The Department of Labor's fiduciary rule looks "iffy" at best, thanks to a March court ruling. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals says the agency exceeded its authority in insisting that financial services firms act as fiduciaries when giving advice to most tax-deferred savings accounts. However, some financial advisers are ignoring the courts and are going the extra mile for their clients anyway.

 

Over the last couple of years, I have written several columns on this issue. A "fiduciary" is someone who puts your best interests above his own and that of his company's. It is a concept that the financial community does not want to see implemented and has gone to great lengths to squash all attempts to do so.

 

President Barack Obama, recognizing the enormous lobbying power of the financial sector, tried to do an end-run around the financial community, the SEC, and Congress by urging the Department of Labor to implement a fiduciary rule. He almost succeeded, and then came Trump. Although our "populist" president talked a good game during the campaign, he quickly succumbed to the influences of Wall Street and ordered the DOL to "review" its regulation. The rest is history.

 

However, while brokers and other wealth management advisers, (as well as the annuity and insurance industry) are breathing a collective sigh of relief, one entity, the Certified Financial Planning Board (CFP), is ignoring the decision and going the other way.

 

The CFP Board, according to its website, is "a non-profit organization acting in the public interest by fostering professional standards in personal financial planning through its setting and enforcement of the education, examination, experience, ethics and other requirements for CFP®certification." Currently, there are 69,500 members, which represent barely 20 percent of financial advisers. However, they represent the creme de la crème of CFPs so now you know where to go when shopping for a financial planner.  

 

The CFP Board just announced that starting next year, their members will be required to give advice under a new "best-interest" standard in all aspects of financial advice. I asked Zack Marcotte, a 28-year-old, registered investment adviser, who is sitting for his CFP certification this year, what that means to you, the investor.

 

"The new rule just makes it that much more important that you look for a Certified Financial Planner when evaluating financial professionals. What this all boils down to is if something is recommended to you, it's because it's best for you and not meant to line someone's pockets."

 

Under the old rules, a financial planner was required to act as a fiduciary when he or she was involved in doing a specific financial plan for their clients. However, financial planners can sell their clients a whole shopping list of services from insurance to brokerage services that were not part of their fiduciary duties. And there was the rub.

 

It is well-known within the industry that for many financial planners, the actual financial plan itself, is a loss-leader. The idea is to get you, the unsuspecting client, in the door, do the plan for a nominal fee, and make the big bucks by selling you annuities, life insurance, or brokerage services. That changes next year.

 

By raising the bar, all certified financial planners must act in the best interests of their clients when providing all financial advice. That is great news for consumers. The CFP will be required to recommend only using a brokerage product, annuity, or other insurance product, if it is in the best interests of their clients.

 

I believe that over time, more and more consumers will seek out only those, like young Zack, who are required by law to act as a fiduciary in all their financial affairs. Hats off to the CFP Board and to all those who have the true interests of their clients at heart.

 

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative and portfolio manager with Berkshire Money Management (BMM), managing over $400 million for investors in the Berkshires.  Bill's forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquiries to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

World markets declined again this week. Despite world condemnation, which included most of America's economists and corporations, Donald Trump unilaterally forged ahead in implementing his own brand of protectionism. Investors fear the consequences.

 

While tariffs on imported steel and aluminum are still being negotiated, the president has upped the ante and is now pursuing China. The United States has long accused China of stealing our intellectual property. The Chinese, of course, have denied that and so, for years the discussions went round and round — until now.

 

On Thursday, our president announced his intention to slap $60 billion of tariffs on 1,300 product lines of Chinese imports. As a result, all three averages experienced a major market sell-off. Investors and corporations alike fear China's response. The media is spewing out lists of companies that will get hurt the most by a Chinese trade war. One of the most vulnerable areas is America's breadbasket.

 

China imports a lot of food from us. We are, in fact, China's second-largest trading partner in the agricultural area. Investors are worried that China could hit that sector hard. That makes sense since that area of America is where Trump's base is strongest.

 

The Chinese are well-schooled in American politics. Remember the response of our European trading partners on steel and aluminum tariffs. They responded by threatening tariffs on export items important to Paul Ryan's and Mitch McConnell's' home states. But unlike steel and aluminum workers that together only amount to a few hundred thousand jobs, a Chinese tariff on soybeans, for example, could decimate our farming sector. What better way to retaliate against our country and attack Trump personally where it hurts — in the support of his base approaching the mid-term elections.

 

Republicans are already worried about keeping their majority in the House come November. Recent election contests have not gone well for Trump or the GOP. Political strategists believe that if the Democrats do re-take the House, they most certainly will begin impeachment proceedings against Trump.

 

It does not matter whether that effort will succeed, only that Trump will be so tied up (think Nixon) in defending himself from the Russian probe, sexual harassment lawsuits, etc. that all legislative progress (including his trade war) will halt for the remainder of his term. That would suit the Chinese just fine.

 

In addition, it is entirely possible that a Democratic-controlled Congress will rollback a sizable chunk of the tax reform act. Thus far, there is no evidence that the tax cut benefits anyone but the Republican's corporate campaign contributors and the wealthy. There has been no pick-up in investment nor jobs beyond what would have normally occurred.

 

Given that the tax cut is not popular with most Americans, (especially in states with an income tax), the stock market could be in for a shock in the second half of the year depending on who wins the House. These dynamics go a long way in explaining the volatility in the stock market.

 

For most of last year, Trump claimed credit for the market's advance, boasting that the averages were a clear signal of his approval rating in the country.  Of course, he ignored the fact that over half the population cannot afford to be in the stock market.  But this year he has been strangely silent when it comes to the market's decline.

 

As the White House becomes a revolving door where experience and knowledge are on the way out and "Yes" men are on the way in, investors are beginning to realize the potential downside of an amateur in the White House. 

 

I am still of the opinion that much of this tariff talk is simply Trump being Trump. Unfortunately, what may have worked well in a real estate deal, or naming a winner in a reality tv show, does not work all that well in the global arena.

 

"Breaking a few eggs" in bringing in a new casino or selling a building was all well and good, but using similar tactics on a global scale can generate very different consequences. Let's hope you and I do not end up in the frying pan. In the meantime, hang tough, stay invested, and grin and bear it.

 

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative and portfolio manager with Berkshire Money Management (BMM), managing over $400 million for investors in the Berkshires.  Bill's forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquiries to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

We all know that Medicare is not free. Once we enroll in Part B and D, we start paying monthly premiums. What many consumers fail to realize is that how much you pay depends on how much you make.

 

For most of us, this is a moot point. We assume that we will be retiring at 65 years old (at the same time Medicare kicks in) but that assumption is no longer accurate. The reality is that Social Security, retirement, and Medicare can happen at different times in your life.

 

Take, for example, Social Security benefits. Every year the target date for full retirement creeps higher. It used to be 65, but now, for many, it is edging up to almost 67 over the next few years. When that occurs, workers will usually sign up for Medicare A but delay enrolling in Parts B and D until after they retire and are no longer covered by their company's health insurance program.

 

What most applicants don't know, until it is too late, is that your monthly Medicare premiums will be based on your last two years' annual income. But the actual logistics of that can be confusing. Here's why.

 

Your reported income follows a governmental processing chain where once the IRS processes your tax returns, they pass that information on to Social Security, which, in turn, feeds the data to Medicare, which then determines your premiums based on those numbers.

 

Let's say you are applying for Medicare B and D right now. For starters, most of us are just now filing our tax returns for 2017 (even though we are already approaching the second quarter of 2018). It will take months before the IRS gives Social Security your 2017 tax returns and even more time before that data gets to Medicare. Bottom line: there is a big-time lag between your current income and when it shows up in your Medicare premiums.

 

That means if you are retiring now and made less than $85,000 (as a single taxpayer or $170,000 filing jointly) in the calendar year 2016, your premiums would qualify at the base rate of $134 a month for Part B and $13 a month for Part D.

 

Above that income level, your premiums increase to $267.90 and $33.60, if you make over $85,000-$107,000 ($170,000-$214,000 jointly). They jump again above $133,500 or $267,000 jointly. And again, and again, until you can be paying as much as $428.60 and $74.80 per month when your income exceeds $160,000 or $320,000 jointly. If your spouse is also retired and on Medicare, then double that premium amount. For those couples making above $320,000 a year, for example, they will be paying $503.40 per month or $6,040.80 a year.

 

Social Security determines what you pay each year, based on your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) as reported to the IRS. MAGI would include things like wages, dividends, rental income, capital gains and non-taxable Social Security benefits. If you earn more (or less) the following year, Social Security will adjust your monthly premiums. They call it your income-related monthly adjusted amount.  That premium will be deducted from your Social Security income check or, if you are not taking Social Security yet, it will be billed to you.

 

Theoretically, your premiums should be adjusted every year with a lag. So, if you report a high-income number to the IRS for the two years prior to retirement, you can expect to pay a lot in Medicare premiums. What happens when your income drops, as it usually does once you retire?

 

You can petition for a Request for Reconsideration to reduce your Part B premium if you feel there is a compelling reason why you should not be paying a higher premium. The most common reason most petition is that income has dropped dramatically in retirement. Other reasons might include marriage, divorce or being widowed. The loss of income-producing property and changes or termination of a pension would also count. 

 

Appeals work some of the time, but not all the time. It is a lengthy process and you still must pay your premiums while the petition makes its tortuous way through this process. It costs nothing to petition, however, and you might win in the end.

 

A much better approach, if you can manage it, is to reduce your income as much as possible two years prior to signing up for Medicare B and D. That is not always easy to pull off. You might reduce your hours and compensation, for example, if your employer is flexible, or, if your spouse works, and has family health coverage, you could retire, delay Medicare coverage for two years, and then apply. It comes down to what you can afford to give up now for future benefits in the years ahead.

 

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative and portfolio manager with Berkshire Money Management (BMM), managing over $400 million for investors in the Berkshires.  Bill's forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquiries to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

Stocks declined this week. This is a typical and largely expected reaction that should see the averages re-test the lows suffered in early February.  Investors should understand that this is no cause for alarm.

 

In past columns, I had warned investors that there may be another shoe to drop before the correction in the markets was truly completed. Typically, stocks make a low, which we did when the S&P 500 Index hitting the 200-day moving average (DMA) before rebounding. We subsequently regained about half that loss quickly. And now we are in the process of re-testing the lows. This is a classic stock market pattern, so don't fret.

 

Volatility reigns supreme right now as it should. The Dow, for example, rose or fell a minimum of 300 points in six out of the last seven sessions. Sickening declines, followed by nerve-rattling rises, have most investors on a roller coaster of emotions. If you can't take the ups and downs, my advice is to turn off the financial news flow and do something productive.

 

Investors might recall that the stock market exhibited similar behavior in 2016 when the averages declined 10 percent in January, regained their losses and then declined again in February. Those who panicked and sold made a terrible mistake, because all the stock indexes went on to move much higher in the ensuing years. 

 

Since markets always need an excuse to go down, this week the testimony of our new Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell, gave traders a chance to do a little profit-taking. The new Fed chieftain, in his Humphrey Hawkins testimony before both houses of Congress, said nothing new or earth-shaking. The entire session was really a grandstanding play by Democrats to trash the tax cut and ask the new chairman questions that were entirely outside of his job description.

 

He did say that a fourth rate hike may be in the cards, if conditions warranted it. Fed officials have been saying that for months. The markets decided to hear it differently this time, however, and so, the markets sank. But it was Thursday afternoon's comments by the president that really triggered this latest waterfall decline in equities.

 

"The Donald," in his own unpredictable fashion, announced (during what was supposed to be a listening session of gripes by U.S. steel executives) his intention to raise tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum producers by as much as 25 percent early next week. His unexpected announcement caught both his staff, the Republican party and global investors by surprise.

 

"Trade War" has become the new battle cry overnight and Friday's reason to sell all stocks, no matter how low, because the world's markets are never, ever going to come back. Sounds silly, doesn't it, but if you listen to the news that's what you hear. Why are we so surprised?

 

Donald Trump had campaigned on this issue. After the election, he promised to do something about what he believed to be unfair trade practices by our trading partners. He backed out of TPP, threatens to do the same with NAFTA, and has promised relief for our steel and aluminum sectors, specifically. So now he has gone and done it. There is no doubt in my mind that our trading partners will retaliate at some point.

 

Contrary to the myth that the U.S. is the only country in the world to practice "fair" trade policies, we don't. We dump our products overseas to support our producers here at home just like China or the European Community does. We dump our agricultural products, such as wheat and soybeans, overseas and do so year after year to protect our farmers. Most of which are no longer the actors you see in commercials wearing overalls. The guys we protect are more like the Koch brothers or mega-cap, corporate conglomerates like Cargill.

 

In the real world, we protect our farmers and they protect their steel producers. It is the way the game is played. God forbid a politician should tell us the truth!  But tariffs are inflationary. Prices go up every time another tariff is enacted. If this tit for tat were to continue, and it might, commodity prices should start to move higher.

 

In the meantime, take a deep breath, accept that your portfolio will suffer losses, (because that's what is supposed to happen every now and then) and expect a rebound.

 

The markets are in a funk. Concern that Trump's tax cut will be too much, too late, has investors riled up. But there may be a flip side to this argument that bears watching.

 

First, the negatives, as authored by me way back when the tax cut was still being contemplated and the markets were riding high in anticipation of such. At the time, I voiced my concerns and it is worth repeating them.

 

Fiscal spending because of the Republican-inspired tax cut adds $1.5 trillion of stimulus to an economy that is already growing at a 3 percent clip. I bemoaned the fact that this tax cut was about eight years too late. Back then, I wrote that the fastest way to pull the economy out of recession and reduce the unemployment rate was by the passage of a massive fiscal stimulus package. The Federal Reserve Bank agreed with that strategy.

 

But it was the Obama years and Republicans voted down everything and anything that might have helped the economy. Instead, they argued that the deficit had to be reduced, and, in the end, they cut spending at the absolute worst time. As a result, the economy and the employment rate languished for many years.

 

The Fed continued to single-handedly pull the country out of recession. The economy started to finally gain momentum last year, and that growth is accelerating. At the same time, unemployment has shrunk to historically low levels, while the deficit grew anyway, despite the spending cuts.

 

Now that Republicans control the House, Senate and White House, they passed a tax cut, which economists say should have never been done this late in the economic cycle. This unprecedented fiscal stimulus, economists fear, will lead to too much growth. The economy will overheat, which will cause wages in a tight market to spike higher causing inflation.

 

This will cause the central bank to raise rates much higher than expected. In turn, these higher rates will cause the stock market to crash and the economy to fall until recession is all but inevitable. The tax cut will, contrary to GOP expectations, be the demise of both the economy and the market.

 

However, the flip side of this doom and gloom scenario could result in an opposite conclusion. Clearly, tax cuts increase productivity by increasing business spending on things like capital equipment, technology and the like. New equipment allows businesses to produce goods at lower costs. As such, managers can raise wages and keep their selling price the same. Why is that important?

 

If the end price of a company's product does not increase, inflation should not rise. Instead, you get higher economic growth, higher wages and lower costs, which results in the same end price to the consumer. It would be the best of all worlds: lower taxes, coupled with lower regulations. It is normally called "supply side" economics. We have heard little to nothing from this side of the economic argument for many years. Maybe it's time to consider the possibilities?

 

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative and portfolio manager with Berkshire Money Management (BMM), managing over $400 million for investors in the Berkshires.  Bill's forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquiries to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.