just4moms.netExciting News Every Mom Should Know…

The average American will face a 28% income shortfall in retirement, according to a recent survey by Fidelity Investments. and that’s just the broad percentage: In dollars-and-cents terms, Gen Xers will be scrambling to find an extra $1,700 a month to cover living expenses, while baby boomers will fall a whopping $2,100 a month short of what they need to maintain their current standards of living.That may sound like an insurmountable problem, but don’t throw in the towel. As Fidelity’s Kathy Murphy says, “finding the money to fill the income gap is not unattainable.”But if you want to do so, “take action now — and the sooner the better.”

Read the story on DailyFinance hereHere are five relatively easy steps you can take — some as soon as today — that will help prevent an income deficiency when you do retire.1. Boost your Stock Exposure.If you’re 40 or younger, adding a higher percentage of stocks to your portfolio with a lower allocation to bonds will allow your portfolio to grow more quickly than if you were in a “safer” allocation focused on a higher bond exposure.Stocks have historically grown at roughly 10% a year, but even an allocation of 83% stocks and 17% bonds (as Fidelity hypothetically uses) could return 8.4% a year.unfortunately, if you’re older than 40, a higher allocation to stocks is riskier and — although it could help your portfolio grow more rapidly — could have a detrimental effect on your investments if you retire during a bear market.2. Save more. a Lot more.Most Americans still don’t participate in employer-sponsored retirement plans like 401(k)s. and this is a colossal mistake.Many employers will match contributions, essentially putting free money into your account. plus, a savings plan like a 401(k) is an easy way to force yourself to save. Money will come out of your paycheck before you can ever touch it.for both baby boomers and younger workers, ratcheting up your contributions to an ideal 10% of your salary alongside a hypothetical employer match of 3% will have a huge, positive effect on your portfolio when you retire.3. Wait a Little Bit Longer to Retire.This tip may not be an easy one to accept, but it could have nearly as large an effect on your retirement income as boosting the amount you save.first, working longer means a few more years of contributing to your 401(k) and a few more years of letting the contributions you’ve made over your career continue to grow. and this means you’ll ultimately have more to withdraw when you eventually retire.Second, it means you’ll be able to delay relying on Social Security — a move that could result in as much as a 76% higher payout.the only caveat to this is that if you’re in your 20s or 30s, you’ll be retiring when the Social Security system is facing serious strain — so you’ll want to put more of an emphasis on working longer to save even more money.4. Get an Annuity.Annuities often get a bad rap — and for good reason. Many are expensive, designed to rip you off rather than give you the assured stream of income you’re after.

But although there are trade-offs that come with even the best annuity, the upside is that you have assurance that at least a portion of your money will safely be there for the remainder of your life.You don’t need to buy an annuity with all the money you’ve saved — in Fidelity’s example, annuitizing just 40% of the portfolio turned out to be a smart move.this tip is especially helpful if your family has a history of celebrating 100th birthdays.5. Receive Help from your House.The trick here isn’t to apply for a reverse mortgage, or take out a home equity loan. but when you retire, chances are you won’t need as large a house as you’re used to.By trading down to a smaller house (or even moving to a less expensive area), you’ll have additional money you can put toward living expenses in retirement.How Much will these Tips Net You?In Fidelity’s hypothetical calculations, these five tips resulted in a Gen Xer with a $225-per-month surplus when he retired. and the baby boomer — who began with a monthly shortfall of $2,100 — was able to close that income gap substantially and end up with a shortfall of just $375.Of course, there are even more useful methods to ensure a wealthy retirement — many of which could close that gap even further. but whichever path you decide on, you will always have to be the one to take the first steps.this article was written by Motley Fool analyst Adam J. Wiederman. Click here to read Adam’s free report on how to ensure a wealthy retirement.

Related Articles From DailyFinance:

Point: Prepare for a Scary Income Gap in Retirement

Counterpoint: why Generation X Shouldn’t Panic About Retirement

Student Loan, Meet Social Security: Seniors still Stuck with School Debt

A-List Treasures, exclusive and full service women owned web-based auction company is on a publicity mission to be recognized by celebrities who want to be green and recycle their clothes, household items, and collectibles, to raise money for their …
See all stories on this topic »

Texas poured as much money into its athletics programs a year ago as eight of the nine schools in the more modestly resourced Sun Belt Conference did, combined, underscoring a growing issue in the NCAA's top football-playing bowl subdivision: is it …
See all stories on this topic »

Starting may 18, anyone will be able to buy shares in Facebook. It may be the largest initial public offering (IPO) in history.

Skip to next paragraph

The social network giant predicts its value will be about $100 billion. By comparison, Google’s stock debut came in at $1.66 billion.

Not bad for a company started only eight years ago by a young Harvard student, Mark Zuckerberg.

But the stock sale will be more than a measure of Facebook’s worth. It will also be a rare measure of how much trust exists among a seventh of humanity.

More than half of all Internet users are on Facebook. That’s more than 900 million members. they all trust their “friends” – about 139 on average – with personal information, such as dating habits, health conditions, or intimate photos. Many open their page to anyone.

And they all trust Facebook inc. with that information.

The company’s promise to potential shareholders is that it will make lots of money by targeting ads to users based on their personal data, even each user’s whereabouts or recently visited websites.

With this stock sale, many investors are asking a tough question: will all that trust evaporate someday, especially among users who are “creeped out” by ads that seem to know them so well or that suddenly join a Facebook conversation? if so, Facebook’s advertising earnings would evaporate, too.

Many users now reveal a wariness about being so open to “friends,” many of whom aren’t really trusted friends. A new study by Consumer Reports finds that a quarter of them lie about their information. And that proportion has doubled in the last two years.

And yet more than a quarter of those on Facebook share their wall postings with people who are not “friends.” About 13 million never even set the privacy controls – which are difficult to find anyway.

So this historic IPO will be a grand measure of trust between Facebook users as well as their trust in Facebook’s privacy practices and its aggregation of personal data for advertisers.

Many experts try to measure trust in a society. Gallup looks at major institutions, such as the military or Supreme Court. A new global survey of trust in advertising by Nielsen shows only 31 percent of North Americans trust ads placed on social media like Facebook.

A general measure of trust is how much people freely share information and make themselves vulnerable to each other. Facebook is a testament to that.

In his 1995 work “Trust: the Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity,” American scholar Francis Fukuyama makes a case that societies with the highest level of trust among strangers can achieve better global competitiveness. the more that a nation shares common values such as honesty and openness, the more it can thrive.

Moral and spiritual capital is thus the basis for physical and financial capital.

The Facebook IPO will give us a window into this bit of wisdom.

Ian Wright has always come across as one of those great characters of the game. One of those players the game so badly lacks currently, as the money and celebrity factors surrounding football have caused the levels of pure passion to dwindle.

Wright was a man characterised by passion, a man who absolutely loved what he did when playing the game, before taking that into the gantries as a pundit.

His enthusiasm and passion for England has always come across impressively, with his participation at international level clearly meaning the world to him, and only restricted by the vast level of competition posed to him at the time.

Taking time out from filming the official Carlsberg Euro 2012 commercial, Wright appeared thoughtful and as lively as ever, although his natural enthusiasm for the national team was sheltered by a degree of reservation, cautious not to fail victim to the ease at which we raise our hopes whenever England enter major Finals.

“I don’t think we’ve got a good chance. I base that purely on how prepared we are. We don’t know who’s playing centre-back, we don’t know who’s playing up front. It’s not ideal preparations to go into a major tournament.

“People will talk about Denmark and how they came off the beach to win Euro ’92, but they had a coach in place and a team that knew each other. We have no steady team and don’t know who our captain is going to be. It’s not ideal.

“I think that we should go into it not expecting too much and anything we get, we should take wholeheartedly.”

The management situation is something that particularly grates with Wright, who was an outspoken critic of Fabio Capello’s regime. And he believes it is a problem for England that there were so few candidates to succeed the Italian.

“It was quite baffling really, because his (Capello’s) CV was up there in respect of the teams and the players that he’s had. Like that AC Milan team which we all remember was unbelievable.

“I think that the last World Cup was about as embarrassing as it gets for England in respect of the way we performed. then to top it off Germany really gave us a good hiding to really compound everything. I thought he should have been a lot more culpable for that, there should have been some form of inquest as to why we performed so badly after qualifying so comfortably.

“It’s been embarrassing that we haven’t got a queue of candidates (for the England job). We don’t seem to be giving English managers a chance to manage at the top end of football so that they can actually get the experience in the Champions League. You need that experience when it comes to managing top players with attitudes and egos and temperaments.”

Some have suggested that the lack of expectation from the public and the media could help the players this summer and the former England striker feels this could be the case, although more in hope than expectation.

“Being an England player myself, you do feel a certain pressure from the media and everybody who wants England to do so well. because there are good players in England, there have always been good players in England, so we’ve really underachieved at international level in respect to winning things.

“Things compounded when Greece won the European Championships, it made us feel that maybe we should have achieved a lot more.

“But I think there is a lot of pressure on the boys and I don’t think it is something that is easy to handle. People think it’s easy to handle, but maybe going into a competition like this without too much expectation, maybe the guys will just play with freedom.”

Wright played for England in a time when the country was blessed with strikers. The Arsenal marksman found himself competing for a starting berth with the likes of Alan Shearer, Teddy Sheringham, Andy Cole and Robbie Fowler, whilst the emergence of Michael Owen proved yet another obstacle to overcome.

Now England find themselves heading into a tournament with only one striker recognised as international class, with Wayne Rooney also being forced out of the opening two matches through suspension.

Wright laments the situation, but is at a loss to explain why England fail to produce any strikers of sustained quality.

“Who is there? I don’t know who’s going. Is it going to be (Daniel) Sturridge who came on and did well against Holland? Danny Welbeck, who else is there? Jermain Defoe isn’t starting a lot recently, Darren Bent is injured. Is Andy Carroll showing the kind of form to go to the Euros and light it up? I don’t think so.

“People are talking about Grant Holt, who has had one good season in the Premier League. there isn’t a lot to choose from and that is a sad state of affairs.”

England has struggled to produce players of a world class standing for a number of years now, and Wright is adamant that our problem is trying to re-create the styles of other countries, as opposed to sticking with what made England great.

“Chris Waddle and John Barnes were people that could play at high tempo and were technically very good. Focus on a game that England can play, that other teams are uncomfortable with. it would be hard to do it, because to play at certain temperatures or certain tempos and play technical football, is going to be hard. but if you’ve got defensive midfielders, which is very much the norm now, in front of the back four, then the forward players should be able to go forward and express themselves.

“I think we put too much emphasis on worrying about how Spain play and how other teams play rather than thinking about what we’re like when we’re playing good football, like we did in ’96 or 1990. We played some really good football, top quality players with real endeavour and vigour and passion. Nobody could live with us.

“Whether we’ve got the kind of players to replicate that kind of performance, I don’t think we have. but that’s what we should be trying to do, teach our youngsters a high tempo, technical game.”

Common consensus amongst people is that English footballers have too many distractions to make themselves a success, with Emmanuel Petit saying that an alcohol culture plagues British football.

Fellow Arsenal legend Wright agrees to some extent that there are some distractions for footballers, but does not feel that alcohol is a problem for the game to be worried about.

“The fact that a young player, a 20 year old player has got 4 or 5 cars, maybe before they play 100 games, maybe that can be distracting.

“It’s going to take a certain kind of player not to be distracted by the glamour that comes with becoming a successful footballer or player with massive potential. it all comes down to being with the right manager and what the player wants to achieve. Do they want to do something or say ‘I’ve got 25 watches and 7 cars?’

“Our culture is drinking beer, but I’ve been with Italian players and Spanish players and they will drink and smoke pre-match. I’m not saying that if we did that, it would spiral out of control, but if you look at different cultures, that’s just the way we are.

“If you’re a professional person and have got a professional attitude, it doesn’t make a difference what your drinking culture was. I was in a football club with a massive drinking culture, but we achieved everything that we wanted to achieve.

“People want to put too much emphasis on that, and that’s a problem for society, not just for football.”  

It looks set to be a long hard summer for England, when even one of their biggest and most passionate supporters fails to see any way in which England can compete for glory at Euro 2012, or future years on the horizon.

Ian Wright was speaking during a break from filming the latest Carlsberg advert. Carlsberg is The Official Beer of The England Football Team and sponsor of UEFA EURO 2012™.

The television commercial will be available on tele from Friday 11th may or you can watch it below:

Tags: arsenal, Carlsberg, Crystal Palace, England, Euro 2012, Ian Wright, Interview

Here’s another wedding woe sent in by a reader:

I hope that this does not sound random just to pour my heart out and ask for advice, however your blog has inspired me to do so… 

I am stuck in a pickle; I have been with my BF for 2 years now we get along great and very much in love (blah blah) and went travelling round Europe together and all that. so things are going well. we both have enough money together to put down a deposit on a house. we have talked about this a lot and my BF and I would really like to go ahead with this. He and I talk a lot about being together and setting up a future.

However we haven’t talked much about marriage. I know he doesn’t want to at the moment, as we both come from divorced families so makes weddings hard but I am not sure if going into a financial commitment with someone who doesn’t want a marriage commitment first. Financially I have worked very hard for this deposit (and its more of a bigger deal to me then marriage) and I trust him implicitly, but I am not sure if it is a good idea. I want a marriage not to be something you have to do down the line just because you a house and been together for years.

So I’m stuck – what do I do? do I jump into this financially with the hope of a marriage commitment or get the ring to make sure that he is with me always, as this is my life savings… 

I hope this all makes sense! we both are 26 just by the way

Thank you for listening I know you must get a lot of emails and if I do get a response it would be much appreciated.

As a child of divorce, I can completely empathise with the way in which a marriage separation in the family shapes the way you view marriage for yourself.

I don’t, however, believe that is a negative thing and I do not believe we should steer clear of marriage altogether just because we know the very real consequences when it doesn’t work out.

If anything, I believe it’s made me examine my relationships more; be more wary of potential areas of concern or breakdown, examine all angles of issues, try harder and love deeper.

And it sounds like the both of you are doing that: thinking, examining, treading carefully.

Now I don’t know where you live, or if you live together, however if you do, I assume you’re aware of de-facto laws which may or do affect your relationship.

To me, a financial commitment together is, in a sense, marriage.

Sure, it’s not the *wedding*, but it is a commitment – and one which for all intents and purposes is seen as marriage in the eyes of many laws.

The main issue, I guess, is that you believe that a ring will mean “he’s with you always”. I hate to trot out divorce stats – which you’d be well aware of – but to me, a commitment involving finances is just as binding, if not more, than a ring on your finger.

Let’s get one thing straight: a wedding is symbolic. That’s it. and it sounds like it’s that symbolism that you’re missing, the token, the gesture and the mushy (and it is lovely) feeling behind it. 

And that, I’m afraid, is a different issue. Then it’s not about the house, or the money or any of that, but more about the feeling behind it. “Does he want to be with me forever?” and then eventually, maybe “Are we only getting married because that’s the ‘step’ we missed in this process together?”.

I don’t think there’s a right answer here. if you would like that symbolic commitment before you sign up to a mortgage together, you’re ALLOWED to ask for that, or at least discuss it.

But if you don’t talk about it, I fear the outcome may not fall in your favour later down the track.

Also keep in mind there’s no ‘correct’ process to follow here. Just because you might buy a house first, it doesn’t mean the marriage won’t come – but similarly, it doesn’t mean it will either. the main thing here is to talk about both your views on marriage – because if it’s something you definitely want, and something he definitely doesn’t, then that’s where the real problems arise.

What advice do you have for this reader? should marriage come before financial committment? 

Follow Greer on Twitter or Weddings on Facebook. 

You can also email Greer here and share your wedding woes, feedback or questions.

CHICAGO, April 30, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ –A new report released today by the BMO Retirement Institute, Estate planning in the 21st century: New considerations in a changing society, indicates that the estate plans of Americans will need to be reviewed in order to factor in new considerations.

the report explores three key elements to consider when leaving a legacy:

the growing need to ensure that aging parents for whom care is being provided are factored into estate plans

the evolving importance of pets in our lives and how they can be incorporated into estate plans

the embracing of new technologies among Boomers, and how their digital assets will be dealt with when they pass away or become incapacitated

“When we think of estate planning, it’s often focused around the more traditional aspects, such as leaving money for the children or to charities,” said Tina Di Vito, Head of the BMO Retirement Institute. “However, we need to start incorporating emerging trends, such as advancements in technology, our close relationship with pets and the ongoing care of parents if we want to minimize the burden on loved ones.”

the Sandwich Generation: Caring for Aging Family Members

the older segment of the population is growing rapidly and are living longer, leaving Boomers to care for their aging parents. the report states that 15 per cent of Americans currently care for an aging parent, relative or friend, with 58 per cent providing both personal and financial support. However, if that caregiver dies unexpectedly and contingencies are not included in the estate plan, there is a real risk that the parent will face obstacles in terms of their finances, ongoing care and quality of life. the report found that:

Only 33 per cent of caregivers have made a provision for their aging parents, relatives or friends in their estate plan

Of the small minority who have made a provision for their parent or relative, 55 per cent thought of it themselves while only 24 per cent said that a legal professional made the recommendation

Ms. Di Vito noted that Boomers in care-giving roles should consider including their aging parents into their estate plans to avoid future hardship and heartache for their loved ones.

Man’s Best Friend – Pet Ownership

Pet lovers are a dedicated bunch and many will go to extreme lengths to care and provide for their pets. the report found that the majority of Americans (61 per cent) own a pet and more than three-quarters (77 per cent) feel it is important to make arrangements for their ongoing care should their pet outlive them.

recently, Oprah Winfrey made headlines when it was revealed that her dogs are set to receive $30 million from her estate for their care. while few can afford to be so generous, most pet owners would like to guarantee some degree of security for their pets. the report reveals the following:

Eighty-seven per cent of people consider pets to be a “family member” and 77 per cent believe pets should be included in estate plans

However, only one-third have actually made some kind of estate planning provision for them

Dying in a Digital World

as Boomers delve into the online world more frequently, their digital assets greatly increase; 84 per cent of Boomers use at least one online financial tool. Today’s Boomers have a personal, professional and financial presence online that has led to a high number of intangible digital assets. However, they are often overlooked in estate plans. According to the report:

more than half (58 per cent) of those with digital property believe it is important to set contingencies for them in case of one’s incapacity or death

However, 57 per cent of Americans with digital assets who have made formal estate planning arrangements have not made provisions, with the top reasons being that they did not think of it or did not think it was necessary

Ms. Di Vito offers the following estate planning advice to consider:

Have ‘the Talk’: To help determine how to include aging parents as beneficiaries in your estate plan, have a frank conversation with your spouse, siblings and parents about how to ensure your parents’ continued care is not at risk.

Caring for Fido: consider leaving a reasonable monetary legacy in an estate to a caregiver who could use the funds to care for your pet. Including this provision will minimize the risk of the pet becoming abandoned or given to a shelter.

Think Digital: Think actively and openly about the digital aspects of your estate plan. consider consulting your legal advisor about how to safeguard and ensure an orderly distribution of your digital wealth to loved ones so they are able to access online financials, close out email and social media accounts and retrieve sentimental digital photos or extensive music collections.

To view a copy of the full report, please visit: www.harrisbank.com/retirementinstitute

*Sources for all data and findings referenced in this release can be found in the report at www.harrisbank.com/retirementinstitute

BMO and BMO Financial Group are trade names used by Bank of Montreal. Estate planning requires legal assistance which Bank of Montreal and its affiliates do not provide. Please consult with your legal advisor.

About the BMO Retirement InstituteThe BMO Retirement Institute, a part of BMO Financial Group, was established in 2008 in Canada to provide thought-provoking insight and financial strategies for individuals planning for, or currently in, their retirement years.

About BMO Financial Group Established in 1817 as Bank of Montreal, BMO Financial Group is a highly-diversified North American financial services organization. With total assets of $538 billion as at January 31, 2012, and more than 47,000 employees, BMO Financial Group provides a broad range of retail banking, wealth management and investment banking products and solutions.

SOURCE BMO Financial Group

Copyright (C) 2012 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

If Joe Nocera had started putting $1,000 inflation-adjusted dollars a month into the S&P 500 in January 1980–back then it would have been $340/month–he would now have $1.3 million in his 401(k): real contributions of $384,000, and $916,000 of accumulated reinvested dividends and capital gains. At a retirement spending rate of 5%/year that is $65,000/year of income: not princely, but the median American worker makes $26,500/year.

The problem is if you trade or hire others to trade for you: then you (or they) buy high and sell low because when you (or they) trade you do not ask yourself the question: “who is taking the other side of this transaction, and if they think it is a good time to sell why is it a good time for me to buy?” and if you hire people to trade for you, you also pay them their salaries, options, and bonuses.

And if management fees and price pressure reduce your returns by 3%/year, we are talking not $1.3 million but $498,000–with what would otherwise be Joe’s extra $800,000 going to the Princes of Wall Street who took the other side of his transactions and whom he paid to manage his money for him.

Invest the Social Security Trust Fund in equities by all means. but do not rely on individual savings invested in actively-managed accounts to fund anybody’s retirement in any half-serious way.

Being obsessed with having enough money for a comfortable retirement seems like a national pastime. Almost daily, we are bombarded with worrisome messages about running out of money in our later years. from there, it's a short hop to living in …
See all stories on this topic »

Have you ever had the burning desire to see Harrison Ford do an a cappella cover of Joy Division’s “love will Tear us Apart” while balancing on a stool and holding a kitty? how about something a bit simpler, like getting your favorite Luddite celebrity to join the wide world of Twitter? if so, a new site might appeal to you.

It’s called Charity Bribes, and it crowdsources the bribing of celebrities – but always for a good cause.

The premise is simple. once there is a bribe on the table, you can “join the bribe” by pledging money to the cause. if the celebrity agrees to perform the action mentioned in the request, then all of the money that has been pledged goes to a specific charity. if the particular celeb does not agree to perform said activity, nobody has to pay out anything.

The site went live about three weeks ago, and since the “bribe period” for each idea is 30 days, there’s only been one bribe on the table so far. right now, there’s about 17 hours left in the “Get Larry David to Join Twitter” bribe. Users have pledged close to $10,000. if he accepts, the money will go to the National Resources Defense Council.

But will he accept? It’s already been weeks.

The site’s creators, William Spencer and Chris Baker know that getting the celebs to notice is a challenge. They told EW:

“What’s really fun, what gets people excited is the element of uncertainty. We’re putting celebrities in an awkward situation without them knowing about it. if we went to them ahead of time and set everything up, it would lose a lot of the fun.”

As you can see, tweeting at other prominent celebs is one viable strategy:

So, mr. David has less than one day to hop on Twitter or that money doesn’t go to the NRDC. either way, there will be a new bribe on the table tomorrow. the site determines what bribe to feature based on a community voting system. Users submit their ideas for a specific bribe (who, what, and which charity), and the one with the most votes wins.

Right now, the leader is “Get Conan O’Brien to to wear an eye patch (and turtle neck, also holding a pipe) while interviewing a guest on his show. if asked about it, he should say “I don’t want to talk about it.” this bribe would benefit Autism Speaks.

Two of the other top vote-getters really have my attention. One asks Morgan Freeman to spend an afternoon narrating animal videos on YouTube to benefit the Red Cross, and the other wants Celine Dion to sing George Michael’s “I Want Your Sex” to benefit Cystic Fibrosis Quebec. Oh well, maybe next month.