After a long hiatus, the EBFLC is back again. Not only that, it has new tools to work with. Seems quite awhile ago when I started this club back in September 2005. Since then, it has evolved (or de-evolved, depending on your point of view) from actual meetings that became never-published book chapters, to monthly essays, to occasional blogs. Now I have taken financial information into the tech era by creating movies to illustrate basic financial concepts. Regardless of who might want to listen, I will continue to post this information to anyone who wishes to take control of their financial future.
My first movie is a simple discussion about dinner vs. dessert. Future movies will touch on other financial topics. Some will even have political overtones as I have learned that politics and economic philosophies are usually intertwined. If there is a concept you wish me to discuss feel free to contact me and I will try to address it in some fashion.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Sunday, November 7, 2010
QE2 Is Not Just A Ship, It's The Titanic
Perhaps you were celebrating the first World Series victory for the Giants in the city of San Francisco. Perhaps you were contemplating the shift in politics in the 2010 election. Perhaps you were even optimistic based on the jobs report released on Friday. This past week was certainly full of big events. However, the biggest event affecting all of us was the one that the public gave very little attention to.
On Wednesday, November 3,, 2010, Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke announced that the Fed would be buying $600 billion in Treasury bonds in an effort to stimulate a stagnant U.S. economy. So what does this exactly mean and how does this affect us?
In normal economic times, the Federal Reserve usually controls the amount of money in circulation through the increasing or decreasing of borrowing interest rates. By increasing interest rates, currency is more expensive to borrow and thus is more restrictive. This action is usually taken to slow down an economy that is growing at too fast a rate. If the Fed decreases interest rates, currency is less expensive to borrow and thus is less restrictive. This action is usually taken to stimulate an economy that is too slow.
However, this recent economic crisis has put the Fed in a bind. They have lowered interest rates essentially to zero with no significant impact on the economic recovery. They have tried $1.7 trillion in stimulus money (known as Quantitative Easing). The result was a sluggish economy with no reduction in the unemployment rate.
With no other weapons left in the arsenal, the Fed is now left with taking desperate measures. Known as Quantitative Easing 2 (or QE2), the announcement on Wednesday was significant. Essentially, the United States would print $600 billion out of thin air and lend it out to banks for free in order to jump start the economy.
On Thursday, the stock market jumped nearly 2% on the QE2 announcement, so it looked like Wall Street liked the action taken by the Fed. However, commodity prices jumped over 5% on the same day. Remember, in our series entitled Currency, Money and the Economy, we defined inflation as an expansion of the currency supply. Prior to this financial crisis, the amount of “extra” currency in the economy, known as the Fed balance sheet, stood at just under $1 trillion dollars. With the introduction of QE2, the Fed balance sheet now stands at over $3 trillion dollars. This means that in less than three years, the United States has printed and circulated over $2 trillion dollars, all in the name of economic stimulus.
The problem with this is that you cannot print that much currency without having adverse consequences. The rise in commodity prices is a direct reflection of this policy. Gold is just a fraction away from $1400 an ounce. Silver now sits at 30-year highs. Oil is pushing $90 again, despite the fact the economy is much weaker than when oil used to be $90. Sugar, grain, coffee and other agricultural prices are also shooting upwards. As a result, General Mills announced this week a price increase on all of their products. In other words, the dollars you currently hold in your bank accounts and retirement plans will buy less because of all the extra currency in circulation the Fed has printed.
While the Fed is focused on stimulating the economy, it cannot possibly predict the outcome on a policy it has never tried. The Fed assumes that when the economy is back to “normal”, they will “simply” withdraw the currency from circulation. However, there are two problems associated with this assumption.
1) What if QE2 does not work? Just like the previous $1.7 trillion spent in QE1, what if businesses and consumers use that currency not to grow the economy, but to pay down debt? The economy will still be sluggish, and removing QE2 will send the economy into a tail spin. At that point, the Fed will probably introduce QE3.
2) Let’s say that QE2 works and economy is growing at 5% again. Then what? If you remove the currency from QE2, you will restrict the flow of currency, which will slow down the economy again.
Therefore, while the Fed is hopeful that one day QE2 will be removed from circulation, the bottom line is that chances are it can never be removed for fear of tanking the economy. In the past 30 years, no money that has ever been printed by the Fed has ever been withdrawn. The spending policies of the United States government have continually added debt and QE2 will simply add to the pile.
Think about it this way. The Fed has just pushed a small snowball down a hill in order to get a bigger snowball down at the bottom of the hill where all the United States citizens live. However, the Fed also believes it can control the size and speed of the snowball and that it will be able to pull the original snowball out. If this sounds ridiculous, well, you are right. If a huge snowball forms, no one will be able to control its size and speed, meaning it will most likely crash at the bottom of the hill, which is bad news for everybody.
So what then are we to do? Well, if you have cash lying around, you need to put it to work for you now in things that have real value. With near-zero interest rates, and inflation on the rise, the cash you have on hand will devalue at an accelerated rate. Normal investments (mutual funds, buy and hold, etc.) will increase in price, but not value due to the devaluation of the dollar.
The key is to find investments that will increase in value when the value of the dollar decreases. Investments such as commodities are a good starting point. Also, companies where revenues are generated in countries where the currency is stable or strengthening against the dollar are also advantageous. Companies with access in Brazil, Russia, India, China, Australia, and Canada are such examples.
China stated this week that the United States was a hypocrite. While the U.S. government has constantly accused China of currency manipulation to maintain a trade advantage, it has been printing dollars like there was no tomorrow. Regardless of who is right in this argument, one thing is clear. The policy of QE2 will have a more profound effect on the United States than any amount of currency manipulation by China.
On Wednesday, November 3,, 2010, Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke announced that the Fed would be buying $600 billion in Treasury bonds in an effort to stimulate a stagnant U.S. economy. So what does this exactly mean and how does this affect us?
In normal economic times, the Federal Reserve usually controls the amount of money in circulation through the increasing or decreasing of borrowing interest rates. By increasing interest rates, currency is more expensive to borrow and thus is more restrictive. This action is usually taken to slow down an economy that is growing at too fast a rate. If the Fed decreases interest rates, currency is less expensive to borrow and thus is less restrictive. This action is usually taken to stimulate an economy that is too slow.
However, this recent economic crisis has put the Fed in a bind. They have lowered interest rates essentially to zero with no significant impact on the economic recovery. They have tried $1.7 trillion in stimulus money (known as Quantitative Easing). The result was a sluggish economy with no reduction in the unemployment rate.
With no other weapons left in the arsenal, the Fed is now left with taking desperate measures. Known as Quantitative Easing 2 (or QE2), the announcement on Wednesday was significant. Essentially, the United States would print $600 billion out of thin air and lend it out to banks for free in order to jump start the economy.
On Thursday, the stock market jumped nearly 2% on the QE2 announcement, so it looked like Wall Street liked the action taken by the Fed. However, commodity prices jumped over 5% on the same day. Remember, in our series entitled Currency, Money and the Economy, we defined inflation as an expansion of the currency supply. Prior to this financial crisis, the amount of “extra” currency in the economy, known as the Fed balance sheet, stood at just under $1 trillion dollars. With the introduction of QE2, the Fed balance sheet now stands at over $3 trillion dollars. This means that in less than three years, the United States has printed and circulated over $2 trillion dollars, all in the name of economic stimulus.
The problem with this is that you cannot print that much currency without having adverse consequences. The rise in commodity prices is a direct reflection of this policy. Gold is just a fraction away from $1400 an ounce. Silver now sits at 30-year highs. Oil is pushing $90 again, despite the fact the economy is much weaker than when oil used to be $90. Sugar, grain, coffee and other agricultural prices are also shooting upwards. As a result, General Mills announced this week a price increase on all of their products. In other words, the dollars you currently hold in your bank accounts and retirement plans will buy less because of all the extra currency in circulation the Fed has printed.
While the Fed is focused on stimulating the economy, it cannot possibly predict the outcome on a policy it has never tried. The Fed assumes that when the economy is back to “normal”, they will “simply” withdraw the currency from circulation. However, there are two problems associated with this assumption.
1) What if QE2 does not work? Just like the previous $1.7 trillion spent in QE1, what if businesses and consumers use that currency not to grow the economy, but to pay down debt? The economy will still be sluggish, and removing QE2 will send the economy into a tail spin. At that point, the Fed will probably introduce QE3.
2) Let’s say that QE2 works and economy is growing at 5% again. Then what? If you remove the currency from QE2, you will restrict the flow of currency, which will slow down the economy again.
Therefore, while the Fed is hopeful that one day QE2 will be removed from circulation, the bottom line is that chances are it can never be removed for fear of tanking the economy. In the past 30 years, no money that has ever been printed by the Fed has ever been withdrawn. The spending policies of the United States government have continually added debt and QE2 will simply add to the pile.
Think about it this way. The Fed has just pushed a small snowball down a hill in order to get a bigger snowball down at the bottom of the hill where all the United States citizens live. However, the Fed also believes it can control the size and speed of the snowball and that it will be able to pull the original snowball out. If this sounds ridiculous, well, you are right. If a huge snowball forms, no one will be able to control its size and speed, meaning it will most likely crash at the bottom of the hill, which is bad news for everybody.
So what then are we to do? Well, if you have cash lying around, you need to put it to work for you now in things that have real value. With near-zero interest rates, and inflation on the rise, the cash you have on hand will devalue at an accelerated rate. Normal investments (mutual funds, buy and hold, etc.) will increase in price, but not value due to the devaluation of the dollar.
The key is to find investments that will increase in value when the value of the dollar decreases. Investments such as commodities are a good starting point. Also, companies where revenues are generated in countries where the currency is stable or strengthening against the dollar are also advantageous. Companies with access in Brazil, Russia, India, China, Australia, and Canada are such examples.
China stated this week that the United States was a hypocrite. While the U.S. government has constantly accused China of currency manipulation to maintain a trade advantage, it has been printing dollars like there was no tomorrow. Regardless of who is right in this argument, one thing is clear. The policy of QE2 will have a more profound effect on the United States than any amount of currency manipulation by China.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Ralph T. Foster: A Man Ahead of His Time
During my ongoing studies on various economic topics, I came across a reference to a book called Fiat Paper Money: The History and Evolution of Our Currency. I discovered that the author, Ralph T. Foster, owns a coin and stamp shop in Berkeley that my dad and I used to frequent when I was a child. I stopped by the shop a couple of weeks ago to pick up a copy of his book and had a brief chat with him. His interest in fiat currency, money that is backed by nothing tangible but the faith in government, stemmed from the time when the United States stopped using precious metals in coinage and removed the dollar from the gold standard. For his generation, this sudden fundamental economic change was very disturbing. His research has led him on an interesting journey on the history of money and currency that he originally published in 1991.
At the time of publication, his work did not receive much attention. We had been working for two decades with fiat currency and the United States had not collapsed. The deficit was only two to three billion. Some considered his work as a relic that governments had evolved past. Some experts back then indicated that the deficit would need to reach $10 trillion before the historic chain of events Mr. Foster chronicled could even happen here.
Well, we are now approaching forty years since the dollar became a fiat currency, run up a $14 trillion tab, and in the midst of an economic turmoil in which everything that the government has tried so far has not worked. Needless to say, Mr. Foster’s publication, recently updated to reflect the turmoil of the last decade, now has the attention of many more concerned Americans about where our economy is headed.
I have just finished reading the book and it is very disturbing to see the United States following the same path that every great past civilization has faced heading into oblivion. If our government does not stop its destructive spending habits, soon we might have money that looks like below. If you are tired of hearing and believing what the financial and political experts are telling you on how the economy will recover, I strongly suggest you pick a copy of Mr. Foster’s book and read it. You can order a copy from the link below, or buy a copy at Foster Coin and Publishing, 2189 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, California, 94704.
http://home.pacbell.net/tfdf/index.html
At the time of publication, his work did not receive much attention. We had been working for two decades with fiat currency and the United States had not collapsed. The deficit was only two to three billion. Some considered his work as a relic that governments had evolved past. Some experts back then indicated that the deficit would need to reach $10 trillion before the historic chain of events Mr. Foster chronicled could even happen here.
Well, we are now approaching forty years since the dollar became a fiat currency, run up a $14 trillion tab, and in the midst of an economic turmoil in which everything that the government has tried so far has not worked. Needless to say, Mr. Foster’s publication, recently updated to reflect the turmoil of the last decade, now has the attention of many more concerned Americans about where our economy is headed.
I have just finished reading the book and it is very disturbing to see the United States following the same path that every great past civilization has faced heading into oblivion. If our government does not stop its destructive spending habits, soon we might have money that looks like below. If you are tired of hearing and believing what the financial and political experts are telling you on how the economy will recover, I strongly suggest you pick a copy of Mr. Foster’s book and read it. You can order a copy from the link below, or buy a copy at Foster Coin and Publishing, 2189 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, California, 94704.
http://home.pacbell.net/tfdf/index.html
 |
| $100 Trillion Dollar Zimbabwe Note - Currency Abandoned 2009 |
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Congressional Budget Office Examines Fiscal Debt Crisis
The Congressional Budget Office published an informative 8-page brief last week examining the effects if a fiscal crisis due to burdening debt were to occur in the United States. You can read and download the article here:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11659/07-27_Debt_FiscalCrisis_Brief.pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11659/07-27_Debt_FiscalCrisis_Brief.pdf
Thursday, July 29, 2010
San Franciso Moneyshow
The annual San Francisco Moneyshow is back again and is being held at the San Francisco Marriott Hotel from August 19-21. The free expo showcases financial experts and vendors displaying the latest in investment thinking. While most of the time they are trying to sell their services and products to you, you will learn something about what it means to be an independent individual investor. If you not satisfied with your portfolio performance or want to take the next step in learning about investing, then you should attend. No need to attend all three days and registration is free. You can find out more information and register at www.sanfranciscomoneyshow.com. For those of you not living in the San Francisco Bay Area, the expo does move from city to city throughout the year. You can check for other locations at www.moneyshow.com.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Dow / Gold Ratio Update
Back in our previous series of posts entitled Currency, Money and the Economy, we used a ratio to provide a measure of the value of paper assets versus real assets (refer to the post Identifying the Trend, 10/13/2009). We simply divided the value of the Dow (paper) by the price of gold (real). The ratio represents the public’s belief in holding paper assets. The higher the number, the more the public will want to own paper assets. The lower the number, the more the public will want to own real assets. The number also peaks and valleys at critical junctures in the history of the American economy (the Great Depression, the 1970’s, and the dot com boom and bust).
Below is a 3-year chart showing the Dow / gold ratio (click to enlarge). As you can see, the ratio was at 20 when it began its fall when the housing market went bust. As people fled paper for real assets, the ratio dropped all the way down to 7 before the market bottomed out in March 2009. Since then, the ratio has stabilized between 8 and 10, the most recent drop corresponding to the European debt crisis. The ratio is now moving back up towards 9 as the markets stabilize once again on earnings reports. Two horizontal lines, drawn at 7 and 10, show how the ratio has stabilized between this range. Governments around the world have taken enough action during this time to stabilize the ratio and keep the public’s faith in paper assets.
However, as the Greek economic crisis demonstrated, governments piling up too much debt can send people to sell paper assets in a heartbeat, as we saw that ratio drop from 10 to 8 (20%) in a matter of only three months. And as the United States continues to print more and more currency to get itself out of this current economic funk, they continue to sow seeds for the next economic crisis. History has shown us that once the Dow / gold ratio peaks (42 in 2000), it will continue to fall until the ratio drops to 2 or less. So while the ratio appears to have stabilized for now, the amount of debt the United States has racked up will only serve to push the ratio lower down the road.
Below is a 3-year chart showing the Dow / gold ratio (click to enlarge). As you can see, the ratio was at 20 when it began its fall when the housing market went bust. As people fled paper for real assets, the ratio dropped all the way down to 7 before the market bottomed out in March 2009. Since then, the ratio has stabilized between 8 and 10, the most recent drop corresponding to the European debt crisis. The ratio is now moving back up towards 9 as the markets stabilize once again on earnings reports. Two horizontal lines, drawn at 7 and 10, show how the ratio has stabilized between this range. Governments around the world have taken enough action during this time to stabilize the ratio and keep the public’s faith in paper assets.
However, as the Greek economic crisis demonstrated, governments piling up too much debt can send people to sell paper assets in a heartbeat, as we saw that ratio drop from 10 to 8 (20%) in a matter of only three months. And as the United States continues to print more and more currency to get itself out of this current economic funk, they continue to sow seeds for the next economic crisis. History has shown us that once the Dow / gold ratio peaks (42 in 2000), it will continue to fall until the ratio drops to 2 or less. So while the ratio appears to have stabilized for now, the amount of debt the United States has racked up will only serve to push the ratio lower down the road.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Why The Great Recession Has Baby Boomers Fighting Uphill Battle
Since the financial meltdown of 2008, we had a nice rebound in 2009 but then suffered a setback with the European crisis in the spring of 2010. The markets have stabilized once again, but are still at levels that are approximately 30-35% from their peak levels of 2008.
Now most financial experts will tell you that the markets will eventually recover fully and that you should continue to invest for the long haul. However, for baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1960), this bit of advice is hard to swallow because time is not on their side. To illustrate this point, I have provided the following example.
Let’s take a typical baby boomer couple that both turned 53 in 1999. This was just at the height of the dot com boom. At this point in time, they had $750,000 in retirement savings, and a $250,000 house that was fully paid off. Their annual cost of living as a couple was $50,000. Thus, if they were to retire right now and use their savings, it would last about 20 years, or until they are 73 years old. By all accounts, this appears to be adequate and life is good.
Let’s now fast forward to the year 2006. The dot com boom and bust has come and gone and now we are at the crest of the housing boom. Our couple is now 60 years old. Their retirement savings portfolio has now grown to $1,012,500. In addition, their house value has shot up and is now worth $400,000. With everybody cashing in on their homes like an ATM machine, our couple is no different and decides to refinance their home. With their good credit, they take out a $240,000 loan on their house, leaving $160,000 in equity. They decide to spend half of it on their children’s college education, a house addition, some extravagant vacations, and other stuff they just wanted to buy (perhaps a boat). The other half they added to their investment portfolio. Add the end of this financial shuffling, they now have $1,132,500 in their investment portfolio, and $160,000 equity in their home for a grand total of $1,300,000. Sounds pretty good, given the pain of the dot com bust. Unfortunately, costs have risen as well. The children’s tuition has skyrocketed, energy prices have climbed, and medical costs have begun to climb at alarming rates. Using more true measures of inflation (not the one the government misleads the public with), the same $50,000 in expenses back in 1999 has now risen to $93,000 a year. Even so, the $1,300,000 would last 14 years, meaning that they could continue their lifestyle until 74 years of age. This is one year more than projected in 1999. So it appears that life is still good.
Now comes the painful portion. It is now 2010 and we are in the aftermath of the housing bust and the Great Recession. Our couple is now 64 years old. Even with the rebound of the stock market, our couple’s retirement portfolio now stands at $725,000. In addition, their house value has dropped to $320,000 (note that it is still worth more than it was back in 1999). They have paid down their loan to $200,000, but that still means the equity in their house has dropped to $120,000. All the while, costs have not dropped one bit and the same $50,000 in expenses back in 1999 now costs a staggering $128,000. Their total net worth has been reduced to $875,000 and would only last 7 years at the current rate. This means their money would last until they are 71 years old. All of a sudden, our couple has now fallen 2 years short of the original 1999 projection, but more importantly now has only 7 years left on the clock to get it back again.
Recent reports have indicated that with the economy stagnating, a full economic recovery could take a decade or longer (see the 1970’s). However, our couple has only 7 years of savings left. So while the same financial advice of buy and hold is still being tossed out there, it no longer has any relevance to our couple. They simply cannot afford to wait out the storm. If both are still working, that would help push the limit out. However, what if they were laid off during this time period, took an early retirement a couple of years ago, or were no longer able to work? What if they need to pay for nursing care, senior assisted living facilities and/or increasing medical bills due to failing health in old age? What if they are perfectly healthly and will live until they are 90?Their children are probably unlikely to be able to help, given that fact they have racked huge amounts of debt and are digging themselves out while trying to figure out how to put their own children through college.
The only way out of this mess is a quick economic recovery, which every politician is campaigning on this fall. However, the last two economic booms were built on greed. With the passing of the financial regulation bill signed into law by President Obama, approximately 350 new rules (specifics still to be determined) were put into place to prevent such greediness from occurring again (or so they say). As such, politicians may have killed their own cow because if greed is curbed, then a quick economic recovery with the power of the last two economic booms is highly unlikely. And without a quick economic recovery, a lot of baby boomers will be faced with a financial quandary.
There is a saying, “As the baby boomers go, so goes the rest of the nation.” If that statement is true and a majority of baby boomers are scratching their heads over their financial situation as demonstrated in this post, then this country might be in a lot of trouble in the not-too-distant future.
Now most financial experts will tell you that the markets will eventually recover fully and that you should continue to invest for the long haul. However, for baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1960), this bit of advice is hard to swallow because time is not on their side. To illustrate this point, I have provided the following example.
Let’s take a typical baby boomer couple that both turned 53 in 1999. This was just at the height of the dot com boom. At this point in time, they had $750,000 in retirement savings, and a $250,000 house that was fully paid off. Their annual cost of living as a couple was $50,000. Thus, if they were to retire right now and use their savings, it would last about 20 years, or until they are 73 years old. By all accounts, this appears to be adequate and life is good.
Let’s now fast forward to the year 2006. The dot com boom and bust has come and gone and now we are at the crest of the housing boom. Our couple is now 60 years old. Their retirement savings portfolio has now grown to $1,012,500. In addition, their house value has shot up and is now worth $400,000. With everybody cashing in on their homes like an ATM machine, our couple is no different and decides to refinance their home. With their good credit, they take out a $240,000 loan on their house, leaving $160,000 in equity. They decide to spend half of it on their children’s college education, a house addition, some extravagant vacations, and other stuff they just wanted to buy (perhaps a boat). The other half they added to their investment portfolio. Add the end of this financial shuffling, they now have $1,132,500 in their investment portfolio, and $160,000 equity in their home for a grand total of $1,300,000. Sounds pretty good, given the pain of the dot com bust. Unfortunately, costs have risen as well. The children’s tuition has skyrocketed, energy prices have climbed, and medical costs have begun to climb at alarming rates. Using more true measures of inflation (not the one the government misleads the public with), the same $50,000 in expenses back in 1999 has now risen to $93,000 a year. Even so, the $1,300,000 would last 14 years, meaning that they could continue their lifestyle until 74 years of age. This is one year more than projected in 1999. So it appears that life is still good.
Now comes the painful portion. It is now 2010 and we are in the aftermath of the housing bust and the Great Recession. Our couple is now 64 years old. Even with the rebound of the stock market, our couple’s retirement portfolio now stands at $725,000. In addition, their house value has dropped to $320,000 (note that it is still worth more than it was back in 1999). They have paid down their loan to $200,000, but that still means the equity in their house has dropped to $120,000. All the while, costs have not dropped one bit and the same $50,000 in expenses back in 1999 now costs a staggering $128,000. Their total net worth has been reduced to $875,000 and would only last 7 years at the current rate. This means their money would last until they are 71 years old. All of a sudden, our couple has now fallen 2 years short of the original 1999 projection, but more importantly now has only 7 years left on the clock to get it back again.
Recent reports have indicated that with the economy stagnating, a full economic recovery could take a decade or longer (see the 1970’s). However, our couple has only 7 years of savings left. So while the same financial advice of buy and hold is still being tossed out there, it no longer has any relevance to our couple. They simply cannot afford to wait out the storm. If both are still working, that would help push the limit out. However, what if they were laid off during this time period, took an early retirement a couple of years ago, or were no longer able to work? What if they need to pay for nursing care, senior assisted living facilities and/or increasing medical bills due to failing health in old age? What if they are perfectly healthly and will live until they are 90?Their children are probably unlikely to be able to help, given that fact they have racked huge amounts of debt and are digging themselves out while trying to figure out how to put their own children through college.
The only way out of this mess is a quick economic recovery, which every politician is campaigning on this fall. However, the last two economic booms were built on greed. With the passing of the financial regulation bill signed into law by President Obama, approximately 350 new rules (specifics still to be determined) were put into place to prevent such greediness from occurring again (or so they say). As such, politicians may have killed their own cow because if greed is curbed, then a quick economic recovery with the power of the last two economic booms is highly unlikely. And without a quick economic recovery, a lot of baby boomers will be faced with a financial quandary.
There is a saying, “As the baby boomers go, so goes the rest of the nation.” If that statement is true and a majority of baby boomers are scratching their heads over their financial situation as demonstrated in this post, then this country might be in a lot of trouble in the not-too-distant future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
