Meta, Alphabet and 10 under-the-radar media stocks expected to soar

The media landscape is going through a difficult transition, and it isn’t only because streaming is such a tricky business.

Companies such as Walt Disney Co.
DIS,
Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.
WBD
and Paramount Global
PARA
have made heavy investments in streaming services as their traditional media businesses wither, only to find that it is harder than it looks to emulate Netflix Inc.’s
NFLX
ability to make money from streaming.

Some of the companies are also saddled by debt, in part resulting from mergers that don’t hold the same shine in the current media landscape.

Needless to say, this is the age of cost-cutting for Netflix’s streaming competitors and many others in the broader media landscape.

Below is a screen of U.S. media stocks, showing the ones that analysts favor the most over the next 12 months. But before that, we list the ones with the highest and lowest debt levels.

All the above-mentioned media companies are in the communications sector of the S&P 500
,
which also includes Alphabet Inc.
GOOGL

GOOG
and Meta Platforms Inc.
META,
as well as broadcasters, videogame developers and news providers.

But there are only 20 companies in the S&P 500 communications sector, which is tracked by the Communications Services Select Sector SPDR ETF
.

High debt

Before looking at the stock screen, you might be interested to see which of the 53 media companies are saddled with the highest levels of total debt relative to consensus estimates for earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) for the next 12 months, among analysts polled by FactSet. This may be especially important at a time when long-term interest rates have been rising quickly. Dollar amounts are in millions.

Company

Ticker

Debt/ est. EBIT

Total debt

Est. EBIT

Debt service ratio

Total return – 2023

Market cap. ($mil)

Dish Network Corp. Class A

DISH 1,245%

$24,556

$1,973

15%

-57%

$1,773

Madison Square Garden Sports Corp. Class A

MSGS 1,125%

$1,121

$100

-14%

-4%

$3,400

Paramount Global Class B

PARA 656%

$17,401

$2,654

-29%

-13%

$9,529

Consolidated Communications Holdings Inc.

CNSL 651%

$2,152

$331

-26%

6%

$441

TechTarget Inc.

TTGT 629%

$479

$76

16%

-36%

$788

Cinemark Holdings Inc.

CNK 616%

$3,630

$589

61%

81%

$1,908

Cogent Communications Holdings Inc.

CCOI 548%

$1,858

$339

-19%

27%

$3,388

E.W. Scripps Co. Class A

SSP 529%

$3,084

$583

80%

-42%

$552

AMC Networks Inc. Class A

AMCX 492%

$2,945

$599

26%

-29%

$357

Live Nation Entertainment Inc.

LYV 466%

$8,413

$1,805

135%

22%

$19,515

Source: FactSet

Click on the tickers for more about each company, including business profiles, financials and estimates.

Click here for Tomi Kilgore’s detailed guide to the wealth of information available for free on the MarketWatch quote page.

The debt figures are as of the end of the companies’ most recently reported fiscal quarters. The debt service ratios are EBIT divided by total interest paid (excluding capitalized interest) for the most recently reported quarters, as calculated by FactSet. It is best to see this number above 100%. Then again, these service ratios cover only one quarter.

Looking at the most indebted company by quarter-end debt to its 12-month EBIT estimate, it would take more than 10 years of Dish Network Corp.’s
DISH
operating income to pay off its total debt, excluding interest.

Shares of Dish have lost more than half their value during 2023, and the stock got booted from the S&P 500 earlier this year. The company has seen its satellite-TV business erode while it pursues a costly wireless build-out that won’t necessarily drive success in that competitive market. Dish plans to merge with satellite-communications company EchoStar Corp.
SATS
in a move seen as an attempt to improve balance sheet flexibility.

It is fascinating to see that for six of these companies, including Paramount, debt even exceeds the market capitalizations for their stocks. Paramount lowered its dividend by nearly 80% earlier this year as it continued its push toward streaming profitability, and Chief Executive Bob Bakish recently called the company’s planned sale of Simon & Schuster “an important step in our delevering plan.”

You are probably curious about debt levels for the largest U.S. media companies. Here they are for the biggest 10 by market cap:

Company

Ticker

Debt/ est. EBIT

Total debt

Est. EBIT

Debt service ratio

Total return – 2023

Market cap. ($mil)

Alphabet Inc. Class A

GOOGL 22%

$29,432

$133,096

711%

47%

$1,528,711

Meta Platforms Inc. Class A

META 47%

$36,965

$78,129

717%

137%

$634,547

Comcast Corp. Class A

CMCSA 266%

$102,669

$38,539

77%

33%

$187,140

Netflix Inc.

NFLX 197%

$16,994

$8,641

192%

41%

$184,362

T-Mobile US Inc.

TMUS 378%

$116,548

$30,838

32%

-5%

$156,881

Walt Disney Co.

DIS 263%

$47,189

$17,975

88%

-4%

$152,324

Verizon Communications Inc.

VZ 370%

$177,654

$48,031

36%

-11%

$140,205

AT&T Inc.

T 378%

$165,106

$43,681

31%

-20%

$100,872

Activision Blizzard Inc.

ATVI 93%

$3,612

$3,891

2159%

21%

$72,118

Charter Communications Inc. Class A

CHTR 434%

$98,263

$22,651

89%

23%

$62,380

Source: FactSet

Among the largest 10 companies in the S&P Composite 1500 communications sector by market cap, Charter Communications Inc.
CHTR
has the highest ratio of debt to estimated EBIT, while its debt service ratio of 89% shows it was close to covering its interest payments with operating income during its most recent reported quarter. Disney also came close, with a debt service ratio of 88%.

Charter Chief Financial Officer Jessica Fischer said at an investor day late last year that “delevering would only make sense if the market valuation of our shares fully reflected the intrinsic value of the cash-flow opportunity, if debt capacity in the market were limited or if our expectations of cash-flow growth, excluding the impact of our expansion were significantly impaired.”

Meanwhile, Kevin Lansberry, Disney’s interim CFO, said during the company’s latest earnings call that it had “made significant progress deleveraging coming out of the pandemic” and that it would “approach capital allocation in a disciplined and balanced manner.”

Disney’s debt increased when it bought 21st Century Fox assets in 2019, and the company suspended its dividend in 2020 in a bid to preserve cash during the pandemic.

When Disney announced its quarterly results on Aug. 9, it unveiled a plan to raise streaming prices in October. Several analysts reacted positively to the price increase and other operational moves.

Read: The long-simmering rumor of Apple buying Disney is resurfacing as Bob Iger looks to sell assets

The largest companies in the sector, Alphabet and Meta, have relatively low debt-to-estimated EBIT and very high debt-service ratios. Netflix has debt of nearly twice the estimated EBIT, but a high debt-service ratio. For all three companies, debt levels are low relative to market cap.

Low debt

Among the 52 companies in the S&P Composite 1500 communications sector, these 10 companies had the lowest total debt, relative to estimated EBIT, as of their most recent reported fiscal quarter-ends:

Company

Ticker

Debt/ est. EBIT

Total debt

Est. EBIT

Debt service ratio

Total return – 2023

Market cap. ($mil)

New York Times Co. Class A

NYT 0%

$0

$414

N/A

32%

$6,968

QuinStreet Inc.

QNST 18%

$5

$26

-153%

-35%

$513

Alphabet Inc. Class A

GOOGL 22%

$29,432

$133,096

711%

47%

$1,528,711

Shutterstock Inc.

SSTK 26%

$63

$241

39%

-20%

$1,502

Yelp Inc.

YELP 31%

$106

$344

78%

55%

$2,909

Meta Platforms Inc. Class A

META 47%

$36,965

$78,129

717%

137%

$634,547

Scholastic Corp.

SCHL 54%

$108

$201

319%

12%

$1,314

Electronic Arts Inc.

EA 73%

$1,951

$2,678

605%

-2%

$32,425

World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. Class A

WWE 93%

$415

$448

479%

66%

$9,455

Activision Blizzard Inc.

ATVI 93%

$3,612

$3,891

2159%

21%

$72,118

Source: FactSet

New York Times Co.
NYT
takes the prize, with no debt.

Wall Street’s favorite media companies

Starting again with the 52 companies in the sector, 46 are covered by at least five analysts polled by FactSet. Among these companies, 12 are rated “buy” or the equivalent by at least 70% of the analysts:

Company

Ticker

Share “buy” ratings

Aug. 25 price

Consensus price target

Implied 12-month upside potential

Thryv Holdings Inc.

THRY 100%

$21.11

$35.50

68%

T-Mobile US Inc.

TMUS 90%

$133.35

$174.96

31%

Nexstar Media Group Inc.

NXST 90%

$157.08

$212.56

35%

Meta Platforms Inc. Class A

META 88%

$285.50

$375.27

31%

Cars.com Inc.

CARS 86%

$18.85

$23.79

26%

Alphabet Inc. Class A

GOOGL 82%

$129.88

$150.04

16%

Iridium Communications Inc.

IRDM 80%

$47.80

$66.00

38%

News Corp. Class A

NWSA 78%

$20.74

$26.42

27%

Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.

TTWO 74%

$141.42

$155.96

10%

Live Nation Entertainment Inc.

LYV 74%

$84.79

$109.94

30%

Frontier Communications Parent Inc.

FYBR 73%

$15.24

$31.36

106%

Match Group Inc.

MTCH 70%

$43.79

$56.90

30%

Source: FactSet

News Corp.
NWSA
is the parent company of MarketWatch.

Finally, here are the debt figures for these 12 media companies favored by the analysts:

Company

Ticker

Debt/ est. EBIT

Total debt

Est. EBIT

Debt service ratio

Total return – 2023

Market cap. ($mil)

Thryv Holdings Inc.

THRY 227%

$433

$191

53%

11%

$730

T-Mobile US Inc.

TMUS 378%

$116,548

$30,838

32%

-5%

$156,881

Nexstar Media Group Inc.

NXST 358%

$7,183

$2,009

63%

-8%

$5,511

Meta Platforms Inc. Class A

META 47%

$36,965

$78,129

717%

137%

$634,547

Cars.com Inc.

CARS 223%

$451

$202

41%

37%

$1,253

Alphabet Inc. Class A

GOOGL 22%

$29,432

$133,096

711%

47%

$1,528,711

Iridium Communications Inc.

IRDM 306%

$1,481

$483

54%

-7%

$5,977

News Corp. Class A

NWSA 261%

$4,207

$1,611

109%

15%

$11,940

Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.

TTWO 272%

$3,492

$1,283

-40%

36%

$24,017

Live Nation Entertainment Inc.

LYV 466%

$8,413

$1,805

135%

22%

$19,515

Frontier Communications Parent Inc.

FYBR 453%

$9,844

$2,173

85%

-40%

$3,745

Match Group Inc.

MTCH 287%

$3,839

$1,337

540%

6%

$12,177

Source: FactSet

In case you are wondering about how the analysts feel about debt-free New York Times, it appears the analysts believe the shares are fairly priced at $42.60. Among eight analysts polled by FactSet, three rated NYT a buy, while the rest had neutral ratings. The consensus price target was $43.93. The stock trades at a forward price-to-earnings ratio of 27.7, which is high when compared with the forward P/E of 21.7 for the S&P 500
.

Source link

#Meta #Alphabet #undertheradar #media #stocks #expected #soar

‘Own what the Mother of All Bubbles crowd doesn’t.’ This market strategist expects stagflation and is investing for it now.

There’s always a bull market somewhere — if you can find it.

Keith McCullough encourages investors to join him in the hunt. You’ll need to be agnostic and open-minded, the CEO of investment service Hedgeye Risk Management says. If you’re wedded just to U.S. stocks, or the market’s latest darlings, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment — particularly in the hostile environment McCullough sees coming.

This coming challenge for U.S. stock investors, in a word, is stagflation, McCullough says. Stagflation — higher inflation plus slow- or no economic growth — is hardly a bullish outlook for stocks, but McCullough’s investment process looks for opportunties wherever they may be. Right now that’s led him to put money into health care, gold, Japan, India, Brazil and energy stocks, among others.

In this recent interview, which has been edited for length and clarity, McCullough takes the Federal Reserve and Chair Jerome Powell to the woodshed, offers a warning about the potential fallout from Powell’s upcoming speech at Jackson Hole, Wyo., and implores investors to discount happy talk and always watch what they do, not what they say.

MarketWatch: When we spoke in late May, you criticized the Federal Reserve for being obtuse and myopic in its response to inflation and, later, to the threat of recession. Has the Fed done anything since to give you more confidence?

McCullough: The Fed forecast of the probability of recession should be trusted as much as their “transitory” inflation forecast or a parlor game. People should not have confidence in the Fed’s forecast. The “no-landing” or “soft-landing” thesis is looking backwards. The Fed is grossly underestimating the future, doing what they always do, in looking at the recent past.

Their policy is wed to what they say. They claim they’re not going to cut interest rates until they get to their target. But any hint of the Fed arresting the tightening gives you more inflation. So there’s this perverse relationship where the Fed is the catalyst to bring back the inflation they’ve spent so much time fighting. 

Read: ‘The Fed is way late and they’ve already screwed it up.’ This stock strategist is banking on gold, silver and Treasurys to weather a recession.

MarketWatch: U.S. Inflation has come down quite signficantly over the past year. Doesn’t that show the Fed is well on the way to achieving its 2% target?

McCullough: A lot of people are peacocking and declaring victory over inflation when we’re about to have reflation that sticks. We have inflation heading back towards 3.5% and staying there.

Our inflation forecast is that it’s set to reaccelerate in the next two inflation reports, which will lead to another rate hike in September. The Fed’s view is that until they get to the 2% target they’re not done. A lot of people are really confident because inflation went from 9% to 3% that it’s getting closer to 2%, therefore the Fed is done. Given what Fed Chair Jerome Powell said, the next two inflation reports are critical in determining whether we hike rates in September. I think maybe even one in November. This is a major catalyst for the next leg down in the equity market.

The Fed is going to see inflation go higher, and they’ve already articulated to Wall Street that no matter what happens, that should constitute a rate hike. That’s a policy mistake. They’re going to continue to tighten into a slowdown. When the Fed tightens into a slowdown, things blow up.

MarketWatch: By “things blow up,” you mean the stock market.

McCullough: I don’t think the Fed cuts interest rates until the stock market crashes. The Fed is going to be tightening when the U.S. economy and corporate profits are at a low point, going into the fourth quarter. It’s not dissimilar from 1987 where all of a sudden a market that looked fine got annihilated in very short order. There are a lot of similarities to 1987 now; the market’s quick start in January, people in love with stocks. That’s a catalyst for the stock market to crash.

When the Fed has an inconvenient rule, particularly for the U.S. stock market, they just move the goal posts or change the rule. If they actually started to cut interest rates, inflation would go up faster. This is exactly what happened in the 1970s and what Powell explains is the risk of going dovish too soon – that he becomes [much-criticized former Fed chair] Arthur Burns. That’s why you had rolling recessions in the 1970s; the Fed would go dovish, devalue the U.S. dollar
DX00,
-0.21%
,
and the cost of living for Americans would reflate to levels that are prohibitive.

People can’t afford reflation at the gas pump, or in their health care. It’ll be fascinating to see how Powell pivots from fighting for the people to bailing out Wall Street from another stock market crash, which will therein create the next reflation.

‘The Federal Reserve has set the table for a major event in the U.S. stock market and the credit market.’

MarketWatch: Speaking of a Powell pivot, the Fed chair speaks at Jackson Hole this week. Last year he put markets on notice for rate hikes. What do you think he’ll say this time?

Powell’s going to see inflation accelerating. I think Jackson Hole is going to be a hawkish meeting. That might be the trigger for the stock market.

Take the bond market’s word for it.  The bond market is saying the Fed is going to remain tight and seriously consider another rate hike in September. The reasons why markets crash in October during recession is that the fourth quarter is when companies realize that there’s no soft landing and they need to guide down.

The Federal Reserve has set the table for a major event in the U.S. stock market and the credit market. We’re short high-yield and junk bonds through two ETFs: iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond
HYG
and SPDR Bloomberg High Yield Bond
JNK.
 On the equity side the best thing is to short the cyclicals; I would short the Russell 2000
RUT.

MarketWatch: What’s your advice to stock investors right now about how to reposition their portfolios?

McCullough: Own what the “Mother of All Bubbles” crowd doesn’t. The things we’re most bullish on include gold
GC00,
+0.21%
.
 The Fed is going to keep short term rates high and both the 10 year and 30 year go lower. Gold trades with real interest rates. I think gold can go a lot higher, towards 2,150. Our ETF for gold is SPDR Gold Shares
GLD.

Also, you can be long equities and not take on the heart-attack risk that is the U.S. stock market. I’m long Japanese equities — ETFs for this include iShares MSCI Japan
EWJ
and iShares MSCI Japan Small-Cap
SCJ.

We’re long India with iShares MSCI India
INDA
and iShares MSCI India Small-Cap
SMIN.
Both Japan and India are accelerating economically. Were also long Brazil iShares MSCI Brazil
EWZ,
which is weighted to energy. We are bullish on energy. 

MarketWatch: Clearly accelerating inflation and slowing economic growth is an unhealthy combination for both investors and consumers.

McCullough: What I’m looking for, with inflation reaccelerating, is stagflation.

Stagflation pays the rich and punishes the poor. You want to be the landlord. The prices of things people own are going to go up, and the prices of things you need to live are also going to go up. So for example, we are long energy, uranium and timber as stagflation plays. ETFs we’re using for that include Energy Select Sector SPDR
XLE,
Global X Uranium
URA,
and iShares Global Timber & Forestry
WOOD.

One positive thing that happens from stagflation is that because it’s so hard to find real consumption growth, there’s a premium on the growth you can find.

If there is something that actually accelerates, then those stocks will work, which puts a nice premium on stock picking. You can be long anything that is accelerating because so many things are decelerating. So avoid U.S. consumer, retailers, industrials and financials, which are all decelerating. Health care is our favorite sector, which we own through the ETFs Simplify Health Care
PINK
and SPDR S&P Health Care Equipment
XHE.

Instead, people are betting we’re going to go back to some crazy AI-led growth environment. Now everyone thinks everything is AI and rainbows and puppy dogs. I’m old enough to remember we were in a banking crisis in March. From an intermediate- to longer-term perspective, I don’t know why you wouldn’t want to protect yourself until this inflation cycle plays out.

Also read: Jackson Hole: Fed’s Powell could join rather than fight bond vigilantes as yields surge

More: Will August’s stock-market stumble turn into a rout? Here’s what to watch, says Fundstrat’s Tom Lee.

Source link

#Mother #Bubbles #crowd #doesnt #market #strategist #expects #stagflation #investing

You can still run with the stock market’s bulls, but watch the exits

The stock market, as measured by the S&P 500 Index
SPX,
-0.64%

), has been moving upward. The U.S. benchmark index is essentially crawling up the higher “modified Bollinger Bands” (mBB), which is a bit of an overbought condition, but not a sell signal.

The next major resistance appears to be in the 4650 area, which at one time seemed far away but is now within range. There is minor support at 4527 (last week’s lows), with stronger support below that, at 4440, 4385, 4330 and 4200. Given the strong upward momentum of the market, a couple of those could be violated without giving the bull market any problem, but a fall below 4330 would be a game changer.

The S&P 500 has recently closed above the +4σ mBB, which sets up a “classic” sell signal. That “classic” signal was generated on Thursday when SPX closed below the +3σ Band — 4560. But we do not trade the “classic” signals, preferring to wait for the further confirmation of a McMillan Volatility Band (MVB) signal. Just because a “classic” sell signal has occurred does not mean that a MVB sell signal will automatically follow. We will keep you up to date on these developments weekly.

Equity-only put-call ratios have continued to edge lower as stocks have risen. This means that the put-call ratios are still on buy signals, but they are in deeply overbought territory because they are so low on their charts. The computer programs that we use to analyze these charts are once again warning of a sell signal, but we prefer to wait until we can visibly see the ratios begin to rise before taking on any negative position based on these ratios. Despite the fact that these ratios are at lows for the last year or so, it should be noted that they were much lower all during the 2021, as that bull market was pressing forward, and eventually gave way to a bear market.

Market breadth has been generally positive. Both breadth oscillators are on buy signals and are in overbought territory. They could withstand a day or two of negative breadth and still remain on those buy signals. Perhaps more importantly, cumulative volume breadth (CVB) is approaching what could be a major buy signal. If CVB makes a new all-time high, then SPX will follow. CVB is within just a small distance of its all-time high and could attain that today. Doing so would mean that an upside target of 4800+ would be in force for SPX.

New Highs on the NYSE continue to dominate New Lows, so this indicator remains strongly positive for stocks.

VIX
VIX,
+9.25%

is languishing between 13 and 14. As long as this continues, stocks can rise. The only time problems would surface would be if VIX spurted higher. So far, that hasn’t happened. It appears that “big money” still has some fear of this market, so they are buying SPX puts, keeping VIX a bit elevated. It should also be noted that VIX normally makes its annual low in July and begins to rise in August. So that is a potentially negative seasonal factor on the horizon.

The construct of volatility derivatives remains bullish for stocks, since the term structures of both the VIX futures and of the CBOE Volatility Indices continue to slope upwards.

Overall, we are maintaining our “core” bullish position because of the bullish SPX chart. We are raising trailing stops and rolling deeply in-the-money calls upward as we go along. Eventually, we will trade other confirmed signals around that “core” position.

New recommendation: Potential CVB buy signal

We made this recommendation last week and recommended using the cumulative total of daily NYSE advancing volume minus declining volume as a guide. That cumulative total did reach our projected value as of July 26. In reality, the “stocks only” CVB ended just shy of a new all-time high. We are going ahead with the recommendation, since the way that we stated it last week did generate the buy signal.

Buy 4 SPY Sept (29th) 480 calls: Since CVB reached a new all-time high, we are going to buy SPY
SPY,
-0.66%

calls with a striking price equal to SPY’s all-time high. We will hold without a stop initially.

New Recommendation: Emerging markets ETF (EEM)

There has been a high-level buy signal generated from the weighted put-call ratio for the Emerging Markets ETF
EEM,
-1.23%
.
Put buying has been extremely strong for more than a month and is now is abating. This has generated the buy signal.

Buy 5 EEM Oct (20th) 41 calls in line with the market

We will hold these calls as long as the EEM weighted put-call ratio remains on a buy signal.

Follow-up action: 

We are using a “standard” rolling procedure for our SPY spreads: in any vertical bull or bear spread, if the underlying hits the short strike, then roll the entire spread. That would be roll up in the case of a call bull spread, or roll down in the case of a bear put spread. Stay in the same expiration and keep the distance between the strikes the same unless otherwise instructed. 

Long 800 KOPN: 
KOPN,
-4.76%

The stop remains at 1.70.

Long 2 SPY Aug (4th) 453 calls: This is our “core” bullish position. The calls have been rolled up three times. Stop out of this trade if SPX closes below 4330. Roll up every time your long SPY option is at least 6 points in-the-money.

Long 1 SPY Aug (4th) 453 call: Bought in line with the “New Highs vs. New Lows” buy signal. The calls have been rolled up three times. Stop out of this trade if, on the NYSE, New Lows outnumber New Highs for two consecutive days. Roll up every time your long SPY option is at least 6 points in-the-money.

Long 2 PFG Aug (18th) 80 calls: This position has been was rolled up twice. We will hold this PFG
PFG,
-1.07%

position as long as the weighted put-call ratio remains on a buy signal.

Long 10 VTRS
VTRS,
-1.43%

August (18th) 10 calls: The stop remains at 10.15. 

Long 5 CCL
CCL,
+3.23%

Aug (18th) 17 calls: Raise the stop to 17.10.

Long 2 PRU
PRU,
-0.46%

Aug (18th) 87.5 calls: We will continue to hold these calls as long as the weighted put-call ratio remains on a buy signal.

Long 8 CRON
CRON,
-1.66%

Aug (18th) 2 calls: Hold these calls without a stop while takeover rumors play out.

Long 6 ORIC
ORIC,
-9.06%

Aug (18th) 7.5 calls: The stop remains at 7.40.

Long 2 EW
EW,
-9.78%

Aug (18th) 95 puts: Continue to hold these puts as long as the weighted put-call ratio remains on a sell signal.

All stops are mental closing stops unless otherwise noted.

Lawrence G. McMillan is president of McMillan Analysis, a registered investment and commodity trading advisor. McMillan may hold positions in securities recommended in this report, both personally and in client accounts. He is an experienced trader and money manager and is the author of the best-selling book, Options as a Strategic Investment. www.optionstrategist.com

©McMillan Analysis Corporation is registered with the SEC as an investment advisor and with the CFTC as a commodity trading advisor. The information in this newsletter has been carefully compiled from sources believed to be reliable, but accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed. The officers or directors of McMillan Analysis Corporation, or accounts managed by such persons may have positions in the securities recommended in the advisory. 

Source link

#run #stock #markets #bulls #watch #exits

‘I’m 62 and ready for my golden years’: I’ve $1.7 million in annuities, Roths and index funds. Can I afford to never work again?

I’m going to preface this by saying that I know I am in a great long-term position. It’s the short term that is of concern.

I am 62, single with no dependents. I own my smallish home outright and it’s worth $1 million due to the location. I own my car outright and I have no debt. My IRA and small Roth accounts have about $350,000 with an additional $840,000 in two guaranteed-income deferred annuities rolled over from a couple old 401(k)s in 2020. There’s $520,000 in my regular brokerage accounts (mostly Vanguard Index funds). I have $42,000 invested in two eReits and $10,000 in Series I Bonds. I have $71,000 in a higher-yield savings account and $12,000 in a checking account.

I had always planned to retire at 65 and live off my savings until filing for SSI between 67 and 70 (approx $3,400 to $4,100, depending on when I file). A year ago at 61, I abruptly quit a good-paying new job due to a bad work environment, and a week later, my elderly parent had a serious medical issue. I decided to take time off to help navigate care, and just be present — without all of the stress of a pretty demanding job. A year after quitting, I figured out that I have no desire to go back to what I was doing and, quite frankly, have to desire to work at all! 

‘I’m not afraid of running out of money long term. It’s the next 5 to 7 years that are really causing me heartache.’

So here (finally) is my concern. My expenses are at least $3,000 per month give or take. Given what I have in savings and no plans to file for Social Security Insurance for at least five years, what do I continue to live on, especially if I don’t go back to work? I most likely have some house expenses (new roof, garage door, etc.) in the near future, plus, I want to travel sooner than later so $71,000 won’t last that long especially with this inflation. Do I sell off some of my mutual fund shares to boost my savings? 

At some point (most likely in the next two years) there may be about $75,000 of inheritance, but I’m not factoring that into the equation for now. I think I’ve done almost everything right, and I’m ready for my golden years. I’m not afraid of running out of money long term. It’s the next five to seven years that are really causing me heartache. What are your thoughts?

Short-term Angst

Dear Angst,

Life is short, but we all hope for a long retirement, and it’s easy to lose sight of what’s important when we are “nose-down” in the rat race. We only have one life, and most of us, if we’re lucky, have two parents and/or sometimes one good parent. If we are blessed with one or both, it’s a gift if we can afford to take that time with them, especially if they have pressing medical issues. Thankfully, you had planned ahead, and you were able to do just that.

Many people reevaluated their relationship to work in recent years. You did so because you became a caretaker. The most fortunate among American workers were allowed to work from home from 2020, and where their work was the umbrella that protected their financial life and gave them the funds to live their life, by the end of the pandemic, that umbrella became their life which gave them the ability to work. It’s a profound change.

I’m going to take a wild guess here — well, not so wild — and say that a lot of people are reading your letter with their mouths agape, with not a small amount of envy. Some may see a touch of humble bragging to your financial achievements, but you acknowledge that you are in a healthy financial position, and have endeavored to do everything right. That, I’m sure, involved sacrifices along the way. So bravo to you. From a gratitude point of view, your financial list is a good one.

There are a couple of wrinkles, which may be useful for others to be aware of. Robert Seltzer, founder of Seltzer Business Management in Los Angeles, said he would not recommend a client to roll their 401(k)s into annuities due to their higher fees and lack of flexibility. Without working, your only taxable income would be derived from retirement account distributions and investment income — but if your taxable income is less than $41,675, therefore, you would pay no capital gains tax. 

Is it a good time to liquidate some stocks? You’ve played the long game. The S&P 500
SPX,
-0.29%

is up 2.7% over the past year; many people close to retirement have been spooked by stock-market volatility since 2020, but the S&P has increased more than 30% since the last trading session of 2019 — before the pandemic. Assuming you’ve been investing for the past three decades or more, and have experienced the miracle of compounding over that time, the time to enjoy your life is nigh. 

‘Assuming you’ve been investing for the past three decades or more, and have experienced the miracle of compounding over that time, the time to enjoy your life is nigh. ‘


— The Moneyist

Something to consider as you age: “As you transition from the accumulation stage of life to the distribution stage, it is important to recognize that your risk tolerance is changing,” says Mel Casey, a senior portfolio manager at FBB Capital Partners. “If the brokerage account index funds are all in stock funds, this should be addressed. A rebalancing over time to reduce stocks and increase bonds may lower the risk and prepare the account for eventual distributions.”

Meet with a financial adviser and work out your short- and long-term needs: what your income looks like before and after you tap your Social Security benefits. The good news is you have a healthy income awaiting you when you finally start drawing down money from your retirement accounts. It helps enormously that you have paid off your home — property taxes, insurance, food prices, car payments, gas, health insurance, etc. notwithstanding.

About that health insurance. No doubt you are already aware that this will be an extra expense before you qualify for Medicare at age 65. The average annual health-insurance premium for 2022 was $7,911 for single coverage, up slightly from $7,739 in the prior year, according to KFF, formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit headquartered in San Francisco, Calif. (You can read more about signing up for Medicare and what it will cost here.)

Casey also has thoughts on healthcare costs as you get older. “You have three years until you can apply for Medicare and that will be an important time in terms of choosing the appropriate path,” he says. “In the meantime, some form of health insurance is advisable, if only to eliminate the ‘tail risk’ of a serious injury or illness which could erode this healthy savings very quickly.”

Withdrawing money for retirement

You could cover a substantial part of your expenses from your brokerage account and Roths ($870,000) or annuities ($840,000). While you have done a great job in growing long-term assets, there are relatively few liquid, short-term assets (emergency reserves), says Randall Watsek, financial adviser with Raymond James. “For someone in retirement without earned income to draw on for living expenses, having at least five years of reserves might greatly lower their stress level,” he adds.

Ideally, you want to take Social Security between 67 and 70. “From an average life expectancy basis, it works out roughly the same, whether you take Social Security at 62 or 70,” Watsek says. “You get more small payments if you take it earlier, or fewer large payments if you take it later. It makes most sense to delay Social Security if you have a family history of living into your 90s or 100s or if you’re still working.”

But if your parents have a history of living a long life, and you currently have good health, Seltzer said he would be open for more discussion about what age you should start claiming Social Security, and he would explore whether you are comfortable waiting until you reach 67 or 70 years of age. (This would warrant further discussion with your own financial adviser, and you can reevaluate your position every 12 months.)

As my colleague Alessandra Malito points out, help comes in many forms: financial consultant, wealth manager and investment adviser. Choose a fiduciary who is required to act in your best interests (rather than giving you advice with one eye on your needs and another eye on their commissions). In order to become a certified financial planner or CFP, you must complete a certificate or degree program, 6,000 hours of related experience and have passed an exam. 

“Broker-dealers are advisers who primarily sell securities and often charge commissions on their recommendations. Commissions aren’t inherently bad, but clients should understand what they’re being charged for and feel comfortable with those fees before proceeding with the advice,” Malito writes. Certified public accountants, chartered life underwriters, certified employee benefit specialists respectively deal with accounting, life insurance and benefits.

“The rule of thumb for taking distributions during retirement is 4%,” Seltzer added. “If you took a very conservative distribution rate of 3%, it would amount to $52,500 which is almost 50% higher than your expenses of $36,000. So, by living off of a mix of savings, distributions from the annuities and capital gains from your brokerage account, you should meet his cash-flow needs with paying very little tax.”

You’re doing just fine. Your $75,000 inheritance will also give you some freedom for the next year or two, and help you get over the finish line. If you travel, think about Airbnb-ing
ABNB,
+1.69%

your home, which would cover your accommodation costs. It may also encourage you to try living in a place for a month or more. As a cardiologist might tell a patient when they’re putting them on medication for the first time, “Start low, go slow.” Take your time. Don’t make any big decisions.

As one member of the Facebook
META,
-0.50%

Moneyist Group said, “If you’re a man please marry me!” I’ll leave that with you with God’s and your fiduciary’s blessings.

“Assuming you’ve been investing for the last three decades or more, and have experienced the miracle of compounding over that time, the time to enjoy your life is nigh.”


MarketWatch illustration

Readers write to me with all sorts of dilemmas. 

You can email The Moneyist with any financial and ethical questions related to coronavirus at [email protected], and follow Quentin Fottrell on Twitter.

By emailing your questions, you agree to have them published anonymously on MarketWatch. By submitting your story to Dow Jones & Co., the publisher of MarketWatch, you understand and agree that we may use your story, or versions of it, in all media and platforms, including via third parties.

Check out the Moneyist private Facebook group, where we look for answers to life’s thorniest money issues. Readers write to me with all sorts of dilemmas. Post your questions, tell me what you want to know more about, or weigh in on the latest Moneyist columns.

The Moneyist regrets he cannot reply to questions individually.

More from Quentin Fottrell: 

‘He’s content living paycheck to paycheck’: My husband won’t work or get a driver’s license. Now things have gotten even worse.

My wife wants us to spend $5,000 to attend her cousin’s destination wedding. I don’t want to go. Am I being selfish?

‘I feel used’: My partner stays with me 5 nights a week, even though he owns his own home. Should he pay for utilities and food? 



Source link

#ready #golden #years #Ive #million #annuities #Roths #index #funds #afford #work

‘I worry about outliving my money’: I’m a 65-year-old widow in good health. Should I wait until 70 to collect my pension?

I am a 65-year-old widow in good health, and just started collecting my late husband’s Social Security benefit of $4,000 per month. When I turn 70, I will switch to my benefit since it appears it will be around $100 higher every month at that time. My current expenses are running high at about $10,000 per month due to some house maintenance projects I am doing. My son and his family will inherit everything when I’m gone.

I estimate my monthly expenses will drop to $5,000-$6,000 within the next year. I supplement my monthly income by drawing off interest, dividends and some profit-taking from my traditional IRA account which is worth about $2.5 million. I also have a Roth IRA of about $60,000 and bank CDs of $200,000. I also have another traditional IRA account worth $350,000, which I have designated as my long-term healthcare account in case I have to go into a nursing home at some point. 

‘I’m not sure if it makes sense to wait two to five years to collect my pensions if I am going to be drawing my RMD just a few years later.’

I have two pensions that I am debating about when I should start collecting. If I collect now, I will receive $1,400 per month. If I wait until I am 67 it will be $1,620 and at 70 the pension will pay $2,100 per month. However, when I turn 73 and start my minimum required distributions from my IRA, the annual RMD along with my Social Security should be more than enough for me to live on. 

I’m not sure if it makes sense to wait two to five years to collect my pensions if I am going to be drawing my RMD just a few years later. If I collect my pensions now, then it would reduce the amount of money I need to siphon off of my investments and could leave them relatively untouched for a few more years.

‘Money was always tight for us growing up and a struggle for my parents as they got older and needed healthcare assistance.’

So the question is, should I collect my pensions now and reduce the amount of money I am currently drawing off of my IRA? Or wait a few years and get the higher monthly payout? Everything I read encourages people to wait as long as they can to collect their retirements. My calculations show that if I collect now, my break-even point is about age 82. If I live longer than that, then waiting to collect would pay me more over the long term. Both my parents lived into their early 90s so longevity is a potential concern. 

I realize that I’m in a good financial situation, which is the result of my husband and I working extremely hard all of our lives and consistently saving and investing during good times as well as during recessions, job losses, and raising a family. But money was always tight for us growing up and a struggle for my parents as they got older and needed healthcare assistance, so I don’t think I will ever shake that off. I worry about outliving my money. I just want to make the right decision.

Thank you for your help.

To Withdraw or Not Withdraw

Dear Withdraw or Not Withdraw,

Let’s start with the good news. Whatever you do — start withdrawals now or wait — you are in a pretty strong financial position. If you can afford to wait — and you can — and you expect to live into your 90s, do that. That extra $700 a month will give you comfort as you age. You have $2.5 million in your IRA, and you will pay tax on those withdrawals regardless, but you can afford to use that as a buffer before your higher pension payments kick in. 

A financial adviser will help you crunch your numbers, but $4,000 a month in Social Security is a good start. Cutting your $10,000 monthly expenses to $6,000 is smart, and an adviser can help you see where you could make further cuts in your expenses, especially as you age. For some perspective: This survey found that working Americans ages 45 and older on average believe it will take $1.1 million to retire comfortably, yet only 21% say they’ll reach $1 million. 

Another reason to withdraw from your IRA now? Gains from an IRA, as you know, are taxable. Gains from a Roth IRA are not taxable if the account has been up and running for five years and you are over 59½. One of the big advantages to a Roth is the flexibility it affords. If you have a medical emergency, you could use your Roth IRA as a backup. (CDS are not typically useful for this as cashing out early results in a penalty, which could negate your interest earned over the period of the CD.)

‘Whatever you decide will be the best decision for you at this time.’

Dan Herron, a partner at Better Business Financial Services in San Luis Obispo, Calif., agrees you should wait. “Since longevity appears to be on your side thanks to good genes from your family, it is probably beneficial to postpone taking benefits as long as you can to maximize your pensions,” he says. “The reason being is that given the uncertainty surrounding Social Security, your pension may be your best hedge against any potential Social Security cuts down the road.”

He also sees the tax benefits in siphoning funds from what is already a very healthy IRA. “While you draw from your IRA now, you are reducing the balance of the IRA, which then (potentially) reduces the required minimum distribution amounts,” he says. “This could potentially be beneficial from a tax perspective.” And he suggests staggering your pension benefits, making withdrawals from one in two years, while leaving the other until you hit 70.

Whatever you decide will be the best decision for you at this time. No future is guaranteed, but your No. 1 priority right is peace of mind to secure a long and healthy retirement.


MarketWatch illustration

Readers write to me with all sorts of dilemmas. 

You can email The Moneyist with any financial and ethical questions related to coronavirus at [email protected], and follow Quentin Fottrell on Twitter.

By emailing your questions, you agree to have them published anonymously on MarketWatch. By submitting your story to Dow Jones & Co., the publisher of MarketWatch, you understand and agree that we may use your story, or versions of it, in all media and platforms, including via third parties.

Check out the Moneyist private Facebook group, where we look for answers to life’s thorniest money issues. Readers write to me with all sorts of dilemmas. Post your questions, tell me what you want to know more about, or weigh in on the latest Moneyist columns.

The Moneyist regrets he cannot reply to questions individually.

More from Quentin Fottrell: 

‘How to travel for free’: I spent $500 hosting my friend for a week. Should she have paid for food and utilities?

‘I’m 63 and desperately hate my work’: Should I pay off my mortgage, claim Social Security and quit my job?

‘He’s content living paycheck to paycheck’: My husband won’t work or get a driver’s license. Now things have gotten even worse.



Source link

#worry #outliving #money #65yearold #widow #good #health #wait #collect #pension

Bank of America execs blew $93.6 billion. Here’s how they did it.

In several notes to clients this month, Odeon Capital Group analyst Dick Bove has pointed out that Bank of America’s big spending on stock buybacks over the past five years has been a waste for its shareholders, with the bank’s stock price declining slightly during that period.

The idea behind repurchasing shares on the open market is that they reduce a company’s share count and therefore boost earnings per share and support higher share prices over time. This doesn’t seem to be a bad idea, especially for a company such as Apple Inc.
AAPL,
+1.01%
,
which has generated excess capital and has appeared to be firing on all cylinders for a long time. For a company that is continuing to expand its product and service offerings while maintaining high profitability, buybacks can be a blessing to shareholders.

But for banks, for which capital is the main ingredient of earnings power, a more careful approach might be in order. The data below show how buybacks haven’t helped the largest banks outperform the broad stock market over the past five years. And now, banks face the prospect of regulators raising their capital requirements by 20%, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

Before showing data for the 20 companies among the S&P 500 that have spent the most money on buybacks over the past five years, let’s take a look at how share repurchases are described in a misleading way by corporate executives — and by many analysts, for that matter. During Bank of America’s
BAC,
-0.79%

first-quarter earnings call on April 18, Chief Financial Officer Alastair Borthwick said the bank had “returned $12 billion in capital to shareholders” over the previous 12 months, according to a transcript provided by FactSet.

Borthwick was referring to buybacks and dividends combined. Neither item was a return of capital. In fact, Bove summed up the buybacks elegantly in a client note on June 9: “The money that the company uses to buy back the stock is simply given away to people who do not want to own the bank’s stock.”

It is also worth pointing out that the term “return of capital” actually means the return of investors’ own capital to them, which is commonly done by closed-end mutual funds, business-development companies and some real-estate investment trusts, for various reasons. Those distributions aren’t taxed and they lower an investor’s cost basis.

Dividends aren’t a return of capital, either, if they are sourced from a company’s earnings, as they have been for Bank of America.

One more thing for investors to think about is that large companies typically award newly issued shares to executives as part of their compensation. This dilutes the ownership stakes of nonexecutive shareholders. So some of the buybacks merely mitigate this dilution. An investor hopes to see the buybacks lower the share count, but there are some instances in which the count still increases.

How buybacks can hurt banks

Banks’ management teams and boards of directors have engaged in buybacks because they wish to boost earnings per share and returns on equity by shedding excess capital. But Bove made another industry-specific point in his June 9 note: “If the bank buys back stock it must sell assets that offer a return to do so; it lowers current earnings.” Buybacks can also hurt future earnings. Less capital can slow expansion, loan growth and profits.

According to Bove, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan, who took the top slot in 2010 and saw the bank through the difficult aftermath of its acquisition of Countrywide and Merrill Lynch in 2008, “is one of the brightest, most capable executives for operating a banking enterprise.”

But he questions Moynihan’s ability to manage the bank’s balance sheet. Bove expects that Bank of America will need to issue new common shares, in part because rising interest rates have reduced the value of its bond investments.

In a June 5 note, Bove wrote: “Mr. Moynihan indicated twice [during a recent presentation] that the bank has excess cash that apparently could not be invested profitably. Possibly he is unaware that the cost of deposits at the bank in [the first quarter of] 2023 was 1.38% while the yield in the Fed Funds market can be as high as 5.25%.” In other words, the bank could earn a high spread at little risk with overnight deposits with the Federal Reserve.

That is a very simple example, but if Bank of America had grown its loan book more quickly over recent years while focusing less on buybacks, it might not face the prospect of a near-term capital raise, which would dilute current shareholders’ stakes in the company and reduce earnings per share.

Top 20 companies by dollars spent on buybacks

To look beyond banking, we sorted companies in the S&P 500
SPX,
+0.51%

by total dollars spent on buybacks over the past five years (the past 40 reported fiscal quarters) through June 9, using data suppled by FactSet. It turns out 11 have seen prices increase more quickly than the index. With reinvested dividends, 12 have outperformed the index.

Company

Ticker

Dollars spent on buybacks over the past 5 years ($Bil)

5-year price change

5-year total return with dividends reinvested

Apple Inc.

AAPL,
+1.01%
$393.6

279%

297%

Alphabet Inc. Class A

GOOGL,
+0.84%
$180.6

116%

116%

Microsoft Corporation

MSFT,
+0.87%
$121.5

221%

239%

Meta Platforms Inc.

META,
+1.58%
$103.4

42%

42%

Oracle Corp.

ORCL,
+6.11%
$102.6

140%

161%

Bank of America Corp.

BAC,
-0.79%
$93.6

-2%

10%

JPMorgan Chase & Co.

JPM,
-0.18%
$87.3

27%

47%

Wells Fargo & Co.

WFC,
-1.01%
$84.0

-24%

-13%

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Class B

BRK.B,
-0.80%
$70.3

70%

70%

Citigroup Inc.

C,
+0.09%
$51.4

-29%

-16%

Charter Communications Inc. Class A

CHTR,
+1.09%
$48.5

20%

20%

Cisco Systems Inc.

CSCO,
+1.00%
$46.5

15%

34%

Visa Inc. Class A

V,
+0.75%
$45.6

66%

72%

Procter & Gamble Co.

PG,
-1.26%
$42.1

89%

116%

Home Depot Inc.

HD,
+1.01%
$41.0

51%

71%

Lowe’s Cos. Inc.

LOW,
+1.92%
$40.8

111%

131%

Intel Corp.

INTC,
+4.67%
$39.0

-40%

-31%

Morgan Stanley

MS,
+1.04%
$36.7

67%

93%

Walmart Inc.

WMT,
+0.33%
$35.6

82%

99%

Qualcomm Inc.

QCOM,
+2.12%
$35.1

101%

130%

S&P 500

SPX,
+0.51%
55%

69%

Source: FactSet

Click on the tickers for more about each company or index.

Click here for Tomi Kilgore’s detailed guide to the wealth of information available for free on the MarketWatch quote page.

The four listed companies with negative five-year returns are three banks — Citigroup Inc.
C,
+0.09%
,
Wells Fargo & Co.
WFC,
-1.01%

and Bank of America — and Intel Inc.
INTC,
+4.67%
.

Don’t miss: As tech companies take over the market again, don’t forget these bargain dividend stocks

Source link

#Bank #America #execs #blew #billion #Heres

Biden’s rebuke of a bold, reform-minded crime law makes all Americans less safe

President Joe Biden’s support for a Republican-led effort to nullify the Washington D.C. City Council’s revision of its criminal code, signed into law on Monday, plays into the fear narrative that is being increasingly advanced across the U.S.

Biden could have used his platform and clout to clarify the actual substance of the carefully crafted District of Columbia proposal — and adhere to his campaign commitment to reduce the number of incarcerated Americans.

Instead, the president ignored the glaring problems in D.C.’s existing criminal code, which the 275-page long package of revisions was designed to address. This included reforming the draconian and inflexible sentencing requirements that have swelled the District’s incarceration rate and wasted countless resources imprisoning individuals who pose no danger to public safety. By rejecting this decade-plus effort, the president decided that D.C. residents have no right to determine for themselves how to fix these problems.

There are communities across the U.S. that see virtually no violent crime, and it isn’t because they’re the most policed.

Biden’s decision is the latest backlash to U.S. justice reform coming from both sides of the political aisle.

Instead of doubling down on failed tough-on-crime tactics, Americans need to come together to articulate and invest in a new vision of public safety. We already know what that looks like because there are communities across the country which see virtually no violent crime, and it isn’t because they’re the most policed.

Safe communities are places where people (even those facing economic distress) are housed, where schools have the resources to teach all children, where the water and air are clean, where families have access to good-paying jobs and comprehensive healthcare, and where those who are struggling are given a hand, not a handcuff.

This is the kind of community every American deserves to live in, but that future is only possible if we shift resources from carceral responses to communities and shift our mindset from punishment to prevention. 

Too often it’s easier to advocate for locking people up than it is to innovate and advance a new vision for public safety. 

In the wake of particularly traumatic years, as well as growing divisiveness that has politicized criminal justice reform, it is not surprising that many people believe their communities are less safe. While public perceptions of crime have long been disconnected from actual crime rates and can be heavily influenced by media coverage, the data tells a mixed story. Homicide rates did increase in both urban and rural areas in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and record levels of gun sales.

While early available data suggests these numbers are trending down, it’s too soon to tell, especially given the nation’s poor crime data infrastructure. What is clear is that there is no evidence that criminal justice reform is to blame for rising crime, despite well-funded attempts by those resistant to change and who are intent on driving a political agenda to make such a claim stick. 

Yet fear often obscures facts; people are scared for their safety and want reassurance. Too often it’s easier to advocate for locking people up than it is to innovate and advance a new vision for public safety. 

We need leaders who can govern with both empathy and integrity – who can provide genuine compassion to those who feel scared while also following the data about how to create safer communities. And all the data points to the need for reform. 

Mass incarceration costs U.S. taxpayers an estimated $1 trillion annually.

Mass incarceration costs U.S. taxpayers an estimated $1 trillion annually, when you factor in not only the cost of confinement but also the crushing toll placed on incarcerated people and their families, children, and communities. Despite this staggering figure, there’s no real evidence that incarceration works, and in fact some evidence to suggest it actually makes people more likely to commit future crimes. Yet we keep pouring more and more taxpayer dollars into this short-sighted solution that, instead of preventing harm, only delays and compounds it. 

We have to stop pretending that reform is the real threat to public safety and recognize how our over-reliance on incarceration actually makes us less safe. 

Reform and public safety go hand in hand. Commonsense changes including reforming cash bail, revisiting extreme sentences and diverting people from the criminal legal system have all been shown to have positive effects on individuals and communities.

At a time of record-low clearance rates nationwide and staffing challenges in police departments and prosecutor’s offices, arresting and prosecuting people for low-level offenses that do not impact public safety can actually make us less safe by directing resources away from solving serious crimes and creating collateral consequences for people that make it harder to escape cycles of poverty and crime. 

Yet, tough-on-crime proponents repeatedly misrepresent justice reform by claiming that reformers are simply letting people who commit crimes off the hook. Nothing could be further from the truth. Reform does not mean a lack of accountability, but rather a more effective version of accountability for everyone involved. 

Our traditional criminal legal system has failed victims time and again. In a 2022 survey of crime survivors, just 8% said that the justice system was very helpful in navigating the legal process and being connected to services. Many said they didn’t even report the crime because of distrust of the system. 

When asked what they want, many crime survivors express a fundamental desire to ensure that the person who caused them harm doesn’t hurt them or anyone else ever again. But status quo approaches aren’t providing that. The best available data shows that 7 in 10 people released from prison in 2012 were rearrested within five years. Perhaps that’s why crime victims support alternatives to traditional prosecution and incarceration by large margins. 

For example, in New York City, Common Justice offered the first alternative-to-incarceration program in the country focused on violent felonies in adult courts. When given the option, 90% of eligible victims chose to participate in a restorative justice program through Common Justice over incarcerating the person who harmed them. Just 7% of participants have been terminated from the program for committing a new crime. 

A restorative justice program launched by former San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón for youth facing serious felony charges was shown to reduce participants’ likelihood of rearrest by 44 percent within six months compared to youth who went through the traditional juvenile justice system, and the effects were still notable even four years after the initial offer to participate.

Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt launched a groundbreaking program last year to allow people convicted of violent offenses to avoid prison time if they commit to behavioral health treatment. As of January, just one of 60 participants had been rearrested for a misdemeanor. 

While too many politicians give lip service to reform, those who really care about justice are doing the work, regardless of electoral consequences. We need more bold, innovative leaders willing to rethink how we achieve safety and accountability, not those who go where the wind blows and spread misinformation for political gain. 

Fear should not cause us to repeat the mistakes of the past. When politicians finally decide to care more about protecting people than protecting their own power, only then will we finally achieve the safety that all communities deserve. 

Miriam Aroni Krinsky is the executive director of Fair and Just Prosecution, a former federal prosecutor, and the author of Change from Within: Reimagining the 21st-Century Prosecutor. Alyssa Kress is the communications director of Fair and Just Prosecution.  

More: Wrongful convictions cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Wrongdoing prosecutors must be held accountable.

Plus: Senate votes to block D.C. crime laws, with Biden’s support

Source link

#Bidens #rebuke #bold #reformminded #crime #law #Americans #safe

India is becoming a hot market for investors, but it risks falling victim to its own success

India is poised to become the world’s most important country in the medium term. It has the world’s largest population (which is still growing), and with a per capita GDP that is just one-quarter that of China’s, its economy has enormous scope for productivity gains.

Moreover, India’s military and geopolitical importance will only grow. It is a vibrant democracy whose cultural diversity will generate soft power to rival the United States and the United Kingdom.

One must credit Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for implementing policies that have modernized India and supported its growth. Specifically, Modi has made massive investments in the single market (including through de-monetization and a major tax reform) and infrastructure (not just roads, electricity, education, and sanitation, but also digital capacity). These investments – together with industrial policies to accelerate manufacturing, a comparative advantage in tech and IT, and a customized digital-based welfare system – have led to robust economic performance following the COVID-19 slump.

These investments — together with industrial policies to accelerate manufacturing, a comparative advantage in tech and IT, and a customized digital-based welfare system — have led to robust economic performance following the COVID-19 slump.

Yet the model that has driven India’s growth now threatens to constrain it. The main risks to India’s development prospects are more micro and structural than macro or cyclical. First, India has moved to an economic model where a few “national champions” — effectively large private oligopolistic conglomerates — control significant parts of the old economy. This resembles Indonesia under Suharto (1967-98), China under Hu Jintao (2002-12), or South Korea in the 1990s under its dominant chaebols.

In some ways, this concentration of economic power has served India well. Owing to superior financial management, the economy has grown fast, despite investment rates (as a share of GDP) that were much lower than China’s. The implication is that India’s investments have been much more efficient; indeed, many of India’s conglomerates boast world-class levels of productivity and competitiveness.

But the dark side of this system is that these conglomerates have been able to capture policymaking to benefit themselves. This has had two broad, harmful effects: it is stifling innovation and effectively killing early-stage startups and domestic entrants in key industries; and it is changing the government’s “Make in India” program into a counterproductive, protectionist scheme.

We may now be seeing these effects reflected in India’s potential growth, which seems to have declined rather than accelerated recently. Just as the Asian Tigers did well in the 1980s and 1990s with a growth model based on gross exports of manufactured goods, India has done the same with exports of tech services. Make in India was intended to strengthen the economy’s tradable side by fostering the production of goods for export, not just for the Indian market.

Instead, India is moving toward more protectionist import-substitution and domestic production subsidization (with nationalistic overtones), both of which insulate domestic industries and conglomerates from global competition. Its tariff policies are preventing it from becoming more competitive in goods exports, and its resistance to joining regional trade agreements is hampering its full integration into global value and supply chains.

India should be focusing on industries where it has a comparative advantage, such as tech and IT, artificial intelligence, business services, and fintech.

Another problem is that Make in India has evolved to support production in labor-intensive industries such as cars, tractors, locomotives, trains, and so forth. While the labor intensity of production is an important factor in any labor-abundant country, India should be focusing on industries where it has a comparative advantage, such as tech and IT, artificial intelligence, business services, and fintech. It needs fewer scooters, and more Internet of Things startups. Like many of the other successful Asian economies, policymakers should nurture these dynamic sectors by establishing special economic zones. Absent such changes, Make in India will continue to produce suboptimal results.

The recent saga surrounding the Adani Group is symptomatic of a trend that will eventually hurt India’s growth.

Finally, the recent saga surrounding the Adani Group
512599,
-4.98%

is symptomatic of a trend that will eventually hurt India’s growth. It is possible that Adani’s rapid growth was enabled by a system in which the government tends to favor certain large conglomerates and the latter benefit from such closeness while supporting policy goals.

Again, Modi’s policies have deservedly made him one of the most popular political leaders at home and in the world today. He and his advisers are not personally corrupt, and their Bharatiya Janata Party will justifiably win re-election in 2024 regardless of this scandal. But the optics of the Adani story are concerning.

There is a perception that the Adani Group may be, in part, helping to support the state political machinery and finance state and local projects that would otherwise go unfunded, given local fiscal and technocratic constraints. In this sense, the system may be akin to “pork barrel” politics in the US, where certain local projects get earmarked in a legal (if not entirely transparent) congressional vote-buying process.

Supposing that this interpretation is even partly correct, Indian authorities might reply that the system is “necessary” to accelerate infrastructure spending and economic development. Even so, this practice would be toxic, and it would represent a wholly different flavor of realpolitik compared to, say, India’s vast purchases of Russian oil since the start of the Ukraine War.

While those shipments still account for less than one-third of India’s total energy purchases, they have come at a significant discount. Given per capita GDP of around $2,500, it is understandable that India would avail itself of lower-cost energy. Complaints by Western countries that are 20 times richer are simply not credible.

The scandal surrounding the Adani empire does not seem to extend beyond the conglomerate itself, but the case does have macro implications for India’s institutional robustness and global investors’ perceptions of India. The Asian financial crisis of the 1990s demonstrated that, over time, the partial capture of economic policy by crony capitalist conglomerates will hurt productivity growth by hampering competition, inhibiting Schumpeterian “creative destruction,” and increasing inequality.

It is thus in Modi’s long-term interest to ensure that India does not go down this path. India’s long-term success ultimately depends on whether it can foster and sustain a growth model that is competitive, dynamic, sustainable, inclusive, and fair.

Nouriel Roubini, professor emeritus of economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business, is chief economist at Atlas Capital Team and the author of “Megathreats: Ten Dangerous Trends That Imperil Our Future, and How to Survive Them” (Little, Brown and Company, 2022).

This commentary was published with permission of Project Syndicate —
India at a Crossroads

More: This perfect storm of megathreats is even more dangerous than the 1970s or the 1930s.

Also read: Freeing the U.S. economy from China will create an American industrial renaissance and millions of good-paying jobs

Source link

#India #hot #market #investors #risks #falling #victim #success

Tindered out? How to avoid creeps, time wasters and liars this Valentine’s Day

Michelle has had her fair share of bad dates.

A divorced mother of four children, Michelle, 52, resolved to maintain her sense of humor when she returned to the dating market, and signed up for Hinge, an online dating service that includes voice memos, in addition to audio and video functions that enable two interested parties to talk to each other without sharing their phone numbers. 

Given that she had not dated since she was in her 20s, Michelle, who asked for her surname to be withheld, was thrown into the world of online dating, right swipes, ghosting, men who were actually living overseas, married men, men who lied about their age and men who posted photos that were 10 years old. She split from her husband of nearly two decades in 2014. 

Hinge is part of Match.com’s
MTCH,
+1.22%

group of apps along with OKCupid, Tinder, Bumble, and Christian Mingle, among others. The company promotes itself as the app that is designed to be deleted by its users. It’s a bold statement in the era of online dating, when people scroll through profiles — swiping right for yes and left for no — in search of their perfect mate.

But Hinge, like many other dating apps, introduced a video function in 2020 to help push people to “meet” during the worst days of the coronavirus pandemic. Dating experts advise applying the same rules you would to a Zoom
ZM,
+3.06%

call: dress smartly, use an overhead light rather than a backlight that casts you in shadow, and don’t sit in front of yesterday’s pile of dirty laundry.

‘It’s amazing how many guys use a picture from 10 years ago. You can barely recognize them when you meet them.’


— Michelle, 52, a divorced mother of four who searched for love online

A video date will reveal a lot more than a profile picture. “It’s amazing how many guys use a picture from 10 years ago,” Michelle said. “You can barely recognize them when you meet them. I discovered that someone who is very quick to ask for your email address or your number is more likely to be a scammer. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of scamming on dating apps.”

She’s not wrong. Nearly 70,000 Americans lost $1.3 billion to romance scams through social media and dating apps last year, up from 56,000 the year before, according to the Federal Trade Commission. That’s broadly in line with the amount of money lost the previous year, but up significantly from the $730 million lost in 2020. 

Through her work as a social worker, Michelle has learned to evaluate people and look for red flags. She has used those skills when online dating. She watches out for “goofy stuff” like a man who is writing like a character from a romance novel. “The Lifetime Channel Christmas Love Story is not happening on Hinge,” she said. “Those are the things that I kind of find funny.” 

Other red flags: Someone who lies about their age, is unwilling to meet, won’t turn on the video chat function — what have they got to hide? — and a man who is cheap. “Why did I drive 45 minutes to meet you and you can’t even buy me a cup of coffee? I don’t want someone who is stingy. Either they’re really miserly, have poor judgment, or poor people skills.”

The perilous side of handheld love machines

Dating apps are the ultimate love machine, churning out potential partners every two seconds, someone who is taller, younger, hotter, richer, broader, slimmer, sexier, kookier, weirder — and the list goes on. All of life’s parade is a swipe away. Millions of people use dating apps — from Grindr for gay men to Facebook Dating for pretty much everyone.

There is a balance between keeping people swiping and helping them find love. It’s a numbers game, and can be as addictive as playing the slots. EHarmony promotes its Compatibility Score, while OKCupid asks users to answer an almost limitless number of questions in order to match with more appropriate people. But critics say it leads to the gamification of people’s love lives.

Jenny Taitz, author of “How to Be Single and Happy: Science-Based Strategies for Keeping Your Sanity While Looking for a Soul Mate,” said one of the most common complaints about dating apps is the constant game of cat and mouse. Each user is probably talking to several people at the same time, and it’s tough to get people off the apps and into the real world.

If you like someone, she says, move to a video chat to test the chemistry. “It’s time-consuming, but you need to move from a pen pal to an in-person meetup,” she said. “It could be something that you do all the time, so you really have to have limits. If you’re having four dates a week, does that mean you’re not making time for friendships where you have an investment?”

‘The same person who volunteers at a soup kitchen might easily ghost someone. There is so much detachment.’


— Jenny Taitz, author of ‘How to Be Single and Happy’

Anonymity can often lead to ghosting, when people just disappear or stop answering messages. “We need to treat people like they would treat their future child or best friend,” Taitz said. “Bad behavior is so pervasive, and people are not held accountable for their actions. The same person who volunteers at a soup kitchen might easily ghost someone. There is so much detachment.”

Some studies have linked dating apps with depression, while other studies have found that online dating has led to a string of robberies through hook-ups on Grindr, and can also make it easier for sexual predators to find victims. These problems obviously exist in the real world, but social media and dating apps can provide an easier path for bad actors. 

Julie Valentine, a researcher, sexual-assault nurse examiner, and associate dean of Brigham Young University’s College of Nursing, analyzed 1,968 “acquaintance” sexual assaults that occurred between 2017 and 2020. She and her fellow researchers concluded that 14% of these sexual assaults resulted from a dating-app’s first in-person meeting. 

“One-third of the victims were strangled and had more injuries than other sexual-assault victims,” the study found. “Through dating apps, personas are created without being subjected to any criminal background checks or security screening. This means that potential victims have the burden of self-protection.” 

All those coffees take time and money

A spokeswoman for Match.com said it does not release data on how many people have actually used the video chat function. If people did use the function more often without sharing their phone number, it would in theory provide a layer of protection, help weed out bad actors, and help people decide whether a prospective date is compatible early in the process.

Cherlyn Chong, the Las Vegas-based founder of Get Over Him, a program to help women get over toxic relationships, does not believe the video chat function is as widely used as it should be. Chong, who describes herself as a dating coach and a trauma specialist, encourages her clients to use every method available to screen dates, in addition to meeting in a public place.

So what if a man did not want to video chat? “If they didn’t want to video, that’s fine,” Chong said. “But their reaction to the request would be a litmus test. We would know he is probably not someone to date, as he is not flexible. It’s also very telling if a woman explains that it’s a safety issue. The response of the guy in that situation would also be another litmus test.”

“Once you give someone their phone number, you don’t know what they are going to do with it,” Chong said. She said one of her clients encountered a man who shared her phone number with others, and sent it to a spam site on the internet. “You want to believe in the best of people,” she said, “but there are people who misuse your number because they can’t handle rejection.”

‘A couple of cocktails in New York City? You’re looking at $60 to $100, or a few hundred dollars for a pricier meal.’


— Connell Barrett, author of ‘Dating Sucks, But You Don’t’

Connell Barrett, author of “Dating Sucks, But You Don’t,” said video dates are a good first step. “You can see your date, and read their body language,” he said. “Because physical contact is off the table for a video date, it can free both singles to let go and not worry about the pressure about moving in for the first kiss. Good chemistry happens when there’s less pressure.”

Video dating also saves you time and money, especially if you’re the one who picks up the tab. “A couple of cocktails in New York City? You’re looking at $60 to $100, or a few hundred dollars for a pricier meal,” he said. Regular daters could end up spending up to $1,500 a month in bigger cities, if they’re dating a lot and eating out, Barrett added.

How much you spend will clearly depend on your lifestyle. Members of The League, a dating app that’s geared towards professionals, spend up to $260 a month on dates, followed by $215 a month for singletons using Christian Mingle, $198 for people signed up to Match.com, and $174 for Meta’s
META,
+3.03%

Facebook Dating subscribers, according to a recent survey. 

A video call allows people to get a sense of the person’s circumstances and personality, and can avoid wasting an hour having coffee with someone you will never see again. Be fun, be playful, don’t ask about exes or grill the other person “60 Minutes”-style, Barrett said. “A big mistake people make in dating is trying to impress the other person,” he said.

Video dating goes back to the 1970s

Jeff Ullman created the first successful video-dating service in Los Angeles in 1975 called Great Expectations. People recorded messages direct-to-camera. “We started with Betamax, moved to VHS, and upgraded to CD-ROMs,” he said. “As long as there are adults, there will be the hunt for love, and there will be the longing for ‘I’m missing someone, I’m missing something,’” he told MarketWatch.

“The best and the brightest did not go into dating services in the 1970s and 1980s,” he said. “I only went into it because I wanted to change the world. What I wanted to do was turn pity to envy. Our videos were 5 or 6 minutes long. There were no stock questions. They had to be ad-libbed. The only similar question was the last one: ‘What are the qualities that are most important in a relationship?’” 

He turned Great Expectations into a national franchise where customers paid $595 to $1,995 a year for membership ($1 in 1975 is around $5 today). “We did not hard sell you. We did a ‘heart sell.’ We had all kinds of Type As — doctors, lawyers, studio production chiefs, who all thought they were God’s gift, or God’s gift to womankind, but when they talked about their loneliness, they cried.”

People will always be searching for that perfect mate, Ullman said, whether it’s through videos, words, photos, psychological compatibility, A.I., or through arranged marriages or matchmakers. “But there is no perfect match. My wife Cindy and I are well matched. She’s not perfect. I’m not perfect. The moment either one of us begins to think we’re perfect is the moment we introduce negative forces.”

‘What I wanted to do was turn pity to envy. Our videos were 5 or 6 minutes. There were no stock questions.’


— Jeff Ullman, created Great Expectations, a video-dating service in Los Angeles in 1975

Before TikTok and Skype, people were not as comfortable in front of the camera, particularly if they had to talk about themselves. “We always hid the camera,” Ullman said. The 1970s decor of dark wood and indoor plants made that easier. “When we were finished, they’d say, ‘When are you going to start?’” But they were already on tape. They were, he said, happy with the first take 95% of the time.

Ullman required his franchisees to give members a three-day right to cancel for any reason — including “I’m not going to tell you” — if they changed their terms of service. “They just had to mail us or fax us their notice. Half of my franchisees were about to revolt.” Until, he said, they realized they could not afford to have a bad reputation in an industry where people were putting their hearts on the line.

It all started with a Sony-Matic Portable Videocorder gifted to him by his parents when he graduated from UC Berkeley in 1972. “They were very expensive, but they were portable. Whenever I went anywhere, whether it was a parade or a demonstration, which were common back then, they always let me in because they thought I was from “60 Minutes.” It gave us a sense of power.”

Fast forward to 2023: That power is in the hands of the $3 billion online dating industry and, perhaps to a lesser extent, in the hands of the singletons who are putting their own messages out into the world through words and pictures. In the 1970s, most people were still meeting in person. These days, your online competition is, well, almost every single person within a 50-mile radius.

Watching out for those ‘green flags’

Video dating has come in handy for singletons like Andrew Kneeshaw, a photographer and publican in Streete, County Westmeath, a small town in the Irish midlands. He’s currently active on three dating sites: Plenty of Fish, Bumble and Facebook Dating. In-app video calls have saved him — and his potential dates — time, gasoline and money spent on coffee and lunch. 

“Even someone local could be 15 or 20 miles away,” he said. He’s currently talking to a woman in Dublin, which is more than an hour away. “Hearing someone’s voice is one thing, but seeing that they are the genuine person they are supposed to be on the dating site definitely does help.” He could spend upwards of 20 euros ($21.45) on coffee/lunch, excluding gasoline.

He did go on a dinner date recently without having a video call, and he regretted it. “Neither of us felt there was a spark,” Kneeshaw said. So they split the check as they would likely never see each other again? “That sounds terrible, but yes,” he said. “I go on a date at best once a week. If you’re doing it a few times a week, it does add up very quickly.”

Ken Page, a Long Beach, N.Y.-based psychotherapist and host of the Deeper Dating podcast, is married with three children, and has compassion for people like Kneeshaw who live in more remote areas. In New York, he said, some people won’t travel uptown if they live downtown, and many more people won’t even cross the river to New Jersey. 

‘If it’s a video chat, you have the opportunity to get to know them more, and have that old-fashioned courtship experience.’


— Ken Page, a psychotherapist and host of the Deeper Dating podcast

He said green flags are just as important as red flags when deciding to move from a video date to an in-person date. “Is their smile warm and engaging? Are you attracted to the animation they have in their face? You just get tons more data when you see the person. You save money, and you save time before you get to the next step.”

In-person first dates can be brutal. “Your first reaction is, ‘they’re not attractive enough, I’ve got to get out of here,’” Page said. “If it’s a video chat, you have the opportunity to get to know them more, and have that old-fashioned courtship experience where attraction starts to grow. The ‘light attractions’ have more opportunity to grow without the pressure of meeting in person.”

Dating apps are a carousel of romantic dreams. The focus is on looks rather than personality or character. “There are so many people waiting online,” Page said. “That does not serve us. Unless the person really wows us, we swipe left. If you do a video chat, you will be more likely to get to know that person — instead of only getting to know the ‘9s’ and ‘10s.’”

And Michelle? The divorced Californian mother of four said she finally met a guy on Hinge last October, and they’ve been dating since then. “He’s just a fabulous guy. He actually moved slower than what I had experienced with other guys I had dated.” She kept her sense of humor and perspective, which helped. “He said, ‘You’re so funny.’ I didn’t have anything to lose.”

“It’s almost going to Zara
ITX,
+1.55%
,
” she said. “Nine times out of 10 you may not find something you like, but one time out of 10 you do.”

Source link

#Tindered #avoid #creeps #time #wasters #liars #Valentines #Day

‘My stepmother has been less than ethical’: I suspect my stepmom removed me as beneficiary from my late father’s life-insurance policy. What can I do?

My dad passed away in March 2019. My stepmom told me I had an inheritance from my dad.  She ceased communication with me after my dad passed away. I reached out to the Department of Financial Services website for lost life-insurance policies, and received a letter saying my dad was a participant, but had named someone other than me as a beneficiary.  

My stepmother has been less than ethical at times. She previously stole money from her sister’s bank account while working for the financial institution that she now runs. Her sister did not press charges, so the matter was dropped by my dad, with whom she was having an affair. Is it possible that she changed the beneficiary, and could have forged anything on behalf of my dad?  

My family also suspects she tried to cash another life-insurance policy for which I was a 51% beneficiary. She sent me a check after my dad passed saying it was a “gift,” and called me nearly two years later saying a policy had just been “found” with me as 51% beneficiary. I suspect she was the 49% beneficiary. To make matters worse, that policy was through her place of business.

Suspicious Daughter

Dear Suspicious,

Anything is possible. It sounds like you are dealing with an unknown quantity, and she should not be trusted with other people’s money. Your stepmother does not, from your account, appear to be on the up-and-up, given that she reportedly stole money from her sister’s bank account. It may be that she could not bring herself to cash a policy with you receiving 49% — hence the delay —  but given the division outlined in the policy it seems unlikely that she could have kept the entire policy for herself. An executor has a responsibility to deal with an estate in a timely manner.

It’s not unheard of for people to question an amendment that was made to a trust, insurance policy or last will and testament. Priscilla Presley, the ex-wife of Elvis Presley, the “King of Rock and Roll” who died in 1977, filed legal documents in Los Angeles Superior Court last week, disputing the validity of an amendment to a living trust overseeing the estate of her late daughter Lisa Marie Presley, who died earlier this month. The 2016 amendment removed Priscilla Presley and a former business manager as trustees, the Associated Press reported.

Among the issues cited in the legal filing: Priscilla Presley was allegedly not notified of the change as required, an absence of a witness or notarization, Priscilla Presley’s name was misspelled in a document that was allegedly signed by her late daughter, and Lisa Marie Presley’s own signature was described as atypical, the news agency also reported. Aside from questions swirling over the authenticity of an amendment, changes to wills, trusts and — in your case — insurance policies must always meet certain legal standards.

It’s not unheard of for people to question an amendment that was made to a trust, insurance policy or last will and testament.

“Last-minute changes in beneficiaries can be a red flag for life-insurance companies,” according to LifeInsuranceAttorney.com. “Usually, the person insured by a life-insurance policy can change their beneficiaries whenever they want, so long as the change complies with any specific requirements in the life-insurance policy. However, when the insured person is elderly, severely ill or lacking mental capacity, and the change in beneficiary happens shortly before the insured person passes away, they may have been unduly influenced by others.”

“For example, a caretaker or estranged family member may convince or influence the vulnerable insured person to add them as a beneficiary on the insured person’s life-insurance policy or to remove other beneficiaries,” the firm says. What’s more, “Life-insurance companies may also deny claims if the beneficiary made a change in the beneficiary that did not comply with the requirements of the insured person’s life-insurance policy. Some policies may require that the insured person have a certain amount of witnesses present,” it adds.

Depending on the amount of money involved, you may wish to hire an attorney to see if you have a case and/or to put your mind at rest. The statute of limitations — that is, the amount of time you have to challenge the validity of a life-insurance policy — may vary, depending on the circumstances, the state where you live and/or whether new information has come to light. “The statute of limitations, in most cases, lasts for three years. But not always,” according to the Center for Life Insurance Disputes, an insurance agency in Washington, D.C.

She stopped talking to you after your father passed away: It could be that she was shoring up what was left of his estate, and figuring out what she could take for herself. Or it may be that you did not get along, and a breakdown of communication was inevitable. Or both. Were there any changes made to your father’s policy that would raise a red flag? That much is unclear. Your stepmother may have learned her lesson when she was not prosecuted by her sister for alleged financial malfeasance.

And, then again, maybe not.

Yocan email The Moneyist with any financial and ethical questions related to coronavirus at [email protected], and follow Quentin Fottrell on Twitter.

Check out the Moneyist private Facebook group, where we look for answers to life’s thorniest money issues. Readers write in to me with all sorts of dilemmas. Post your questions, tell me what you want to know more about, or weigh in on the latest Moneyist columns.

The Moneyist regrets he cannot reply to questions individually.

More from Quentin Fottrell:

My mother excluded me from her will — before she died, my sibling cashed out her annuity policy, on which I was a beneficiary. Should I sue my family?

‘I’m clean and sober’: My late father left me 25% of his estate, and my wealthy brother 75%. My brother died 10 months later. Should I ask his son for his share?

‘It’s still painful’: My wife of just one year left me, took all her belongings and won’t answer her phone. How do I protect my finances?



Source link

#stepmother #ethical #suspect #stepmom #removed #beneficiary #late #fathers #lifeinsurance #policy