-
Hi，我是康宋章
我在图客网上安家了，请您也加入吧！
图客网（tuke.com）时代交易（pt.tuke.com）是全球最大的视觉版权经营交易平台，超过10000名优秀摄影师入驻，创建了独立的图片库品牌网上商店，为数千家图片用户提供正版图片及增值产品，我的几个摄影师好友和买图客户已经在上面注册并达成交易了，在这里您不但可以买卖图片，还可以与同行、同爱好摄影师与买家交流学习，扩展您的摄影交际圈，结交天下爱好摄影的朋友，期待您的加入！
2009-07-14
The Baseball Player Who Mastered the Market
There is one ball player out there who has cracked the nut of investing -- a guy who grasps the underlying complexities of the financial world with astonishing ease. Even though I've never heard him utter even one market catch phrase or a single financial buzzword, it's clear that this guy just gets it.
Do you know who he is? Let me help you out.
First, I assure you his name does not rhyme with Denny Lykstra -- who clearly doesn't get it.
I doubt that the guy I'm thinking of has ever played with a Bloomberg terminal, made a call on a stock, or managed a dime of anyone else's money. Yet this man is able to grasp abstract concepts like risk and uncertainty better than most risk-management officers on Wall Street do.
His name is Yogi Berra, and he's awesome.
Admit it. You already like him.
If you made a list of quotable people who also happen to be athletes, this name should fall near the top. But there's a whole lot more to Yogi Berra than just an amusing quip or a clever taunt. He seems to harbor an innate understanding of risk and chance. Examine the following statements:
- "The future ain't what it used to be."
- "A nickel ain't worth a dime anymore."
- "I knew the record would stand until it was broken."
In three terse sentences, Berra captures the central ideas behind a few big investment problems:
- Predictions are rarely accurate.
- The dynamic between price and value is always changing.
- When you're dealing with an uncertain future, nothing is written in stone.
These are basic yet crucial investing principles. And although Yogi hasn't physically mastered the market -- at least, that I know of -- his ability to speak with this kind of elegant simplicity is unique.
What would Yogi think?
This makes me wonder what Yogi would say about a recent article published in the Wall Street Journal, which discussed the failure of Monte Carlo models (and the financial advisors using them) to anticipate the financial disaster of late.
The Monte Carlo simulation, for those who don't know, takes various inputs, runs them against randomized simulations, and then throws the results together into a statistical model. If you haven't heard of this process, perhaps you should ask your financial advisor, wealth manager, or investment bank about it, because someone who touches your money has probably been using this software to model risk in your portfolio. The results of these simulations are then used to answer a rather crucial question: Will you have enough money to survive once you retire?
Suspicion tells me that Yogi might have a problem with a machine that's meant to predict the future.
Despite the elaborate complexity of these models and all of the theoretical science involved, financial simulators are all flawed in one simple way: The future is, by definition, unknown. So you can't really model it. You can try, but it won't work.
Yogi already knows this. Sadly, most financial advisors don't.
Where it all went wrong
Humans and models together failed to anticipate our recent market collapse. Don't blame the models, though. After all, a simulator can be only as good as the person who calibrates it.
In addition to false assumptions regarding "normalized" statistical distribution of stock market returns (and I promise not to get more technical on you than that), I'm nearly certain that the folks who coded these simulations -- as well as those using them -- further rationalized that the U.S. markets were too stable and had too many fail-safes in place to experience a 50% drop such as the one we've just experienced.
And therein lies the problem. Of all people, the individuals calibrating these simulations should be the most familiar with how probable a 50% market drop truly is. And regrettably, they were not.
The market does crash
Drops on the scale of 50% are unusual, but they're not out of the realm of possibility. In fact, they happen a lot more frequently than we'd like to believe. Think about it: We've had numerous double-digit swings in this decade alone.
I can't help feeling that the simulations as they were set were a lot like a flight simulator that doesn't offer a "landing in a thunderstorm" scenario. Thunderstorms happen more often than 50% drops in the stock market do, but either one can result in the same thing: bad, bad landings.
If you examine the historic returns of the stock market, you'll ultimately conclude that if you're alive on this planet for more than 20 to 30 years, it's more than likely you'll experience a huge drop in the stock market. So why the heck didn't these models account for that fact?
Choose to acknowledge reality
The reality is this: Massive volatility is here, always has been here, and probably always will be here.
Please forget doing what these financial advisors are trying to do. Don't attempt to predict the future and make investments based on these predictions. No one really knows what the future is going to look like, even (and perhaps especially) the experts. The market will go up, and it will go down -- everything else is uncertain.
Next, don't trick yourself into thinking that any individual assumption about the future, no matter how safe it may seem, is a 100% lock. Need evidence? Check out some of these more recently infamous assumptions:
| Stock | Assumption | 2-Year Return |
|---|---|---|
| General Electric (NYSE: GE) | Great investment. Safe. Stodgy. A well-insulated superconglomerate. | (72%) |
| Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) | Largest owner of American mortgages. Enjoys pseudo-governmental protection and has direct access to the strongest, most-secure assets in the world -- American homeowners. | (99%) |
| AIG (NYSE: AIG) | Biggest provider of insurance services in the world. Safe. Conservative. Profitable. | (99%) |
| Citibank (NYSE: C) | Largest global bank, offering a full suite of financial services. Extremely well run and very well protected. | (95%) |
Five years ago, someone would have provoked laughter at the suggestion that these five businesses would end up in their current state. Perhaps you should consider similar assumptions that people are making about supposedly supersafe stocks ... whether it's McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) or Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) or whatever. It's really not much different in these cases. Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) may seem invincible, but it's not. Anything can happen.
Three steps to control risk
It's in your best interest to calibrate your own portfolio to account for the stock market's lack of certainty. How?
- Don't make outsized bets on any one investment if you can't afford to lose 100% of your money. It's the stock market, folks. Your money could all get wiped away before you can do a thing about it.
- Next, don't count exclusively on having one or two things going right with your investment, when so many things can go wrong. Avoid situations in which a precious small number of things must go right for your investment to succeed.
- And finally, stay away from investments that you truly don't understand. You can never find a sure thing, but you can certainly push the odds in your favor.
The Foolish final word
Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over till it's over."
If you're investing as if the future is a foregone conclusion, then you might just find yourself the unfortunate victim of a bad assumption. Don't let that happen. Diversify yourself across a bed of the world's best companies. No one can guarantee success, but the odds are substantially in your favor if you at least diversify. And that's how you make more money without seriously risking losing all of it.
5 Cold Stocks Heating Up
When a stock's share price is lower than a North Dakota thermometer in February, investors tend to give it the cold shoulder. But as the market warms to a stock's prospects, its price can heat up in a hurry. Alas, you can rarely tell that a stock is melting investors' hearts until after it's made that upward leap.
Taking the market's temperature
But Motley Fool CAPS' proprietary ratings, aggregated from the opinions and accuracy of 135,000-plus members, offer a great way to monitor investor sentiment. Following a CAPS rating trend can help us determine the best time to invest. Let's look at previously rated one- or two-star companies that have recently enjoyed a bump in investor confidence, and see whether they're truly heating up -- or headed back to the deep freeze.
| Company | CAPS Rating (Out of 5) | Recent Price | EPS Estimates (Next Year/Year After) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blackstone Group (NYSE: BX) | *** | $9.13 | $0.33/$0.87 |
| Cymer (Nasdaq: CYMI) | *** | $29.23 | ($0.12)/$1.15 |
| Fuel Systems Solutions (Nasdaq: FSYS) | *** | $19.12 | $1.40/$1.74 |
| Netflix (Nasdaq: NFLX) | *** | $42.19 | $1.72/$2.09 |
| Xerox (NYSE: XRX) | *** | $6.32 | $0.51/$0.69 |
Source: Motley Fool CAPS.
Obviously, this is not a list of stocks to buy -- just a starting point for further research. Yet if some of the best investing minds are taking notice of these stocks, maybe we should pay attention, too.
The sun's always shining somewhere
This isn't the first time Netflix has been the subject of buyout rumors -- and at the hands of Amazon.com (Nasdaq: AMZN), no less. Yet just as previous rumors proved to be just that, the rationale for a buyout this time seems even less grounded in reality.
If Netflix executives had a "grab the cash with both hands" mentality, the scenario might make sense. Amazon is positioning itself to be a top contender for streaming video, and Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has admitted that the death of the DVD will eventually become reality. So getting while the getting's good, when your stock has more than doubled from its low point last October and you're still riding high, might make sense on some level.
Except that Hastings and company haven't shown themselves to be particularly concerned about competing technologies, and no rival has yet managed to knock Netflix from its pedestal. Blockbuster (NYSE: BBI), once a credible threat, today barely clings to relevancy. Amazon, Wal-Mart, and a host of others have tried and failed, too. The closest thing Netflix sees as a threat is plucky kiosk video vendor Redbox, but even then, I wouldn't worry too much. Videophiles are more likely to use Redbox as an adjunct to their Netflix subscription than as a replacement for it. As Foolish comrade Rick Munarriz wrote, Netflix can afford to say "no thank you" to this offer -- should it materialize.
Highly rated CAPS All-Star member TheOriginalBK thinks investors still have plenty of opportunity to profit from Netflix, even at this late stage, in light of the many deals it's putting together.
I am way late to this party, but hey, it's a good party. I am not a huge movie person, I watch maybe 2 a month. I also very rarely know when I'm going to be able to do so. [It's] so nice just to have a movie sitting around ready to watch whenever. And the plans are more reasonable than paying for each movie like cable/dish offerings. With the partnerships for streaming movies developing quickly, I think this party will continue for a while ....
Not everyone is a Netflix partisan, however. CAPS member christian8181 believes that as the value proposition of what cable and satellite have to offer becomes more widespread, the benefit of a Netflix subscription diminishes. "on demand cable, dvr, fierce competition between cable/satellite companies given way to nice promotions, bundle packages cutting costs further ... why do I need Netflix anymore when $10 more each month gives me more value with the cable company?"
Will Housing Bottom in … 2011?
That is the likely scenario according to a report published on Tuesday by mortgage insurer PMI Group, according to which 28 of the country's 50 largest metropolitan areas face high odds of lower home prices in the first quarter of 2011 (vs. now).
Unemployment takes the relay baton
The areas with the worst odds of home price drops are in states that were in the eye of the housing bubble, including California and Florida, but the report notes that the increase in risk "is now largely being driven by rising unemployment and foreclosure rates."
PMI's forecast contradicts Yale economist and housing guru Robert Shiller. Last week, commenting on a lower-than-expected drop in the Case-Shiller home price index in the month of April, he said: "My guess would be that home prices are going to level off -- they're not going to keep falling." Still, he cautioned "it's hard to predict" a speculative market. So, who is correct?
A sector at risk: Consumer discretionary
Although Shiller is well-informed and appropriately skeptical, I think we may witness something closer to PMI's scenario due to persistent high unemployment. If that turns out to be the case, it isn't good news for companies that rely heavily on a buoyant U.S. consumer, particularly those that look somewhat expensive:
| Company | Forward P/E | YTD Price Return |
|---|---|---|
| Amazon.com (Nasdaq: AMZN) | 44.5 | 47.5% |
| Sears Holdings (Nasdaq: SHLD) | 30.0 | 53.7% |
| Marriott (NYSE: MAR) | 21.7 | 1.4% |
| Abercrombie & Fitch (NYSE: ANF) | 19.0 | 1.3% |
| Starbucks (Nasdaq: SBUX) | 17.0 | 37.1% |
| Home Depot (NYSE: HD) | 16.7 | (2.7%) |
| Yum! Brands (NYSE: YUM) | 16.1 | 9.5% |
Source: Capital IQ, author's calculations.
Note that I do not have a view on whether these stocks are overvalued -- they were selected systematically because they are statistically expensive based on a single metric.
Although economists can argue about the magnitude of the "wealth effect" according to which changes in home values affect consumption, I think there is little doubt that further home price drops would affect consumer confidence and, ultimately, the level of consumption. In that environment, defensive sectors (health care and consumer staples), which lagged many other sectors during the second-quarter rally, may find favor again.
2009-07-13
The Worst Stocks to Buy Today
If you missed the best week to buy stocks, you might be kicking yourself. I know I am. The market is, after all, up 32% from its March 9 low.
But just as it was unwise to panic-sell when everyone around us was losing their heads, it's equally unwise to panic-buy now that the market is in rally mode.
The sudden switch in investor sentiment -- from stocking up on gold, potatoes, and ammunition in early March to "everything's going to be OK" just four months later -- is reason enough to be skeptical of this rally.
The key to investing success, as always, is being patient and continuing to buy quality companies trading at good values. This rally, however, has largely been led by inferior companies that had been heavily shorted and left on death's doorstep.
Trying to hitch a ride on them now may be tempting, but proceed with caution.
Garbage pail kids
Following a string of notable bankruptcies, from retailers like Circuit City to once-vaunted financial institutions like Lehman Brothers, investors rightly began to wonder who would be the next to fall.
Indeed, the futures of a number of well-known but heavily indebted American institutions were in serious doubt. International Paper (NYSE: IP) and MGM Mirage (NYSE: MGM), for example, were at one point trading at $4 and $2, respectively. Both companies have naturally been under tremendous pressure to shore up capital and responded by selling assets, refinancing existing debt, and -- in the case of International Paper -- slicing the dividend by 90%.
Since March 9, International Paper shares have gained 237% and MGM Mirage 154%. These are just two examples of the recent "dash to trash" in this market rally. Consider the profile of the 340 US-based companies with current market caps over $300 million that have gained more than 100% since March 9:
| Debt-to-Equity | Net Income (LTM) | Return on Capital | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median | 90% | ($47.9 million) | 4.1% |
Source: Capital IQ, as of July 6, 2009.
Put simply, this rally's been largely led by weak hands. While it may be tempting to jump on this bandwagon now, these are the worst stocks to buy today, especially since we're not completely out of the economic woods just yet. If things take a turn for the worse again, chasing these stocks could be a very costly mistake.
Instead, investors (as opposed to speculators) should focus on profitable companies that generate free cash flow, that have a track record of rewarding shareholders with efficient use of capital, and that have strong balance sheets.
These are the types of companies that will emerge from macroeconomic turmoil even stronger than before.
Names, please
Despite the recent rally, there are still many quality companies trading at reasonable valuations that are worth further research, including the following.
| Company | Price to Free Cash Flow | Return on Equity |
|---|---|---|
| Cisco Systems (Nasdaq: CSCO) | 10.4 | 20.1% |
| Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG) | 13.6 | 18.5% |
| Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ) | 9.6 | 19.6% |
| Oracle (Nasdaq: ORCL) | 13.4 | 23.2% |
| Adobe (Nasdaq: ADBE) | 13.1 | 16.3% |
Source: Capital IQ.
Given their size, you shouldn't expect any of these companies to become a six-bagger in a matter of weeks the way Ruby Tuesday did recently, but you can sleep a little better at night knowing your management team isn't slashing dividends or selling assets just to pay the bills. In fact, Oracle just announced its first regular dividend, and in April, Procter & Gamble marked its 53rd consecutive year of increased dividend payouts by boosting its payout 10%.
Foolish bottom line
After sustaining significant losses over the past year, it may be tempting to chase after struggling companies that have had huge run-ups in this rally, but do your best to not lead yourself into that temptation. If buying distressed stocks was a gamble in early March, it's an even bigger gamble now that many have soared in price. Another downturn in the market and they could be going from heroes back to zeroes -- literally.
The market's still a volatile place, so remember to stay patient and focused on buying the companies that actually turn a profit, have strong balance sheets, and are led by top-notch management. Begin by building a watchlist of stocks you'd love to own if they fall another 10% to 20%. This way, you're ready to strike when the market gives you the opportunity.
Wall Street's 10 Favorite Stocks Right Now
On the heels of some seriously ugly macroeconomic news and last year's market plunge, investors withdrew more than $55 billion from their mutual funds in just the first three months of this year. Things are scary out there, and investors are (understandably) freaking out.
All that pressure got you down ...
When Wall Street's all sunshine and roses, everyone is a stock market genius. Only during the uncertain times do most investors seek "expert" advice. That often means pulling up Yahoo! Finance to see what analysts think of their stocks.
Despite my long-standing misgivings about the worthiness of Wall Street's advice -- especially now, after a year of watching their business sense nearly destroy our entire economy -- I wanted to find Wall Street's 10 favorite stocks.
So I built a screen using Capital IQ, a great institutional software package. I sought out the stocks with the most analyst "net buy" recommendations, with net buys defined as buys minus sells.
Here they are:
| Company | Analyst Net Buy Recommendations | % Owned by Institutions* | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Activision Blizzard | 18 | 45% | $14.6 billion |
| Enterprise Products | 14 | 23% | $11.9 billion |
| American Eagle | 13 | 65% | $2.7 billion |
| Aqua America (NYSE: WTR) | 13 | 53% | $2.4 billion |
| Applied Materials | 12 | 94% | $15.1 billion |
| Humana | 12 | 85% | $5.2 billion |
| BioMarin Pharmaceuticals | 11 | 129% | $1.4 billion |
| Juniper Networks (Nasdaq: JNPR) | 11 | 114% | $12.1 billion |
| St. Jude (NYSE: STJ) | 11 | 89% | $13.7 billion |
| Comcast (Nasdaq: CMCSA) | 11 | 86% | $38.8 billion |
Source: Capital IQ, a division of Standard & Poor's.
Includes domestic stocks trading on major exchanges. Analyst recommendations as of June 30, 2009; institutional ownership as of March 31, 2009.
*Approximate. Institutional ownership may exceed 100% because of short sales or a lag time in the reporting of institutional holdings.
So what general themes can we gather from this list?
- For all the flak that we at The Motley Fool dish out to Wall Street for its susceptibility to deadly value traps, chronically unhinged earnings estimates, and proclivity to overvalue stocks, I was pleasantly surprised to see so many strong names on the list. Activision, St. Jude, and Comcast have competitive advantages from their brand, patents, and monopolies, respectively. NYSE Euronext (NYSE: NYX) recently announced it will be using Juniper's hardware to help it build the world's fastest trading network. Aqua America, Enterprise Products, and Applied Materials enjoy strong support from our 135,000-member CAPS investment community.
- Six of Wall Street's 10 favorite stocks hail from the health-care and IT industries. Qualcomm and Amgen (Nasdaq: AMGN) also ranked very highly. We could read this as an informed endorsement that these industries will lead the recovery. Analysts could also be betting that these businesses will benefit from stimulus spending on broadband access, National Institutes of Health research, and subsidized health insurance. Alternatively, it could just mean that even during recessions, Wall Street can't help but get wrapped up in its enthusiasm for exciting growth industries.
- Almost by definition, most of Wall Street's favorite stocks are widely followed, widely owned, large, prominent companies. Twenty-six analysts cover these stocks on average. All have heavy institutional ownership, and the majority are large caps valued at more than $10 billion.
While many of them could turn out to be great investments, do any of Wall Street's 10 favorite stocks have what it takes to be among the market's 10 best-performing stocks?
Let's find out
To answer that question, let's compare Wall Street's best buy list to the past decade's 10 best-performing stocks.
For each of the past four years, Tim Hanson, former microcap analyst at Motley Fool Hidden Gems, has published his findings on the market's best-performing stocks. Here is his most recent data:
| Company | Return, 1999-2008 | Jan. 1, 1999 Market Cap |
|---|---|---|
| Hansen Natural | 4,801% | $53 million |
| Celgene | 4,167% | $252 million |
| Quality Systems (Nasdaq: QSII) | 4,002% | $26 million |
| Clean Harbors | 3,953% | $16 million |
| Green Mountain Coffee Roasters | 3,786% | $19 million |
| Deckers Outdoor | 3,374% | $19 million |
| Almost Family | 3,122% | $9 million |
| XTO Energy | 2,992% | $343 million |
| Southwestern Energy | 2,911% | $187 million |
| FTI Consulting | 2,907% | $16 million |
Source: Capital IQ, a division of Standard & Poor's.
What characteristics do the market's top 10 stocks have in common?
They certainly don't belong to a common industry -- Hansen makes natural fruit juices and energy drinks, Deckers sells Ugg boots and other footwear, Almost Family does home nursing, and Southwestern searches for natural gas. These are about as varied and as seemingly random a collection of companies as you could hope to find.
But the 10 best-performing stocks did share three special things in common before they made their incredible runs. They were:
- Ignored
- Obscure
- Small
While many of the stocks on Wall Street's top 10 list may be excellent choices, none of them shares the three qualities that seem so crucial to stellar performance.
Stocks possessing these traits not only have more opportunities for growth, but they also attract less coverage from Wall Street -- meaning they're more likely to be mispriced. Ironically, these very qualities make it nearly impossible for any of the best-performing stocks to rank among Wall Street's favorites!
And as I've shown in a previous column, those attributes are especially attractive today, when so many stocks are cheap. According to data I compiled from Ibbotson Associates, a leading authority on investing research, small stocks outperformed large stocks over the past 13 recessions by an average of four percentage points annually!
Small is good
Wall Street's 10 favorite stocks may turn out to be great investments, but it's highly unlikely that any company that attracts so much attention will be one of the top 10 stocks of the next decade. If you want to buy the best returns the market has to offer, you have to be willing to look where others aren't.
You're Not Set for Life
Every so often, PBS reruns its superb documentary on the history of Bethlehem Steel. One of the most poignant lines comes from the wife of a Bethlehem Steel employee, who said, "Bethlehem Steel was a giant. You knew if you worked for a place like that, you were . . . set for life."
But Bethlehem Steel went bankrupt, and retirees who thought they were "set for life" found themselves out in the cold instead. As Lantz Metz, a historian with the National Canal Museum, pointed out, "The human tragedy [of Bethlehem Steel] is not so much the loss of jobs . . . The human tragedy is the many, many people who were dependent on benefits which they thought were guaranteed."
And it could happen again.
A cautionary tale
Over a century and a half of American history, Bethlehem Steel built the iron bones of our nation. But by the 1990s, Bethlehem's own bones had become frail. Wracked by debt and beset by foreign rivals, Bethlehem struggled to earn the profits needed to pay salaries to 11,500 workers and the pensions for 120,000 retirees and dependents.
In 2001, Bethlehem gave up and filed for bankruptcy. A year later, it transferred its pension obligations to the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).
In one fell swoop, Bethlehem's retirees -- people who had already fulfilled their side of the social contract -- were put at the mercy of the federal bureaucracy. The problem was that mercy isn't bureaucracy's strong suit.
The PBGC reneged on Bethlehem's agreement to let workers retire on full pensions after 30 years. When the PBGC took over, the 30-years-and-out agreement was scrapped, and workers got the standard deal: Retirement at age 62, period. Even if you were only a week away from your 30th anniversary, if you hadn't crossed the finish line, the PBGC erased it under your nose.
Nor were retirees any safer. You see, when pensions are underfunded, the PBGC doesn't always make up the difference. In Bethlehem's case, the PBGC determined that the pension fund needed a cash infusion of $4.3 billion. The PBGC made up much of the difference.
Unfortunately, Bethlehem's employees and retirees had also bargained -- and worked -- for the promise of health-care coverage in retirement. The PBGC calculated the value of that promise at $3.1 billion -- but didn't cover a dime of it.
"It could happen to you"
Heed the prophetic words of Ed McMahon. A recent study conducted by Merrill Lynch listed 40 U.S. companies with significantly underfunded pension obligations. As you might expect, the list includes smokestack industrialists such as Dow (NYSE: DOW), Alcoa (NYSE: AA) and U.S. Steel (NYSE: X). As of December 31, 2008, the three firms' unfunded pension liabilities totaled $8.2 billion.
More surprising are the representatives of industries you might not expect to be in this situation: massively profitable biotech shops like Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) and Pfizer (NYSE: PFE), for example, as well as black-gold rollers-in ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) and Chevron (NYSE: CVX).
What all these companies have in common is that they date from the era of the old social contract: You give your employer the best years of your life, and in return for your loyalty, and for taking a lower wage than you could have earned elsewhere, your employer will provide you a decent pension in your golden years.
It's time to master your money
Now every story needs a moral, and this one is no exception: The age of the old social contract is kaput.
Whether by design or incompetence, the managements of many of America's greatest companies of yesteryear are today unable to keep their word. As Steve Miller, the man brought in to "save" Bethlehem Steel in 2001, put it: "We do not have the money to make good on all the promises made by this corporation over the last 50 years."
If you're nearing retirement, or if you've already retired and depend on your former employer to keep paying your benefits, it's time to ask yourself how much faith you have in management.
Are you certain that your employer actually has the money to honor its promises? If you're not certain, then you need to do something about that. Because the sad truth is, there's only one person who can make your retirement secure for yourself and your family: You.
But here's the good news: You're not alone. At Motley Fool Rule Your Retirement, our sole goal is to help you be sure that when you're ready to retire, you're able to enjoy it. Take a free trial of the service now -- absolutely free. If you're not 100% thrilled with the service, we'll give you 30 days to cancel with no questions asked, no strings attached. Just click here to get started.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
