My New Blog

Don't Retire Poor -- Avoid These 10 Pitfalls
May 23rd, 2007 2:12 PM
ByJeffrey Strain, Special to TheStreet.com

There are a number of factors that can contribute to not having enough money when you retire, but the most serious are not starting to save early enough and funding other things before retirement.

Here are 10 mistakes many people make to shortchange their retirement:

1. Setting money aside for college ahead of retirement: Many people decide that placing money into their children's college funds is more important than placing it into their own retirement fund. This is rarely a good idea. While it is possible to get loans for college, the same can't be said about retirement. Make sure that you contribute to your retirement fund first, and then work on providing some help for your children's college education.

2. Believing it's OK to wait: The magic of compounding interest is an important factor in growing your retirement fund. Even when you save small amounts in your early work history, the returns earned on that money will build on the base and, over time, will likely help you come out much further ahead than if you wait until later in life to begin your retirement savings. You should begin contributing to your retirement fund as soon as you begin your first job out of college (if not sooner). This will make the question of whether you're contributing enough to your retirement fund a non-issue in later years.

3. Not taking advantage of 401(k) matches: If your company provides matching funds for your 401(k) contributions, then not contributing -- or undercontributing -- is the same as throwing away free money. You should be taking full advantage of these matches from Day 1. Even when money is tight in your first years in the workforce, contributing up to the amount matched by your company in your 401(k) plan should be a top priority in your budget.

4. Accumulating credit card debt: Credit card debt means that you are paying interest to the credit card companies instead of growing a retirement fund. It's one of the worst things that you can do. When you end up paying credit card debt rather than placing the same amount of money into your 401(k) or IRA, your retirement fund will look a lot less healthy in the long run.

5. Counting on an inheritance: Counting on an inheritance or some other type of cash windfall for your retirement is playing with fire. While your parents may have a good retirement fund for themselves, there are so many things that can happen to quickly drain that fund. This is especially true if they get sick and have a lot of medical bills or if they need to go into long-term care. You should always remember that their money is theirs and not yours, and they are free to spend it any way that they like. If you do receive an inheritance, it should be looked at as an added bonus. But you should not count on it for your retirement fund.

6. Buying more house than you can afford: Purchasing a bigger house than you can afford can do huge damage to your retirement fund. This is because you're placing all your money into your mortgage instead of investing a portion of it for retirement. While a house does have some tax advantages on the mortgage loan, they are not nearly as good as the tax advantages of a 401(k) plan or an IRA. It's also much more difficult to get your retirement money out of the house than from a retirement fund. While housing as an investment is something you might want to consider to create more wealth, your own house should not be viewed as a retirement investment, and you should make sure that you can pay your mortgage and contribute to your retirement fund at the same time.

7. Neglecting insurance: Insurance exists for a reason: to protect you against an unlikely but high-cost event such as a fire, an unexpected serious illness, a natural disaster or a major auto accident. People who forgo insurance in an attempt to save money run the risk of putting their entire retirement savings in jeopardy if an unfortunate event takes place in their lives. You want to make sure that you are adequately insured to prevent this from happening.

8. Failing to take advantage of IRAs: You should be taking advantage of IRAs from the day that you are able to. If you fail to do so, it can be a huge blow to your retirement savings, since there is a limited amount that can be invested each year. IRAs are set up specifically so that you can maximize the amount that you have when you retire, and if you forgo them in your early years, you will do great damage to the amount available in your retirement fund when you get older.

9. Investing too conservatively: Investing too conservatively in your retirement fund means that you will not grow it adequately to meet your needs when you retire. You need to take into account that over time, inflation will take part of the purchasing power away from your retirement fund. As you get closer to retirement, you can make your investments more conservative, but in the early years you want to make sure that you are not investing too conservatively to yield the gains you need for retirement.

10. Investing too aggressively: While you don't want to invest too conservatively, you also don't want to be investing in things that promise huge returns but are extremely risky. You should determine a set amount of money each month to put into something like a stock index fund for your retirement. If you can spare more money after you have contributed to the retirement fund, it is acceptable to invest in something a bit more risky. However, you don't want to be risking the main portion of your retirement money in risky investments that could very well leave you with no money in the end.

By keeping these retirement fund pitfalls in mind, you can help ensure that you have plenty in your retirement fund when the time comes.


Posted by Christian Bennett on May 23rd, 2007 2:12 PMPost a Comment (0)

Subscribe to this blog
Prospects dim for quick home-price recovery
May 31st, 2007 9:49 PM
Tuesday May 29, 1:37 pm ET
By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer

Home prices fell over the last 12 months for the first time in 16 years, according to a survey released Tuesday, and investors seem to believe that prospects for a quick recovery are poor.

The S&P/Case-Shiller national home price index revealed that in 13 of 20 metro areas surveyed, home prices fell an average of 1.4 percent in the 12 months ended March 31, with half of that decline, 0.7 percent, coming in the first quarter.

The national index sank over a 12-month period for only the second time in its history and the first time since 1991. The drop is in stark contrast to a year ago, when home prices jumped 11.5 percent over the prior 12 months, according to the index.

Investors seem to believe the downturn will continue. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange trades contracts based on the Case-Shiller indexes that enable investors to bet on future housing price trends.

This product is fairly new with trading started about a year ago and is thinly traded. It also tilts a bit negatively because more traders seem to be using it as a hedge against falling home prices than as an investment.

Still, the futures trading has been reasonably accurate in predicting price changes (they've been down all year) and the latest trading reveals that investors are betting prices will continue to decline. The 10-city futures average has prices falling 3.9 percent in the 12 months through February 2008.

The Case-Shiller numbers, long considered the most accurate for gauging the direction and strength of housing prices, are based on prices compiled by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) and compare sales and mortgage refinancings for the same homes.

Among the 20 cities surveyed, Detroit took the biggest hit, with prices sliding 8.4 percent over the past 12 months. Michigan's economy has suffered from decades of cuts in domestic automobile manufacturing, and taken another hit from the recent spike in gas prices.

The second worst performer, San Diego, where prices fell 6.0 percent, was a bit more of a surprise; that California market has many things going for it, such as job growth, a growing population and little dependence on old, rust-belt industries.

Phoenix and Las Vegas experienced the steepest reversals of fortune from extremely hot to very cool. Prices in Phoenix were growing at a 49.3 percent annual rate in September 2005 while Las Vegas prices were soaring at a 53.2 percent rate in September 2004. But prices fell 3.0 percent and 1.6 percent in the latest 12 months, respectively.

But prices in San Diego, as in many California cities, had risen so quickly and reached so high a level (the median price in San Diego topped out above $600,000 last year) that the run-up became unsustainable. Prices had exceeded affordability for the average resident there.

A few cities bucked the trend. Seattle prices have grown 10 percent over the past 12 months, although the lion's share of that growth occurred earlier last year. But prices rose just 0.5 percent in the first quarter compared with the fourth quarter.

Other cities showing year-over-year increases were Charlotte (7.4 percent, but down 0.1 percent quarter-to-quarter), Portland, Oregon (7.0 percent and up just 0.1 percent quarterly) and Chicago (1.3 percent and flat quarterly).

The Case-Shiller news came on the heels of other negative numbers for housing in the past week. On Friday, the National Association of Realtors, reported that the pace of existing home sales fell to a four-year low in April.

A Thursday report from the Commerce Department showed a big jump in the pace of sales of new homes but that rise was driven by huge price discounts; the median price of a new home had dropped 11 percent compared with a year earlier.


Posted by Christian Bennett on May 31st, 2007 9:49 PMPost a Comment (0)

Subscribe to this blog
Home prices drop for third straight quarter
May 31st, 2007 3:23 PM

Home prices drop for third straight quarter

Realtors report that markets are still softening

By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- U.S. home prices fell for their third straight quarter, according to an industry report released Tuesday.

The median price of a single-family home fell 1.8 percent to $212,300 for the three months ended March 31, compared with the first quarter of 2006, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR).

 

It was the third consecutive quarter of decline, and prices are now down 6.5 percent from their peak of $227,100 in 2006.

The home price report revealed a broad but shallow pattern with prices declining over every region but by no more than 2.8 percent, which occurred in the Midwest.

The first-quarter drop follows an overall 2.7 percent slump in the fourth quarter of 2006, which was the biggest year-over-year drop on record.

NAR President Pat V. Combs said in a statement that the flattening in home prices is encouraging.

"It appears the worst of the price correction is behind us," she said. "More stable home prices and declining mortgage interest rates are increasing buying power, which should encourage potential buyers who've been on the sidelines."

NAR's senior economist, Lawrence Yun, also took an optimistic view of the report. "Essentially, we see that the existing-home market is stabilizing in a broad cyclical trough and moving in the right direction," he said in a statement.

The trade group is still predicting a recovery during the second half of this year but overall, it has forecast that prices will end 2007 down, the first time prices fell over a full calendar year since NAR began compiling records in 1967.

NAR asserted that the price stats exaggerate the actual home price decline. Unit sales have fallen far more in high-priced areas than in low-priced ones, essentially shifting the mix and pulling down the median price nationwide, it said.

Some of the worst hit metro areas were in Florida, where Sarasota, in particular, got pounded. Single family home prices plummeted 12 percent there to $337,000. Palm Bay prices dropped 8 percent to $191,300 and Cape Coral 3.9 percent to $256,900.

Other metro areas around the nation that suffered particularly stiff drops included New Orleans (down 10.9 percent to $155,900) and Reno (-8.9 percent to $325,700).

Condo prices fell even more in some locales. Palm Bay condos plunged 22.0 percent to $119,700 and Cape Coral fell 17.9 percent to $242,900.

The top performing condo market was Salt Lake City, where prices grew by 25.6 percent compared with a year ago to $164,600. Another Mountain State metro area, Albuquerque, recorded a condo price gain of 17.9 percent to $147,100.

Unit sales also slumped. During the first quarter, homes - including condos - sold at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 6.4 million units, down 6.6 percent from the 6.9 million annual rate of a year ago.

The most expensive market for single family homes continues to be San Jose. The median house there sells for $788,000, up 4.4 percent compared with last year.

Elmira, New York, at $75,300, recorded the lowest median home prices in the nation. Top of page


Posted by Christian Bennett on May 31st, 2007 3:23 PMPost a Comment (0)

Subscribe to this blog
WEST PASCO STATS
May 24th, 2007 10:05 PM

Posted by Christian Bennett on May 24th, 2007 10:05 PMPost a Comment (0)

Subscribe to this blog
New Home Sales Make Largest Jump in 14 Years
May 24th, 2007 10:03 PM
New Home Sales Make Largest Jump in 14 Years
May 24, 2007, 11:50 am PDT

News provided by Quicken Loans

The U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced today that sales of new, single-family homes in April jumped 16.2 percent compared to March's numbers.

Bob Walters, chief economist of Quicken Loans, says that that the low interest rates and favorable financing are driving the considerable jump in new home purchases.

"Today's report showing new home sales expanding last month by 16.2 percent is welcome news. In addition to low fixed rates, homebuyers are taking advantage of the incentives offered by builders as a result of the current abundance of available homes," said Walters. "While inventories currently remain elevated, I anticipate sales consolidating at current levels for a while before ascending again. Gradually the housing inventory will shrink as we move through the spring and summer home buying seasons."

This article is reprinted by permission from Quicken Loans © 2007 Quicken Loans Inc. All rights reserved.


Posted by Christian Bennett on May 24th, 2007 10:03 PMPost a Comment (0)

Subscribe to this blog
How to Save $1 Million for Retirement
May 20th, 2007 11:47 AM
Personal Finance

How to Save $1 Million for Retirement

The Wall Street Journal Online
By Jonathan Clements


If you're a newly minted college graduate, the $1 million-plus needed for retirement might seem impossibly large.

Feeling discouraged? Try lowering your sights, aiming instead to accumulate savings equal to two times your annual income.

Once you hit that milestone, the financial wind will be at your back -- and reaching your retirement-savings goal should be a breeze.

Breaking through. Suppose you expect eventually to earn $80,000 a year. Looking ahead to retirement, you reckon that -- in addition to Social Security -- you will want maybe $45,000 a year from your portfolio, adjusted for inflation.

To generate that $45,000, you will need a $1 million nest egg, calculated in today's dollars. This assumes that, in retirement, you use a 4.5% annual portfolio-withdrawal rate.

Investment Growth

"People wonder how they will ever accumulate enough money," says Charles Farrell, a financial adviser with Denver's Northstar Investment Advisors. "But what many investors fail to understand is that, once they reach a certain level of assets, most of the savings should come from investment growth."

Mr. Farrell figures the breakthrough occurs at around two times income. Let's say your salary has hit that $80,000, you have amassed $160,000 in savings, you are socking away 12% of your pretax income each month and your investments earn 6% a year.

Over the next 12 months, your $160,000 portfolio would balloon to $179,518, or $19,518 more. Your monthly savings would account for $9,600 of that growth. But the other $9,918 would come from investment gains. In other words, you've got to the crossover point, where the biggest driver of your portfolio's growth is now investment earnings, not the actual dollars you're socking away.

You should, however, keep salting away money. That sacrifice will be handsomely rewarded, as things really start to snowball. Using the assumptions above, your portfolio would soar from $160,000 to more than $418,000 a decade later. True, part of this gain would be lost to inflation. But inflation should also drive up your salary, allowing you to squirrel away more money.

Get Started Now

Getting started. That still leaves the initial task of accumulating two times income.

"It can take people 12 to 15 years," Mr. Farrell says. "The earlier you can start, the better. But if you're close to two times pay by your early 40s, you're probably in pretty good shape."

As you strive to amass that sum, your top priority should be funding your employer's 401(k) plan. In addition to the initial tax deduction and continuing tax deferral, you will likely receive a matching employer contribution, which will help speed your portfolio's progress.

If you can, save outside your employer's plan, by funding a Roth individual retirement account. That won't get you an initial tax deduction, but you will enjoy tax-free growth. A Roth also offers a heap of flexibility. At any time, you can withdraw your contributions -- but not the account's investment earnings -- without any sort of tax hit. That means your Roth could double as an emergency reserve or as your house down-payment fund.

Investment Ideas

Which investments should you buy? Check out broadly diversified no-load funds like AARP Aggressive and Schwab Target 2040, both of which require a $100 initial investment. Until you reach Schwab's $1,000 brokerage-account minimum, you will need to add $100 every month through an automatic investment plan, where money is pulled out of your bank account and invested directly in the fund.

Also consider Fidelity Freedom 2050 and T. Rowe Price Retirement 2050. The regular minimum at both funds is $2,500. T. Rowe Price will trim that minimum to $1,000 if you open an IRA and waive the minimum entirely if you sign up for a $50-a-month automatic-investment plan. Similarly, at Fidelity Freedom 2050, you can sidestep the minimum if you agree to invest $200 a month through Fidelity's SimpleStart IRA program.


Posted by Christian Bennett on May 20th, 2007 11:47 AMPost a Comment (0)

Subscribe to this blog
Recent Posts:

Archive:

My Favorite Blogs:

Sites That Link to This Blog:

Christian Bennett, P.A. Prudential Tropical Realty
Phone:

Contact Me | Free Home Valuation | About Christian | SHORT SALES | Home | Search Area Homes (MLS) | Buying Foreclosures/REO's | Tampa Area Buyers

Copyright © 2008 Christian Bennett, P.A. Prudential Tropical Realty
Portions Copyright © 2008 a la mode, inc.
Another XSite by a la mode, inc. | Admin LoginTerms of UseSite Map
All rate, payment, and area information are estimates and approximations only.