OT but bet it's of interest to many in this group.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/strate...-benefits.html

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:49:49 +0000 (UTC), Red Green
wrote:

OT but bet it's of interest to many in this group.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/strate...-benefits.html

All good points in the article. However, they don't apply to me or
the bride. At 62, I will start getting SS by force -- a "pension
offset".

I'm forced into SS at 62. She had the same thing with her pension.
Both of our pensions have spousal annuities as will SS benefits.

I met the 40 Quarter minimum back in the `70s. That is all I have
contributed. SS will be minimum, but I still have the pension. She
changed pensions mid-stream, giving more to SS. She gets more than I
can expect. If one of us dies we get the spousal pension and the SS
survivor benefits.

As a vet, a few more dollars will be added to my SS benefits.

I love America.

On Feb 17, 7:49*pm, Red Green wrote:
OT but bet it's of interest to many in this group.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/strate...ial-security-b...

They left out (at least) one strategy.

Bob as reached FRA but wants to delay receiving his benefits.
Sue is eligible for a spousal benefit that is larger than her own.
Bob employs the "File and Suspend" strategy:
Bob applies for his benefit and Sue applies for her spousal benefit.
Bob immediately suspends his benefits but Sue is allowed to continue
receiving the spousal benefit.


My guess? Long before they start messing with our actual SS benefits
(the proverbial political third rail) they'll simply increase the
amount of the benefit that is subject to income tax.

The result will be the same (less money in our pockets) but it's
politically much safer.

On 2/17/2012 11:29 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:49:49 +0000 (UTC), Red Green
wrote:

OT but bet it's of interest to many in this group.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/strate...-benefits.html

All good points in the article. However, they don't apply to me or
the bride. At 62, I will start getting SS by force -- a "pension
offset".

I'm forced into SS at 62. She had the same thing with her pension.
Both of our pensions have spousal annuities as will SS benefits.

I met the 40 Quarter minimum back in the `70s. That is all I have
contributed. SS will be minimum, but I still have the pension. She
changed pensions mid-stream, giving more to SS. She gets more than I
can expect. If one of us dies we get the spousal pension and the SS
survivor benefits.

As a vet, a few more dollars will be added to my SS benefits.

I love America.

Forced to retire early, I chose not to have the offset as I wanted a
bigger check at 62 as inflation hedge.

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:19:53 -0500, Frank
wrote:

On 2/17/2012 11:29 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:49:49 +0000 (UTC), Red Green
wrote:

OT but bet it's of interest to many in this group.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/strate...-benefits.html

All good points in the article. However, they don't apply to me or
the bride. At 62, I will start getting SS by force -- a "pension
offset".

I'm forced into SS at 62. She had the same thing with her pension.
Both of our pensions have spousal annuities as will SS benefits.

I met the 40 Quarter minimum back in the `70s. That is all I have
contributed. SS will be minimum, but I still have the pension. She
changed pensions mid-stream, giving more to SS. She gets more than I
can expect. If one of us dies we get the spousal pension and the SS
survivor benefits.

As a vet, a few more dollars will be added to my SS benefits.

I love America.

Forced to retire early, I chose not to have the offset as I wanted a
bigger check at 62 as inflation hedge.

In my case I paid 7.5% of pay into my pension. Paid no SS for 25
years, retired at 50. My SS will be based on the basic 40 QTR
contributions. I think I made out :-\

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:46:12 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:19:53 -0500, Frank
wrote:

On 2/17/2012 11:29 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:49:49 +0000 (UTC), Red Green
wrote:

OT but bet it's of interest to many in this group.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/strate...-benefits.html

All good points in the article. However, they don't apply to me or
the bride. At 62, I will start getting SS by force -- a "pension
offset".

I'm forced into SS at 62. She had the same thing with her pension.
Both of our pensions have spousal annuities as will SS benefits.

I met the 40 Quarter minimum back in the `70s. That is all I have
contributed. SS will be minimum, but I still have the pension. She
changed pensions mid-stream, giving more to SS. She gets more than I
can expect. If one of us dies we get the spousal pension and the SS
survivor benefits.

As a vet, a few more dollars will be added to my SS benefits.

I love America.

Forced to retire early, I chose not to have the offset as I wanted a
bigger check at 62 as inflation hedge.

In my case I paid 7.5% of pay into my pension. Paid no SS for 25
years, retired at 50. My SS will be based on the basic 40 QTR
contributions. I think I made out :-\

Yep. It's those who have put in the maximum for forty or fifty years who get
screwed.

On 2/17/2012 4:49 PM, Red Green wrote:
OT but bet it's of interest to many in this group.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/strate...-benefits.html
The math is not that difficult.
The problem is predicting the future.
Even if you KNOW how long you're gonna live,
you don't know what the politicians are gonna do to your
benefits, how they're gonna tax 'em, when they're gonna do it and
whether it applies
to those already receiving benefits or just to those who apply
later.
And it's gonna be such a sudden "surprise" that you won't be able
to do anything about it.

My best investment is the 8% SS benefit increase each year...assuming
it's still there when I apply for it...I'm not optimistic. All the math
scenarios in the world can't predict that.

Given the current state and politician's inability to do anything at all,
somebody's gonna get screwed when it hits the fan.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:02:42 -0500, "
wrote:




In my case I paid 7.5% of pay into my pension. Paid no SS for 25
years, retired at 50. My SS will be based on the basic 40 QTR
contributions. I think I made out :-\

Yep. It's those who have put in the maximum for forty or fifty years who get
screwed.

And when you hit 65, you have to go on Medicare and pay premiums in
addition to the payroll deduction.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:36:11 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:02:42 -0500, "
wrote:




In my case I paid 7.5% of pay into my pension. Paid no SS for 25
years, retired at 50. My SS will be based on the basic 40 QTR
contributions. I think I made out :-\

Yep. It's those who have put in the maximum for forty or fifty years who get
screwed.

And when you hit 65, you have to go on Medicare and pay premiums in
addition to the payroll deduction.

Now you have me curious. Does a person drop their private health care
insurance when they go on Medicare? ( something I need to check into )

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:23:27 -0800, Oren wrote:




And when you hit 65, you have to go on Medicare and pay premiums in
addition to the payroll deduction.

Now you have me curious. Does a person drop their private health care
insurance when they go on Medicare? ( something I need to check into )

You can, but you shouldn't. There are many supplemental plans that
cover what Medicare does not. They range in price from $0 to about
$230 a month.

Every insurance company that offers a supplement must offer the same
plans. If you have plan "F" from United Healthcare, it is exactly the
same as the one offered by Blue Cross. The difference will be the
premiums and perhaps customer service.

When you choose a plan, consider your overall health, you ability to
pay either the premiums or the co-pay, the coverage for international
travel if you do that.

Overall, the total cost for Medicare and a top tier supplement and
prescription plan is about $100 month less than pretty good private
insurance. If you count deductibles, we save another $1000 a years
over the private plan. Keep in mind, the lowest price plan is not
always the cheapest.

When you are about 64 1/2, you will be bombarded by offers in the
mail.

In article ,
Oren wrote:


Now you have me curious. Does a person drop their private health care
insurance when they go on Medicare? ( something I need to check into )
Kinda sorta. There are many things that MCare doesn't pay for, so almost
all people get private insurance policies usually called something like
MCare Supplemental policies. They won't be the same as the insurance you
had at work or where ever because there are very stringent rules and
regs about MCare supplemental policies. There are worksheets, etc., on
the MCARE that help walk you through a lot of this.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
Frank wrote:

I was one that paid SS for 40 years. My return would have been double
had I put it into a 401k.
If so, you will be among the few. Even the trustees of SS admit in their
annual reports. Most make less than 2-3% return on their investments,
most minorities (because they tend to die earlier) actually have a
negative ROI.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

*Frank wrote:
I was one that paid SS for 40 years. *My return would have been double
had I put it into a 401k.

If so, you will be among the few. Even the trustees of SS admit in their
annual reports. Most make less than 2-3% return on their investments,
most minorities (because they tend to die earlier) actually have a
negative ROI.


when the stock market took a dive
can you imagine if peoples SS benefits were suddenly cut by 1/3 rd

fortunately this lan of bush didnt get approved.......

On 2/20/2012 7:40 AM, bob haller wrote:


wrote:
I was one that paid SS for 40 years. My return would have been double
had I put it into a 401k.

If so, you will be among the few. Even the trustees of SS admit in their
annual reports. Most make less than 2-3% return on their investments,
most minorities (because they tend to die earlier) actually have a
negative ROI.


when the stock market took a dive
can you imagine if peoples SS benefits were suddenly cut by 1/3 rd

fortunately this lan of bush didnt get approved.......


I disagree.
My 401k was hardly touched because 85% is in fixed investments.
I did have a coworker that retired, converted his 401k, paid the taxes
and proceeded to lose 90% of the remainder.
The stupid will always be with us, safety net or no.

On 2/19/2012 10:48 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:23:27 -0800, wrote:




And when you hit 65, you have to go on Medicare and pay premiums in
addition to the payroll deduction.

Now you have me curious. Does a person drop their private health care
insurance when they go on Medicare? ( something I need to check into )

You can, but you shouldn't. There are many supplemental plans that
cover what Medicare does not. They range in price from $0 to about
$230 a month.

Every insurance company that offers a supplement must offer the same
plans. If you have plan "F" from United Healthcare, it is exactly the
same as the one offered by Blue Cross. The difference will be the
premiums and perhaps customer service.

When you choose a plan, consider your overall health, you ability to
pay either the premiums or the co-pay, the coverage for international
travel if you do that.

Overall, the total cost for Medicare and a top tier supplement and
prescription plan is about $100 month less than pretty good private
insurance. If you count deductibles, we save another $1000 a years
over the private plan. Keep in mind, the lowest price plan is not
always the cheapest.

When you are about 64 1/2, you will be bombarded by offers in the
mail.

I've been ****ed off lately about the supplemental drug insurance from
my former employer that piggybacks Medicare's with the current $330
deductible. I determined that I can save over $150 a year by skipping
the plan and just going to Walmart.

Frank wrote in
:

On 2/20/2012 7:40 AM, bob haller wrote:


wrote:
I was one that paid SS for 40 years. My return would have been
double had I put it into a 401k.

If so, you will be among the few. Even the trustees of SS admit in
their annual reports. Most make less than 2-3% return on their
investments, most minorities (because they tend to die earlier)
actually have a negative ROI.


when the stock market took a dive
can you imagine if peoples SS benefits were suddenly cut by 1/3 rd

fortunately this lan of bush didnt get approved.......


I disagree.
My 401k was hardly touched because 85% is in fixed investments.
I did have a coworker that retired, converted his 401k, paid the taxes
and proceeded to lose 90% of the remainder.
The stupid will always be with us, safety net or no.


Converted his 401(k)? Into what?

If he rolled it into an IRA there would have been no taxes due until he
started drawing money out.

On 2/20/2012 8:51 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
wrote in
:

On 2/20/2012 7:40 AM, bob haller wrote:


wrote:
I was one that paid SS for 40 years. My return would have been
double had I put it into a 401k.

If so, you will be among the few. Even the trustees of SS admit in
their annual reports. Most make less than 2-3% return on their
investments, most minorities (because they tend to die earlier)
actually have a negative ROI.


when the stock market took a dive
can you imagine if peoples SS benefits were suddenly cut by 1/3 rd

fortunately this lan of bush didnt get approved.......


I disagree.
My 401k was hardly touched because 85% is in fixed investments.
I did have a coworker that retired, converted his 401k, paid the taxes
and proceeded to lose 90% of the remainder.
The stupid will always be with us, safety net or no.


Converted his 401(k)? Into what?

If he rolled it into an IRA there would have been no taxes due until he
started drawing money out.

Don't know what he did specifically but we retired about the same time
and he commented that he lost 90% of his 401k in converting and managing
it himself. He could have done this himself in the confines of the 401k
but the investments he wanted (risky) were not available there which was
company stock and mutual funds at various risk levels along with the
fixed investment. None of the 401k's investments would have lost this much.

This was also a guy that took homeowner loans so he could invest and was
constantly losing.

He's about 70 today, deathly ill and still working.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:15:01 -0500, Frank
wrote:





I've been ****ed off lately about the supplemental drug insurance from
my former employer that piggybacks Medicare's with the current $330
deductible. I determined that I can save over $150 a year by skipping
the plan and just going to Walmart.

I'm paying $37 a month (each) for prescription plan. Deductible is $4
for a generic. I lose out, but my wife comes out ahead. The problem
with dropping it for me is what happens later if things change. If
you join a plan later, you pay a penalty in higher premiums. The
actuaries get you one way or the other.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:28:34 -0500, Frank
wrote:




This was also a guy that took homeowner loans so he could invest and was
constantly losing.

He's about 70 today, deathly ill and still working.

Ouch, that is so sad, but self inflicted it seems. I've been reading
about older people losing their homes because they can no longer
afford the mortgage. If you are over 65 or so, the mortgage should
have been paid off and you should be cruising along with no serious
debt.

On Feb 20, 10:43*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:28:34 -0500, Frank

wrote:

This was also a guy that took homeowner loans so he could invest and was
constantly losing.

He's about 70 today, deathly ill and still working.

Ouch, that is so sad, but self inflicted it seems. *I've been reading
about older people losing their homes because they can no longer
afford the mortgage. *If you are over 65 or so, the mortgage should
have been paid off and you should be cruising along with no serious
debt.

yeah between the refinancers using their homes as ATM machines and
people waiting so long to marry or whatever to buy a home and have
kids, and the collapse of good jobs with pensions older folks are
screwed.....

bob haller wrote:


wrote:
I was one that paid SS for 40 years. My return would have been double
had I put it into a 401k.

If so, you will be among the few. Even the trustees of SS admit in their
annual reports. Most make less than 2-3% return on their investments,
most minorities (because they tend to die earlier) actually have a
negative ROI.


when the stock market took a dive
can you imagine if peoples SS benefits were suddenly cut by 1/3 rd

fortunately this lan of bush didnt get approved.......

Many people think this, but the facts are, even given an occasional
dive, stocks return more than iou's from congress. In a dive, you are
only hurt if you bail out. If you hold onto your stocks, they recover.
I have an IRA and some investments. Since I didn't need the money, I
kept it invested, and I am now ahead of where I was when the market
crashed. The only "loss" I experienced was when some CDs matured, and
the new rates were so low it didn't make sense to tie up the money in
CDs. That low interest is what social security is earning under the
present scheme.

How does being a vet entitle you to more social security?

On 2/20/2012 10:43 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:28:34 -0500, Frank
wrote:




This was also a guy that took homeowner loans so he could invest and was
constantly losing.

He's about 70 today, deathly ill and still working.

Ouch, that is so sad, but self inflicted it seems. I've been reading
about older people losing their homes because they can no longer
afford the mortgage. If you are over 65 or so, the mortgage should
have been paid off and you should be cruising along with no serious
debt.


Not all that sad. He could have gotten by but he's divorced and
somewhat of a loner and likes to work. He's an engineer with a
government agency where he could probably work until he dies.
With the illness he has, I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.

I've also got a neighbor that says he lost $500,000 when he reinvested
his 401k. He's still well off.

When you're older it is not a good idea to put your savings in risky
investments.

If younger, like my kids, they are not depending on SS but socking as
much in low risk 401k's as they can.

I have an attitude that I worried about making my money but don't want
to worry about keeping my money.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:25:42 -0500, Notat Home wrote:

How does being a vet entitle you to more social security?

I have a reference somewhere, a specific publication from SSA. I'll
have to find it.

From SSA:

If your active military service occurred

• From 1957 through 1967, we will add the extra credits to your
record when you apply for Social Security benefits.

: This requires that you submit your DD-214 when you apply)

• From 1968 through 2001, you do not need to do anything to receive
these extra credits. The credits were automatically added to your
record.

• After 2001, there are no special extra earnings credits for military
service

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/military.htm

bob haller wrote:

Frank wrote:
I was one that paid SS for 40 years. My return would have been double
had I put it into a 401k.

If so, you will be among the few. Even the trustees of SS admit in their
annual reports. Most make less than 2-3% return on their investments,
most minorities (because they tend to die earlier) actually have a
negative ROI.


when the stock market took a dive
can you imagine if peoples SS benefits were suddenly cut by 1/3 rd

fortunately this lan of bush didnt get approved.......

My employer used a special 401 through vanguard. In later years I added 8%
and they added another 12% making a 20% contribution rate per year. I had
control of switching funds, but I could not take any money out until I left
the company.
Before I retired, when the market started downhill, I switched my funds
into safe mode. When the market hit bottom I went ballistic to the max.
Result, I made a lot of money I would not have if the market remained. My
withdrawals now are not a percentage, but fixed to whatever I want.

Greg

On 2/20/2012 9:34 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:15:01 -0500, Frank
wrote:





I've been ****ed off lately about the supplemental drug insurance from
my former employer that piggybacks Medicare's with the current $330
deductible. I determined that I can save over $150 a year by skipping
the plan and just going to Walmart.

I'm paying $37 a month (each) for prescription plan. Deductible is $4
for a generic. I lose out, but my wife comes out ahead. The problem
with dropping it for me is what happens later if things change. If
you join a plan later, you pay a penalty in higher premiums. The
actuaries get you one way or the other.

Company pays for my plan (Medco) and cheapest generic is about a dollar
more per 3 month supply than what Walmart charges. Paying deductible,
plan charges $76. Recently went generic Lipitor where plan costs $112 vs
$125 at Walmart. Putting it all together, next year, I'm going outside
plan to Walmart and save about $155 because of the Medicare deductible.

Plan will remain intact. I started doing it a few years ago before
needing Lipitor. I've discovered other retirees doing the same.

My wife uses more stuff than me and it is cheaper through the plan.

What irritates me, is that guy retired from GM with Medco pays only $20
for the same Lipitor that costs me $112.

I tell people the Medco plan must be like buying a car from GM - he got
a Cadillac and I got an Aveo5 - not all GM cars are the same.

In article ,
Notat Home wrote:


Many people think this, but the facts are, even given an occasional
dive, stocks return more than iou's from congress. In a dive, you are
only hurt if you bail out. If you hold onto your stocks, they recover.

If you stay in the stock market. I never have believed in buy in hold,
rather buy and follow and sell when the reasons you bought in the first
place change. Just a slight nit to pick (g).

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:23:27 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:36:11 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:02:42 -0500, "
wrote:




In my case I paid 7.5% of pay into my pension. Paid no SS for 25
years, retired at 50. My SS will be based on the basic 40 QTR
contributions. I think I made out :-\

Yep. It's those who have put in the maximum for forty or fifty years who get
screwed.

And when you hit 65, you have to go on Medicare and pay premiums in
addition to the payroll deduction.

Now you have me curious. Does a person drop their private health care
insurance when they go on Medicare? ( something I need to check into )

Generally, the private insurance picks up (at least some of) the premiums for
Medicare.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:27:02 -0500, Frank
wrote:

On 2/19/2012 7:23 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:36:11 -0500, Ed wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:02:42 -0500, "
wrote:




In my case I paid 7.5% of pay into my pension. Paid no SS for 25
years, retired at 50. My SS will be based on the basic 40 QTR
contributions. I think I made out :-\

Yep. It's those who have put in the maximum for forty or fifty years who get
screwed.

And when you hit 65, you have to go on Medicare and pay premiums in
addition to the payroll deduction.

Now you have me curious. Does a person drop their private health care
insurance when they go on Medicare? ( something I need to check into )

Medicare only pays 80% and that other 20% at today's health care costs
can be a killer. You'll also need a supplemental for your meds. I have
both from former employer although he will not pay any cost increase and
drug plan is starting to suck to the point that next year it will be
cheaper to go to Walmart.

I find it (Kroger, actually) easier, anyway.

I was one that paid SS for 40 years. My return would have been double
had I put it into a 401k.

I've already paid the maximum for 37 of my 39 years, working, and plan on
another six, at least. Don't I wish I could have that in my 401(k).

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:11:13 -0500, Frank
wrote:

On 2/20/2012 7:40 AM, bob haller wrote:


wrote:
I was one that paid SS for 40 years. My return would have been double
had I put it into a 401k.

If so, you will be among the few. Even the trustees of SS admit in their
annual reports. Most make less than 2-3% return on their investments,
most minorities (because they tend to die earlier) actually have a
negative ROI.


when the stock market took a dive
can you imagine if peoples SS benefits were suddenly cut by 1/3 rd

fortunately this lan of bush didnt get approved.......


I disagree.
My 401k was hardly touched because 85% is in fixed investments.
I did have a coworker that retired, converted his 401k, paid the taxes
and proceeded to lose 90% of the remainder.
The stupid will always be with us, safety net or no.

Mine have increased every year since 2001. Not a lot (a little more than 6%
last year) but not one lost quarter.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Notat Home wrote:


Many people think this, but the facts are, even given an occasional
dive, stocks return more than iou's from congress. In a dive, you are
only hurt if you bail out. If you hold onto your stocks, they recover.

If you stay in the stock market. I never have believed in buy in hold,
rather buy and follow and sell when the reasons you bought in the first
place change. Just a slight nit to pick (g).


Funds are a little easier to work than individual stocks. Long term
investors usually hold on to good company stocks. If your playing around
your mostly short term. Right now I'm conservative because the market
probably will not got up much over the year, and more likely to go down.
Just because I'm in retirement does not mean I should be so conservative in
the next years.

Greg

On Feb 21, 2:13*pm, gregz wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*Notat Home wrote:

Many people think this, *but the facts are, even given an occasional
dive, stocks return more than iou's from congress. *In a dive, you are
only hurt if you bail out. *If you hold onto your stocks, they recover.

* If you stay in the stock market. I never have believed in buy in hold,
rather buy and follow and sell when the reasons you bought in the first
place change. *Just a slight nit to pick (g).

Funds are a little easier to work than individual stocks. Long term
investors usually hold on to good company stocks. If your playing around
your mostly short term. *Right now I'm conservative because the market
probably will not got up much over the year, and more likely to go down.
Just because I'm in retirement does not mean I should be so conservative in
the next years.

Greg

Mutual Funds are fine for the bond and REIT side of a portfolio, but
Separated Managed Accounts (SMA's) are often the better deal for the
traditional equity side.

You get the advantage of owning your own shares of the stocks but you
leave the trading to professional money managers, be that an
individual advisor or a firm which is typically dedicated to a
specific asset class.

In a SMA, you are not subject to the whims of other investors like you
are in a Mutual Fund. The manager trades each account in the same way
based on his model, but if other investors decide to liquidate in a
panic, your account is unaffected since you own your own shares of the
individual equites. You can also do tax harvesting in an SMA,
something you can't do it a Mutual Fund. That's not applicable to an
IRA, but it works well for non-qualified accounts.

Of course, it takes more assets to get into a SMA, usually $100K
minimum per SMA as opposed to next to nothing to get into a Mutual
Fund. To have a well diversified portfolio using SMA's, you have to
have enough assets to spread around amongst the various equity asset
classes.

In article
,
gregz wrote:


Funds are a little easier to work than individual stocks. Long term
investors usually hold on to good company stocks. If your playing around
your mostly short term. Right now I'm conservative because the market
probably will not got up much over the year, and more likely to go down.
Just because I'm in retirement does not mean I should be so conservative in
the next years.

Greg

Easier to decide when to get out. As soon as it sinks to 3 stars on
Morningstar, they are done and get replaced. I watched too many mutual
funds over the years tank and not come back.
I hold on to GOOD company stocks, but also need to know when
they turn.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Feb 21, 7:43*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article
,

*gregz wrote:
Funds are a little easier to work than individual stocks. Long term
investors usually hold on to good company stocks. If your playing around
your mostly short term. *Right now I'm conservative because the market
probably will not got up much over the year, and more likely to go down..
Just because I'm in retirement does not mean I should be so conservative in
the next years.

Greg

Easier to decide when to get out. As soon as it sinks to 3 stars on
Morningstar, they are done and get replaced. I watched too many mutual
funds over the years tank and not come back.
* * * *I hold on to GOOD *company stocks, but also need to know when
they turn.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

If you are buying (and selling) your mutual funds based solely on
Morningstar Star ratings, you could be making some pretty bad
decisions.

The simple fact that Morningstar keeps tweaking their rating system
should make you very skeptical.

The Star rating is based on a weighted historical performance that may
or may not be valid in today's investment environment. They don't
take manager tenure in account and they don't take changing economic
conditions into account.

I can show you 5 Star funds where the manager has only been on-board
for 6 months. The entire rating was earned under someone else's
tenure. Unless you know what the current manager has done during his
tenure on funds in a similar asset class (amusing its not his first
try at being a fund manager) you have no idea how he will run the
fund.

At least Morningstar is starting to roll out Analyst Ratings, which
are supposed to be forward looking.

Here's a quote from the Investment News website that might make you
rethink your "as soon as it sinks to 3 stars" sell discipline:

"The star and analyst ratings are independent of one another, and at
times, the two ratings may vary widely. One example, the Clipper Fund,
gets only one star from Morningstar's past-performance ranking, but it
gets the top gold analyst forward-looking rating."

" wrote in
:

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:57:53 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:16:22 -0500, "
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:25:17 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:07:06 -0500, "
wrote:




Now you have me curious. Does a person drop their private health
care insurance when they go on Medicare? ( something I need to
check into )

Generally, the private insurance picks up (at least some of) the
premiums for Medicare.

Never heard of that. Are you talking about the "Advantage" plans?

I stated that poorly. I meant that employers, etc. generally pick up
these payments. My retirement does (don't know how much yet because
I'm still over five years from having to worry about it.


Gotcha. I have that kind of deal now. Retirement not only means a
drop in income, it also means an increase in outgo as the $600+ a
month will not longer be paid by my employer.

My retirement plan pays most of it (it's paying for my insurance now).

Medicare premiums for us are $100/person, supplemental is $200. All each
month. Supplemental is this "low" (up from $106/mo in 2010) because it's
subsidized by former employer.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

You figured it out! When the government has unpopular take over, they
regulate private industry until people clamor "do something!". The something
is NEVER for the government to roll back regulations. They only write more.

Eventually they get what they wanted, which was Hillary! national socialized
medicine.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...

Ask yourself why those insurance companies
don't provide coverage across state lines... It's
because of existing regulations. So, the answer
to that is 2700 pages of MORE regulation. And
when that fails, of course next will come still
more regulations.

On 2/23/2012 3:44 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In , Dan
wrote:



An accurate count of regulations means that
every federal regulation reduces the total number
of regulations in the country by a factor of 50.

Which alternative universe do you live in. In this instance, the rules
and regs are largely in addition to the state rules.


Have you considered that hospitals are FORCED to
supply care whether you have insurance or not?
Just for a very small number of instances (active labor and
life-threatening circumstances. They are also free to kick your ass out
the door the minute the kid is launched and/or you are stable (at least
legally).

not in my state. they have to take everyone and treat everything (from
colds to amputations) without asking any citizenship type of questions.

bad things happen if they break any of these rules.

Kurt Ullman writes:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

An accurate count of regulations means that
every federal regulation reduces the total number
of regulations in the country by a factor of 50.

Which alternative universe do you live in. In this instance, the rules
and regs are largely in addition to the state rules.

I didn't say anything insulting to you did I?
I don't live in an alternate universe.

The recent prenatal coverage brouhaha was one federal ruling
replacing laws in 24 different states. Each insurance company had
to deal with 24 different rules. Now there is one rule.

I don't know what you think these "additional" rules are.
Either the state or the feds are going to set the rules.
If the feds set the rules, then national companies have a simplified
rule environment. At a 50 to 1 ratio.

Have you considered that hospitals are FORCED to
supply care whether you have insurance or not?
Just for a very small number of instances (active labor and
life-threatening circumstances. They are also free to kick your ass out
the door the minute the kid is launched and/or you are stable (at least
legally).

You have an emergency, you get in.
If you don't have an emergency, you don't. Until it turns into an
emergency.

If not, what's wrong with requiring people to pay
for mandated care?
Because instead of small instances, they are making people buy entire
policies. ANd the policies mandate many things other than emergency
care.

I think the assertion is that routine medical care will save costs over
waiting for a full blown emergency. I didn't run the numbers on this
myself, but I think the assertion is plausible.

....

--
Dan Espen

Hugh Jass wrote in
:

On 2/22/2012 5:41 PM, John Carter wrote:
wrote in
eb.com:


"Ed wrote in message
...

Pretty soon though none of this will matter; we will all have
Obamacare and everything will be FREE.

Yes, FREE Obamacare makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
I think I'll vote for more Obamacare programs...they're
wonderful.

Where did you get the idea Obamacare is FREE? It will be if the
insurance companies who will PROFIT from Obamacare ever decide to
provide FREE insurance.

In spite of waht everyone thinks, Obamacare is NOT a government
takeover of healthcare. If it was, it would be calledd SINGLE
PAYER. Rather it is the greatest boon to the healthcare insurance
industry anyone has ever seen.

Where you people get your ideas is really a mystery.

Obama gave free stuff to the car companies...
and he gave free stuff to the insurance companies...
and he gave free stuff to the banks...


No, it was the Shrub and Hank Paulsen who gave the banks free
stuff... That was done BEFORE tje 2008 election.

In article ,
chaniarts wrote:


not in my state. they have to take everyone and treat everything (from
colds to amputations) without asking any citizenship type of questions.

bad things happen if they break any of these rules.
Which state? Also we were discussing asking payment questions and not
citizenship questions.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

Which alternative universe do you live in. In this instance, the rules
and regs are largely in addition to the state rules.

I didn't say anything insulting to you did I?
Nah. Over shot the response, sorry. Maybe I picked the wrong day to
give up coffee (g).



I think the assertion is that routine medical care will save costs over
waiting for a full blown emergency. I didn't run the numbers on this
myself, but I think the assertion is plausible.

Plausible but not likely in real life. The Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation put together a white paper on the subject
(http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/0...preventivecare
..brief.pdf). They found Preventive services can reduce the prevalence of
a targeted disease or condition and help people live longer, healthier
lives. Most preventive care does not result in cost savings, however,
because costs to reduce risk factors, screening costs, and the cost of
treatment when disease is found can offset any savings from preventive
care. Additionally, living longer means people may develop other
ailments that increase lifetime health care costs.
The other problem is that most of the studies showing cost
effectiveness of these program are skewed by the fact that most
participants are compliant with regimens. In real life, you are very
lucky if you get 50% of the people to comply with treatment. There was a
study late last year showing that even if you gave the medicines away,
you still did not get anywhere near full participation. You can offer
any preventive services you want, but if the people aren't forced to
participate, the savings to the system will be minimal and possibly even
more expensive depending on uptake.
The easiest medical concern to prevent is obesity. Just teach them
early not to eat so much. It has been a part of the school cirriculum
(both medical and elementary) for years. How well is that preventive
program working out???

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz