Mutual Fund…

(That probably would have outperformed all actively managed mutual funds)
Would Be Worth Approximately - $428,014

(That's after annual fees and expenses of 2.5% for the past 28 years)

   

$100,000 Invested On Dec. 31, 1980 In A Hypothetical Index Annuity

Would Be Worth Approximately - $553,263
(Based On An 80% Participation Rate)

(They do not charge management fees and they are 100% tax-efficient)


$100,000 Invested On Dec. 31, 1980 In A Typical Deferred Annuity

Would Be Worth Approximately - $583,162

(Based On An Average Of 6.5% Interest During The Past 28 Years)

(They do not charge management fees and they are 100% tax-efficient)


Who knows what the future will bring.  Will the stock market continue to deteriorate?  Probably.  Will interest rates start to climb?  Who knows?  One thing for sure, most average middle-income families can't afford to lose what little money they've saved. 

 

 

 

Where Should You Be

Investing Your Money?


In recent years, you have not been able to pick up a newspaper, or magazine that doesn't have an article touting the benefits of investing in mutual funds. 


While the first mutual fund was invented back in the 1930s, they didn't really become popular until the great bull market of 1982 to 2000.  Since then, mutual funds have been pushed by many financial advisors as "the only way to invest!"  Almost everyone has owned mutual funds at some point, if only through their company 401k or personal IRA.  Many people still own mutual funds in spite of the recent stock market declines and the current scandals surrounding the investment industry.


In the past 50 years, mutual funds have gone from an $18 billion also-ran in the financial-services industry to a $12 trillion titan.  Mutual Funds now enjoy an unchallenged position of leadership, with 90 million US investors.


Most of the growth of mutual funds is attributed to introduction of the 401(k) and other qualified plans during the past two decades.  Today, 10% of household financial assets are invested in 401(k) and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), up from 6 percent in 1990, and mutual funds manage 47 percent of those assets.  Households also have invested in mutual funds outside of qualified plans.  Mutual funds manage $4.4 trillion of assets that households hold in those taxable accounts.


And, it's no wonder mutual funds became so popular in the 80's and 90's, when the media and investment houses were reporting huge unprecedented returns, in the US stock market.


In the 80's the S&P 500 Index
(the benchmark everyone compares to) went from 107.94 to 353.40.  That's an average annual return of 12.59% over those 10 years.


In the 90's, we had one of the best times in the history for the U.S. stock market.  The S&P 500 Index went from 353.40 to 1469.25.  That's a staggering total return of 347% in just 10 years, or an average annual return of 15.31%.


Now compare that to the lack luster years of the 60's and 70's:


In the 60's the S&P 500 Index went from 59.89 to 92.06.  That's an average annual return of 4.39% over those 10 years.


In the 70's the S&P 500 Index went from 92.06 to 107.94.  That's an average annual return of only 1.60% per year, over those 10 years.


If you had actually received annual returns comparable to those of the S&P 500 Index during those 40 years (1960 though 2000) you would have averaged 8.33% per year.


However, when you consider that most mutual funds won't even come close to matching the S&P 500 Index over 30 or 40 years, and then you subtract the annual fees, it gives you an entirely different view of the validity and benefits of investing in mutual funds. 

Average Mutual Fund Expenses…

Sales charge                                  1.01%

12b-1 fees                                     0.37%

Expense ratio                                 1.35%

Transaction costs*                         1.32%

Total                                             4.05%


*The average turnover of all mutual funds is 110%.  The average transaction fee is estimated at 1.2%.  This is an estimate only as mutual funds do not have to reveal this number and therefore do not.

So, even if you were lucky enough to find a mutual fund that had a total return comparable to that of the S&P 500 Index over the past 40 years, your net return after expenses would only be 4.28%.  (8.33-4.05)  Remember, you'll pay those expenses each year, whether your investment makes money or not.


To fully understand the impact of expenses… Glorianne Stromberg, a financial services expert was quoted as saying  "Every 1% you pay in fees or charges will reduce your capital by about 20% over 25 years.  That could mean the difference between being comfortably well off and struggling to make ends meet."


As an example, at 10% per year, a $10,000 investment compounded over fifty years would yield $1,170,000. The same investment compounded at only 8% would yield just $470,000.  That is a whopping sixty-percent difference amounting to $700,000.


And, we haven't even considered that from the beginning of 2000 through 2008, the S&P 500 Index has gone down from 1,469.25 to 903.25.  That's a total loss of (-48.53%)… or average annual loss of (-5.90%) over those 8 years.  Overall, the average mutual fund plunged 30 percent in 2008, and many didn't fare as well as the S&P 500 index, which fell 38 percent for its worst year since 1937.


If you add in the last 8 years, the average return for the S&P 500 Index over the past 48 years is only 5.82%.  Now, subtract the average expenses of 4.05% and your net return is only 1.77%.  And, that's only if you were lucky enough to have found a mutual fund that performed as well as the S&P 500 Index over those 48 years.


What's your chance of you having picked a mutual fund that performed as well as the S&P 500 Index?


Since 1960, the mutual fund industry has grown from 160 funds and $18 billion in assets under management to today where there are over 8,000 stock mutual funds with combined assets of $12.356 trillion.  During the 1990s, 55% of equity funds failed, almost four times the 14% failure rate of the 1960s.


Most people tend to pick a mutual funds based on recent performance history.  When do you think a mutual fund company decides to advertise a specific fund - just after a bad period or a great period?  Of course, they advertise a fund just after it has had a great return and typically, just as it's about to cool off.  These hot funds historically do very poorly after their best period.  After studying mutual fund performance figures over a 20 year period, I have found that over the subsequent 3, 5, and 10 year periods, a whopping 80% of these "star" funds performed worse than the average similar fund.


Unfortunately, according to the folks at the Motley Fool, only 10 of the ten thousand actively managed mutual funds available today, managed to consistently beat the S&P 500 Index over the past ten years.  Remember, history tells us that very few, if any, of these top performing mutual funds will manage to beat the S&P 500 Index in the next 10 years.


The recent dismal performance of mutual funds' has contributed to the anguish of most retirement investors who saw a slump in their 401Ks that will probably prolong their working lives.  And, with the losses in the retirement accounts, many retirees are being forced to go back to work.  Disappointment understandably runs deep among investors who together have $9.4 trillion in U.S. mutual funds.


Warren Buffet
, the world's greatest investor, said it best;  "I would not invest in mutual funds, but if I did, I would choose an index fund.  For most small investors who don't have time to research individual companies, cheap index funds are the best way to invest in the stock market."


First, an Index Mutual Fund is much cheaper to run than a typical actively managed mutual fund, because they track a target benchmark, rather than constantly buying and selling securities in an attempt to outperform the market.  Thus index funds generally have lower advisory fees, operating expenses, and trading costs than actively managed funds.  Once you eliminate those analysts' salaries, an index fund can cut its costs tremendously and those savings can be passed along to investors in the form of higher returns.


Second, Index Mutual Funds perform better than most actively managed funds.  During the 1990s, in one of the best times in history for the market, the S&P 500 Index provided an annualized return of 17.3%, (including reinvestment of dividends and capital gains) compared with just 13.9% for the average equity mutual fund.  During the 1990s, the total shortfall between actively managed mutual funds and the market as measured by the S&P 500 Index was a whopping 3.4% per year.  And, that doesn't take into account the expense ratios, fees and loads in those funds, which would bring the return down to 9.85%.  And that is in one of the best times in history for the stock market!


In more recent history, only 4% of diversified US stock mutual funds have beaten the performance of the S&P 500 Index, over the past 10 years ending in 2007.


Of course, investing in an index mutual fund guarantees that you'll never outperform the overall market.


So, where should you be investing your money?  Where would you have fared better with your investments over the past 28 years?


$100,000 Invested On Dec. 31, 1980 In A Hypothetical S&P Index Mutual Fund…

(That probably would have outperformed all actively managed mutual funds)
Would Be Worth Approximately - $428,014

(That's after annual fees and expenses of 2.5% for the past 28 years)

   

$100,000 Invested On Dec. 31, 1980 In A Hypothetical Index Annuity

Would Be Worth Approximately - $553,263
(Based On An 80% Participation Rate)

(They do not charge management fees and they are 100% tax-efficient)


$100,000 Invested On Dec. 31, 1980 In A Typical Deferred Annuity

Would Be Worth Approximately - $583,162

(Based On An Average Of 6.5% Interest During The Past 28 Years)

(They do not charge management fees and they are 100% tax-efficient)


Who knows what the future will bring.  Will the stock market continue to deteriorate?  Probably.  Will interest rates start to climb?  Who knows?  One thing for sure, most average middle-income families can't afford to lose what little money they've saved. 

 

 

 

Where Should You Be

Investing Your Money?


In recent years, you have not been able to pick up a newspaper, or magazine that doesn't have an article touting the benefits of investing in mutual funds. 


While the first mutual fund was invented back in the 1930s, they didn't really become popular until the great bull market of 1982 to 2000.  Since then, mutual funds have been pushed by many financial advisors as "the only way to invest!"  Almost everyone has owned mutual funds at some point, if only through their company 401k or personal IRA.  Many people still own mutual funds in spite of the recent stock market declines and the current scandals surrounding the investment industry.


In the past 50 years, mutual funds have gone from an $18 billion also-ran in the financial-services industry to a $12 trillion titan.  Mutual Funds now enjoy an unchallenged position of leadership, with 90 million US investors.


Most of the growth of mutual funds is attributed to introduction of the 401(k) and other qualified plans during the past two decades.  Today, 10% of household financial assets are invested in 401(k) and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), up from 6 percent in 1990, and mutual funds manage 47 percent of those assets.  Households also have invested in mutual funds outside of qualified plans.  Mutual funds manage $4.4 trillion of assets that households hold in those taxable accounts.


And, it's no wonder mutual funds became so popular in the 80's and 90's, when the media and investment houses were reporting huge unprecedented returns, in the US stock market.


In the 80's the S&P 500 Index
(the benchmark everyone compares to) went from 107.94 to 353.40.  That's an average annual return of 12.59% over those 10 years.


In the 90's, we had one of the best times in the history for the U.S. stock market.  The S&P 500 Index went from 353.40 to 1469.25.  That's a staggering total return of 347% in just 10 years, or an average annual return of 15.31%.


Now compare that to the lack luster years of the 60's and 70's:


In the 60's the S&P 500 Index went from 59.89 to 92.06.  That's an average annual return of 4.39% over those 10 years.


In the 70's the S&P 500 Index went from 92.06 to 107.94.  That's an average annual return of only 1.60% per year, over those 10 years.


If you had actually received annual returns comparable to those of the S&P 500 Index during those 40 years (1960 though 2000) you would have averaged 8.33% per year.


However, when you consider that most mutual funds won't even come close to matching the S&P 500 Index over 30 or 40 years, and then you subtract the annual fees, it gives you an entirely different view of the validity and benefits of investing in mutual funds. 

Average Mutual Fund Expenses…

Sales charge                                  1.01%

12b-1 fees                                     0.37%

Expense ratio                                 1.35%

Transaction costs*                         1.32%

Total                                             4.05%


*The average turnover of all mutual funds is 110%.  The average transaction fee is estimated at 1.2%.  This is an estimate only as mutual funds do not have to reveal this number and therefore do not.

So, even if you were lucky enough to find a mutual fund that had a total return comparable to that of the S&P 500 Index over the past 40 years, your net return after expenses would only be 4.28%.  (8.33-4.05)  Remember, you'll pay those expenses each year, whether your investment makes money or not.


To fully understand the impact of expenses… Glorianne Stromberg, a financial services expert was quoted as saying  "Every 1% you pay in fees or charges will reduce your capital by about 20% over 25 years.  That could mean the difference between being comfortably well off and struggling to make ends meet."


As an example, at 10% per year, a $10,000 investment compounded over fifty years would yield $1,170,000. The same investment compounded at only 8% would yield just $470,000.  That is a whopping sixty-percent difference amounting to $700,000.


And, we haven't even considered that from the beginning of 2000 through 2008, the S&P 500 Index has gone down from 1,469.25 to 903.25.  That's a total loss of (-48.53%)… or average annual loss of (-5.90%) over those 8 years.  Overall, the average mutual fund plunged 30 percent in 2008, and many didn't fare as well as the S&P 500 index, which fell 38 percent for its worst year since 1937.


If you add in the last 8 years, the average return for the S&P 500 Index over the past 48 years is only 5.82%.  Now, subtract the average expenses of 4.05% and your net return is only 1.77%.  And, that's only if you were lucky enough to have found a mutual fund that performed as well as the S&P 500 Index over those 48 years.


What's your chance of you having picked a mutual fund that performed as well as the S&P 500 Index?


Since 1960, the mutual fund industry has grown from 160 funds and $18 billion in assets under management to today where there are over 8,000 stock mutual funds with combined assets of $12.356 trillion.  During the 1990s, 55% of equity funds failed, almost four times the 14% failure rate of the 1960s.


Most people tend to pick a mutual funds based on recent performance history.  When do you think a mutual fund company decides to advertise a specific fund - just after a bad period or a great period?  Of course, they advertise a fund just after it has had a great return and typically, just as it's about to cool off.  These hot funds historically do very poorly after their best period.  After studying mutual fund performance figures over a 20 year period, I have found that over the subsequent 3, 5, and 10 year periods, a whopping 80% of these "star" funds performed worse than the average similar fund.


Unfortunately, according to the folks at the Motley Fool, only 10 of the ten thousand actively managed mutual funds available today, managed to consistently beat the S&P 500 Index over the past ten years.  Remember, history tells us that very few, if any, of these top performing mutual funds will manage to beat the S&P 500 Index in the next 10 years.


The recent dismal performance of mutual funds' has contributed to the anguish of most retirement investors who saw a slump in their 401Ks that will probably prolong their working lives.  And, with the losses in the retirement accounts, many retirees are being forced to go back to work.  Disappointment understandably runs deep among investors who together have $9.4 trillion in U.S. mutual funds.


Warren Buffet
, the world's greatest investor, said it best;  "I would not invest in mutual funds, but if I did, I would choose an index fund.  For most small investors who don't have time to research individual companies, cheap index funds are the best way to invest in the stock market."


First, an Index Mutual Fund is much cheaper to run than a typical actively managed mutual fund, because they track a target benchmark, rather than constantly buying and selling securities in an attempt to outperform the market.  Thus index funds generally have lower advisory fees, operating expenses, and trading costs than actively managed funds.  Once you eliminate those analysts' salaries, an index fund can cut its costs tremendously and those savings can be passed along to investors in the form of higher returns.


Second, Index Mutual Funds perform better than most actively managed funds.  During the 1990s, in one of the best times in history for the market, the S&P 500 Index provided an annualized return of 17.3%, (including reinvestment of dividends and capital gains) compared with just 13.9% for the average equity mutual fund.  During the 1990s, the total shortfall between actively managed mutual funds and the market as measured by the S&P 500 Index was a whopping 3.4% per year.  And, that doesn't take into account the expense ratios, fees and loads in those funds, which would bring the return down to 9.85%.  And that is in one of the best times in history for the stock market!


In more recent history, only 4% of diversified US stock mutual funds have beaten the performance of the S&P 500 Index, over the past 10 years ending in 2007.


Of course, investing in an index mutual fund guarantees that you'll never outperform the overall market.


So, where should you be investing your money?  Where would you have fared better with your investments over the past 28 years?


$100,000 Invested On Dec. 31, 1980 In A Hypothetical S&P Index Mutual Fund…

(That probably would have outperformed all actively managed mutual funds)
Would Be Worth Approximately - $428,014

(That's after annual fees and expenses of 2.5% for the past 28 years)

   

$100,000 Invested On Dec. 31, 1980 In A Hypothetical Index Annuity

Would Be Worth Approximately - $553,263
(Based On An 80% Participation Rate)

(They do not charge management fees and they are 100% tax-efficient)


$100,000 Invested On Dec. 31, 1980 In A Typical Deferred Annuity

Would Be Worth Approximately - $583,162

(Based On An Average Of 6.5% Interest During The Past 28 Years)

(They do not charge management fees and they are 100% tax-efficient)


Who knows what the future will bring.  Will the stock market continue to deteriorate?  Probably.  Will interest rates start to climb?  Who knows?  One thing for sure, most average middle-income families can't afford to lose what little money they've saved.