Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Q&A

Q&A: When should retirees stop actively investing?

By

Dear Liz: I am retired. My income is from a small pension, Social Security and dividends and interest from investments. I’ve made some bad investments, but I’m still earning a satisfactory return. Is there some kind of formula that I can use to determine whether I should sell a stock, take the loss and seek another investment or keep the stock, enjoy the dividend and worry the stock might drop further?

Answer: One approach is to ask yourself if you’d buy the same stock today. If not, then it may be time to sell these shares. Be sure to consult with a tax pro first because you may be able to use losses on one investment to offset taxable gains on another.

You also might ask yourself if it’s time to transition away from active investing and individual stocks. Most people aren’t able to buy the stock of enough companies to be truly diversified. Then there’s the daunting task of staying up to date on the fortunes and prospects of each company and industry. That’s way more work than most people can handle. Even if you’re up for the task now, you might not be in the future.

Also, most people don’t do well with active investing. Trying to figure out when to buy and sell for maximum gain usually results in excess trading costs that lower your returns. It’s also too tempting to hang on to a losing stock rather than admit you made a mistake, or to chase “hot” stocks that have already had their biggest gains.

A better approach would be a portfolio of mutual funds or exchange traded funds that’s regularly rebalanced, either by a financial advisor or a computer algorithm. If you opt for funds that mimic a market benchmark, you’ll be assured of matching the market and getting a better return than most active investors can achieve.

Q&A: Culture and parental advice

By

Dear Liz: You recently answered a question from a parent who wanted to know how to fix a financial issue in an adult child’s marriage. Your advice was basically to butt out. I think that may depend on culture. What if your advice saved your child’s marriage? What if it prevented your child from going into bankruptcy? Would it be worth the uncomfortable conversation? In some cultures, the approach is to butt in and confront the issue; if it causes problems, well then you deal with that also.

Answer: There may well be a culture in which the interference of in-laws is gladly received, rather than merely tolerated. There may even be people who enjoy being the target of unsolicited advice. It’s hard for some of us to imagine, but it’s certainly possible.

It’s probably safer to assume that your counsel is unwelcome and annoying unless it’s been specifically requested — and often even then.

Q&A: Different approaches to marital finances

By

Dear Liz: Thank you for mentioning that many couples like to keep their finances entirely or mostly separate. Our solution was to create a joint bank account just for paying joint expenses, such as rent, food, entertainment together, vacations and so on. We each funded this account proportionately, based on our income (for example, the person earning 65% of the total income contributed 65% of the funds). Expenses, such as gifts to our separate children, entertainment on our own, car payments and all personal expenses were paid out of our own separate accounts. Each year at tax time, we’d revise the proportion of the joint account, if necessary, based on our separate tax return figures. It was so simple and tension-free. This was a second marriage for both of us, and we never had disagreements about money.

Answer: Congratulations for finding an approach that worked so well for both of you. As you demonstrate, there’s no one right way for couples to handle their money. Some prefer to have everything in joint accounts, others keep everything separate, and most are somewhere in between.

Q&A: To build credit, try this set-it-and-forget-it trick

By

Dear Liz: I have little credit history and my Experian credit score is about 620. My wife has no credit history. We are in the process of increasing our creditworthiness. I have an unsecured credit card from my credit union. She will be getting a secured credit card. We will use these lightly and regularly, paying them off each month. Does using my credit card to pay a utility bill each month work for building credit?

Answer: Absolutely. As long as your credit cards report to all three credit bureaus, your on-time payments will build your scores.

To make things easier, you could set up a recurring charge and automatic payment. Utilities typically allow customers to pay their bills automatically with credit cards, and credit cards usually offer the option of paying automatically each month. You’re normally given three options: paying only the minimum, paying in full or paying a set dollar amount.

Recurring charges ensure your card shows regular activity, while automatic payment should eliminate the risk of missing a payment. A single skipped payment could be a significant blow to your credit scores.

Another option to consider is a credit builder loan, which many credit unions and community banks offer. Typically, the amount you borrow is placed into a savings account or certificate of deposit while you make payments.

When you’ve paid the loan in full, usually after 12 months, you claim the cash. The payments help build your credit, and the cash could be the start of an emergency fund.

Q&A: Delaying Social Security benefits

By

Dear Liz: My wife is a retired schoolteacher who has a pension. Because she is subject to the government pension offset, she will not be eligible for my Social Security benefit when I pass. My plan was to wait until 70 to file to maximize my benefit. This usually has the advantage of also increasing the survivor benefit that a spouse would receive.

Considering the government pension offset would eliminate any benefit to her, is waiting until 70 still the best strategy? Do I view it as longevity insurance with the understanding that I, or my wife, may never receive a nickel from Social Security if I die before claiming?

Answer: As you know, it’s usually advisable for the higher earner in a couple to delay starting Social Security as long as possible, because that increases the survivor benefit one spouse will get after the other dies.

Waiting until 70, when your benefit maxes out, can still make sense. Most people will live past the “break even” age when the larger checks more than offset the forgone benefits. The average life expectancy for a 65-year-old male is another 18 years. If you’re well educated, higher income or have longevity in your family, your life expectancy is probably even longer.

Delaying Social Security also can help minimize the “tax torpedo.” This is a surge in marginal tax rates that affects middle-income households caused by the unique way Social Security benefits are taxed. Drawing from retirement accounts first and then starting Social Security at 70 can result in considerable tax savings.

Also, in today’s low-rate environment, there’s no other investment that promises a guaranteed 8% annual return, which is what you get by delaying Social Security after your full retirement age.

To see which claiming strategy makes sense, consider using a Social Security claiming calculator that can include government pension offset situations such as Maximize My Social Security or Social Security Solutions.

Q&A: An emergency kit document hack

By

Dear Liz: Thanks for answering my question about storing hard copies of financial services records for emergency preparedness. My wife and I finally reached a compromise: We printed out our account numbers, but we attached code names to them that only we would recognize. Now both of us are comfortable that even though someone might have our account numbers, they’ll never know which financial institution to contact.

Answer: That’s a terrific compromise that keeps your important financial information accessible to you but not to an identity thief.