How to find a “lost” life insurance policy

I cannot count the number of times a widow has stated to me that they don’t know if their husband had purchased any life insurance.  Many times people simply forget that they purchased a life insurance policy years, or even decades, ago.  I have found a helpful solution that few financial planners know about.

The Medical Information Bureau (MIB) is a organization that was put together by life and health insurance companies to help the insurance companies become subject to fraud and to find lies or omissions by potential policyholders during the application process.  Essentially, the insurance companies report your health to the MIB during the application of a life or health insurance policy and whenever you go visit the doctor.  How can they do this?  Simple, part of your insurance contract allows them to.  The MIB functions like a credit reporting agency for your health.

While many don’t like the thought of some unknown organization keeping tabs on their health this organization can be very useful in finding a lost life insurance policy insomuch as they have records of any applications made by someone for life and/or health insurance.  In fact the Medical Information Bureau provides a service to help beneficiaries of these lost life insurance policies.  They charge a nominal fee of $75 (as of 2012) and will research to see if you have any outstanding life insurance policies.

The MIB reports via their website that they find lost life insurance policies for approximately 30% of those people who request a search be done.  While a 30% success rate may seem low it in fact is not.  Remember that people are using this service to figure out if their spouse, parent, etc. even had a policy in force at the time of their death.

To utilize the MIB’s lost life insurance locator service visit www.mibsolutions.com/lost-life-insurance and download a copy of the policy locator service application form.

To find out more information about the Medical Information Bureau visit http://www.mib.com

Good luck in finding those lost policies!

The Fiduciary Difference

***The information below has been copied fromwww.focusonfiduciary.com.  In some circumstances the information has been edited***

Federal and state law requires that Registered Investment Advisors (RIA) are held to a Fiduciary Standard. This law requires that an advisor act solely in the best interest of the client, even if that interest is in conflict with the advisor’s financial interest. Investment Advisors must disclose any conflict, or potential conflict, to the client prior to and throughout a business engagement. Investment Advisors must adopt a Code of Ethics and fully disclose how they are compensated.

Unfortunately, only a small proportion of “financial advisors” are federally or state-Registered Investment Advisors. Most so-called financial advisors are considered “Broker-Dealers” by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). They are held to a lower standard of diligence (or suitability) on behalf of their clients. In fact, they (stockbrokers) are required by federal law to act in the best interest of their employer, not in the best interest of their clients.

Because broker-dealers are not necessarily acting in your best interest, the SEC requires them to add the following disclosure to your client agreement. Read this disclosure, and decide if this is the type of relationship you want to dictate your financial security:

“Your account is a brokerage account and not an advisory account. Our interests may not always be the same as yours. Please ask us questions to make sure you understand your rights and our obligations to you, including the extent of our obligations to disclose conflicts of interest and to act in your best interest. We are paid both by you and, sometimes, by people who compensate us based on what you buy. Therefore, our profits, and our salespersons’ compensation, may vary by product and over time.”

If this disclaimer appears in agreements you are signing, you should ask questions of your advisor. Obtain complete disclosure about how he or she is compensated, and where his or her loyalties lie. Then decide if the relationship is in your best interest.

WHO IS A FIDUCIARY?

Fiduciary responsibility does not arise only in the financial services industry. Professionals in other fields also are legally required to work in your best interest.

Type of Professional

Who is a Fiduciary?

Physician

Yes, follows the Hippocratic Oath

Lawyer
Yes

Stock Broker
No

Insurance Agent
No

Registered Representative
No

CFP Practitioner
Maybe*

Financial Planner
Maybe*

Registered Investment Advisor
Yes

*Advisors who are affiliated with a broker-dealer firm are most likely not fiduciaries. If the client signs an NASD (now known as FINRA) binding arbitration agreement (which is required by almost every broker-dealer firm), then the firm’s advisors would not be held to a Fiduciary Standard by the North American Securities Dealers. CFP Practitioners and Financial Planners will be held to a Fiduciary Standard if they are also Registered Investment Advisors (RIA) or associated with an RIA.

HOW COMPENSATION IS RELATED TO FIDUCIARY CONDUCT

One of the best ways to judge if your financial advisor is held to a Fiduciary standard is to find out how he or she is compensated.
Fee-Only Compensation –
This model minimizes conflicts of interest. It is the required form of compensation for all Registered Investment Advisors. A Fee-Only Registered Investment Advisor charges clients directly for his or her advice and/or ongoing management. No other financial reward is provided, directly or indirectly, by any other institution. Fee-Only financial advisors are selling only one thing: their knowledge.

Different registered investment advisors utilize different compensation models. Some advisors charge an hourly rate, and others charge a flat fee or an annual retainer. Some charge an annual percentage, based on the assets they manage for you. With a Registered Investment Advisor, the form of compensation you are being charged will be disclosed upfront and clearly.

Fee-Based Compensation –
This popular form of compensation is often confused with Fee-Only, but it is very different. Fee-Based advisors earn some of their compensation from fees paid by their client. But they may also receive compensation in the form of commissions or discounts from financial products they are licensed to sell. Furthermore, they are not required to inform their clients in detail how their compensation is accrued. The Fee-Based model creates many potential conflicts of interest, because the advisor’s income is affected by the financial products that the client selects.

Commissions –
An advisor who is compensated solely through commissions faces immense conflicts of interest. This type of advisor is not paid unless a client buys (or sells) a financial product. A commission-based advisor earns money on each transaction—and thus has a great incentive to encourage transactions that might not be in the interest of the client. Indeed, many commission-based advisors are well-trained and well-intentioned. But the inherent potential conflict is great.

fi•du•ci•ar•y – A Financial Advisor held to a Fiduciary Standard occupies a position of special trust and confidence when working with a client. As a fiduciary, the Financial Advisor is required to act with undivided loyalty to the client. This includes disclosure of how the Financial Advisor is to be compensated and any corresponding conflicts of interest.

Wall Street’s Lack of Fiduciary Duty

Now, if not more than ever, client’s of Wall Street brokerage firms are becoming increasingly aware that their best interests are not kept in mind when their broker makes a recommendation.

In 2006, TD Ameritrade sponsored a survey (conducted by Penn, Schoen, & Berland Associates) that asked: “…whether they believed registered investment advisors (RIAs) orstockbrokers (registered representatives) have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the investor’s best interest.”  74% of the survey respondents were not aware that only a registered investment advisor (RIA) have a fiduciary duty to their clients.

To further prove this, clients of brokerage firms sign the following disclosure statement on all new brokerage firm account paperwork.  The disclosure states:
THIS IS A BROKERAGE SERVICE:  The Securities and Exchange Commission requires all broker-dealers who give brokerage advice for a fee to make the following disclosure. Accounts enrolled in this service are brokerage accounts and not advisory accounts. Our interests may not always be the same as yours. Please ask us questions to make sure you understand your rights and our obligations to you, including the extent of our obligations to disclose conflicts of interest and to act in your best interest. We are paid both by you and, sometimes, by people who compensate us based on what you buy. Therefore, our profits, and our salespersons’ compensation, may vary by product and over time. Please call us at XXX-XXX-XXXX if you have questions about the differences between a brokerage service and an advisory service.

After respondents of the 2006 survey conducted by TD Ameritrade were given the opportunity to read the disclosure statements of brokerage firms, 79% of the respondents stated that they would be less likely to go to a brokerage firm for financial advice.

Overall, a stockbroker (registered representative) is primarily in the business of buying and selling securities, the stockbroker is typically compensated by the products or services that are sold, they are primarily regulated by FINRA (which is a grouping of brokerage firms that are “self-regulated”), and stockbrokers are held to a standard of suitability (vs. a fiduciary standard).  Suitability requires that a stockbroker only sell products/services to clients when they “make sense” for them; suitability isn’t supposed to allow the stockbroker to sell an high-risk technology stock, for example, to a 95 year old widow.

On the other hand, a registered investment advisor, is primarily in the business of giving advice, the advisor is compensated for their advice not by the sale of a product/service, they are regulated by the US government through the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), and above all else are held to a fiduciary standard (a higher standard than suitability) which states that the advisor must do that which is in the best interest of the client without regard to their own motives.

Recently, these differences are really coming into light in the mainstream media specifically because failure of Bear Stern, massive write downs in mortgage bonds, and people having money literally frozen in Auction Rate Securities and Auction Preferred Stock that was promised to be liquid.

New Wash Sale Rules…. BEWARE!

NOTE:  I am not an accountant so don’t take this as tax advice.  I urge you to talk to to your tax professional about this because it may effect you.

Here is the scenario…. you own 100 shares of Intel in your regular taxable brokerage account.  Because you bought the shares in 1999/2000 for $70 a share you have a nice loss on the 100 shares of Intel.  Too, you still love the company and think it is going to do well for decades to come.  One day, around the end of the year your financial planner calls you up and says that he/she is going to sell your shares of Intel in your regular taxable brokerage account to realize this loss of $50 a share and immediately buy the shares back for you in your Roth IRA.  Sounds like a good idea!  It is a good idea, or should I say it was a good idea.

Like all good ideas when it comes to tax planning, they won’t be around forever.  With IRS Revenue Ruling 2008-3 and 2008-5 the scenario I just described above is now prohibited.  Doing what was described in the above scenario will not produce the loss.  Nor will the IRS allow you to utilize such a strategy to increase the tax basis of a IRA.

Additionally, according to an article in March 2008 issue of Trusts & Estates magazine, not disclosing that you sold the Intel at a loss in a taxable account and bought it back in a Roth IRA is considered an omission on your tax return by the IRS.

There may be some possible mistakes made by the IRS revenue ruling on this issue.  Until the ruling is tested in a tax court, I urge you to keep a mindful eye on what you sell at a loss and then buy in your IRA.

Written:  April 9, 2008

When in doubt, ASK!

All too often people make financial decisions that affect them financially without considering all of the impacts of that decision.  It doesn’t take but a few minutes to ask a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™, accountant or attorney what the potential ramifications might be.

Here is a real life example of what clients of mine from my office in Irvine (Orange County, CA) did.  The client is an un-married man and woman, boyfriend and girlfriend, in their sixties who have not married each other due to really messy past divorces.  They bought a house together (50-50) approximately 12 years ago in Newport Beach.  The boyfriend decided that he didn’t want his kids to get the home when he passes away as they are already “receiving enough.”  So he opted to gift to the girlfriend the house.

He filed a gift tax return as he should for the transfer, and decided to use a portion of his lifetime credit to avoid paying the gift tax.  Everything seemed normal….. until a notice of property valuation reassessment arrived.

Back in 1978, the state of California passed proposition 13 which amended the then current property tax laws.  One of its notable provisions was to lock in the value of a property based on the purchase date.  The property is not then reassessed until a change of ownership (subject to certain rules) occurs.

The gift of the house to the girlfriend was a change in ownership and thus the house was reassessed.  The assessed value rose more than $900,000, or about $9,000 per year in additional property taxes.

Here is my point.  When you are thinking of doing something big with money it doesn’t hurt to ask an expert’s opinion.  Had they asked me prior to the gift occurring, I would have warned them about the potential for an increase in property taxes.

Written:  February 17, 2008

Quoted and Referenced

Earlier this week and last I was quoted and referenced in a wonderful article by Marshall Eckblad, a reporter with Dow Jones.  The article deals with an important issue facing many baby boomers today.  That is, Negative Inheritance, or when kids spend more on their parents care than they will end up inheriting.

The article was printed in the Jan. 24, 2008 issue of the Wall Street Journal, and was picked up by many print and online newspapers throughout the country, including the Orange County Register, Forbes, CNBC, Yahoo Personal Finance, and MSNBC.

To view a copy of the article visit:

http://www.ocregister.com/news/parents-says-financial-1963137-family-care

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/01/17/ap4544855.html

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080117/negative_inheritance.html?.v=1&.pf=’family-home’

http://www.cnbc.com/id/22711871/for/cnbc

Written:  January 24, 2008

SEC Chair changes stance on Fiduciary Duty

The chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and former chairwoman of FINRA (fka NASD), is on record in a Wall Street Journal article as stating…

“I wear a new hat now. I completely get that I work for America’s investors, so my perspective has changed. I think investors would rationally say that they prefer fiduciary duty as the standard of care. And they are entitled to have their interests come first, always.”

The article that quoted her can be read by visiting:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123819596242261401.html

This is a real dichotomy shift from Ms. Shapiro.  In 2005, when she was the chair of the NASD, now FINRA, she wrote a nasty letter to the SEC basically condemning the idea of a fiduciary duty as being “imprecise and indeterminate.”

As a Fee-Only advisor, I am required to treat the needs of my clients above the needs of myself or my firm, to act as their fiduciary.  Stockbrokers, who do not have such a duty, poo-poo the idea of being required to treat their clients assets above the needs their firm.  However, they, the stockbrokers, sell their services to their clients as though they are subject to a fiduciary standard and unfortunately most people don’t know to ask enough to tell the difference.

Ms. Shapiro I truly hope you are being sincere and commend you for seeing that the new world is not one of caveat emptor.

 

Written:  March 31, 2009

No Press Given to IRS Notice 2008-30

Last year, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced something that skipped by unnoticed by almost every financial planner and accountant in the United States.  Heck, there was so much on everybody’s mind last year that a lot of things skipped by unnoticed.

What was skipped over… IRS Notice 2008-30.  If you are a non-spouse beneficiary of a 401k or other qualified retirement plan you should pay attention.

Here’s basically what IRS Notice 2008-30 stated…  A decedent’s (dead person’s) qualified retirement plan (i.e. 401k, 403b or pension) can be directly rolled over into a Roth IRA for a non-spouse beneficiary (such as a child, sibling, or life partner).  The Roth IRA is treated as an inherited IRA rather than the beneficiary’s own IRA.

If a non-spouse beneficiary of an qualified retirement account elects this it is analogous to a Roth IRA conversion.  With a regular Roth IRA conversion, a person converts a Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA by reporting the entire amount of the Traditional IRA as distributed and therefore as income to the IRS, there is no 10% early withdrawal penalty applied if under age 59.5.  Then with this entire distribution from the Traditional IRA a person deposits it into a Roth IRA.

Therefore, it is taxable income just as if the money had been distributed and then contributed to a Roth IRA.  Then the Roth IRA must begin to make annual required minimum distributions based upon the lifetime of the beneficiary starting in the year after the decedent’s death.  These annual required minimum distributions are tax-free distributions just like a qualified distribution from a regular Roth IRA.

The Roth IRA works differently than a Traditional IRA.  The benefit of a normal Roth IRA is that after an initial period of 5 years AND after age 59.5 any earnings within the Roth IRA can withdrawn tax free.  The initial amount contributed to a normal Roth IRA can be withdrawn at any time without any penalty or tax as it is considered after tax money by the IRS.  Any earnings withdrawn, with certain exceptions, from a normal Roth IRA are subject to income tax if withdrawn prior to age 59.5 AND before the initial five year holding.  There is no income tax deduction for contributions to a Roth IRA per se under normal circumstances.  With a normal Roth IRA there are no required minimum distributions for the account owner as there are with a Traditional IRA; after a person’s death the owner of the Beneficiary Roth IRA is required to take minimum distributions just like a Traditional IRA, but the distributions from the Beneficiary Roth IRA are not subject to income tax.

Any use of a Roth IRA is ideal for those who expect to be in a higher tax bracket in retirement versus their current income tax situation.  Generally, my advice to my clients is that a Roth IRA is preferable to a Traditional IRA as the current tax environment is known whereas the future tax environment is always unknown.

With the election to rollover a qualified retirement plan to a Roth IRA by a non-spouse beneficiary is best suited for those who are in a low income tax bracket the year the decedent passes away but expect to be in higher tax brackets later in life.  For example, a father in his 50s passes away and leaves his 401k to his son who is in his late 20s.

There are of course a few hurdles that must be overcome before a non-spouse beneficiary can elect to roll the qualified retirement plan into a Roth IRA.

 

1.The decedent’s qualified retirement plan must allow distributions from a deceased employee’s account into an IRA.  There is no legal requirement that a qualified retirement plan has to allow such a provision.  Most plans of large corporations do allow this.

2.The qualified retirement plan must be an eligible retirement plan under Section 402(c)(11).  Most are, so this is really a non-issue.

3.The beneficiary must meet the criteria for a conventional Roth IRA conversion (adjusted gross income below $100,000 in 2009 …no limit in 2010 and later years).

 

If the non-spouse beneficiary is later found to be ineligible for the direct rollover into a Roth IRA the rollover can be re-characterized as a transfer to a regular IRA.

So here is the crux of all this.  If you are a non-spouse beneficiary of a qualified retirement plan you should consider rolling the money into a Roth IRA if it makes sense for your individual tax situation.  Why?  You should consider this because if you do not elect this option the money will get rolled into a Beneficiary IRA and you cannot later make the election to change the Beneficiary IRA into a Beneficiary Roth IRA.  There are no consequences for getting it wrong and having your adjusted gross income (AGI) too high as you can correct the mistake by re-characterizing the rollover as a transfer to a regular IRA.

Another interesting benefit that comes from a non-spouse beneficiary electing to rollover the money to a Roth IRA benefits those situations wherein the decedent has a large estate that will be subject to estate taxes.  A beneficiary of  retirement assets is entitled to claim an itemized deduction on estate taxes paid for any estate taxes paid on the retirement asset by the estate of the decedent. Thus, while it is usually advantageous to defer income from taxes it can also be advantageous to accelerate income; since the federal estate tax is often higher than income tax the deduction makes sense for large estates that are/will be subject to estate tax.  Effectively this can cut the income tax paid by the non-spouse beneficiary who elects to roll the qualified retirement plan to a Roth IRA approximately in half.

This is a one time opportunity that should not be taken lightly if you are going to be a non-spouse beneficiary of a 401k or other qualified retirement plan.  To help you make the determination if this strategy is appropriate for you it is recommended that you seek advise from a qualified tax expert and a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ to help you figure out your tax liability and the implications of this election on your financial plan.

———————

A common scenario on this topic….

What if, under the duress of the death of your loved one, you do nothing about the 401k and leave it where it is for up to two years after your loved one died?  The answer is, the IRS is going to be fairly nice to you.

In Private Letter Ruling 200811028, the IRS allowed a beneficiary who didn’t take the required minimum distribution for the first two years after the decedent’s death was still eligible to receive distributions over their lifetime (“stretch provisions”).  Until this ruling was release you would have been automatically forfeited the “stretch” provisions.

If this applies to you, per Private Letter Ruling 200811028, then you, the beneficiary must take all of the missed distributions in the third year and pay the 50% penalty for the money not withdrawn and then you can continue to receive the “stretch” benefits of the IRA.

 

Written:  April 27, 2009

Regulating Financial Advice

The market news from Wall Street has been positive fairly positive since March.  But like me, are you wondering if Congress is ever going to change the way Wall Street takes risks with your money?

Right now Congress is looking at the big problems associated with the AIG and credit default problems, but sometime in the near future they will be looking at how to reform the way Wall Street brokers give you financial advice.

To those out there who are still upset with Wall Street misconduct, in a minute I’m going to explain how you can do something about it.

By way of background, the whole advisor area needs serious reform.  Years ago people clearly knew who was a stockbroker and insurance agent, because that’s what they called themselves.  Pretty simple.

The problem is they no longer call themselves brokers or insurance agents.  Today the preferred titles are financial advisor, financial consultant, wealth adviser, retirement specialist – the list goes on and on.  In reality, brokers and insurance agents are still regulated as sales people and the bottom line is they still need to meet sales quotas to stay in business.  This is hugely different from licensed professionals like doctors and lawyers, who are required to act in your best interest.  I am a registered investment adviser, which is different from the brokerage side of the business.  Investment advisers, like doctors and attorneys, are required to legally act in your best interest, not meet production numbers.

I believe that if someone talks the talk, they should walk the walk.   In other words, if someone markets themselves as a trusted advisor, they should be required to act in your best interest and to disclose conflicts of interest.  Some of the conflicts that need to be pro-actively disclosed but are either posted somewhere on a regulatory website or not at all are sales bonuses or payment incentives that might lead a salesperson to recommend a product that benefits them or their firm more than you.  Even worse, if they’ve been in trouble with the law before or sued for bad investment advice, current law doesn’t require them to disclose it to you upfront.  Investment advisers are required to disclose all of these things.

So here’s what you can do.  Grab a pen and write this down.  If you know of the name of your members of Congress – including your two senators, there are two easy way to contact them.  Call the Capitol Hill Switchboard in Washington, D.C. at 202-224-3121, that’s 202-224-3121, and they will be happy to connect you to either your house or senate member.  Just be prepared to leave a short message, since odds are your senator or representative is busy.

If you don’t know your congressperson’s name, or you want to contact them by email, just go to www.congress.org, enter your home address and zip code in the appropriate box and you will find a list and links to your congressperson and senators where you can contact them directly with your own message.

The message is pretty simple.  Tell them that a) you are an investor and voter, b) that you are upset with Wall Street greed, and c) the public needs congress to come up with common-sense regulation of all financial advisors.  Tell them that no matter if the adviser is regulated under insurance, banking, or brokerage laws, if they are giving investment and retirement advice to the public, they should be subject to a fiduciary standard that requires them to put your interest first.  You deserve no less than that.

In the future, I plan to provide you with additional updates on this show when congress turns its attention to this critical issue.

Written: June 4, 2009

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.