https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/financial-foundations/financial-wellness-factors?ccsource=email_weekly
Showing posts with label financial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label financial. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Friday, May 3, 2013
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Friday, April 5, 2013
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Friday, December 23, 2011
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Life Insurance: Unwisely Neglected In Financial Planning...
- 49% — Of U.S. adults who have a financial advisor and a financial plan have discussed adding life insurance.
- 47% — Of U.S. adults who have a financial advisor and a financial plan said their advisors have never reviewed their existing life insurance policy with them.
- 28% — Of U.S. adults said they would be interested in a life insurance policy that included long-term coverage.
Online survey conducted by Harris Interactive on behalf of Saybrus Partners, Inc., a life insurance partnership and subsidiary of the Phoenix Cos., Inc. Poll was conducted in late July and surveyed 2,410 adults 18 and older, of which 786 said they currently have a financial advisor.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Older Couples Less Likely To Work Together In Money Matters
Younger couples are more likely to make financial decisions as a team than older couples, according to a survey by TD AMERITRADE.
One reason may be due to more women active in the workforce in the 1970s and 1980s, resulting in their having more of a role in their families' financial matters.
Results also suggest the idea of just one family member being responsible for taking care of the finances has changed. Another finding is younger generations have recognized the need to be more collaborative regarding financial matters in a recession.
26% of couples ages 65 and older report the breadwinner alone makes decisions about paying bills, compared to 17% of couples ages 18-34 who reported the same.
28% of couples ages 65 and older report the breadwinner alone is responsible for making decisions about how to manage debt, compared to 13% of couples ages 35-44.
94% of those ages 55-64 who are single report making decisions about managing debt alone, compared to 76% of those ages 35-44 who are single.
97% of those ages 65 and older who are single report making decisions about paying bills alone, compared to 76% of those ages 18-34 who are single.
20% of those ages 35-44 who are single report making decisions about paying bills with someone else, compared to 3% of those ages 65 and older who are single.
Source: TD AMERITRADE
One reason may be due to more women active in the workforce in the 1970s and 1980s, resulting in their having more of a role in their families' financial matters.
Results also suggest the idea of just one family member being responsible for taking care of the finances has changed. Another finding is younger generations have recognized the need to be more collaborative regarding financial matters in a recession.
26% of couples ages 65 and older report the breadwinner alone makes decisions about paying bills, compared to 17% of couples ages 18-34 who reported the same.
28% of couples ages 65 and older report the breadwinner alone is responsible for making decisions about how to manage debt, compared to 13% of couples ages 35-44.
94% of those ages 55-64 who are single report making decisions about managing debt alone, compared to 76% of those ages 35-44 who are single.
97% of those ages 65 and older who are single report making decisions about paying bills alone, compared to 76% of those ages 18-34 who are single.
20% of those ages 35-44 who are single report making decisions about paying bills with someone else, compared to 3% of those ages 65 and older who are single.
Source: TD AMERITRADE
Friday, February 19, 2010
S&P 500 Historical Sector Weightings: 1990 - 2010
Above are the historical sector weightings for the S&P 500. Technology currently has the biggest weighting in the S&P 500 at 19.2%. This is the highest weighting the Tech sector has had since the Internet bubble burst in 2000.
After falling all the way down to just 8.9% at the March 2009 lows, the Financial sector's weighting in the S&P 500 now ranks 2nd at 14.4%.
Health Care, Consumer Staples, Energy, and Industrials are the other 4 sectors with a weighting of more than 10%. The Consumer Discretionary sector is close to 10% at 9.8%. From 1998 to 2007, the Consumer Discretionary sector was bigger than the Consumer Staples sector.
When the bear market hit in 2007, Consumer Staples overtook Consumer Discretionary, but the spread has tightened to about two percentage points recently. If the bull market continues, we'll likely see Discretionary overtake Staples once again.
While the Materials sector gets a lot of attention in the media, especially because it has the gold stocks, it's important to remember that it only makes up 3.5% of the S&P 500. The Utilities sector is even bigger than Materials.
Chart and analysis courtesy of Bespoke Investment Group
Monday, December 28, 2009
WSJ - Government Now Rooted In The Economy - Bailout Mentality
In 2008 and 2009, Washington strove to save the economy.
In 2010, Americans will get a clearer picture of how Washington has changed the economy.
Only as the recession recedes will it become fully evident how permanently the state's role has expanded and whether, as a consequence, a new, hybrid strain of American capitalism is emerging.
One thing is clear: The government is a much bigger force in today's U.S. economy than it was before the financial crisis.
"The frontier between the state and market has shifted," says Daniel Yergin, whose 1998 book "Commanding Heights" chronicled the ascent of free-market forces starting in the 1980s. "The realm of the state has been enlarged."
Washington pumped $245 billion into nearly 700 banks and insurance companies, guaranteed almost $350 billion of bank debt, made short-term loans of more than $300 billion to blue-chip companies, propped up life insurers and money-market funds, bailed out two of the three U.S. auto makers, lent billions trying to jump-start commercial-real-estate, small-business and credit-card lending, and in two February stimulus bills enacted a year apart, committed $955 billion to rouse the economy.
Today the U.S. government, directly or indirectly, underwrites 9 of every 10 new residential mortgages, nearly twice the percentage before the crisis.
Just last week, the U.S. Treasury said it would cover an unlimited amount of losses at mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through 2012.
John Taylor, a former Bush Treasury official who is now a Stanford University economist, says the government's role will be huge. "While we may be past the emergency, we're still in a mode that will create similar interventions for quite a while, even for minor emergencies," he says. "We have a bailout mentality in this country."
Even if the government withdraws, business will expect bailouts in the next crisis, and that will inspire another round of cavalier risk-taking.
"If we don't re-regulate the banking system properly, we'll either get very slow growth from overregulation, or another financial crisis in just 10 to 15 years," says Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economist and co-author of a new book on financial crises since the Middle Ages.
In 2010, Americans will get a clearer picture of how Washington has changed the economy.
Only as the recession recedes will it become fully evident how permanently the state's role has expanded and whether, as a consequence, a new, hybrid strain of American capitalism is emerging.
One thing is clear: The government is a much bigger force in today's U.S. economy than it was before the financial crisis.
"The frontier between the state and market has shifted," says Daniel Yergin, whose 1998 book "Commanding Heights" chronicled the ascent of free-market forces starting in the 1980s. "The realm of the state has been enlarged."
Washington pumped $245 billion into nearly 700 banks and insurance companies, guaranteed almost $350 billion of bank debt, made short-term loans of more than $300 billion to blue-chip companies, propped up life insurers and money-market funds, bailed out two of the three U.S. auto makers, lent billions trying to jump-start commercial-real-estate, small-business and credit-card lending, and in two February stimulus bills enacted a year apart, committed $955 billion to rouse the economy.
Today the U.S. government, directly or indirectly, underwrites 9 of every 10 new residential mortgages, nearly twice the percentage before the crisis.
Just last week, the U.S. Treasury said it would cover an unlimited amount of losses at mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through 2012.
John Taylor, a former Bush Treasury official who is now a Stanford University economist, says the government's role will be huge. "While we may be past the emergency, we're still in a mode that will create similar interventions for quite a while, even for minor emergencies," he says. "We have a bailout mentality in this country."
Even if the government withdraws, business will expect bailouts in the next crisis, and that will inspire another round of cavalier risk-taking.
"If we don't re-regulate the banking system properly, we'll either get very slow growth from overregulation, or another financial crisis in just 10 to 15 years," says Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economist and co-author of a new book on financial crises since the Middle Ages.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Ominous Divergence Implies Caution
The Dow Jones Industrials ($INDU), a proxy for blue chip stocks, closed at a new weekly cycle high (10,318) on Friday, November 20.
The Russell 2000, a proxy for the small-cap sector, posted a weekly close at 585, which was -5.1% below its Friday, October 16, 2009, close at 616.
That's not what we like to see. If blue chips are making new highs and small cap stocks are not, it creates a negative divergence, a non-confirmation that typically signals an end to an intermediate-term rally.
The healthiest stock market rallies occur when all of the major sectors and indices capture new highs in concert. When they don't, it typically signals that stocks will correct and/or begin moving in a sideways range.
And the most profitable and least risky rallies occur when small-cap stocks lead. That's because small-caps are considered the riskiest of the three capitalizations (large-cap, mid-cap and small-cap). And when investors are willing to bid small-cap stocks to new cycle highs, they are confident that the stock market and the economy are healthy enough to support one of the riskiest areas of the stock market.
Other key sectors that DID NOT confirm the weekly new cycle high on Friday include the bank, brokerage, financial and semiconductor stocks.
Until these sectors and the smallcaps post new cycle highs along with the Dow Jones Industrials, the odds are high that the stock market will undergo a correction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
