Let's face it; aging is tough. Who said it was graceful? Unfortunately, a new study by Fidelity Investments indicates that seniors are having a tough time managing their finances as they age. Luckily, there is something that you can do today! Take the necessary steps to start planning now.
Главные тенденции мирового венчурного рынка — в галерее Forbes
Don't make a financial resolution. Make a plan. Resolutions made at this time of year tend to have lofty goals: lose weight, stop smoking, get out of debt. And while these goals are certainly worthy, it's an old Savage Truth that a goal without a plan is just a dream! The latest Fidelity Investments' Annual Financial Resolutions Study rejoices that as the economy is now in better shape, people are more likely to make more financial resolutions. When the survey was started in the midst of the financial crisis, the resolution focus was on getting out of debt. Now, with the economy growing and unemployment down, Fidelity notes that the number of people planning to save more for retirement is at an all-time high of 64 percent, compared to 53 percent just last year. But how do you turn these great intentions into an actionable plan? Here are five tips for improving your financial future, relatively painlessly. 1. Increase your retirement plan contribution. Now is the perfect time to increase the deduction for your company plan - or increase the automatic monthly withdrawal from your checking account that goes into your IRA. What? Didn't open an IRA last year? Contact Fidelity or T. Rowe Price and start with as little as $1,000 -- if you make an automatic additional monthly contribution. 2. Know where you stand now in retirement funding. Almost every major mutual fund company offers an online retirement calculator. Fidelity's Retirement Score Calculator asks 6 simple questions about your age, your current savings, your annual income, your income replacement goal in retirement, and your risk tolerance. Then with a click you can see where you stand - and how much more you need to contribute each year to have a good chance of maintaining your lifestyle in retirement. 3. Pay Down Your Debt. Nothing will destroy your future faster than debt. It's a bigger risk to your financial health that the stock market, by far. It may seem risky to invest in the Standard & Poor 500 index mutual fund to earn only a dividend yield of about 2.5 percent , while hoping for market gains, not losses. But paying 18 percent or more in interest on your credit card balance is a sure road to financial disaster. Remember the simple formula to pay down credit card balances: Simply double the current minimum monthly payment and pay that exact same amount every month(even as future minimum requirements decline). Don't charge another penny. Your balance will be paid off in less than 3 years - compared to as long as 30 years if you only pay the required minimum every month. 4. Spend less. Saving more or getting out of debt is a lot easier if you just decide to spend less! It can be a combination of small things - opt out of dining out, or taking taxis, going to the movies. Or it could be one big item a month that you sacrifice in your goal to create a better future. Unthinkable to cancel your cable service? Or give up your car? Think what a dent it could make in your spending -- and your debt. 5. Earn more! This is the easiest way to be able to pay down debt and save more money. This doesn't mean asking the boss for a raise. But Uber proved that millions of Americans want flexible work to add to their income. Now look around at all the things you could do to help others - driving seniors, baby-sitting children, working in a retail store. All of them can add temporary income to reach your goal. Taking action is the difference between making a resolution and making a plan. What action will you take right now to make your financial dreams come true? That's the only way it will happen. And that's The Savage Truth. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Fidelity Asset Manager 50% Fund (FASMX) seeks high total return with reduced risk over the long term by allocating its assets among stocks, bonds, and short-term instruments
Fidelity Investment Grade Bond Fund (FBNDX) seeks a high level of current income
BOSTON (Reuters) - Fidelity Investments unintentionally boosted BlackRock Inc's prospects as a robo adviser with a small investment in a start-up company that BlackRock bought last year for an...
BOSTON (Reuters) - Fidelity Investments' $105 billion Contrafund is having a bad three-year run, but you would never know it by looking at its fees.
The social media sector, Facebook in particular, has set the trend for high valuations even without revenues or even monetization models. But not all these unicorns can expect to sustain such high valuations. Twitter's Buyout Prospects Twitter is a case in point. In its latest quarter, Twitter reported revenue of $615.93 million and a loss of $103 million. While it did exceed market expectations, it was the ninth straight quarter of slowing growth. In the face of stiff competition from the likes of Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat and its own struggle to fight abuse on its platform, its user growth rate has stagnated. Average monthly active users (MAUs) grew 3% over the year to 317 million. Average US MAUs grew 1.5% and average international MAUs grew 3.7% over the year. At the end of the quarter, Twitter had 67 million US-based users and 250 million international users. Compare this to its metrics at the time of its IPO: more than 218.3 million monthly active users and more than 100 million daily active users worldwide. Driven by its need to focus on high growth, improve margins, and revenue generating opportunities, Twitter plans to reduce 9% of its global staff, or 350 people and shut down its video-sharing app Vine. In September, Twitter had engaged Goldman Sachs to help plan a sale. Salesforce, Microsoft, Disney, and Alphabet were seen as prospective buyers. However, its anemic user growth rates, losses, and toxicity have been hampering its buyout prospects. After these prospective buyers backed out, the market was abuzz with rumors of Japan tech giant SoftBank's interest. From a peak of $18 billion at the height of its buyout buzz, its market cap has tumbled down to about $12 billion. Still a mega Unicorn, but a struggling one. Snap's IPO Prospects Snap, formerly known as Snapchat, is reportedly gearing up for an IPO. Unlike Twitter, it has seen phenomenal user growth from 50 million in 2014 to more than 110 million daily active users in 2015. It operates on a freemium model. It earns revenues through in-app purchases and premium services such as replies, along with advertising. Snap does not disclose detailed financials. Analysts estimate that it earned $59 million in revenues in 2015 compared with earlier estimates of $100 million. Revenues are projected to grow to $250 million-$350 million this year, and up to $1 billion by 2017. It has been venture funded so far with $2.65 billion in funding. Its last round of funding was held in May this year when it raised $1.8 billion at a valuation of $20 billion. An earlier round held in March last year had valued it at $16 billion. It is reportedly seeking to raise $4 billion from the IPO in March 2017 at a valuation of at least $25 billion. Snapchat has recently been making interesting moves to justify its valuation. It has announced plans to diversify out of pure chat offerings, and rebrand itself as Snap. It has also diversified into wearables. Pinterest Another unicorn with low revenue and ridiculously high valuation is Pinterest. It has raised $1.3 billion in funding from individual investors and funds including Valiant Capital Partners, FirstMark Capital, Fidelity Investments, Bessemer Venture Partners, SV Angel, Andreessen Horowitz, Slow Ventures, Rakuten, Jack Abraham, Max Levchin, Kevin Hartz, Michael Birch, New York Angels, William Lohse, Jeremy Stoppelman, Wellington Management, and Goldman Sachs. Its last round of funding was held in May 2015 when it raised $186 million at a valuation of $11 billion.. It is expected to triple its revenue to $300 million this year. Its monthly users increased from 100 million in September 2015 to 150 million in September 2016. It wasn't until very recently that Pinterest took active interest in monetization. It has struggled with figuring out a way to earn ad revenues, while keeping users interested. Last year, it began leveraging its women concentrated audience toward e-commerce initiatives like buyable pins. However, they never really took off as a way for users to actually make purchases. Pinterest also plans to slowly roll out so-called "buyable pins," posts from which users can buy products just by clicking a button. With these e-commerce initiatives, Pinterest hopes to reach $2.8 billion in revenues by 2018 and grow its active user base to 329 million by 2018. It has ruled out an IPO any time soon. This is a company that Amazon could buy and monetize nicely. Quora Even question answer site Quora has recently started its monetization efforts by introducing targeted advertising. It will show ads in a selected few pages that is most likely the target audience of the advertiser. Initially, it plans to allow only Lever, Uber, Wealthfront, and Sunrun to advertise on its platform. Quoara has recently reported that it has 100 million monthly visitors, 50% from the US and 15% from India. Quora has raised $141 million from investors including Adam D'Angelo, Benchmark, Matrix Partners, North Bridge Venture Partners & Growth Equity, SV Angel, Techammer, Tiger Global Management, Y Combinator, Benjamin Ling, and Keith Rabois. It last raised $80 million in April 2014 at a valuation of $900 million. At that point of time, it had no revenue. Snap, Pinterest, and Quora are on a path where they need to tread carefully. If they fail to monetize effectively or their user growth saturates, they might end up like Twitter. Not all startups can expect to have exits like Whatsapp, which was acquired for $19 billion by Facebook with no monetization. More investigation and analysis of Unicorn companies can be found in my latest Entrepreneur Journeys book, Billion Dollar Unicorns. The term Unicorn was coined in a TechCrunch article by Aileen Lee of Cowboy Ventures. Photo credit: Tomais Ashdene/Flickr.com. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Wells Fargo, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Wells Fargo, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America
Major banking stocks continued their rally over the last five trading days. After Donald Trump's victory, nomination of Steve Mnuchin as Treasury secretary seems to be a driving factor for banking stocks, as he recommended turning over certain Dodd-Frank financial rules.
Troubles heap on Wells Fargo & Company (WFC), which faces a new class action lawsuit, alleging the bank of enriching itself at the cost of its employees' retirement savings by including costly, in-house target date funds in its 401(k) plan.
Использование зарубежных банковских счетов весьма проблематично и все больше напоминает езду в автомобиле без колес
BOSTON (Reuters) - Long-time Fidelity Investments Chairman Edward C. Johnson III will retire next month and will be succeeded by his daughter, Abigail Johnson, the company said on Monday.
Are you uncomfortable having “the talk” with your kids? No, not that talk. The money talk. You may not be alone. More than one-third (34%) of millennial young adults admit they find it difficult to start conversations with their parents about saving and investing, according to the Fidelity Investments® Millennial [...]
What Happens When Billionaires Dominate the Charitable Sector? The last couple of years have been boom years for philanthropy. Total donations from individuals, foundations and corporations rose in 2015 to over $373 billion, a 10 percent increase since 2013. But behind this statistic is a troubling trend. The charitable sector is getting a growing number of mega-donations from wealthy donors and experiencing a parallel decline in donations by low and middle-income household. According to new study that we co-authored, Gilded Giving: Top Heavy Philanthropy in an Age of Extreme Inequality, the U.S. is moving toward a philanthropic sector dominated and controlled by billionaire mega-donors, their foundations, and donor-advised funds. This has dangerous implications for the independent nonprofit sector and the health of U.S. democracy. Charitable contributions by the wealthy have risen significantly in the last decade. Between 2003 and 2013, itemized contributions from people making $10 million or more increased by 104 percent. The number of private grant-making foundations, mostly established by wealthy individuals and their families, doubled since 1993, from 43,956 to 86,726 in 2015. Meanwhile, charitable giving by low and middle-income donors has steadily declined. From 2003 to 2013, itemized charitable deductions by donors making less than $100,000 declined by 34 percent. Low-dollar and midrange donors to national public charities declined by 25 percent from 2005 to 2015. One explanation is rising economic inequality. There is a high correlation between donor declines and economic insecurity indicators such as declining wages, homeownership and employment rates. This top-heavy philanthropy is bad for the independent nonprofit sector as it contributes to funding unpredictability and a growing focus on wooing and maintaining a finite number of mega-donors. Depending on a small number of wealthy donors also increases the risk of mission drift, as donors press their particular interests and projects. But the biggest peril is for our wider civil society and democracy. Private foundations can become blocks of concentrated unaccountable power with considerable clout in shaping our culture. They can become extensions of personal power, privilege, and influence for a handful of wealthy families. This can lead to a wide range of abuses. In 2013, the Minnesota-based Otto Bremer Foundation gave out $38 million in grants and paid their three trustees a total of $1.2 million to make the decisions. Two of the trustees, Brian Lipchultz and Daniel Reardon, paid themselves over $465,000 each. "It's just an outrageously high level of compensation for trustee service," said Aaron Dorfman, executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. "These institutions get tremendously preferential tax treatment," he told The Pioneer Press. "And because of the tax-exempt status they enjoy, the rest of us pay higher taxes and, in effect, subsidize nonprofit tax-exempt charitable foundations." Indeed, taxpayers have a legitimate interest in the conduct of private charities. The rest of us subsidize up to 50 cents of every dollar that wealthy donors shift into the charitable sector. The wealthier the donor and the bigger the gift, the greater the amount of tax revenue lost from income and estate taxes. Some wealthy people use foundations and donor-advised funds as an extension of a tax avoidance strategy along side off-shore tax havens and opaque trusts that hide wealth. When reducing or avoiding taxes is a significant driver of philanthropic giving, the urgency of moving funds directly to charities on the ground becomes a secondary consideration. By creating and giving to private foundations, donors receive immediate tax deductions for the full amount of their donations, but are required to make only minimal payouts over time. A similar warehousing of wealth occurs with donor advised funds. The Fidelity Charitable Fund, an arm of Fidelity Investments, just surpassed United Way as the largest recipient of charitable contributions. These philanthropic assets that may sit for years or decades after the initial tax deduction has been taken and before any significant payout. Charity Watch estimates that the growth of donor-advised funds has delayed an estimated $15 billion in donations to public charities. In a troubling number of cases, wealthy families of all political persuasions have been able to deploy private foundation assets to advance a narrow set of interests under the guise of philanthropy. For example, donors can use large donations to private schools and universities to secure admissions for their progeny. Foundations in affluent public school districts allow parents to make tax-deductible contributions to support their children's schools, compounding inequalities between rich and poor school districts. Wealthy donors fund nonprofit think tanks and tax exempt advocacy groups that further a wealth-protection agenda in the political arena. As journalist Jane Mayer has documented in her book Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, a segment of multi-millionaire donors have "weaponized philanthropy" to advance a self-interested public policy agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, and opposition to climate change policy. The last time the legal rules governing the charitable sector were overhauled was 1969. Congress should modernize these rules, in this new era of inequality, to protect the independent sector, expand giving by low and middle-income households, prohibit the warehousing of wealth, and protect the integrity of our tax system. Rule changes could include increasing incentives for low and middle-income donors, capping the charitable deduction for high-end donors, and requiring greater board independence. Rules governing donor-advised funds should require timely distributions. Lawmakers should levy a lifetime cap on tax-deductible charitable giving to ensure that those who possess some of the largest fortunes in the United States cannot use such deductions to entirely dodge tax obligations through donations and bequests. To fundamentally address the perils of top-heavy philanthropy, the public must demand that policymakers reduce concentrations of wealth and power in our society at large. This includes closing loopholes and restoring steeply progressive income and wealth taxation. And under a Trump administration, we will be required to defend the federal estate tax, our nation's only levy on the inherited wealth of multi-millionaires and billionaires. Without action, we could drift further toward an oligarchy of wealth, with family-controlled becoming an extension of private power. Originally Published at Common Dreams. *** See the Gilded Giving report HERE. Chuck Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies where he co-edits Inequality.org. He is author of the new book, Born on Third Base: A One Percenter Makes the Case for Tackling Inequality, Bringing Wealth Home and Committing to the Common Good. Helen Flannery is an Associate Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and long-time researcher and data analyst in the nonprofit sector. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Компания SpaceX раскрыла амбициозный план по созданию новой спутниковой системы, которая позволит покрыть всю Землю высокоскоростным, гигабитным Интернетом, а также обеспечить доступом к Сети даже самые отдаленные уголки планеты. Проект Илона Маска уже очень близок к реальности.