ReportWire

Tag: personnel issues

  • Wall Street bonuses fall by the most since 2008 as policy makers mull economic impact

    Wall Street bonuses fall by the most since 2008 as policy makers mull economic impact

    [ad_1]

    Wall Street bonuses fell 26% in 2022, the largest drop since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, as New York state and city officials dial back their expectations for the economic impact of the securities industry.

    While many people bemoan the salaries commanded by the Big Apple’s white-shoe bankers, the financial sector provides an economic boost to city and state budgets, helping to find public services that touch the lives of residents.

    Now, with the banking sector absorbing the impact of the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank in recent weeks and of a lack of investment bank deal-making, 2023 isn’t looking particularly strong. The current malaise may signal what’s in store for bonuses and employment in the coming year.

    Rahul Jain, state deputy comptroller, said state and city official are baking in conservative projections for a decline in Wall Street profits and bonuses in 2023 partly because much remains unknown such as when the Fed will pause its interest rate hikes or possibly cut them.

    “What we can’t tell is what the Fed will do with interest rates,” Jain told MarketWatch. “It doesn’t seem like we’ll return to the levels of 2020 and 2021, but there’s hope that 2023 will level off near 2022.”

    While Wall Street and the banking sector is challenged, the overall economy remains relatively healthy, as other sectors such as travel make up for weakness in the securities industry in the New York area.

    “The broad economy still matters and it’s still resilient,” he said. “People still want to do things.”

    Like the FDIC and other regulators, the comptroller’s office is keeping an eye on the commercial real estate market, which will hinge on how much credit is available for loan refinancings.

    “Any kind of credit crunch would make the situation worse,” Jain said.

    The average Wall Street banker’s bonus dropped by $63,700 in 2022, to $176,700, the New York State Comptroller’s Office reported Thursday. That figure does not include regular salary.


    Terrence Horan/MarketWatch

    Even with the cut, the bonus alone eclipses average U.S. wages. Full-time employees in management, professional and related occupations have the highest median weekly earnings reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the median income for this group across the U.S. was $1,729 a week, or $89,908 a year, in the fourth quarter of 2022 for men, and $1,316 per week, or $68,432 per year, for women.

    Wall Street banker bonuses jumped by 28% in 2020 and grew by another 12% in 2021, only to fall 26% in 2022. That is the largest drop since the 43% fall in 2008, the year Lehman Brothers collapsed and triggered a global financial crisis.

    At the same time, employment in the securities industry climbed to 190,800 by the end of 2022, the highest level in at least 20 years and surpassing the previous 20-year high of 188,900 in 2007.

    Collectively, Wall Street firms generated $25.8 billion in profits in 2022, less than half the $58.4 billion produced in 2021 as the impact of inflation, the war in Ukraine and supply constraints bit into deal-making.

    The securities industry accounted for about $22.9 billion in state tax revenue, or 22% of the state’s tax collections in fiscal 2021-’22, and $5.4 billion in city tax revenue, or 8% of total tax collections over the same period.

    New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli estimated a drop of $457 million in 2022 tax income for the state and of $208 million for New York City, when measured against the lucrative year of 2021.

    With recession in the headlines and markets selling off in 2022, however, policy makers have already adjusted their expectations for tax income.

    New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s proposed budget assumes that bonuses in the broader finance and insurance sector will drop by 25.2% in 2022-’23, while the city’s 2023 financial plan assumes a decrease of 35.6% for the securities industry.

    “While lower bonuses affect income tax revenues for the state and city, our economic recovery does not depend solely on Wall Street,” DiNapoli said in a statement. “Employment in leisure and hospitality, retail, restaurants and construction must continue to improve for the city and state to fully recover.”

    The fate of Wall Street’s bonuses in 2023 remains tied up in what markets and interest rates do for the balance of the year. Based on the storm clouds over the banking sector now, it’s possible bonuses could fall again.

    In one positive sign, the equities market has managed to post gains so far in 2023 after bruising losses in 2022. At last check, the S&P 500
    SPX,
    +0.57%

    is up 5.6% in 2023, while the Nasdaq
    COMP,
    +0.73%

    has risen 14.9%. The Financial Select Sector SPDR exchange-traded fund
    XLF,
    -0.22%

    is down 6.6% so far in 2023.

    After Wall Street bonuses fell 43% in 2008, they rebounded by 39% in 2009. Such a rapid recovery may not be in the cards for the coming year, however.

    Member firms at the New York Stock Exchange generated profits of $13.5 billion in the first half of 2022, down by more than half from year-ago levels, according to an October report on the securities industry in New York by the comptroller’s office.

    Revenue on trading, underwriting and securities offerings dropped about 48% over the same time period, while global debt offerings dropped by 17%.

    At the same time, interest-rate expenses tripled as the U.S. Federal Reserve boosted interest rates.

    “Despite this uncertainty, the city’s latest forecast predicts annual profits to average $21 billion over the next five years, comparable to the 10-year pre-pandemic average of $20.3 billion,” the study said.

    The bonus pool of $33.7 billion in 2022 fell 21% from 2021’s record of $42.7 billion, the largest drop since the Great Recession.

    Also read: Jobs added at Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Citi and JPMorgan but cut at Wells Fargo and Goldman

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Roku to lay off 200 employees, exit some leases to cut costs

    Roku to lay off 200 employees, exit some leases to cut costs

    [ad_1]

    Shares of Roku Inc.
    ROKU,
    +5.46%

    rallied 2.7% in premarket trading Thursday, after the streaming-media company disclosed that it would lay off 200 employees, or about 6% of its workforce as part of a cost-cutting plan. The plan will also include the exit and sublease, or cease the use of, certain office facilities. The company expects to record charges of $30 million to $35 million as a result of the plan, which will include severance payments, notice pay and employee benefit contributions. Most of the charges will be recorded in the fiscal first quarter, and the job cuts will be “substantially complete” by the end of the second quarter. The stock has soared 57.0% over the past three months but has tumbled 50.8% over the past 12 months, while the S&P 500
    SPX,
    +1.42%

    has lost 12.5% over the past year.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • EA laying off 6% of staff in cost-cutting push for videogame publisher

    EA laying off 6% of staff in cost-cutting push for videogame publisher

    [ad_1]

    Electronic Arts Inc. on Wednesday announced intentions to slash 6% of its workforce as the videogame publisher looks to cut costs.

    “As we drive greater focus across our portfolio, we are moving away from projects that do not contribute to our strategy, reviewing our real estate footprint, and restructuring some of our teams,” Chief Executive Andrew Wilson said in a note to employees that was also shared publicly.

    Wilson…

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sen. Sherrod Brown: American consumers losing power over their savings and paychecks is an emergency, too.

    Sen. Sherrod Brown: American consumers losing power over their savings and paychecks is an emergency, too.

    [ad_1]

    The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank sent shockwaves through the global economy and had the makings of another crisis. Depositors raced to withdraw money. Banks worried about the risk of contagion. I spent that weekend on the phone with small business owners in Ohio who didn’t know whether they’d be able to make payroll the next week. One woman was in tears, worried about whether she’d be able to pay her workers. 

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve responded quickly, took control of the bank, and contained the fallout. Consumers’ and small businesses’ money was safe. That Ohio small business was able to get paychecks out.

    The regulators were able to protect Americans’ money from incompetent bank executives because when Congress created the Federal Reserve in 1913 and the FDIC in 1933, it ensured that their funding structures would remain independent from politicians in Congress and free from political whims. 

    But now, as the U.S. Supreme Court considers the case of Community Financial Services Association v. CFPB, these independent watchdogs’ ability to keep our financial system stable faces an existential threat.

    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the only agency solely dedicated to protecting the paychecks and savings of ordinary Americans, not Wall Street executives or venture capitalists. Corporate interests have armies of lobbyists fighting for every tax break, every exemption, every opportunity to be let off the hook for scamming customers and preying on families.

    The CFPB’s funding structure is designed to be independent, just like the Fed and the FDIC.

    Ordinary Americans don’t have those lobbyists. They don’t have that kind of power. The CFPB is supposed to be their voice — to fight for them. The CFPB’s funding structure is designed to be independent, just like the Fed and the FDIC. Otherwise, its ability to do the job would be subject to political whims and special interests — interests that we know are far too often at odds with what’s best for consumers.

    Since its creation, the CFPB has returned $16 billion to more than 192 million consumers. It’s held Wall Street and big banks accountable for breaking the law and wronging their customers. It’s given working families more power to fight back when banks and shady lenders scam them out of their hard-earned money. 

    The CFPB can do this good work because it’s funded independently and protected from partisan attacks, just as the Fed and the FDIC are. So why, then, does Wall Street claim that only the CFPB’s funding structure is unconstitutional?

    Make no mistake — the only reason that Wall Street, its Republican allies in Congress, and overreaching courts have singled out the CFPB is because the agency doesn’t do their bidding. The CFPB doesn’t help Wall Street executives when they fail. It doesn’t extend them credit in favorable terms or offer them deposit insurance like the other regulators do. The CFPB’s funding structure isn’t unconstitutional — it just doesn’t work in Wall Street’s favor.

    If the Supreme Court rules against the CFPB, the $16 billion returned to consumers could be clawed back. What would happen then — will America’s banks really go back to the customers they’ve wronged with a collection tin?

    Invalidating the CFPB and its work would also put the U.S. economy — and especially the housing market — at risk.

    Invalidating the CFPB and its work would also put the U.S. economy — and especially the housing market — at risk. For more than a decade, the CFPB has set rules of the road for mortgages and credit cards and so much else, and given tools to help industry follow them. If these rules and the regulator that interprets them disappear, markets will come to a standstill. 

    By attacking the CFPB’s funding structure and putting consumers’ money at risk, Wall Street is putting the other financial regulators in danger, too. 

    The Fifth Circuit’s faulty ruling against the CFPB is astounding in its absurdity — the court ruled that the authorities that other financial agencies, like the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, have over the economy do not compare to the CFPB’s authorities. In other words, the court is claiming that the CFPB supposedly has more power in the economy than the Fed.

    That’s ridiculous. Look at the extraordinary steps taken to contain the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank — the idea that the CFPB could take action even close to as sweeping is laughable.

    But we know why the Fifth Circuit put that absurd assertion in there — they recognize the damage this case could do to these other vital agencies, and to our whole economy.

    Imagine what might happen if another series of banks failed and the FDIC did not have the funds to stop the crisis from spreading.

    The FDIC’s own Inspector General has stated that the Fifth Circuit ruling could be applied to their agency. If that happens, the FDIC and other regulators could be subject to congressional budget deliberations, which we all know are far too partisan and have resulted in shutdowns. Imagine what might happen if another series of banks failed and the FDIC did not have the funds to stop the crisis from spreading, or the Deposit Insurance Fund to protect depositors’ money. Imagine if politicians caused a shutdown, and we were without a Federal Reserve. 

    U.S. financial regulators are independently funded so that they can respond quickly when crises happen. It’s telling, though, that plenty of people in Washington don’t seem to consider the CFPB’s issues in the same category. Washington and Wall Street expect the government to spring into action when businesses’ money is put at risk. But when workers are scammed out of their paychecks, that’s not an emergency — it’s business as usual. 

    When Wall Street’s abusive practices put consumers in crisis, the CFPB must have the funding and strength it needs to carry out its mission — to protect consumers’ hard-earned money. 

    U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

    More: Supreme Court to hear case that will decide the future of consumer financial protection

    Also read: Senate Banking Chair Sherrod Brown sees bipartisan support for changes to deposit insurance

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘We don’t ask for spring break in our city’: Miami Beach officials impose curfew after two fatal shootings amid nightly chaos

    ‘We don’t ask for spring break in our city’: Miami Beach officials impose curfew after two fatal shootings amid nightly chaos

    [ad_1]

    MIAMI BEACH, Fla. (AP) — Miami Beach officials imposed a curfew beginning Sunday night during spring break after two fatal shootings and rowdy, chaotic crowds that police have had difficulty controlling.

    The city said in a news release the curfew would be from 11:59 p.m. Sunday until 6 a.m. Monday, with an additional curfew likely to be put in place Thursday through next Monday, March 27. The curfew mainly affects South Beach, the most popular party location for spring breakers.

    The release said the two separate shootings Friday night and early Sunday that left two people dead and “excessively large and unruly crowds” led to the decision. The city commission plans a meeting Monday to discuss potential further restrictions next week.

    Miami Beach Mayor Dan Gelber said in a video message posted Sunday that the crowds and presence of numerous firearms has “created a peril that cannot go unchecked” despite massive police presence and many city-sponsored activities meant to keep people busy.

    “We don’t ask for spring break in our city. We don’t want spring break in our city. It’s too rowdy, it’s too much disorder, and it’s too difficult to police,” Gelber said.

    The latest shooting happened about 3:30 a.m. Sunday on Ocean Drive in South Beach, according to Miami Beach police. A male was shot and died later at a hospital, and officers chased down a suspect on foot, police said on Twitter. Their identities were not released, nor were any possible charges.

    In the Friday night shooting, one male victim was killed and another seriously injured, sending crowds scrambling in fear from restaurants and clubs into the streets as gunshots rang out. Police detained one person at the scene and found four firearms, but no other details have been made available.

    Under the curfew, people must leave businesses before midnight, although hotels can operate later only in service to their guests. The city release said restaurants can stay open only for delivery and the curfew won’t apply to residents, people going to and from work, emergency services and hotel guests. Some roads will be closed off and arriving hotel guests may have to show proof of their reservations.

    Last year, the city imposed a midnight curfew following two shootings, also on Ocean Drive. The year before that, there were about 1,000 arrests and dozens of guns confiscated during a rowdy spring break that led Miami Beach officials to take steps aimed at calming the situation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Putin arrest warrant issued by International Criminal Court in the Hague

    Putin arrest warrant issued by International Criminal Court in the Hague

    [ad_1]

    THE HAGUE (AP) — The International Criminal Court said Friday it has issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin for war crimes because of his alleged involvement in abductions of children from Ukraine.

    News Pulse: Ahead of Xi’s trip to Moscow, Biden White House calls on Chinese leader to talk with Ukraine President Zelensky

    The court said in a statement that Putin “is allegedly responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation.”

    It also issued a warrant Friday for the arrest of Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, the Commissioner for Children’s Rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation, on similar allegations.

    The court’s president, Piotr Hofmanski, said in a video statement that while the ICC’s judges have issued the warrants, it will be up to the international community to enforce them. The court has no police force of its own to enforce warrants.

    “The ICC is doing its part of work as a court of law. The judges issued arrest warrants. The execution depends on international cooperation.”

    A possible trial of any Russians at the ICC remains a long way off, as Moscow does recognize the court’s jurisdiction — a position reaffirmed earlier this week by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov — and does not extradite its nationals.

    Ukraine also is not a member of the court, but it has granted the ICC jurisdiction over its territory and ICC prosecutor Karim Khan has visited four times since opening an investigation a year ago.

    The ICC said that its pretrial chamber found there were “reasonable grounds to believe that each suspect bears responsibility for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population and that of unlawful transfer of population from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation, in prejudice of Ukrainian children.”

    The court statement said that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Putin bears individual criminal responsibility” for the child abductions “for having committed the acts directly, jointly with others and/or through others [and] for his failure to exercise control properly over civilian and military subordinates who committed the acts.”

    From the archives (February 2023): Russia has committed crimes against humanity in Ukraine, U.S. Vice President Harris says

    On Thursday, a U.N.-backed inquiry cited Russian attacks against civilians in Ukraine, including systematic torture and killing in occupied regions, among potential issues that amount to war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.

    The sweeping investigation also found crimes committed against Ukrainians on Russian territory, including deported Ukrainian children who were prevented from reuniting with their families, a “filtration” system aimed at singling out Ukrainians for detention, and torture and inhumane detention conditions.

    But on Friday, the ICC put the face of Putin on the child abduction allegations.

    Read on:

    Biden vows Russia will ‘never’ win war against Ukraine

    Mike Pence characterizes fellow Republicans challenging ongoing U.S. assistance of Ukraine as ‘apologists for Putin’

    Tucker Carlson questionnaire reveals a fault line among Republicans: U.S. support for Ukraine’s defense against Russian invasion

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • SVB’s failure proves the U.S. needs tighter banking regulations so that all customers’ money is safe

    SVB’s failure proves the U.S. needs tighter banking regulations so that all customers’ money is safe

    [ad_1]

    The run on Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) SIVB— on which nearly half of all venture-backed tech start-ups in the United States depend — is in part a rerun of a familiar story, but it’s more than that. Once again, economic policy and financial regulation has proven inadequate.

    The news about the second-biggest bank failure in U.S. history came just days after Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell assured Congress that the financial condition of America’s banks was sound. But the timing should not be surprising. Given the large and…

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The government may stop issuing Social Security payments after the debt limit is hit — here’s why

    The government may stop issuing Social Security payments after the debt limit is hit — here’s why

    [ad_1]

    There’s a very real possibility the government will stop issuing Social Security payments after the debt limit is hit.

    Scary as that prospect is, however, the alternative might be even worse: A little-known provision of a 1996 law could be interpreted to allow the Social Security trust fund to be used not only to pay Social Security’s monthly checks but also to circumvent the debt limit and pay all the government’s otherwise overdue bills.

    If that happens, any short-term relief to Social Security recipients would come with a potentially huge long-term price tag: The Social Security trust fund could be exhausted much sooner than currently projected—in just a couple of years, in fact.

    Read: I’ll be 60, have $95,000 in cash and no debts — I think I can retire, but financial seminars ‘say otherwise’

    These dire possibilities emerge from an analysis conducted by Steve Robinson, the chief economist for The Concord Coalition, a group that describes itself as “a nonpartisan organization dedicated to educating the public and finding common sense solutions to our nation’s fiscal policy challenges.”

    An issue brief he wrote, entitled “Social Security’s Debt Limit Escape Clause,” is available on the group’s website.

    Let me hasten to add that Robinson is not advocating that the Social Security trust fund be used in this way. In an interview, he instead stressed that he wrote his issue brief because we need to be aware not only that this “escape clause” exists but that its use could have unintended consequences. Though hardly anyone outside Washington knows that it even exists, and relatively few on Capitol Hill, the Treasury Department and the Social Security Administration are very much aware of it.

    Read: ChatGPT is about to make the business of retirement planning and financial advice profoundly human

    Before reviewing the details of this escape clause, it’s worth focusing on the political dynamics that surround it. Because the escape clause lessens the pressure on Congress and the president to come up with a solution to the debt crisis, neither side has an incentive to publicize its existence. But if the government is otherwise pushed to the edge of the fiscal cliff, and it’s facing the potentially huge consequences of an outright default (including the nonpayment of monthly Social Security checks), the political pressure to use the escape clause could be intense.

    The 1996 law that creates the escape clause was passed in the wake of the government hitting its debt limit in 1995 and 1996. Ironically, the intent of that law was to prevent the Social Security trust fund from being used for anything other than paying Social Security benefits. But, Robinson explains, that’s unworkable in the real world. That’s because Social Security checks are sent out by the Treasury’s general account, and if that account is in default the checks would bounce.

    Read: These 3 things will bring you happiness in retirement — and life

    If and when the debt limit is hit, therefore, the only way—in practice—for Social Security checks to continue being issued and cleared through the banking system would be for the Social Security trust fund to “lend” the Treasury sufficient funds that it could pay all the government’s unmet obligations. (I put “lend” in quotes because that’s not exactly how it works; the key is that the “loan” can be structured in ways that don’t count against the debt limit. If you’re interested in reading more about the complex logistics involved, you should read Robinson’s issue brief.)

    Therefore, if the debt limit is hit, which it is projected to do perhaps as early as June, Congress and the president will be on the horns of a huge dilemma:

    • Do they allow Social Security checks to continue getting paid, risking the political fallout of being accused of “raiding” the Social Security trust fund?

    • Or do they stop issuing Social Security payments, risking the political fallout of not issuing Social Security payments, on whom the very livelihoods of many elderly currently depend?

    You can appreciate why Congress and the president don’t want us to know that this escape clause exists. Once we are aware of it, they are put in a no-win situation.

    So fasten your seat belts for a wild ride in coming months as both parties play political brinkmanship over the debt limit and, by extension, Social Security. With both sides by the day hardening their stances, there’s a very real possibility that the debt limit will be hit.

    If that happens, we’ll be hearing a lot more about the little-known provision of a nearly 30-year-old law.

    Mark Hulbert is a regular contributor to MarketWatch. His Hulbert Ratings tracks investment newsletters that pay a flat fee to be audited. He can be reached at mark@hulbertratings.com.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jobless claims jump to 211,000, the highest since Christmas. Blame New York.

    Jobless claims jump to 211,000, the highest since Christmas. Blame New York.

    [ad_1]

    The numbers: The number of Americans who applied for unemployment benefits in early March jumped to a 10-week high of 211,000. Yet most of the increase was concentrated in New York and might not signal a broader cooling-off trend in the U.S. labor market.

    New U.S. applications for benefits rose 21,000 from 190,000 in the prior week, the government said Thursday. The numbers are seasonally adjusted.

    It’s the first time in eight weeks claims have topped the 200,000 mark.

    An unusually big increase took place in New York. Raw or actual unemployment applications in the state jumped to 30,241 from 13,878 in the prior week.

    Chief economist Stephen Stanley of Santander U.S. Capital Markets said school workers in New York City are allowed by contract to apply for benefits during winter and spring breaks.

    Asked about the upsurge, a government spokesperson said by email that “the New York State Department of Labor cannot speculate on the increase.”

    California also posted a sizable pickup, perhaps a sign that the recent spate of major corporate layoffs are starting to bite. A number of large tech firms have announced job cuts since last fall.

    The number of people applying for jobless benefits is one of the best barometers of whether the economy is getting better or worse. New unemployment applications remain near historically low levels, however.

    Economists polled by The Wall Street Journal had forecast new claims to total 195,000 in the seven days ending March 3.

    Key details: Thirty-seven of the 53 U.S. states and territories that report jobless claims showed an increase last week. Seventeen posted a decline.

    Most states aside from New York and California reported little change.

    The number of people collecting unemployment benefits across the country, meanwhile, rose by 69,000 to a two-month high of 1.72 million in the week ending Feb. 25. That number is reported with a one-week lag.

    These continuing claims are still low, but a gradual increase since last spring suggests it’s taking longer for people who lose their jobs to find new ones.

    Big picture: Jobless claims are one of the first indicators to emit danger signals when the U.S. is headed toward recession.

    So far, jobless claims remain remarkably low and the economy is still adding plenty of jobs. Economists estimate that the U.S. gained 225,000 new jobs in February.

    Economists expect hiring to slow and layoffs to increase later in the year, however, as rising interest rates restrain the economy and reduce demand for workers. A number of large companies, especially in tech, media and finance, have already announced job cuts.

    Looking ahead: “Absent [New York], the count would likely have been below 200,000 yet again,” Stanley of Santander said.

    “Broadly, initial jobless claims have remained remarkably low despite the flurry of layoff announcements in recent months, underscoring that the labor market retains considerable momentum.”

    Market reaction: The Dow Jones Industrial Average
    DJIA,
    -1.66%

    and S&P 500
    SPX,
    -1.85%

    rose in Thursday trades.

    Wall Street is hoping for signs of cooling in the labor market, which would discourage the Federal Reserve from raising interest rates more aggressively. The Fed is raising rates to snuff out inflation and reduce upward pressure on wages.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • I’m 66, we have more than $2 million, I just want to golf – can I retire?

    I’m 66, we have more than $2 million, I just want to golf – can I retire?

    [ad_1]

    I’m 66 years and 4 months old.

    My Social Security payments start next month at $3,300 a month. I’m currently working part-time, three days per week, as a professional engineer for $95/hour for my long-time regular full-time employer of 28 years. (I want to leave this position ASAP or sooner.) 

    I currently have about $1.6 million in retirement accounts. My wife (60 years old) has about $600,000 in various regular and retirement accounts. We have a 16-year-old daughter at home attending high school and college in a dual enrollment program. If she stays with the program she’ll have her bachelors at 19. While in high school she takes college classes and we pay no tuition while she’s in high school. 

    Our monthly expenses are about $9,000-10,000 per month including health insurance for my wife and daughter. We own our modest single-family home with no mortgage. Taxes and insurance are currently about $6,000 per year. We currently have no debt, aside from an American Express and Visa that we pay off every month.

    I’m on Medicare. I get walloped for a double premium for part “B” because I’m considered a high-wage earner. The two of us are in reasonable/normal health for a couple of old farts.

    I want to throw in the towel on May 5 and play more golf. Can we do it?

    See: We’re in our 60s and have lost $250,000 in our 401(k) plans — can we still retire?  

    Dear reader, 

    Congratulations on saving so much for your retirement. That’s a wonderful accomplishment alone!

    Because I don’t have all of your financials in front of me, nor am I a financial planner building a comprehensive plan for your retirement, I can’t say for certain if you can retire. However, it does obviously sound like you’re doing well and that you’ve been planning. Instead of telling you to go for it or not, I’m going to offer a few things to consider before you pick up your mid irons. 

    More than $2 million (you and your wife’s savings combined) is a lot of money — I’m not suggesting otherwise — but when it comes to retirement, it doesn’t mean you’re automatically good to go once you hit the million-dollar mark. There are so many factors, some of which you mentioned like healthcare and debt, as well as saving and spending. 

    I harp on spending analysis a lot but to me, it’s so crucial when deciding if and how to retire. Why? Because this is something that, for the most part, you can control. That’s a pretty powerful feeling. 

    So my first suggestion: Review those AMEX and Visa statements, as well as money that comes out of any checking accounts, and make sure that you’re spending the way you want and need to spend. When you retire, you won’t have that part-time income anymore, and while you may be itching to get on the green, you’ll also be stressing out if you don’t have enough green in a decade or two. You’ve told me what your Social Security benefits will be and what your average monthly spending is, but I would suggest really poring over your spending and assessing how comfortable you’ll be if you continue to spend that way when you retire. 

    Check out MarketWatch’s column “Retirement Hacks” for actionable pieces of advice for your own retirement savings journey 

    There’s a second part to that analysis, which is how much money you intend to withdraw from your retirement accounts. I’m not sure if your wife is still working, but regardless, the more money you take out of those accounts every month, the less there is available to grow over time. Taxes also play a part here, depending on if you’re withdrawing from a traditional or Roth-style account. Those taxes could take a larger chunk out of your spending money, as well as potentially give you a heftier tax bill come tax time

    Think about this when your daughter goes off to college, too. She may not be there long if she continues with her hybrid high school and college courses (which is wonderful, by the way), but do you plan to pay for her tuition, and if so, where is that money coming from? Advisers tell me all the time: you can take a loan for college, but you can’t take one for retirement. It might be beneficial to have a separate savings account earmarked for education, if you don’t already have one of those or some sort of college savings account like a 529 plan, so that you’re not draining your retirement account for a tuition bill. 

    One last bit about that — plan for the unexpected. What will you do if a major expense arises? Will that money also come from a retirement account, or do you have an emergency account set aside to cover it? Saving a lot of money for retirement is amazing, but it’s not the only task individuals need to manage… coming up with a Plan B, and maybe even a Plan C and Plan D, is necessary too. 

    Also see: Are you planning for retirement all wrong? 

    Next, before retiring, check the way your money is invested. What’s your asset allocation like, and does it need to change? Don’t make alterations just to make them — and definitely don’t make them just because you read the markets weren’t doing so hot that day — but keep in mind this money does need to grow for decades to support you and your wife, so you will need to strike that balance. Reaching out to a qualified financial professional, such as a certified financial planner, can help you make sense of what the best investment mix is, but at the least, log in to your account or call up the firm where your accounts are located and check that asset allocation. 

    Also, you mentioned you’re already on Medicare. I would suggest taking the time now — well before open enrollment — to review your current and expected future health expenses, and then assess how helpful your current coverage is for you. I know you mentioned you and your wife are in reasonable health, but if there are any operations or services you think you may need next year, it’s better to start reviewing what plans provide you the best coverage for your situation so that you’re not paying more out of pocket than necessary. This is an exercise you don’t need to do immediately, but it will certainly help you feel more prepared come the end of the year when it’s time to keep your current plan or switch for something else. 

    As an aside, you’ll eventually pay less in Medicare Part B premiums when your modified adjusted gross income declines. Those premiums are based on your tax returns from two years prior. 

    You sound like you are on the right track, which is wonderful. I would just caution you to tie up a few loose ends before resigning so that you can tee up without worrying. 

    Readers: Do you have suggestions for this reader? Add them in the comments below.

    Have a question about your own retirement savings? Email us at HelpMeRetire@marketwatch.com

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • At 55 years old, I will have worked for 30 years — what are the pros and cons of retiring at that age? 

    At 55 years old, I will have worked for 30 years — what are the pros and cons of retiring at that age? 

    [ad_1]

    Dear MarketWatch, 

    I currently own one home, no mortgage with rental income. I own another home that will be paid off the year I turn 55. Both valued at $750,000.  I have a 401(k) and other stocks and investments totaling another $750,000. My debt will be all paid by the year I turn 55.  

    I have been on my job for 27 years. It will be 30 years when I’m 55. What are the disadvantages and advantages of not working after 55 years of age?

    See: ‘I will work until I die’ — I’m 74, have little money saved and battle medical issues. ‘I want to retire so I can have a few years to enjoy life.’

    Dear reader, 

    It is completely understandable that you would want to retire after working for 30 years, especially when you have rental income, but I would caution you to take this decision very seriously and find a few backup plans. 

    One big pro of waiting until 55 is the fact that you get to withdraw from your current 401(k) at that age. It’s called the Rule of 55, and not everyone knows about it. Usually, savers have to wait until they’re 59 ½ years old in order to take distributions from their retirement accounts, such as 401(k) plans and IRAs. An early distribution incurs a 10% penalty, plus taxes. 

    The Rule of 55 gives workers a break if they want to tap into their 401(k) and have separated from their current job for any reason. 

    But you probably don’t want to tap into that 401(k) — or at least, you shouldn’t want to do that.  

    Also see: We have $1.6 million but most is locked in our 401(k) plans — how can we retire early without paying so much in taxes?

    If you stop working at 55, you’re halting a major source of income. Rental property is great, and having no mortgage over your head is a huge plus, but will it be enough to cover your everyday expenses and the unexpected for decades to come? Retirement isn’t what it used to be — people are living longer, which means every dollar you have for retirement needs to last until you die. If you retire at 55, you could potentially be in retirement for 30 years — or more. Do you think your nest egg and any other sources of income, like Social Security and rental income, could cover you for that long? 

    Some people would say $750,000 in a retirement account is more than enough, but others would argue it is not. Of course, it also depends on what your annual expenses are, what future spending could look like if you were to fall ill or need to change something from your current lifestyle. And do you have any other money set aside for various circumstances, like repairs on either of your homes? 

    You could look to see what other sources of income may look like (for example, what can you expect from Social Security?) but you should still find a few backup plans for income so that you’re not sweating it out later in life. Not to be a Debbie Downer, but rental income may not be enough to make ends meet or keep you from distributing too much from your retirement accounts. Also, do you have money set aside to offset your costs if your property is vacant for a little while?

    Check out MarketWatch’s column “Retirement Hacks” for actionable pieces of advice for your own retirement savings journey 

    Also, don’t forget about healthcare. If you’re not married to a spouse who has health insurance through an employer, what would you do? Medicare eligibility starts at age 65, which means you would need your own health insurance for an entire decade, and that can be quite expensive. 

    Instead of retiring fully, is there another job you may be happier working? Or some type of part-time gig you could take on? A huge bonus would be if this job comes with health benefits, as well as another retirement account you could keep putting money into until you’re ready to fully retire. 

    I know this may not have been the answer you wanted to hear, but it’s absolutely worth considering every possible good and bad thing that could come out of retiring early. But as with everything else in life, you need to strike a balance — finding work you can do that brings in an income, while also enjoying your life now. It’s not easy, but it’s worth it to plan this out a bit more before you celebrate the big 55. 

    Readers: Do you have suggestions for this reader? Add them in the comments below.

    Have a question about your own retirement savings? Email us at HelpMeRetire@marketwatch.com

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • I’m a single dad maxing out my retirement accounts and earning $100,000 – how do I make the most of my retirement dollars?

    I’m a single dad maxing out my retirement accounts and earning $100,000 – how do I make the most of my retirement dollars?

    [ad_1]

    Dear MarketWatch, 

    I make over $100,000 a year, and expect to for the foreseeable future. As of now, I am contributing 8% of my income to my 403(b) with a 3% 401(a) match; all Roth. It would be more, but I am maxing out a Roth IRA and an HSA as well each year. I am a single father with a 9-year-old daughter, and do not have plans to marry, so I’m planning everything as single. I expect house to be paid off when I (plan to anyway) retire at age 65. I plan to collect Social Security at 67.

    My question is, should I move my 403(b) & 401(a) income to pretax dollars, since I expect to be in a lower tax bracket echelon once I retire? Or leave it at Roth. I’m hoping for some advice on what would generally be the most prudent option to maximize retirement dollars. 

    See: I’m a 39-year-old single dad with $600,000 saved – I want to retire at 50 but don’t know how. What should I do?

    Dear reader, 

    First, congratulations on maxing out your Roth IRA and HSA and contributing to your other retirement accounts — managing that while being a single dad and paying off a home is no simple task. 

    You’ve asked the age-old retirement planning question: should I be investing in a traditional account, or a Roth? For readers unaware, traditional accounts are invested with pretax dollars, and the money is taxed at withdrawal in retirement. Roth accounts are invested with after-tax dollars upon deposit, and then withdrawn tax-free (if investors follow the rules as far as how and when to take the money, such as after the account has been opened for five years and the investor is 59 ½ years old or older).

    As you know, the rule of thumb for choosing between a Roth and a traditional account comes down to taxes. If you’re in a lower tax bracket, advisers will typically suggest opting for a Roth as you’ll be paying taxes at a lower rate now versus a potentially higher one later. For a traditional, you may be better off if you’re in your peak earning years and expect to drop a tax bracket or more at the time of withdrawal. 

    One of the greatest challenges, however, is knowing future tax brackets. You may think you’ll be in a lower one now, but you can’t be sure. We also don’t know what tax rates might even look like when you get to retirement. The current tax rates are expected to increase in 2026, when the brackets from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are set to expire. Congress may do something before that, or after of course.

    Check out MarketWatch’s column ‘Retirement Hacks’ for actionable advice for your own retirement savings journey 

    That being said, if you believe you’ll be in a lower tax bracket in retirement, it doesn’t hurt to have some of your money go in a traditional account. Having tax diversification can really work in your favor, too. It allows you more control and freedom when retirement does come, as you’ll be able to choose which accounts you withdraw from and how to save the most on taxes. The more options, the better. 

    You should do your best to crunch the numbers now, and then make a plan to do it every year or so until you get to retirement. Here’s one calculator that can help

    Make estimates where you have to, and factor in inflation — I’m sure we’ve all seen how inflation can impact personal finances in the last year alone. There are a few other things you can do to make these calculations. For example, get a sense of what your Social Security income may be by creating an account with the Social Security Administration, which will show you what you could expect to receive in benefits at various claiming ages. Also add in any other income you may get, like a pension.

    After you calculate what you expect to spend in retirement, you can figure out what your withdrawal needs will be — and how that will impact your taxable income depending on if the money comes from a traditional or Roth account. Remember: Withdrawals from Roths do not increase your taxable income, whereas traditional account investments do when taken out.  

    Keep in mind, Roth IRAs have one really great advantage over traditional accounts — they are not subject to required minimum distributions, which is when investors must withdraw money from the account if they haven’t yet done so by the mandatory age. Traditional employer-sponsored plans, like 401(k) and 403(b) plans, are subjected to an RMD. Roth employer-sponsored plans have also had an RMD, though the Secure Act 2.0, which Congress passed at the end of 2022, eliminates the RMD for Roth workplace plans beginning in 2024. (The Secure Act 2.0 also pushed the age up for RMDs to 73 this year, and age 75 in 2033.) 

    Also see: We want to retire in a few years, and have about $1 million saved. Should I move my money to a Roth, and pay off my $200,000 mortgage while I’m at it?

    Traditional versus Roth accounts are just one piece of the puzzle in retirement planning, though. There are many other questions you need to ask yourself, and a financial planner if you’re interested and able to work with one. For example, what rates of return are you anticipating on your investments, and how are your investments allocated? What state do you live in now and will that change in retirement (that will affect your taxes). Are you concerned about leaving behind an inheritance, and have you considered life insurance? And even before you get to retirement, as a single dad, do you have a will, healthcare proxy and disability insurance in the event something unfortunate happens? 

    I know this may feel overwhelming, especially when you’re taking into account calculations and estimates for years and years from now, but it will all be worth it. Consider working with a qualified financial planner, or talking to someone at the firm that houses your investments, and don’t feel obligated to stick with whatever you choose until you retire. As with many things in life, retirement plans tend to change and adapt as you do. 

    Have a question about your own retirement savings? Email us at HelpMeRetire@marketwatch.com

    Readers: Do you have suggestions for this reader? Add them in the comments below.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • My fiancé and I are 60. His adult daughter is opposed to our marriage — and insists on inheriting her father’s $3.2 million estate. How should we handle her?

    My fiancé and I are 60. His adult daughter is opposed to our marriage — and insists on inheriting her father’s $3.2 million estate. How should we handle her?

    [ad_1]

    What advice would you give to a widow and widower considering marriage on how to manage finances — and deal with adult children?

    We are both 60 years old and plan to work a few more years, mostly for health insurance. We both have about $1.5 million in retirement savings accounts. Our spouses’ 401(k)s and IRAs rolled into our accounts.

    I have another $500,000 in a brokerage and he has almost another $1 million. We both own homes with $300,000 mortgages. Mine is worth $500,000, Paul’s (not his real name) home is worth $1 million. We have no other debt.

    We both have one married, and one unmarried child that we help. We both have two grandchildren.

    We should be set up very well. Here’s the concern: His married, well-off daughter is very aggressive about inheritance. She wants the family home retitled in a trust. She wants all life insurance and brokerage beneficiaries in her name. Her brother has had drug-addiction problems, so she’s cutting him out even though it seems he’s the one who will need help.

    ‘She wants the family home retitled in a trust. She wants all life insurance and brokerage beneficiaries in her name.’

    The daughter isn’t thrilled about our relationship and suggests we just live together. For religious reasons, I would never do this. Grandma shacking up? What example would I set for my grandchildren?

    As a widowed couple, we are realistic enough to plan for the time one of us is left alone. Paul has diabetes, high blood pressure and already sees a cardiologist. What if he has a heart attack? Stroke? Or if he dies?

    What’s a fair way to mingle finances and allow security for me should he predecease me while allowing Paul’s daughter to ultimately inherit?

    By the way, my children have never raised money as an issue. After we both cared for spouses through cancer, they know life is short and just want us to be happy.

    Happy to Have Found Love Again

    Dear Happy,

    She is overstepping the line, and overplaying her hand.

    The first rule of inheritance is that it’s not yours until the decedent’s money is sitting in your bank account. Your fiancé’s daughter can make all the demands she likes, but the only thing your fiancé has to do is say, “You don’t need to be concerned. My affairs are all in order. I’ve always taken care of my own affairs, and I am not changing now.”

    How your fiancé decides to split his estate is entirely up to him, and can be done in consultation with a financial adviser and attorney, taking into account each of his children’s individual needs. For instance, if you move in together, he could give you a life estate, allowing you to live in the home for the rest of your life, and dividing the property between his two children thereafter. 

    Given that you have your own home, however, you may decide to rent it out, and move back there in the event that he predeceases you. There are so many ways to split an inheritance. You could look at the intestate laws of your state, and follow them. In New York, the spouse inherits the first $50,000 of intestate property, plus half of the balance, and the kids inherit the rest.

    “Paul” may decide to set up a trust for his son, so he can provide an income for him over the course of his life. If he has or had issues with addiction, this will help him while not putting temptation in his way with a lump sum of money. The best kind of trust is the one that deals with any recurring issues directly, and takes into account the person’s circumstances.

    Martin Hagan, a Pennsylvania-based estate-planning attorney who has practiced for four decades, writes: “First, it would authorize distributions only if the beneficiary is actively pursuing treatment and recovery.  Second, it would limit distributions to paying only for the expenses incurred in carrying out the treatment plan that will have been developed for the beneficiary.”

    You have $2 million collectively in a retirement and brokerage account and $200,000 equity in his home, and you can use these next seven years or so to pay off your mortgage, while your fiancé has $2.5 million and $700,000 in equity on his home. You are both well set up for retirement, and let’s hope you have many years to spend together.

    The financial services industry has many opinions. You should, advisers say, have 10 times your salary saved by the time you’re 65 years old. You don’t mention your salary, but I would be surprised if many people in America had that much money saved, especially given all of the unexpected events — divorce, illness, job loss — that can occur in the intervening years.

    You also have other priorities than dealing with an aggressive daughter/daughter-in-law. AARP suggests that most people should look into long-term care insurance between the ages of 60 and 65, around the time most people are eligible to qualify for Medicare. If you do it earlier, it can serve as a savings account in the event that you never need long-term care, AARP says.

    As retirement columnist Richard Quinn recently wrote on MarketWatch, everybody’s circumstances are different. “Living in retirement isn’t about averages. It isn’t about what other people do or the opinions of experts, especially online instant experts who don’t know anything about you and have yet to experience many years of retirement themselves.”

    Don’t give too much oxygen or power to your future daughter-in-law. Her father should give her a stock answer, and be firm. If she persists, he can say, “The subject is closed. I need you to respect the decisions I make about my own life, respect my privacy on these matters, and it would be nice if you would be happy for us, and support us in our marriage together.”

    You can’t change people. But you can change wills.  

    Yocan email The Moneyist with any financial and ethical questions related to coronavirus at qfottrell@marketwatch.com, 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 boyfriend wants me to move into his home and pay rent. I suggested only paying for utilities and groceries. What should I do?

    My dinner date ‘forgot’ his wallet and took the receipt for his taxes. Should I have called him out for being cheapskate?

    My boyfriend lives in my house with my 2 kids, but refuses to pay rent or contribute to food and utility bills. What’s my next move?

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hasbro plans to lay off 15% of workforce and warns of holiday-season loss

    Hasbro plans to lay off 15% of workforce and warns of holiday-season loss

    [ad_1]

    Hasbro Inc. late Thursday said it plans to lay off about 15% of its workforce and warned Wall Street to brace for a quarterly loss and a drop in revenue after a disappointing holiday season.

    Hasbro
    HAS,
    -0.50%

    reported preliminary losses between $1 a share and 93 cents a share for its fourth quarter, and an adjusted loss of between $1.29 a share and $1.31 a share in the period.

    That runs counter to FactSet consensus of an adjusted profit of $1.52 a share for the quarter.

    The maker of My Little Pony, Baby Alive and other toy brands also reported preliminary fourth-quarter revenue of about $1.68 billion, down 17% year-over-year. That compares with FactSet consensus for revenue of $1.92 billion for the quarter.

    Hasbro stock fell more than 8% in the extended session after ending the regular trading day down 0.5%.

    Hasbro’s “consumer-products business underperformed in the fourth quarter against the backdrop of a challenging holiday consumer environment,” despite “strong growth” for digital gaming and other areas of the company, Chief Executive Chris Cocks said in a statement.

    Several retailers have posted lower-than-expected fourth-quarter sales as concerns about the economy simmer. Layoffs have also been widespread, with International Business Machines Corp.
    IBM,
    -4.48%

    and SAP
    SAP,
    -1.77%

    among the latest announcing cuts.

    The global job cuts will start in the next few weeks, Hasbro said. The toy maker employed 6,640 people worldwide as of December 2021, according to its most recent annual filing with securities regulators.

    Hasbro said that the layoffs and “ongoing systems and supply-chain investments” will keep the company on track to hit its goal of between $250 million and $300 million in cost savings by the end of 2025.

    Until then, however, 2022 and “particularly” the fourth quarter were a “a challenging moment for Hasbro,” the company said.

    Earlier this month, analysts at BMO said they expected Hasbro’s holiday-season sales were likely among “the weakest in the North American toy industry.”

    Hasbro’s stock has fallen about 29% in the last 12 months, compared with a decline of around 7% for the S&P 500 index
    SPX,
    +1.10%
    .

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dow to cut 2,000 jobs, to record charges of up to $725 million primarily for severance and benefits costs

    Dow to cut 2,000 jobs, to record charges of up to $725 million primarily for severance and benefits costs

    [ad_1]

    Dow Inc. DOW followed up its downbeat fourth-quarter earnings report with another release saying it would cut 2,000 jobs as part of its $1 billion cost-cutting plan. The cuts represent about 5.6% of the chemicals and specialty materials company’s workforce, according to FactSet data. Dow said it will also shut down select assets as it evaluates its global asset base, particularly in Europe. The company said it will record a charge of $550 million to $725 million in the first quarter of 2023 for costs resulting from its cost-cutting actions, which primarily include severance and benefit costs. Earlier, the company reported…

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Spotify to lay off nearly 600 employees

    Spotify to lay off nearly 600 employees

    [ad_1]

    After slowing its pace of hiring last year, Spotify Technology SA confirmed Monday that it was laying off employees, adding to the wave of jobs cuts sweeping across the tech industry.

    The streaming music service disclosed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it was reducing its workforce by about 6%, which translates to about 588 jobs.

    Bloomberg News had originally reported over the weekend that the company was planning job cuts as soon as this week.

    The Luxembourg-based company said it expects to record charges of EUR35 million to EUR45 million ($38.1 million to $48.9 million) related to severance payments.

    Spotify’s U.S.-listed shares
    SPOT,
    +4.63%

    rallied 4.4% toward a four-month high in premarket trading,

    In October, Spotify laid off at least 38 employees at its Gimlet and Parcast podcast units. Last June, Spotify Chief Executive Daniel Ek told employees that the company would reduce hiring by 25%, according to Bloomberg and CNBC reports.

    As of the end of its third quarter, Spotify had about 9,800 employees, according to its earnings report. More than 55,000 tech workers have been laid off so far in 2023, according to the website Layoffs.fyi, including 12,000 from Google parent Alphabet Inc., 10,000 from Microsoft Corp. and hundreds more from Intel Corp.

    Stockholm-based Spotify has been pressured by massive spending on podcasts in recent years, which have yet to deliver profits and have weighed on margins. In June, Ek predicted a meaningful ramp in profitability within the next couple of years.

    Separately, Spotify said Chief Content & Advertising Business Officer Dawn Ostroff will leave the company.

    Spotify shares have sunk about 50% over the past 12 months, compared with the S&P 500’s
    SPX,
    +1.89%

    10% decline over that time.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • More than 55,000 global tech workers laid off in the first few weeks of 2023, says layoff tracking site

    More than 55,000 global tech workers laid off in the first few weeks of 2023, says layoff tracking site

    [ad_1]

    More than 55,000 global technology sector employees have been laid off in the first few weeks of 2023, according to data compiled by the Layoffs.fyi website.

    The website’s tally of global tech layoffs has almost doubled from just over 25,000 on Tuesday.

    The data suggest 2023 is on pace to surpass 2022 for global tech redundancies, with 154 tech companies laying off 55,324 employees in the first few weeks of the year. Last year, 1,024 tech companies laid off 154,336 employees, according to Layoffs.fyi.

    Related: More than 25,000 global tech workers laid off in the first weeks of 2023, says layoff tracking site

    Layoffs.fyi was set up by San Francisco-based startup founder Roger Lee to track layoffs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lee is the co-founder of Human Interest, a digital 401(k) provider for small businesses and Comprehensive, an employee compensation platform.

    Major U.S. tech companies are firmly in the layoffs spotlight. This week Google parent Alphabet Inc.
    GOOGL,
    +4.69%

    GOOG,
    +4.80%

    confirmed plans to lay off about 12,000 workers globally and Intel Corp.
    INTC,
    +1.62%

    said it is slashing hundreds of jobs in Silicon Valley.

    Microsoft Corp.
    MSFT,
    +3.19%

    confirmed plans to cut about 10,000 positions. The software maker’s layoffs did not come completely out of the blue. Earlier reports from Sky News and Bloomberg indicated that Microsoft was preparing to make cuts.

    See Now: Google joins Intel, Microsoft Amazon, Salesforce and other major companies laying off thousands of people

    In a blog post, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said that while the company is eliminating roles in some areas, the company will continue to hire in key strategic areas. The CEO did not specify which areas will see hiring but did describe advances in artificial intelligence as “the next major wave of computing.”

    Earlier this month Coinbase Global Inc.
    COIN,
    +8.56%

     announced 950 job cuts in an attempt to cut costs.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • I ruined my family’s finances by withdrawing from my 401(k) to buy a house – I regret it

    I ruined my family’s finances by withdrawing from my 401(k) to buy a house – I regret it

    [ad_1]

    I recently made a panic decision to withdraw all my money from one retirement account and I am now closing on a house in February (about $200,000). I am 36 years old, married and have a 1-year-old. Half of me is regretting it, and I’m worried about next year’s taxes due to the withdrawal and the 10% penalty I paid.

    I have been saving up money with my family in order to buy our first home. Recently, however, interest rates have risen, making me worry that this window to get an affordable house was closing. In a fit of panic, I withdrew all of our $26,000 saved money from my 401(k), putting it in a high-yield savings account (3.75%). We have now chosen a home and will be using around $18,000 of this money for the down payment. 

    I am now worried that I might have to pay income taxes and a penalty for the withdrawal itself. I am extremely anxious over this situation as I feel I have destroyed our family’s financial future and that we cannot afford to pay taxes on the money I withdrew. 

    My main concern or question is, is there a way to tell the IRS that this money is being used toward a house? Retroactively? 

    See: I’m a single dad maxing out my retirement accounts and earning $100,000 – how do I make the most of my retirement dollars?

    Dear reader, 

    The first thing you need to do: Take a breath. Most decisions should not be made in a panic, especially when involving money. 

    Because you withdrew from your 401(k), yes, you will have to pay taxes and a penalty. Had it been a loan, you’d have to pay interest on what you borrowed, but it would be to your own account. Keep in mind however that loans from your employer-based retirement plans are also risky – if you were to separate from your job, for whatever reason, you’d be responsible to pay it back or it would be treated as a distribution.

    I understand your sense of urgency in wanting to buy a home during a more favorable market, but your time now should be spent on getting yourself financially situated and saving for the future. 

    “I wouldn’t advise this or done it this way, but he’s not stuck and it’s not detrimental – it’s just a tough lesson to learn,” said Jordan Benold, a certified financial planner at Benold Financial Planning.  

    Get very serious about your current finances and find a way to earmark a portion of your income to savings if at all possible. There are a few things you should be doing. 

    First, assess how much you will be paying in taxes and penalties. I’m not sure what your tax bracket is, but did this distribution push you into a higher tax bracket? You can use a calculator or talk to an accountant to see what that withdrawal will incur in taxes – then make sure you can pay it, or talk to the Internal Revenue Service about an extension. There are penalties for failing to file your taxes or pay them, and you don’t want to add that on top of your stress. 

    Also see: We have 25 years until retirement and are saving 25% of our income – are we doing it right? And are we saving too much?

    The IRS may not be able to do anything for you in terms of waiving those penalties – though it doesn’t hurt to ask, even if you have to wait on the phone for a while to talk to someone – but communication and attention to detail are key when it comes to your taxes. Getting an IRS agent on the phone and talking through your situation won’t be time wasted. There are so many rules, and an agent can help make sense of your options.

    Read: The days of IRS forgiveness for RMD mistakes may soon be over

    Once you get that sorted, look extremely carefully at whatever money you have coming in and what’s going out. You’re about to close on a home, and that costs money – not just the home itself, but all of the extras associated with closing. You may also need money for insurance, furniture, any repairs and so on if you haven’t factored that in yet, so fit that into your budget for when you sign the papers. Beyond that, list every expense you expect to have for the next 12 months – home insurance and taxes, a mortgage or utilities, groceries, medicine, any other nonnegotiable costs and add it all up. Don’t forget anything – ask your partner if there’s anything you may have forgotten. 

    Then compare it to your income. Are you under? Are you over? What changes can you make without totally draining your happiness? I always advocate for a balance…yes, in some cases you have to omit a few expenses for the time being when building up an emergency savings account or paying down debt, but don’t completely rob yourself of joy or all of your hard work may backfire. If you really need to buckle down, make a separate list of activities and entertainment you can get for free (or as close to free as possible)—walks in the park or on the beach with your partner and child, museums on free days, pot lucks and at-home movie nights with family and friends and so on. 

    Want more actionable tips for your retirement savings journey? Read MarketWatch’s “Retirement Hacks” column

    Earmark a portion of your income to replenish your retirement savings before you try saving for any other goals. (This is separate from an emergency savings account, however – you should have one of those.) You may do that with payroll deductions in your 401(k), or also by allocating some of your savings to an IRA outside of the 401(k). 

    Take some time to learn the rules of your retirement plans. For example, an IRA allows an investor to take $10,000 out of the account penalty-free if it’s for a first-time home purchase (whereas a 401(k) does not have that exception). It may be too late for that, but there are other perks with various retirement accounts. 

    The 401(k) has a higher contribution limit and also comes with the possibility of employer matches (if your company offers it), whereas an IRA allows for penalty-free withdrawals for college. With a traditional IRA, you’d have to pay taxes on the withdrawal, whereas with a Roth IRA you’ve already paid the taxes and won’t have to pay any more for withdrawing from your contributions (you may have to pay taxes on the earnings portion, so follow distribution rules closely).

    Remember – you don’t want to make distributions from your retirement savings for just anything. You can borrow money for a home or college, but you can’t borrow money for retirement, so it’s important to protect those accounts. Familiarize yourself with the pros and cons of all accounts so that you can maximize your savings and diversify your withdrawal options when you finally get to retirement. 

    So just buckle down, get yourself in order and think of the future. “He’s got plenty of time – 30 to 40 years to work,” Benold said. “This might be a distant memory that he hopes he can forget.” 

    Have a question about your own retirement savings? Email us at HelpMeRetire@marketwatch.com

    Readers: Do you have suggestions for this reader? Add them in the comments below.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Amazon confirms more than 18,000 layoffs, far more than originally expected

    Amazon confirms more than 18,000 layoffs, far more than originally expected

    [ad_1]

    Amazon.com Inc.’s
    AMZN,
    -0.79%

    layoffs will affect more than 18,000 employees, the highest reduction tally revealed in the past year at a major technology company as the industry pares back amid economic uncertainty.

    The Seattle-based company in November said that it was beginning layoffs among its corporate workforce, with cuts concentrated on its devices business, recruiting and retail operations. At the time, The Wall Street Journal reported the cuts would total about 10,000 people. Thousands of those cuts began last year.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • I retired at 50, went back to work at 53, and then a medical issue left me jobless: ‘There’s no such thing as a safe amount of money’

    I retired at 50, went back to work at 53, and then a medical issue left me jobless: ‘There’s no such thing as a safe amount of money’

    [ad_1]

    I had always said I was going to retire when I was 50. I had worked and saved since I was 16. Retiring without Medicare and Social Security is a scary thing. I wound up retiring then going back to work. At 53, I took a part-time job with a decent salary for the hours but I was sooooo bored. And then life rang my bell. 

    I had major medical problems. So major that when I was able to return to work they let me go because they didn’t think I could keep up with the workflow. They were probably right. Nobody else felt comfortable enough with my health issues to hire me. I applied for disability but was denied. I appealed and got my rejection to the appeal while I was in ICU. I appealed again and I was denied because they didn’t think anything changed from my original application.

    I am assuming you can imagine what my savings is now. I took early retirement, with the penalty, because I needed income. $4,000 a month wouldn’t have put a dent in my prescriptions.

    Everybody needs to know there’s no such thing as a safe amount of money set aside for retirement. Life happens and in the blink of an eye your whole life and everything you worked for can be gone. 

    See: I’m 68, my husband is terminally ill, and his $3 million estate will go to his son. I want to spend the rest of my days traveling – will I have enough money?

    Dear reader, 

    I normally only feature letters with questions for this column, but your note was just so important for other readers that I had to respond — and let others see what you’ve shared. 

    I’m so very sorry that you experienced this. Wanting to retire early isn’t inherently wrong — so many people wish to do it, especially after decades of working. But without the proper planning, it could lead to despair, especially if an emergency occurs.

    “Retiring early is a dream for many people,” said Landon Tan, a certified financial planner. “But those years of not working diminish your chance of a successful retirement more than almost any other metric we toggle when making financial plans.” 

    Retiring early means there are more years you need to be able to financially cover, and that requires money — a lot of it. When planning to retire early, those extra years need to be considered — at the forefront of retirement, but also in the back end if you live longer than anticipated. 

    “Today’s retirees are expecting their accumulated assets to work for them for 10-20 years longer than before,” said Glenn Downing, a certified financial planner and founder of CameronDowning. “Centenarians are no longer uncommon. For that to happen successfully, there needs to be more assets — simple as that.” Anyone should prepare to live longer than expected so their money does not outlast them, which can feel daunting. 

    Those missing years may also affect your Social Security benefits, which so many elderly Americans rely on for most of their retirement income. People retiring early should have a clear picture of what to expect from Social Security in the future, and how their plans may impact those expectations.  

    Leaving the workforce also means possibly losing out on participating in a group health plan, and I think we can say with certainty the pandemic has shown just how crucial health insurance can be in dire times. 

    You’re absolutely right: Retiring before Medicare is scary. Healthcare is expensive even without an emergency. Not everyone considers this expense when they’re dreaming about calling it quits in their 50s, but if they don’t have proper insurance lined up when they retire they could be blowing through their retirement budget quickly — or putting themselves in a very dangerous situation. Those years can feel long when Medicare eligibility only begins at age 65 for most Americans. And it also doesn’t take into consideration long-term care, which is an entirely other expense. Think nursing homes, home health aides and necessary medical equipment for daily activities.  

    Don’t miss: Retiring early this year? Look through Affordable Care Act plans now before the deadline Saturday

    Knowing how much is enough to have saved for retirement is very difficult. There is no such thing as one “safe” number before you retire, but there are a few guidelines one can follow to find security in old age. 

    Part of that equation comes down to personal circumstance: how much you typically spent in your pre-retirement life, how much you anticipate spending in retirement, various financial factors like taxes and cost of housing and utilities, and so on. And as you have experienced — and considerately reminding others — major unexpected emergencies can absolutely derail any sort of financial security. 

    Another factor is what is available to you in your older years. I’ll get to that in a moment in hopes it may help you or others in similar situations. 

    Retirees tend to focus on short-term changes, which can cause them to be unprepared for what the future holds, a recent survey found. Many retirees just deal with these emergencies as they come, according to research from the Society of Actuaries. The organization found more than seven in 10 retirees have thought about how their lives will change in the following decades, but only 27% feel financially prepared for it. 

    More than half of the retirees in the survey said they could not afford more than $25,000 for an unexpected emergency without jeopardizing their retirement security. More than half of Black respondents and Latino respondents said they couldn’t afford to spend $10,000 for a financial shock. 

    “The world can change around you really quickly, and you need to be prepared for the change and to deal with change,” said Anna Rappaport, a member of the Society of Actuaries Research Institute’s Aging and Retirement Program. Americans didn’t often plan for the shocks life could bring before the pandemic, and that hasn’t necessarily changed since, she said.  “The shocks were there before and the landscape just changed a little.” 

    Check out MarketWatch’s column “Retirement Hacks” for actionable pieces of advice for your own retirement savings journey 

    But you’re not alone. Many people have fallen into hard times before and during retirement, pandemic or no pandemic. You may already be exhausting all avenues, but this one retiree shared the steps he took when he lost his job at 58. He searched for another job for 18 months before taking one with a 40% pay cut, and had to live a lot leaner until he officially retired at age 64. That lifestyle included taking in a roommate, buying some household items at the dollar store and extreme meal planning. Here’s what he says about his retirement now

    If your medical condition allows, could you take on some part-time work, or find some ways to make money while working from home? Or could you possibly downsize where you live or take in a roommate? 

    I know you didn’t ask for any suggestions and I’m sure you’re already doing as much as you can to live comfortably, but there are plenty of resources you might want to consider if you haven’t already. 

    Have you explored any government benefits, such as assistance in costs for housing, heating or groceries? There are many federal and state programs available for seniors with needs for financial assistance — not just Supplemental Security Insurance and Medicaid, though of course those are the most prominently known. 

    AARP created a list of resources, broken up by state, and has its own services, such as helping people get back to work in their 50s and beyond. GoFundMe also has a list for financial assistance for older Americans. It includes options for housing, food, medicine and getting back into the workforce. States, and sometimes even individual cities, have departments and offices dedicated to aging issues, which you may want to try calling as well. There is help out there, even if it may not feel easy to find.  

    I wish you the best. 

    Readers: Do you have suggestions for this reader? Add them in the comments below.

    Have a question about your own retirement savings? Email us at HelpMeRetire@marketwatch.com

    [ad_2]

    Source link