Ever since the Department of Labor proposed several years ago to close regulatory loopholes that allow financial firms to offer conflicted retirement advice without having to act in the best interests of the retirement savers who rely on that advice, financial services firms have been nearly apoplectic in their opposition.
You've heard about boomerang kids -- adult children in their 20s and 30s who have returned to live in their parents' homes. Well, get ready for boomerang parents, formerly independent middle-aged people who -- 10, 15, 20 years hence -- will have no choice but to move into their adult children's homes because they cannot afford to maintain their own.
Investment types often trot out the cautionary phrase, "past performance does not necessarily predict future results." And for good reason. Clients must understand that their financial tomorrow is no guarantee. Yet when it comes to the question of whether we are doing enough to ensure that we won't outlive our resources in retirement, we can learn a lot from history.
California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst, the state office responsible for analyzing the impact of proposed ballot measures, sent up a large red flag. It said that an initiative that would eliminate the Constitutional vested rights of public employees to retirement and retiree health care could cost "billions of dollars."