Day: June 28, 2019

Personal Finance Daily: The power lunch is dead and women working through period cramps lose almost 9 days of productivity each year

This post was originally published on this site

TGIF, MarketWatchers. Don’t miss these top stories:

Personal Finance
Weekend roundup: 5 ways to invest for income when Treasurys yield only 2%

Also, the likelihood of another bitcoin crash and bright prospects for health-care stocks.

Women working through period cramps lose almost 9 days of productivity each year

Some countries now offer paid menstrual leave for women suffering debilitating period pain.

The No. 1 thing to look for when buying sunglasses

Doctors dish on how to pick the best sunglasses to protect your eyes.

There may be a dark side to Summer Fridays

More than half of organizations will let employees leave early or take the day off on Fridays this summer, a new survey shows.

The drugs in your bathroom cabinet could increase your risk of dementia

This is the latest study to draw links between dementia and this class of medications.

Do you want to be CEO? Women face these extra obstacles on their way to the C-suite

Women still only make up 6.6% of Fortune 500 CEOs.

Here’s why America’s $1.5 trillion student-loan crisis has spiralled out of control

Financial-education curricula were developed during a time when most workers could count on a paycheck at a stable job.

The power lunch is dead

The Four Seasons, home of the power lunch, is closing. A new generation is taking walks on the beach and networking at Starbucks.

Americans’ financial worries are messing with their summer vacation plans

Vacation spending could break records, but not everyone’s sharing in the fun.

One argument for canceling student debt: Student-loan borrowers may be far poorer than most economists believe

A new analysis raises questions about some conventional wisdom on student debt.

Elsewhere on MarketWatch
The Dalai Lama says that if his successor is female, she should be ‘attractive’

The spiritual leader also said Trump lacks ‘moral principle.’

After Harris attack, Biden scores endorsement from Atlanta’s black female mayor

The vote of confidence came a day after an attack from Sen. Kamala Harris over Biden’s past opposition to busing.

Warren won’t ‘sell’ top diplomatic jobs to rich donors, urges rivals to join pledge

Presidential contender Elizabeth Warren on Friday called on all candidates to ‘end the corrupt practice of selling cushy diplomatic posts to wealthy donors.’

The biggest change Democrats bring to presidential politics is they don’t lie

Democratic presidential candidates took a big step toward restoring Americans’ trust in their leaders by not lying at the first two debates, writes Tim Mullaney.

Kamala Harris says people are working multiple jobs in Trump economy. It’s no different now than under Obama.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks multiple jobholders every month — and no, they haven’t changed much under President Trump, or for that matter, President Obama.

Watch ‘SNL’ star Kate McKinnon do a perfect debate-inspired Marianne Williamson impression

Williamson’s offbeat debate performance made her one of the night’s most Googled candidates.

12 good investing lessons to teach kids — and yourself

This post was originally published on this site

I spend as much of my time and energy as I can helping people to be more successful investors. Most of this comes down to teaching.

If you’re one of my regular readers, you probably know a great deal about successful investing. Maybe you’d like to teach others, too.

With that in mind, I recorded a podcast about one of the best teaching tools I know: A table of year-by-year investment returns for nine asset classes from 1999 through 2018.

For those who want to dig in to some data about asset classes and how they have performed over the past 20 years, I recommend this brightly-colored table.

I’ve drawn on it for statistics in this article.

If you’d like to teach your friends, your kids or anybody else about investing, I’ll suggest 12 good lessons.

You may already know most (if not all) of this material, but as the saying goes, “Teaching teaches the teacher.” So a review never hurts.

You don’t have to try to teach these lessons all at once, and in fact they are probably absorbed more easily one at a time.

Lesson 1: Investing money is a risky business. Sure you can make money (that’s the whole idea, actually). But you can actually lose money, too. (In fact, some losses along the way are pretty much inevitable.)

How often you’ll lose money, or just how much, is hard to predict. But if you follow the past returns of a mutual fund or an asset class, you’ll get a good idea of what can happen.

Reading for extra credit: An article I wrote last year, based on annual returns from 1970 through 2017.

Lesson 2: Diversification pays off. In 1999, 20 years ago, most investors believed it was essentially impossible to beat the S&P 500 index SPX, +0.58% which (it turned out) was then in the final months of a quarter-century-long bull market that produced unprecedented compound returns of 17.2%.

However, from 1999 through 2018, the S&P 500 compounded at 5.6%, while a diversified portfolio equally invested in five equity asset classes from our colorful table (large-cap blend U.S. stocks, small-cap blend U.S. stocks, international stocks, emerging markets stocks and real-estate stocks) compounded at 7%.

Reading for extra credit: An article containing the best diversification advice I know.

Lesson 3: Small numbers can become really big numbers. The difference, just noted, between returns of 5.6% and 7%, can be life-changing over an extended period. This is just as true for retirees living off their investments as it is for younger investors who are accumulating.

Over 20 years, a compound return of 5.6% will turn $10,000 into $29,736; at 7%, that $10,000 would grow to $38,697.

Over 30 years and starting with $50,000, that “small” difference in return is the difference between $256,382 (5.6%) and $380,613 (7%).

Reading for extra credit: An article showing how half a percentage point of additional return can change your life.

Lesson 4: Here’s something that might not be immediately intuitive: That additional return from the diversified portfolio was the result of investing 80% of the money in four asset classes — each of which was riskier than the S&P 500.

Because these five equity asset classes didn’t rise and fall together, their ups and downs partially offset one another. The result: an overall portfolio that was not significantly more volatile than the S&P 500 by itself.

There’s a bit of irony for you: It is possible to invest in riskier asset classes and experience lower risk.

Reading for extra credit: A thoughtful article from last year showing the benefits of diversifying into four funds.

Lesson 5: The benefits of diversification don’t show up every year.

In the most recent 20-year period, the S&P 500 outperformed a five-asset-class combination in nine years and trailed in 11 years.

In 2009, the combination was up 40.7% while the S&P 500 appreciated “only” 26.5%. Four years later, in 2013, the combination was up “only” 18.7% and the S&P 500 rose 32.4%.

In any given year, you never know what will happen.

Lesson 6: Trends that look really hot can’t be relied on to continue. From 2003 to 2007, while U.S. large-cap stocks compounded at 12.8%, emerging markets stocks grew at 37%, beating all the other major asset classes in our table.

Many investors concluded that emerging markets stocks were “the answer,” and lots of money poured into them. Many of these eager investors must have been pretty shocked when emerging markets stocks lost 53% in 2008.

Reading for extra credit: An article giving 10 things you should know about asset classes.

Lesson 7: Bonds, almost always less volatile than stocks, are usually regarded as low-risk investments. But bond investing is trickier than you might think.

For example, when interest rates are rising (and you might expect bonds to be more valuable because of higher payouts), bond prices can fall.

Reading for extra credit: An article I wrote a few years ago about bonds.

Lesson 8: All bonds are not created equal. For example, high-yield bonds, also known as “junk bonds,” are not for the faint of heart.

In 2008, high-yield bonds as an asset class lost 28%. In 2009, that asset class registered a spectacular gain of 58%. This is not a roller coaster that many investors will want to ride out.

So look carefully before you leap.

Reading for extra credit: An article called “Are High-Risk Bonds Too Risky?”

Lesson 9: Though it can be tempting to diversify into international bonds, that won’t necessarily reduce volatility. International bonds lost nearly 9% in 1999, and did so again in 2005.

During the most recent 20 calendar years (1999 through 2018), international bonds produced six losing years, with losses averaging 4.4%. U.S. bonds, by contrast, had only four losing years, with losses averaging 2%.

Reading for extra credit: An article on currency risk and international bonds.

Lesson 10: Be patient and don’t expect miracles. Keep your living expenses and your investment expenses low. If you regularly save money over the years, make sensible decisions, and achieve the returns of the overall market, you will almost certainly have investment returns that are above average.

Reading for extra credit: My book “Financial Fitness Forever” can be a good teaching tool. Here’s a free sample chapter.

Lesson 11: Don’t try to outsmart the market or try to “strike it rich” by taking hot tips from friends, relatives, the financial media, or brokers.

There’s one very reliable way to wind up with a small fortune from “playing” the stock market: Start by investing a large fortune.

Reading for extra credit: An article on the many ways you can muck things up.

Lesson 12: Informed investors are likely to do better than those who don’t want to be bothered with learning things.

My favorite quote from Ben Franklin suggests something we often forget, “An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.”

Now that you’ve made it all the way through these lessons, I think you’ll be a good teacher if you put your mind to it.

I hope you’ll do that. It will be good for your pupils — and good for you, too.

For my students at Western Washington University, I have recorded a podcast of my best advice for first-time investors.

Richard Buck contributed to this article.

More from MarketWatch Retirement

Want to retire rich? Have a small wedding and invest the rest

This post was originally published on this site

A friend of mine recently joked that if somebody was planning a $40,000 wedding (about average, by some accounts), “Paul Merriman would say: Have a $1,000 wedding and put the other $39,000 into a Roth IRA that earns 10% for 40 years. You’d never have to add another dime in order to retire.”

When I heard about this it got me to thinking. And calculating. It turns out my friend was righter than he realized.

I hope you won’t misinterpret that I’m against weddings or against marriage. Not at all.

But if a couple or their families really have $40,000 to spend on a wedding, is that the best use of that money? Wedding planners and the whole wedding industry may hate me, but I have to admit that I doubt that’s the best use of $40,000.

Let’s imagine for a moment what a bride could do with $39,000 starting at age 25. (I say bride instead of groom only because it’s long been traditional for a bride’s family to pay for a wedding.)

Assuming she has enough income to qualify for a Roth IRA, she could immediately contribute $6,000 (starting in 2019), letting that much of her $39,000 start growing tax-free.

She could put the rest into a taxable account, also earning 10%, and add another $6,000 to her IRA the following year. If the taxable account continues to grow at 10% and if she pays the taxes each year from separate funds, she will be able to keep funding the IRA for quite a few years, gradually getting all of it under that tax shelter.

I asked a colleague to help me do the math in order to see how this would work out for the bride who settled for a $1,000 wedding (which is still enough to host a modest party and pay a preacher).

Here’s what we found, assuming a 25-year-old bride who will retire at age 65:

Using an assumed annual investment return of 10%, which corresponds to the historical return (1970-2017) of a look-alike of a Vanguard target-date retirement fund, we calculate that her balance after 40 years, when she was 65, would be $1.77 million.

That is more than $45 for every dollar that was invested instead of being spent on a wedding.

If she continued to earn 7% in retirement and withdrew 4% of her account balance annually for retirement income, those cumulative withdrawals would amount to $3.21 million by the time she’s 95. All tax-free.

And at the age of 95, her Roth IRA would be worth $3.95 million.

Add the money she took out, and the total is $7.16 million, or a whopping $183 for every dollar that wasn’t spent on the wedding 70 years earlier.

Presumably this bride would have income along the way from which to fund a 401(k) or similar retirement savings account. The existence of the not-spent-on-the wedding money could supplement her retirement income and reduce the pressure on her to save as much as possible while she’s working.

However, she likely could do considerably better than that if she adopted the two-funds-for-life investment strategy that I recently proposed.

This strategy relies on a small-cap value fund to supplement a target-date fund, in order to boost returns while an investor is young. This “booster fund” is gradually phased out as the investor approaches retirement age.

With that one change to the assumptions we used before, we calculated that our bride’s Roth IRA would be worth $3.03 million when she was 65. Her cumulative retirement withdrawals over the next 30 years would total about $5.5 million.

And at age 95 the Roth IRA would have a value of nearly $6.8 million.

Add her cumulative withdrawals, and the total is $12.3 million, or nearly $315 for each dollar not spent on that long-ago wedding.

Now I realize that she paid a price for all this. She had to forego a razzle-dazzle wedding with all the trappings.

But what do you think she would say if she were asked, on her 95th birthday (or on any birthday after she retired) if she would give up the money in order to have had a bigger wedding? It’s an interesting question.

My wife told me in no uncertain terms that $1,000 is totally inadequate for a wedding in the 21st century, especially for a bride who has substantial financial resources available to her.

A wedding, she correctly pointed out, is more than just a party. It’s an opportunity for two families to meld together.

So how about the following: With a budget of $5,000, I think a 25-year-old bride could put on a respectable wedding — and still set aside $35,000 for her retirement and her legacy.

So here are the results, hypothetical of course, starting with a $35,000 investment.

Assuming the same compound rates of return, using a target-date fund she would have $1.58 million when she’s 65 (instead of $1.77 million). Her cumulative withdrawals over 30 years of retirement would be just under $2.9 million (instead of $3.21 million). And at age 95 her Roth IRA would be worth “only” $3.54 million (instead of $3.95 million).

The total of ending value plus retirement withdrawals would be $6.42 million (instead of $7.16 million).

Using my two-funds-for-life investment strategy and starting with $35,000, her account would be worth $2.72 million when she’s 65 and about $6.1 million at age 95. Her 30 years of annual retirement withdrawals would total $4.95 million, for a grand total of just over $11 million.

The “fly in the ointment” of all these numbers is that they don’t account for inflation, which is likely to continue. Based on actual inflation over the past 70 years, the lifetime total (in 2018 dollars) is likely to be somewhere in the ballpark of one-tenth the numbers cited here.

But that could still add up to a million-dollar lifetime gift.

Any way you slice and dice this, you can start to see the enormous opportunity cost of that fancy wedding over a lifetime — the lost opportunity for 70 years of investment returns.

There’s another bit of good news here.

Although most brides and their families don’t have the resources for a $40,000 wedding, many families could set aside $3,500 for a financial gift. Invested as I have described, that could turn into $100,000 or more (in real dollars, not inflated ones) over a long lifetime.

That would be one heck of a wedding present, one that deserves serious consideration.

Richard Buck and Daryl Bahls contributed to this article.

Outside the Box: How to build a better 401(k)

This post was originally published on this site

In a recent article, I proposed what I think is a dynamite investment strategy, especially for young people accumulating money for their retirement.

The idea is simple: Use a target-date fund for the core of your long-term portfolio, and give it a performance boost by investing a gradually decreasing percentage of your money in a small-cap-value fund.

I believe that combination, done properly, has the potential to add millions of dollars to the resources you will have after you retire, without adding much risk.

Read: These three investment products will help you build a portfolio for life

Since I presented this, I’ve received a lot of feedback and questions from readers. Here are some of them with my answers:

Q: You make a strong historical case for small-cap value investing. But isn’t it possible that this asset class has seen its best days? Do you really think they will continue to be big performers in the future?

Paul Merriman: First and most important, nobody can know the future of any investment. I’m very good at “predicting” the past, but I’m no good at seeing into the future.

Yes, it is certainly possible that the glory days of small-cap-value investing are behind us. But just about anything is possible. What’s more important is what is probable. And for that, the past is the best guide we have.

Read: Should you have your entire 401(k) in a target-date fund?

Over long periods, small-cap value stocks have an excellent track record of outperforming the S&P 500 index SPX, +0.58%  and just about every other major asset class.

The reasons are well-known. First, small companies have lots of room to grow big. Second, value companies by definition are bargains. Their prices haven’t been bid up by a general agreement that their futures are bright.

Those reasons are just as valid today as they have been for the past 90 years. I don’t know of any reason to believe this asset class has lost its potential.

Read: 5 ways target-date funds let investors down

Q: Is it reasonable to apply your two-funds-for-life approach using different allocations for buckets of money that have different purposes? For example, I have a pool of money I expect will support our retirement and another I expect we won’t ever need, and it will be available much later for our kids to inherit.

PM: You are on the right track. Money that won’t be needed for a long time can be invested more aggressively than money you expect to need sooner. The two-funds-for-life approach makes it easy to apply different allocations.

My wife and I have different allocations for different purposes, and we are already doing essentially what you are proposing.

Q: My wife and I are in 401(k) plans that have target-date funds, but they don’t offer small-cap-value funds, so it’s not easy to implement your suggestions. We can invest in small-cap blend funds, but only ones that are actively managed. Should we use these, or just stick to target-date funds?

PM: That is a tough call. Over the long haul, a small-cap blend fund is likely to boost your return. But the extra expenses and uncertainty of active management are likely to reduce that advantage. And if the small-cap blend funds are heavily weighted to growth, that could erase the small-cap advantage.

Here’s a better idea: Use your 401(k) plans for target-date funds and use your IRAs to own a small-cap-value fund or ETF. This lets you invest in exactly the fund you want.

There are two disadvantages to this arrangement. First, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to rebalance an IRA with a 401(k). Second, every time you get an IRA statement you’ll be confronted with the ups or downs of that small-cap fund. You’ll need to learn to view it as a component of your overall portfolio instead of an investment with performance to be judged independently.

Q: I’m in my 20s, and the target-date funds have glide paths that already include bonds, which I don’t really need at this stage in my life. Can I postpone the target-date funds until I’m 40 and in the meantime invest in an S&P 500 fund and a small-cap value fund?

PM: This is a good option. If you eliminate bonds until you’re 40, I think you can expect that to boost your overall returns by 0.5 percentage points a year. As you suggested, at age 40 you can replace the S&P 500 fund with a target-date fund.

Q: I like the idea of your two-fund strategy, but I don’t have 40 years. My wife and I are in our late 30s, and most of our retirement money is in the target-date funds offered by our companies’ 401(k) plans. How much benefit do you think we’d get by adding a small-cap-value fund at the level you are suggesting?

PM: It’s impossible to know for sure. But if you make that change, your portfolio will have a higher percentage in equities, and the equity part of your portfolio will have more exposure to small-cap stocks and to value stocks.

Each of those three changes brings with it an expectation of higher returns, along with higher risks. If you follow the recommended percentages in my strategy, these changes will affect only a minority of your portfolio, and that proportion will gradually decline as you age.

To answer your question directly, with a number, I think it’s realistic to expect an extra 1 percentage point in return. Over your remaining lifespans, that can make a huge difference in the resources you’ll have once you retire.

Q: Your research is impressive, and you make a good case for having two funds for life. But I’m nervous about taking past returns and projecting them into the future.

PM: Sometimes it’s reasonable to be nervous. I myself am conservative by nature, and I don’t believe in being casual about the way your money is invested.

So to address your nervousness, from one cautious investor to another, try this on for size: When we look at all the 40-year returns since 1928, we find that the worst 40-year return for small-cap value stocks was almost as high as the best 40-year return for the S&P 500.

Based on 90 years of history, that’s enough to overcome my natural caution. Only you can determine if it’s enough for you.

Q: Your study assumes monthly rebalancing, but that seems like too much busywork to me. Can I get the benefit by rebalancing just once a year?

PM: Yes, it may be unrealistic to expect most investors to rebalance their accounts every month, and some 401(k) plans might not allow that.

Once a year should be fine, letting the higher-performing asset build up its value. My friend Chris Pedersen, who did the research on this, estimates that annual rebalancing would add about 0.2 percentage points of return, with slightly higher risk as well.

As I wrote in my previous article, I offer three additional resources online to help you dig into this strategy.

First, Chris wrote a detailed article, illustrated with some interesting tables and graphs, and you can find it here.

Second, Chris and I recorded a video on this topic. And third, I recorded a podcast as well.

Richard Buck contributed to this article.

Editor’s note: This article was first published in November 2018.

Women working through period cramps lose almost 9 days of productivity each year

This post was originally published on this site

Monthly period pain is cramping the ability of many women to do their jobs.

Netherlands scientists asked almost 33,000 women ages 15 to 45 to discuss their menstrual cycles and how their symptoms impacted their work between July and October 2017. The result: women lose almost nine days of workplace productivity on average from menstrual cramp discomfort, which is caused by uterine contractions. And just over 3% of them said that the symptoms get so severe that they stay home from work during every or almost every period.

The analysis published in the British Medical Journal found that more than 26,000 women attempt to push through the pain each month, but they are often not working at 100% — and so researchers recorded an average self-reported loss of workplace productivity of 33% on an average of 23.2 days over the year. This presenteeism — or working while physically sick or mentally “checked out” — added up to an average of 8.9 days of lost productivity annually.

Related: Getting your period earlier than peers could mean mental health issues — for years

Another 4,514 women said that they called out during these painful periods instead of coming into work, but only one in five of them told their boss that the sick day was due to period pain. This is due to the stigma around discussing matters related to the menstrual cycle publicly, even though more than 800 million girls and women are menstruating on any given day. For example, women who dropped a tampon in a 2002 study were seen as less competent and less likeable.

And most U.S. states still tax tampons and sanity pads — even though they are a medical necessity for the female half of the population for about 40 years of their lives — while erectile dysfunction aid Viagra is not. Nine states, including New York, Florida, Illinois and Nevada — have eliminated the tampon tax, but a woman’s monthly cycle is still a taboo topic in many places.

Related: For less than $7 a month, you could never run out of tampons again

“There is an urgent need for more focus on the impact of these symptoms, especially in women aged under 21 years, for discussions of treatment options with women of all ages and, ideally, more flexibility for women who work or go to school,” the Netherlands researchers concluded in the new study.

About 40%-50% of women have primary dysmenorrhea — the medical term for painful periods. And a 2012 study published in American Family Physician found that one in five women suffers period symptoms painful enough to disrupt her daily activities. And 10% suffer endometriosis, a uterine tissue disorder that can cause pelvic pain and make period symptoms even worse. In fact, some gynecologists have said that period cramps are often be more painful than heart attacks (which often produce mild pain than the excruciating chest pain most people associate with them), or have likened severe menstrual cramps to the pain of going into labor.

So some countries — including Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea and China — have begun offering paid menstrual leave in recent years, and private Indian companies Culture Machine and Gozoop, Australia’s Victorian Women’s Trust, and U.K. employer Coexist also have instituted paid period leave for female employees. But whether such policies help or hinder gender equality in the workplace is up for debate.

Related: Should you get sick days for period cramps?

Binance in Discussions with Facebook Over Libra Coin

This post was originally published on this site

Libra Coin

According to CoinTelegraph, one of the world’s largest crypto exchanges, Binance, is in “official” talks with Facebook regarding the latter’s new Libra coin.

The exchange’s strategy officer, Gin Chao, told BlockTV yesterday that the company is “very excited” about the Libra project.

What we know so far, according to Chao, is that the talks “have largely focused on dealing with infrastructure.”

Binance and Libra Coin

While the pair’s discussions are in the early stages, it seems Binance is not holding back its desire to work with Libra “as much as [it] can.”

Chao continued:

“I think the potential that libra can have, not just on mass adoption but what it means to payments and forcing regulators’ hands to catch up a bit, is all good news.”

In a separate interview, the strategist gave more details on the likelihood of Facebook’s Libra listing on Binance:

“It wouldn’t just be in [Facebook’s] interest to list their coin on our exchange. It would also be in their interest to list on other exchanges as well and that’s probably going to happen. So if they decide to go on a public chain, and they get the sort of adoption that they could get, we would probably want to list them.”

And further, he said that Binance would be enthusiastic about becoming a validator node on the Libra network.

Facebook’s Libra Coin

Facebook announced its new cryptocurrency called Libra last week. Rumors about its existence were rife for over a year, however.

According to the Whitepaper, the objective of the coin is simple; users can send money via the internet all over the world faster and with lower fees than standard banking. It also aims to incorporate the 1.7 billion people around the world who don’t have a bank account or a line of credit.

Libra differs in several ways to traditional cryptocurrencies. One of the most interesting facts of Facebook’s currency is that it is more “stable” than regular cryptos. Facebook sought to create a coin that could facilitate every-day online consumer transactions and has done this by “backing all its issued digital currency by a reserve.”

>> Koinex Exchange Shuts Down Trading Services in India

According to Digitaltrends:

“Founding Members are required to pool money into the reserve, with the prospect of a return on their investment via dividends from low-yield investment of the reserve’s assets.”

With Libra coin only announced, it’s official launch is not expected until sometime in the first half of 2020.

Featured Image: DepositPhotos © Shawn.ccf

Koinex Exchange Shuts Down Trading Services in India

This post was originally published on this site

Koinex

Koinex is the latest cryptocurrency exchange to fall prey to India’s ban on virtual currencies. Months after delisting several cryptocurrencies, the exchange has shut down its trading services. The exchange has blamed uncertainty as well as disruptions for the unexpected decision.

Koinex Shutdown

In an official statement, Koinex says it has always wanted to provide blockchain enthusiasts a reliable way of digital trading assets. The government-instituting ban on cryptocurrencies, according to Koinex management, made it impossible to continue offering crypto trading services. The exchange has since given its customers until July 15 to withdraw all their digital assets from the exchange.

According to CEO Rahul Raj, they could no longer continue to operate in India given the immense financial burden because of stringent regulations. Immediate reports indicate that the government is planning to introduce a new bill that will ban cryptocurrencies completely and propose a jail term for anyone dealing in them.

“We have stayed away from disclosing details to the public in the larger interest of mindfully steering the industry towards positive regulations, but unfortunately we’re not too hopeful that things will change for the better in the near future,” said Mr. Raj.

>> Bitrue Hacked: Another Crypto Exchange is Breached with 4.2M Stolen

Cryptocurrency Ban in India

Koinex joins a string of other crypto exchanges that have had to close shop in recent months. In September of last year, Zebpay was forced to close down all its operations as the Reserve Bank of India passed a ban on virtual currencies. The exchange has since had to shift all its operations to Australia where cryptocurrencies are considered legal tenders.

If recent developments are anything to go by, then Unocoin could be the next crypto exchange to exit the Indian Market. Reports indicate that the exchange has laid off a significant amount of staff given the regulatory uncertainty that makes it impossible to operate a successful crypto business in the country.

The uncertainty in the Indian market is a stark contrast to developments in other mature economies. In the US, for instance, cryptocurrencies are slowly finding their way into the mainstream sector. Facebook and JPMorgan have both already launched cryptocurrencies.

Featured image: DepositPhotos © pitamaha

Retirement Weekly: When it comes to retirement planning, being dynamic is a virtue

This post was originally published on this site

The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry, as the poet Robert Burns famously reminded us.

And nowhere is this more true than when planning for retirement, which can involve forecasts for the subsequent 40 years. Even if you have a well-crafted financial plan (a big “if”), and even if you follow its recommendations to the letter (an even bigger “if”), you can still fall far short of the portfolio size you have determined is necessary to retire.

The culprit, of course, is how the markets behave along the way. New research has come up with some fascinating strategies for dealing with that uncertainty.

To continue reading, please subscribe. Already a Subscriber? Log in

Retirement Weekly: Think your income is too high to contribute to a Roth? Maybe not

This post was originally published on this site

The more you make, the more you need to save to have a chance of maintaining your lifestyle in retirement. Your savings rate is likely the number one factor in your ability to achieve your goals. Not market returns, not the economy.

Higher income earners often don’t increase their savings rate as their income goes up. They spend more and more. Then they get to retirement without enough saved to maintain the spending level they’ve become accustomed to.

Boost your savings rate

One sure way to increase your savings rate? Make after-tax contributions to a Roth IRA or 401(k) instead of pretax contributions to a traditional IRA or 401(k).

To continue reading, please subscribe. Already a Subscriber? Log in

Retirement Weekly: 5 ways life insurance can help you in retirement

This post was originally published on this site

Editor’s note: The author of this column is chief executive of life insurance provider.

As retirement draws near, it’s only natural to look at your life insurance coverage and wonder whether any changes should be made. After all, you might have first purchased life insurance half a lifetime ago. Back then, it offered a great way to safeguard your income during your prime working years, particularly if you had young children to raise or decades of future mortgage payments to consider.

By the time you reach your 60s, your children are likely grown and your mortgage is at least close to being paid off. If you executed a sensible long-term savings plan, perhaps you also have a healthy amount of money set aside for retirement. Under such circumstances, do you still need life insurance?

To continue reading, please subscribe. Already a Subscriber? Log in