Oblivious Investor http://www.obliviousinvestor.com Low-Maintenance Investing with Index Funds and ETFs Mon, 18 Aug 2014 14:49:42 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 Helpful Social Security References http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/helpful-social-security-references/ http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/helpful-social-security-references/#comments Mon, 18 Aug 2014 12:00:00 +0000 http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/?p=7272 From time to time, I hear from people who have visited their local SSA office (or spoken with an SSA employee on the phone) to execute a legitimate Social Security strategy, only to have the SSA employee (incorrectly) tell them that they cannot do such a thing.

Generally, the best thing you can do in such a situation is to respectfully direct the SSA employee to an applicable reference in the Code of Federal Regulations or Program Operations Manual System (i.e., the SSA’s internal employee manual). What follows are a few such references that may be helpful in getting things moving in your favor.

File and Suspend

These days, most SSA employees are familiar with the ability to voluntarily “suspend” your benefits after filing for them. Every once in a while, however, a person will be told (incorrectly) that he cannot suspend his retirement benefit at full retirement age, simply because he started receiving that benefit prior to full retirement age. CFR 404.313 (in particular, the bolded sentence) indicates very explicitly that that’s not the case:

“You earn a [delayed retirement credit] for each month for which you are fully insured and eligible but do not receive an old-age benefit either because you do not apply for benefits or because you elect to voluntarily suspend your benefits to earn DRCs. Even if you were entitled to old-age benefits before full retirement age you may still earn DRCs for months during the period from full retirement age to age 70, if you voluntarily elect to suspend those benefits.”

Filing a Restricted Application

When you are eligible for two different benefits, but choose to apply for only one of them (in order to allow the other one to continue growing), you are making what is known as a “restricted application.” Some SSA employees, however, will tell you that if you file for one benefit, you are automatically forced (“deemed”) to file for the other benefit as well.

This rule about deemed filing comes from CFR 404.623, which answers the question, “Am I required to file for all benefits if I am eligible for old-age and husband’s or wife’s benefits?” The Code section is rather lengthy to quote in its entirety, but the relevant point is that it states that if you file for a retirement (i.e., “old-age”) benefit or spousal benefit prior to your full retirement age, you are automatically presumed to have filed for the other benefit as well.

The key things to note here (and to bring to the SSA employee’s attention) are that:

  • This only applies when you file for something prior to FRA, and
  • This doesn’t apply to widow/widower benefits at all. (That is, if you’re eligible for a retirement benefit and a widow/widower benefit, you can file a restricted application for one or the other — even prior to full retirement age.)

6-Month Retroactive Lump-Sum

If you file for your retirement benefit after full retirement age, you have the option to essentially backdate your application by up to 6 months. In such a case, you will receive a lump-sum for those 6 months of benefits, and your ongoing monthly benefit will be smaller, as if you’d claimed it 6 months earlier than you actually did.

The applicable reference here is CFR 404.621, starting with paragraph (a)(2), which states:

“If you file an application [...] you may receive benefits for up to 6 months immediately before the month in which your application is filed. Your benefits may begin with the first month in this 6-month period in which you meet all the requirements for entitlement.”

Important note: CFR 404.621 also states that you cannot backdate an application to a point earlier than your FRA.

Retroactive Lump-Sum to Date of Suspension

If you suspend your benefits at any point in time, you can essentially change your mind later (but prior to age 70), and ask to retroactively “unsuspend” your benefits. For example, you could file and suspend at your full retirement age of 66, then at age 69, after being diagnosed with a condition that makes your life expectancy much shorter than you previously thought, you could ask to a) have your benefits unsuspended and b) receive a lump-sum for the months between 66 and 69. Going forward, your benefit would then be calculated as if you had never suspended at all (i.e., you would not get the delayed retirement credits for delaying from 66 to 69).

The ability to change your mind with regard to a suspension of benefits comes from POMS GN 02409.130, which states that your effective month for reinstatement of benefits (after a voluntary suspension) can be, “the current month, a future month or any past month during the suspension period.”

Interested in economics? Pick up a copy of my latest book:

Microeconomics Made Simple: Basic Microeconomic Principles Explained in 100 Pages or Less

Disclaimer: Your subscription to this blog does not create a CPA-client or other professional services relationship between you and Mike Piper or between you and Simple Subjects, LLC. By subscribing, you explicitly agree not to hold Mike Piper or Simple Subjects, LLC liable in any way for damages arising from decisions you make based on the information available herein. Neither Mike Piper nor Simple Subjects, LLC makes any warranty as to the accuracy of any information contained in this communication. I am not a financial or investment advisor, and the information contained herein is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. On financial matters for which assistance is needed, I strongly urge you to meet with a professional advisor who (unlike me) has a professional relationship with you and who (again, unlike me) knows the relevant details of your situation.

You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of this email (or by removing this RSS feed from your feed reader if you have subscribed via a feed reader).

]]>
http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/helpful-social-security-references/feed/ 0
Investing Blog Roundup: Ignoring the News http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/investing-blog-roundup-ignoring-the-news/ http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/investing-blog-roundup-ignoring-the-news/#comments Fri, 15 Aug 2014 12:00:28 +0000 http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/?p=7271 This blog was originally started to share the concept that you don’t have to follow market news in order to achieve investment success. (That is, it’s OK to be “oblivious” to it.) This week, MarketWatch writer Chuck Jaffe shares a similar message:

Investing Articles

Other Money-Related Articles

Thanks for reading!

Interested in economics? Pick up a copy of my latest book:

Microeconomics Made Simple: Basic Microeconomic Principles Explained in 100 Pages or Less

Disclaimer: Your subscription to this blog does not create a CPA-client or other professional services relationship between you and Mike Piper or between you and Simple Subjects, LLC. By subscribing, you explicitly agree not to hold Mike Piper or Simple Subjects, LLC liable in any way for damages arising from decisions you make based on the information available herein. Neither Mike Piper nor Simple Subjects, LLC makes any warranty as to the accuracy of any information contained in this communication. I am not a financial or investment advisor, and the information contained herein is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. On financial matters for which assistance is needed, I strongly urge you to meet with a professional advisor who (unlike me) has a professional relationship with you and who (again, unlike me) knows the relevant details of your situation.

You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of this email (or by removing this RSS feed from your feed reader if you have subscribed via a feed reader).

]]>
http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/investing-blog-roundup-ignoring-the-news/feed/ 0
Does Overweighting Domestic Stocks Count as Active Management? http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/does-overweighting-domestic-stocks-count-as-active-management/ http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/does-overweighting-domestic-stocks-count-as-active-management/#comments Mon, 11 Aug 2014 12:00:47 +0000 http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/?p=7270 A reader writes in, asking:

“I’ve read in the past that you utilize Vanguard’s LifeStrategy funds.  You and I share the same passion toward favoring passive strategies rather than active. My question is then, do you consider the funds’ home bias reflective of an active strategy that deviates its asset allocation away from traditional weightings (based on actual market cap) inconsistent with Vanguard’s overall approach to indexing?”

I don’t have any strong opinion on whether the domestic tilt of the LifeStrategy portfolio (i.e., the fact that the LifeStrategy funds overweight domestic stocks and underweight international stocks relative to their market capitalization) constitutes active management.* If, however, it does count as active management, then there are several other characteristics of the LifeStrategy (and Target Retirement) funds that we must also consider active management. Specifically:

  • The overall stock/bond breakdown does not reflect the respective sizes of those markets,
  • Non-investment-grade bonds, bonds with maturities of less than 1 year, muni bonds, and TIPS are generally excluded from the portfolio (because none of those bonds are included in the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund), and
  • The portfolio is rebalanced rather than simply allowing the allocation to each piece to shift naturally in accordance with market capitalizations.

If we’re treating one of those decisions with skepticism — because it could be considered active management — then we must be skeptical of each of the others as well.

Personally, I don’t worry too much about whether something is or isn’t active management. The primary problem with the most popular forms of active management (e.g., paying a fund manager to pick stocks or time the market) is that they increase costs without increasing returns by a sufficient amount to overcome those additional costs.

But the LifeStrategy (and Target Retirement) funds’ policy of overweighting domestic stocks doesn’t actually increase costs. In fact, it reduces costs slightly because the domestic index funds have somewhat lower expense ratios than the international ones. In other words, the skepticism with which I generally regard active management strategies (because they, in general, don’t improve returns enough to overcome the additional costs) doesn’t really apply in this case (even if it could be considered active management).

*With regard to whether the fund is somewhat out of character for Vanguard in particular, I can only say that Vanguard is pretty consistent in their message that they aren’t an indexing-only company and they have no philosophical opposition to active management.

Interested in economics? Pick up a copy of my latest book:

Microeconomics Made Simple: Basic Microeconomic Principles Explained in 100 Pages or Less

Disclaimer: Your subscription to this blog does not create a CPA-client or other professional services relationship between you and Mike Piper or between you and Simple Subjects, LLC. By subscribing, you explicitly agree not to hold Mike Piper or Simple Subjects, LLC liable in any way for damages arising from decisions you make based on the information available herein. Neither Mike Piper nor Simple Subjects, LLC makes any warranty as to the accuracy of any information contained in this communication. I am not a financial or investment advisor, and the information contained herein is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. On financial matters for which assistance is needed, I strongly urge you to meet with a professional advisor who (unlike me) has a professional relationship with you and who (again, unlike me) knows the relevant details of your situation.

You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of this email (or by removing this RSS feed from your feed reader if you have subscribed via a feed reader).

]]>
http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/does-overweighting-domestic-stocks-count-as-active-management/feed/ 0
Investing Blog Roundup: Using PE 10 for Retirement Planning http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/investing-blog-roundup-using-pe-10-for-retirement-planning/ http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/investing-blog-roundup-using-pe-10-for-retirement-planning/#comments Fri, 08 Aug 2014 12:00:51 +0000 http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/?p=7269 One of the more common methods of market timing (a.k.a dynamic asset allocation) is to shift your allocation toward or away from stocks based on PE 10 (a.k.a. Shiller PE).

But as author/advisor Michael Kitces explains this week, PE 10 isn’t actually that useful for market timing. It does, however, have other valuable applications for retirement planning.

Investing Articles

Other Money-Related Articles

Thanks for reading!

Interested in economics? Pick up a copy of my latest book:

Microeconomics Made Simple: Basic Microeconomic Principles Explained in 100 Pages or Less

Disclaimer: Your subscription to this blog does not create a CPA-client or other professional services relationship between you and Mike Piper or between you and Simple Subjects, LLC. By subscribing, you explicitly agree not to hold Mike Piper or Simple Subjects, LLC liable in any way for damages arising from decisions you make based on the information available herein. Neither Mike Piper nor Simple Subjects, LLC makes any warranty as to the accuracy of any information contained in this communication. I am not a financial or investment advisor, and the information contained herein is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. On financial matters for which assistance is needed, I strongly urge you to meet with a professional advisor who (unlike me) has a professional relationship with you and who (again, unlike me) knows the relevant details of your situation.

You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of this email (or by removing this RSS feed from your feed reader if you have subscribed via a feed reader).

]]>
http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/investing-blog-roundup-using-pe-10-for-retirement-planning/feed/ 0
Why Would Somebody Buy a Deferred Lifetime Annuity? http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/why-would-somebody-buy-a-deferred-lifetime-annuity/ http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/why-would-somebody-buy-a-deferred-lifetime-annuity/#comments Mon, 04 Aug 2014 12:00:55 +0000 http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/?p=7253 After our recent discussion about the new “qualifying longevity annuity contract” rules, several readers wrote in to ask why anybody would buy a deferred fixed lifetime annuity — a product which has a significant likelihood of paying nothing whatsoever (i.e., in the case that the annuitant dies before the income kicks in).

Relative to an immediate lifetime annuity, the advantage is simply that you have more liquid assets available after the purchase of the annuity. This is preferable for a few reasons:

  • If you die soon after purchasing the annuity, your heirs get a lot more money, given that a smaller portion of your overall net worth went toward the annuity purchase;
  • You have more liquidity, which is good for handling unexpected expenses; and
  • You have more of an upside, given that more of the portfolio will remain to be invested in asset classes with higher expected returns (namely, stocks).

How About an Example?

Juanita just retired at age 70. She wants $45,000 of total income per year. She has $20,000 of annual Social Security income, meaning that she needs an additional $25,000 per year to come from her portfolio. She could purchase an immediate lifetime annuity paying $25,000 per year for $337,051 (based on a quote from Income Solutions).

Alternatively, she could purchase a deferred lifetime annuity, for which the payments start at age 85. If she purchased such an annuity right now at age 70, it would cost $68,479, thereby leaving her with an additional $268,572 in liquid assets relative to purchasing an immediate annuity. (Of note, however, is that the goal for this money is to satisfy $25,000 of annual spending from age 70 to age 85.)

But There’s a Catch

Our example above has one big problem: We’ve ignored inflation. In reality, Juanita probably wants to spend $45,000 adjusted for inflation every year for the rest of her life.

And that brings up my major qualm with deferred lifetime annuities: They leave you with quite a bit of inflation risk. You can purchase deferred lifetime annuities with an inflation adjustment, but, with the only such annuities I’ve seen, the adjustment doesn’t kick in until the income kicks in. For example, if you purchase an inflation-adjusted deferred annuity at 65 that will begin paying you $1,000 per month at 85, you really do get just $1,000 per month at 85. It’s only inflation after age 85 for which you would be protected. If there’s a ton of inflation between age 65 and 85, tough luck.

In contrast, with an immediate lifetime annuity, the inflation adjustments begin immediately — thereby making immediate annuities significantly more useful as a tool for creating a safe “floor” of income (i.e., for ensuring that your standard of living does not drop below a certain level).

Interested in economics? Pick up a copy of my latest book:

Microeconomics Made Simple: Basic Microeconomic Principles Explained in 100 Pages or Less

Disclaimer: Your subscription to this blog does not create a CPA-client or other professional services relationship between you and Mike Piper or between you and Simple Subjects, LLC. By subscribing, you explicitly agree not to hold Mike Piper or Simple Subjects, LLC liable in any way for damages arising from decisions you make based on the information available herein. Neither Mike Piper nor Simple Subjects, LLC makes any warranty as to the accuracy of any information contained in this communication. I am not a financial or investment advisor, and the information contained herein is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. On financial matters for which assistance is needed, I strongly urge you to meet with a professional advisor who (unlike me) has a professional relationship with you and who (again, unlike me) knows the relevant details of your situation.

You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of this email (or by removing this RSS feed from your feed reader if you have subscribed via a feed reader).

]]>
http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/why-would-somebody-buy-a-deferred-lifetime-annuity/feed/ 0
Investing Blog Roundup: Individual Stock Perks http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/investing-blog-roundup-individual-stock-perks/ http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/investing-blog-roundup-individual-stock-perks/#comments Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:00:29 +0000 http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/?p=7261 This week I came across an interesting Bogleheads discussion about perks offered by certain companies to their shareholders.

For example, I learned that if you own shares of Berkshire Hathaway — even just a single Class B share, which currently runs just $125 — you can get an 8% discount on GEICO car insurance (unless you already have some other “affiliate” discount). For me, that’s a savings of about $65 per year — a pretty good effective dividend for a $125 investment!

I don’t usually think it’s a good idea to buy individual stocks, but I’ll be making an exception in this case.

Investing Articles

Thanks for reading!

Interested in economics? Pick up a copy of my latest book:

Microeconomics Made Simple: Basic Microeconomic Principles Explained in 100 Pages or Less

Disclaimer: Your subscription to this blog does not create a CPA-client or other professional services relationship between you and Mike Piper or between you and Simple Subjects, LLC. By subscribing, you explicitly agree not to hold Mike Piper or Simple Subjects, LLC liable in any way for damages arising from decisions you make based on the information available herein. Neither Mike Piper nor Simple Subjects, LLC makes any warranty as to the accuracy of any information contained in this communication. I am not a financial or investment advisor, and the information contained herein is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. On financial matters for which assistance is needed, I strongly urge you to meet with a professional advisor who (unlike me) has a professional relationship with you and who (again, unlike me) knows the relevant details of your situation.

You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of this email (or by removing this RSS feed from your feed reader if you have subscribed via a feed reader).

]]>
http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/investing-blog-roundup-individual-stock-perks/feed/ 0
How Do Capital Loss Carryovers Work? http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/how-do-capital-loss-carryovers-work/ http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/how-do-capital-loss-carryovers-work/#comments Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:00:40 +0000 http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/?p=7241 A reader writes in, asking:

“I just read your article on capital gains and losses. I understand that up to $3,000 of a net capital loss can be used to offset ordinary income in a year, and the rest is carried over to use in future years, but I am unsure of whether the carryover is short-term or long-term. For example, if I have the following for one year:

$ 4,000 in STCL
$ 6,000 in LTCL
$10,000 in losses
-$ 3,000 writeoff against ordinary income
$ 7,000 capital loss carryover

Is the $7,000 carryover considered a short-term or long-term capital loss? Or is it divided on a pro-rata basis, such that there would be a carryover of $2,800 STCL and $4,200 LTCL?”

For questions of this nature, it’s often helpful to look at the tax forms themselves, to see how the numbers flow from one line to the next (and from one form to the next). In this case, doing an example run through Schedule D, using the “Capital Loss Carryover Worksheet” from Schedule D’s instructions can give you a good idea of how this all works.

The short answer is that the $3,000 that is deducted from ordinary income comes first from STCLs to the extent possible, then from LTCLs. Then the remaining losses retain their character when carried over for the next year.

So, if the numbers in your example were a taxpayer’s numbers for 2013, when that taxpayer filled out his Schedule D for 2014, he would have a $1,000 STCL carryover ($4,000 STCL, minus the $3,000 that had been used in 2013 to offset ordinary income) and a $6,000 LTCL carryover.

Alternatively, if the taxpayer’s 2013 numbers were as follows:

$ 2,000 in STCL
$ 6,000 in LTCL
$8,000 in losses
-$ 3,000 writeoff
$ 5,000 capital loss carryover

The entire $2,000 of STCL would be used up for the deduction, and the capital loss carryover for 2014 would be considered entirely long-term capital loss.

Interested in economics? Pick up a copy of my latest book:

Microeconomics Made Simple: Basic Microeconomic Principles Explained in 100 Pages or Less

Disclaimer: Your subscription to this blog does not create a CPA-client or other professional services relationship between you and Mike Piper or between you and Simple Subjects, LLC. By subscribing, you explicitly agree not to hold Mike Piper or Simple Subjects, LLC liable in any way for damages arising from decisions you make based on the information available herein. Neither Mike Piper nor Simple Subjects, LLC makes any warranty as to the accuracy of any information contained in this communication. I am not a financial or investment advisor, and the information contained herein is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. On financial matters for which assistance is needed, I strongly urge you to meet with a professional advisor who (unlike me) has a professional relationship with you and who (again, unlike me) knows the relevant details of your situation.

You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of this email (or by removing this RSS feed from your feed reader if you have subscribed via a feed reader).

]]>
http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/how-do-capital-loss-carryovers-work/feed/ 0
Investing Blog Roundup: Retiring Baby Boomers http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/investing-blog-roundup-retiring-baby-boomers/ http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/investing-blog-roundup-retiring-baby-boomers/#comments Fri, 25 Jul 2014 12:00:17 +0000 http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/?p=7259 This week, author/advisor Larry Swedroe provided an excellent answer to a question I see from time to time: Should we fear a stock crash as a result of baby boomers retiring and selling off their shares?

Swedroe writes:

“We’ll begin by pointing out that only unexpected events have an impact on stock prices. And if anything can be forecasted, it’s demographic data. You can be certain that investors in general are well aware of this trend, and thus have incorporated that knowledge and the expected effect of retirees’ equity sales into current prices.”

Investing Articles

Thanks for reading!

Interested in economics? Pick up a copy of my latest book:

Microeconomics Made Simple: Basic Microeconomic Principles Explained in 100 Pages or Less

Disclaimer: Your subscription to this blog does not create a CPA-client or other professional services relationship between you and Mike Piper or between you and Simple Subjects, LLC. By subscribing, you explicitly agree not to hold Mike Piper or Simple Subjects, LLC liable in any way for damages arising from decisions you make based on the information available herein. Neither Mike Piper nor Simple Subjects, LLC makes any warranty as to the accuracy of any information contained in this communication. I am not a financial or investment advisor, and the information contained herein is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. On financial matters for which assistance is needed, I strongly urge you to meet with a professional advisor who (unlike me) has a professional relationship with you and who (again, unlike me) knows the relevant details of your situation.

You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of this email (or by removing this RSS feed from your feed reader if you have subscribed via a feed reader).

]]>
http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/investing-blog-roundup-retiring-baby-boomers/feed/ 0
Which Year’s Income Determines Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) Subsidy Eligibility? http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/which-years-income-determines-affordable-care-act-obamacare-subsidy-eligibility/ http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/which-years-income-determines-affordable-care-act-obamacare-subsidy-eligibility/#comments Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:00:24 +0000 http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/?p=7254 A reader writes in, asking:

“I’m trying to find more info on ACA premium subsidies. Specifically, I want to understand which year’s MAGI [modified adjusted gross income] is used. For example, would a person’s health insurance premiums for 2015 be determined based upon his 2014 MAGI or 2013 MAGI, etc.?”

The premium tax credit (i.e., the subsidy that reduces premiums) works like any other credit in that it is your income in a given year that determines the size (if any) of the credit for which you are ultimately eligible in that year. For example, your 2014 “household income” (defined here) is what will determine the size of the credit for which you are eligible in 2014.

What is unique about the premium tax credit, however, is that it can be claimed in advance. The applications for coverage ask for an estimate of your annual income, and if your estimate is such that it would make you eligible for a credit, you can take that credit in advance in the form of lower monthly premiums.

But, when it comes time to file your tax return for the year (e.g., April 2015 for your 2014 return), you effectively “settle up.” If your income ends up being lower than you had estimated, and you are therefore eligible for a larger credit than you received in advance, you can receive the remainder of the credit when you file your return.

Conversely, if your income ended up being higher than you had estimated, you have to pay back the excess credit that you received in advance. There are, however, some limitations on the amount you would have to pay back. Specifically, if your “household income” for the year ends up being:

  • Less than 200% of the federal poverty level, the amount you could have to pay back is limited to $600 ($300 if you’re single),
  • 200-299% of the federal poverty level, the amount you could have to pay back is limited to $1,500 ($750 if single), and
  • 300-399% of the federal poverty level, the amount you could have to pay back is limited to $2,500 ($1,250 if single).

If your household income for the year ends up being greater than (or equal to) 400% of the federal poverty level, you would have to pay back the entire amount of any excess credit you received in advance. (Note: The dollar amounts above will be adjusted for inflation, beginning in 2015.)

Of note, however, is the fact that there is no provision for “settling up” with regard to the cost sharing subsidies (i.e., the subsidies that reduce your deductible, out of pocket maximum, etc.). They too are initially based on the income estimate that you provide when applying for coverage, but they are not corrected retroactively if your estimate ends up being off target. (Of course, even ignoring any ethical qualms, you wouldn’t want to intentionally lie in order to get a larger subsidy, given that section 1411(h) of the PPACA provides for penalties of up to $250,000 for “knowingly and willfully providing false or fraudulent information” when applying for coverage.)

In the event that it becomes clear that your actual income for the year is going to be significantly different from the estimate you provided (e.g., due to a change in job status or marital status), you must inform the insurance exchange as to your change in circumstances, and they will adjust any subsidies you are receiving accordingly going forward.

Interested in economics? Pick up a copy of my latest book:

Microeconomics Made Simple: Basic Microeconomic Principles Explained in 100 Pages or Less

Disclaimer: Your subscription to this blog does not create a CPA-client or other professional services relationship between you and Mike Piper or between you and Simple Subjects, LLC. By subscribing, you explicitly agree not to hold Mike Piper or Simple Subjects, LLC liable in any way for damages arising from decisions you make based on the information available herein. Neither Mike Piper nor Simple Subjects, LLC makes any warranty as to the accuracy of any information contained in this communication. I am not a financial or investment advisor, and the information contained herein is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. On financial matters for which assistance is needed, I strongly urge you to meet with a professional advisor who (unlike me) has a professional relationship with you and who (again, unlike me) knows the relevant details of your situation.

You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of this email (or by removing this RSS feed from your feed reader if you have subscribed via a feed reader).

]]>
http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/which-years-income-determines-affordable-care-act-obamacare-subsidy-eligibility/feed/ 0
Investing Blog Roundup: Index Fund Securities Lending http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/investing-blog-roundup-index-fund-securities-lending/ http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/investing-blog-roundup-index-fund-securities-lending/#comments Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:00:13 +0000 http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/?p=7252 One question readers ask from time to time is how many Vanguard index funds manage to trail their index by an amount less than the fund’s expense ratio. To some extent, the answer is pure randomness. An index fund doesn’t typically hold every security in the index, in exactly the designated proportion, at every moment in time.

Another part of the answer, however, is that the funds earn some money from securities lending. Barry Barnitz has more on that topic on the Bogleheads Blog this week:

Investing Articles

Other Money-Related Articles

Thanks for reading!

Interested in economics? Pick up a copy of my latest book:

Microeconomics Made Simple: Basic Microeconomic Principles Explained in 100 Pages or Less

Disclaimer: Your subscription to this blog does not create a CPA-client or other professional services relationship between you and Mike Piper or between you and Simple Subjects, LLC. By subscribing, you explicitly agree not to hold Mike Piper or Simple Subjects, LLC liable in any way for damages arising from decisions you make based on the information available herein. Neither Mike Piper nor Simple Subjects, LLC makes any warranty as to the accuracy of any information contained in this communication. I am not a financial or investment advisor, and the information contained herein is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. On financial matters for which assistance is needed, I strongly urge you to meet with a professional advisor who (unlike me) has a professional relationship with you and who (again, unlike me) knows the relevant details of your situation.

You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of this email (or by removing this RSS feed from your feed reader if you have subscribed via a feed reader).

]]>
http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/investing-blog-roundup-index-fund-securities-lending/feed/ 0