Slow Recovery Worsens Financial State of Medicare

The estimates, in the annual report by the Medicare trustees, were immediately swept up into the already inflamed political battle over federal spending, debt and the future of entitlement programs.

The trustees said that payroll tax revenues, which provide most of the money for Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund, were lower than expected last year because earnings were “considerably lower than projected” and the economy was weaker than expected.

Republicans said the bleaker picture for Medicare showed a need for immediate action to shore up the finances of the program, which insures 47.5 million people who are 65 and older or disabled.

“The biggest threat Medicare faces right now is the status quo,” said the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio. “The trustees’ report makes it clear that if we do nothing, Medicare will not be able to pay promised benefits to American seniors.”

Democrats said that the financial outlook for Medicare would have been much worse without the new health care law. The law, which President Obama cites as one of his greatest political accomplishments, promises to be a central point of conflict in the 2012 presidential election.

Without the new law, said Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, “Medicare would have gone bankrupt in 2016, only five years from now.”

Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said, “The current economic crisis has hit the Medicare trust fund, and hit it hard.” Mr. Baucus, an architect of the new law, and other Democrats vowed to resist Republican efforts to repeal it.

The trustees said the financial outlook for Social Security had changed little. They said the Social Security trust fund would be exhausted in 2036, one year sooner than projected in last year’s report, and even then, they said, tax revenue would be sufficient to pay three-fourths of promised benefits through 2085.

It is inconceivable that politicians would allow either program to run out of money. The projected dates of insolvency are widely used as a measure of the financial condition of Social Security and Medicare, which together account for more than one-third of all federal spending.

In unveiling the new estimates, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, the managing trustee of the trust funds, noted the need for additional borrowing to keep the government’s myriad commitments in other programs.

“On Monday,” Mr. Geithner said, “just three days from today, the United States will reach the debt limit set by Congress. Because Congress has not yet acted, we have now set in motion a series of extraordinary measures that will give Congress some additional time to raise the debt limit.”

As a condition of increasing the debt limit, many Republicans are demanding changes in benefit programs. But House Republicans have discovered that they are playing with political dynamite when they propose major changes in Medicare.

The reports were signed by the six trustees: three cabinet officers, the Social Security commissioner and two public representatives.

The Medicare report included a disclaimer by the chief Medicare actuary, Richard S. Foster. “The financial projections shown in this report for Medicare do not represent a reasonable expectation for actual program operations” in the short term or the long range, said Mr. Foster, a civil servant whose independence is protected by law.

The projections assume that Medicare will cut doctors’ fees by 29 percent on Jan. 1, as required under current law, but Congress routinely intercedes to block such cuts.

Moreover, the report says that projected Medicare costs over 75 years are about 25 percent lower because of the new health care law.

Under the law, Medicare will hold down payments to hospitals and other health care providers to reflect presumed increases in productivity. But, Mr. Foster said, if these constraints are kept in place, Medicare payments to providers will eventually be “far below the levels paid by private health insurance.”

 

Wealth Matters: Taking the Time to Pick the Right Financial Adviser

在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。

In the past, there have been few people to consult about whom to pick. Accountants and lawyers have played this role, warily. But they would typically present two or three advisers and leave the final decision up to the investor.

Now Douglas Black, a 30-year brokerage industry veteran, has started a firm called SpringReef Partners that will screen and select financial advisers for wealthy families. While the amount of wealth needed to receive his advice is high — from $5 million to $50 million — his approach can help those intent on evaluating an adviser to fit their needs. His advice may be aimed at the wealthy, but anyone with money to invest can adopt his practices.

“Firms don’t do a very good job of matching adviser capability with client complexity,” Mr. Black said. “They haven’t taken the focus away from the advisers in determining who is going to end up with whom.”

Mr. Black, who started his career as a financial adviser and stepped down as the chief operating officer of UBS Wealth Management in 2010, is entering this business at an opportune time. Investors are particularly insecure about making the wrong choice.

Charlotte B. Beyer, founder and chief executive of the Institute for Private Investors, said her members were now screening eight to 10 advisers when they used to meet with two or three.

“That’s an enormous difference and an enormous time commitment,” Ms. Beyer said.

While wealthy investors may have made a lot of money and surely understand how complex the world is, they are just as afraid as anyone else of getting this choice wrong. So how do you pick the right adviser without being overwhelmed by the process?

TYPICAL MISTAKES Regardless of wealth, people make the same mistakes in selecting advisers.

Listening to family and friends for suggestions on money management — or, worse, picking family and friends to do it — can be a bad idea. First, there is no correlation between your sense about a person and that person’s ability to do a good job. Remember all the people who felt such affection for Bernard L. Madoff? And second, hiring a friend or relative makes firing that person tough.

Rushing the process is another mistake. Picking a financial adviser can be as serious as selecting a doctor, and it certainly should require more time than picking a paint color. But for many investors, even those who had to make tough decisions in business, it is about as interesting as watching that paint dry.

“People don’t interview enough people on the front end,” said Jim Grubman, owner of FamilyWealth Consulting, which works with advisers. “They’ll take someone else’s recommendations. What works for your friend or your colleague may not be the best fit for you.”

Relying on a name brand firm can be just as bad as going with someone you know. But selecting a boutique firm in the belief that smaller size means more attention for clients can be equally problematic.

“Our belief is there are exceptional advisers spread across all different types of platforms, but there are no great firms,” Mr. Black said.

QUESTIONS TO ASK Picking an adviser is an awful lot like choosing a spouse: you really want the relationship to last forever, to be rewarding and fulfilling, but if it happens to fall apart, you don’t want that to destroy you.

Mr. Black, whose firm is paid either a fixed fee or a percentage of assets for continuing monitoring, said he asked 18 questions of all firms and 17 of advisers. For firms, some of the major questions involve how the organization functions, its experience and risk-management practices and how it handles problems that arise.

For advisers, the criteria are a mix of set standards and questions. He will not work with any adviser who has fewer than seven years’ experience. One thing he found when he worked at UBS was that it generally took at least seven years for any financial malfeasance to surface. He said he also wanted to make sure that the adviser’s firm had broad experience with clients whose wealth levels were similar to his own client’s.

Yet, he said, the value his firm will bring to the selection process may be in the questions that do not have simple yes or no answers. The 17 criteria for advisers are listed on the firm’s Web site.

One simple statistic he looks at is how much additional money an adviser’s existing clients are asking him or her to manage. Mr. Black said most very wealthy people had several advisers from various stages in their lives. But the one who is doing the best job — as opposed to the friend from high school — is the one who gets the new money they are making.

Yet even lawyers and accountants who take the typical approach of making introductions to wealth advisers are aware that the complexity of both individual investments and the global economy requires more voices, not fewer.

View the original article here

Wealth Matters: Taking the Time to Pick the Right Financial Adviser

在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。

In the past, there have been few people to consult about whom to pick. Accountants and lawyers have played this role, warily. But they would typically present two or three advisers and leave the final decision up to the investor.

Now Douglas Black, a 30-year brokerage industry veteran, has started a firm called SpringReef Partners that will screen and select financial advisers for wealthy families. While the amount of wealth needed to receive his advice is high — from $5 million to $50 million — his approach can help those intent on evaluating an adviser to fit their needs. His advice may be aimed at the wealthy, but anyone with money to invest can adopt his practices.

“Firms don’t do a very good job of matching adviser capability with client complexity,” Mr. Black said. “They haven’t taken the focus away from the advisers in determining who is going to end up with whom.”

Mr. Black, who started his career as a financial adviser and stepped down as the chief operating officer of UBS Wealth Management in 2010, is entering this business at an opportune time. Investors are particularly insecure about making the wrong choice.

Charlotte B. Beyer, founder and chief executive of the Institute for Private Investors, said her members were now screening eight to 10 advisers when they used to meet with two or three.

“That’s an enormous difference and an enormous time commitment,” Ms. Beyer said.

While wealthy investors may have made a lot of money and surely understand how complex the world is, they are just as afraid as anyone else of getting this choice wrong. So how do you pick the right adviser without being overwhelmed by the process?

TYPICAL MISTAKES Regardless of wealth, people make the same mistakes in selecting advisers.

Listening to family and friends for suggestions on money management — or, worse, picking family and friends to do it — can be a bad idea. First, there is no correlation between your sense about a person and that person’s ability to do a good job. Remember all the people who felt such affection for Bernard L. Madoff? And second, hiring a friend or relative makes firing that person tough.

Rushing the process is another mistake. Picking a financial adviser can be as serious as selecting a doctor, and it certainly should require more time than picking a paint color. But for many investors, even those who had to make tough decisions in business, it is about as interesting as watching that paint dry.

“People don’t interview enough people on the front end,” said Jim Grubman, owner of FamilyWealth Consulting, which works with advisers. “They’ll take someone else’s recommendations. What works for your friend or your colleague may not be the best fit for you.”

Relying on a name brand firm can be just as bad as going with someone you know. But selecting a boutique firm in the belief that smaller size means more attention for clients can be equally problematic.

“Our belief is there are exceptional advisers spread across all different types of platforms, but there are no great firms,” Mr. Black said.

QUESTIONS TO ASK Picking an adviser is an awful lot like choosing a spouse: you really want the relationship to last forever, to be rewarding and fulfilling, but if it happens to fall apart, you don’t want that to destroy you.

Mr. Black, whose firm is paid either a fixed fee or a percentage of assets for continuing monitoring, said he asked 18 questions of all firms and 17 of advisers. For firms, some of the major questions involve how the organization functions, its experience and risk-management practices and how it handles problems that arise.

For advisers, the criteria are a mix of set standards and questions. He will not work with any adviser who has fewer than seven years’ experience. One thing he found when he worked at UBS was that it generally took at least seven years for any financial malfeasance to surface. He said he also wanted to make sure that the adviser’s firm had broad experience with clients whose wealth levels were similar to his own client’s.

Yet, he said, the value his firm will bring to the selection process may be in the questions that do not have simple yes or no answers. The 17 criteria for advisers are listed on the firm’s Web site.

One simple statistic he looks at is how much additional money an adviser’s existing clients are asking him or her to manage. Mr. Black said most very wealthy people had several advisers from various stages in their lives. But the one who is doing the best job — as opposed to the friend from high school — is the one who gets the new money they are making.

Yet even lawyers and accountants who take the typical approach of making introductions to wealth advisers are aware that the complexity of both individual investments and the global economy requires more voices, not fewer.

View the original article here

Wealth Matters: Taking the Time to Pick the Right Financial Adviser

在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。

In the past, there have been few people to consult about whom to pick. Accountants and lawyers have played this role, warily. But they would typically present two or three advisers and leave the final decision up to the investor.

Now Douglas Black, a 30-year brokerage industry veteran, has started a firm called SpringReef Partners that will screen and select financial advisers for wealthy families. While the amount of wealth needed to receive his advice is high — from $5 million to $50 million — his approach can help those intent on evaluating an adviser to fit their needs. His advice may be aimed at the wealthy, but anyone with money to invest can adopt his practices.

“Firms don’t do a very good job of matching adviser capability with client complexity,” Mr. Black said. “They haven’t taken the focus away from the advisers in determining who is going to end up with whom.”

Mr. Black, who started his career as a financial adviser and stepped down as the chief operating officer of UBS Wealth Management in 2010, is entering this business at an opportune time. Investors are particularly insecure about making the wrong choice.

Charlotte B. Beyer, founder and chief executive of the Institute for Private Investors, said her members were now screening eight to 10 advisers when they used to meet with two or three.

“That’s an enormous difference and an enormous time commitment,” Ms. Beyer said.

While wealthy investors may have made a lot of money and surely understand how complex the world is, they are just as afraid as anyone else of getting this choice wrong. So how do you pick the right adviser without being overwhelmed by the process?

TYPICAL MISTAKES Regardless of wealth, people make the same mistakes in selecting advisers.

Listening to family and friends for suggestions on money management — or, worse, picking family and friends to do it — can be a bad idea. First, there is no correlation between your sense about a person and that person’s ability to do a good job. Remember all the people who felt such affection for Bernard L. Madoff? And second, hiring a friend or relative makes firing that person tough.

Rushing the process is another mistake. Picking a financial adviser can be as serious as selecting a doctor, and it certainly should require more time than picking a paint color. But for many investors, even those who had to make tough decisions in business, it is about as interesting as watching that paint dry.

“People don’t interview enough people on the front end,” said Jim Grubman, owner of FamilyWealth Consulting, which works with advisers. “They’ll take someone else’s recommendations. What works for your friend or your colleague may not be the best fit for you.”

Relying on a name brand firm can be just as bad as going with someone you know. But selecting a boutique firm in the belief that smaller size means more attention for clients can be equally problematic.

“Our belief is there are exceptional advisers spread across all different types of platforms, but there are no great firms,” Mr. Black said.

QUESTIONS TO ASK Picking an adviser is an awful lot like choosing a spouse: you really want the relationship to last forever, to be rewarding and fulfilling, but if it happens to fall apart, you don’t want that to destroy you.

Mr. Black, whose firm is paid either a fixed fee or a percentage of assets for continuing monitoring, said he asked 18 questions of all firms and 17 of advisers. For firms, some of the major questions involve how the organization functions, its experience and risk-management practices and how it handles problems that arise.

For advisers, the criteria are a mix of set standards and questions. He will not work with any adviser who has fewer than seven years’ experience. One thing he found when he worked at UBS was that it generally took at least seven years for any financial malfeasance to surface. He said he also wanted to make sure that the adviser’s firm had broad experience with clients whose wealth levels were similar to his own client’s.

Yet, he said, the value his firm will bring to the selection process may be in the questions that do not have simple yes or no answers. The 17 criteria for advisers are listed on the firm’s Web site.

One simple statistic he looks at is how much additional money an adviser’s existing clients are asking him or her to manage. Mr. Black said most very wealthy people had several advisers from various stages in their lives. But the one who is doing the best job — as opposed to the friend from high school — is the one who gets the new money they are making.

Yet even lawyers and accountants who take the typical approach of making introductions to wealth advisers are aware that the complexity of both individual investments and the global economy requires more voices, not fewer.

View the original article here