Retirees Are Too Pessimistic on Their Investments—And It’s Costing Them - TIME Business

Retirees Are Too Pessimistic on Their Investments—And It’s Costing Them Posted: 16 May 2017 03:00 AM PDT Growing old and cranky is a cliché that rings less true every time Jane Fonda walks on the set or Danny DeVito appears in a new movie. But even with healthy aging, we must fight the impulse to lose hope. Nowhere is that more clear than in our investments. Adults in retirement are less optimistic than younger groups about future economic growth, stock-market returns and long-term personal financial well-being, new research shows. This may lead them to shift out of stocks too soon and cut spending more than needed, shortchanging their lifestyle and dreams. Every year between 2001 and 2014 those ages 65 and older, on average, said the stock market had a less than even chance of rising over the next 12 months. Younger cohorts consistently had more faith, according to a study from United Income, a company developing money-management services for older Americans. For the record, stocks rose in all but two of those years. If these older adults didn’t invest in stocks at all, they would have missed the brutal decline of 2008. But they would also have missed a near doubling in stock prices over the entire period. “The benefits of longer lives and retirement may be curbed if older households become overly cautious about investing and spending as they age,” writes United Income founder Matt Fellowes, a former Morningstar executive. For the report, he studied two series of survey data from the University of Michigan. Adults over age 64 are 40% more skeptical about their future financial health and 30% more skeptical about future economic growth than those under age 35, the report finds. Yet this growing pessimism with age appears to be unfounded. One indication is the size of the estates people leave behind when they die: Retired adults who pass away in their 60s, on average, leave behind $296,000 in net wealth; in their 70s, $313,000; and in their 80s, $315,000. Those who live into their 90s still leave behind an average $238,000, the report finds. The clear implication is that older adults worry too much about their money. That may be one reason that spending falls off as retirees age, the study says. Age-induced crankiness is not the sole culprit. Blame mounting uncertainty, which comes with dramatically longer life spans. Longevity has complicated everything about retirement. Traditional pensions may be underfunded or have been disbanded. Without this safety net, and with no way to know how long you will live, caution—not gloom—is higher. Overly conservative portfolios then become a self-fulfilling prophecy of future economic struggles. Over periods of 20 years or longer, by playing it too safe and shunning stocks in favor of low-yielding investments, individuals lose buying power—and eventually their lifestyle. This bell has been rung before. Economist Lawrence Kotlikoff at Boston University has argued for a decade that individuals are saving too much, and shortchanging their lifestyle. He believes common rules of thumb like needing 80% of pre-retirement income overstate the need and that the financial industry steers folks this way to scrape fees off the stockpile of invested dollars. In retirement, you may need to replace as little as 35% of your former salary if you have paid off the mortgage, shed all child-care and employment costs, and no longer need to save, argues Fred Vettese, chief actuary at Morneau Shepell, a Canadian consulting firm. Kotlikoff says the common wisdom to save early and often fails to recognize the difficulty of doing so while young and burdened with expenses—as compared to the relative ease of putting something away in higher-earning years when you have fewer expenses. The United Income report echoes these thoughts, though it does not suggest adults are saving too much in their working years—only that they are spending too little in retirement, possibly due to unfounded worries over their future finances. No one is suggesting retirees cut loose irresponsibly. But they may not need to limit spending as much as they think. The key is sticking with growth investments through at least the first part of retirement. Holding 40% of your portfolio in stocks at age 70 is a reasonable target. You did the hard part by saving. Don’t shortchange yourself now by worrying the market may fall and not get up again.

20 Embarrassing Phrases Even Smart People Misuse - TIME Inc.

20 Embarrassing Phrases Even Smart People Misuse

When you hear someone using grammar incorrectly do you make an assumption about his or her intelligence or education? There's no doubt that words are powerful things that can leave a lasting impression on those with whom you interact. In fact, using an idiom incorrectly or screwing up your grammar is akin to walking into a meeting with messy hair. That's according to Byron Reese, CEO of the venture-backed internet startup Knowingly. The company recently launched Correctica, a tool that scans websites looking for errors that spell checkers miss. And the business world is no exception. "When I look for these errors on LinkedIn profiles, they're all over the place—tens of thousands," he says.

Correctica recently scanned a handful of prominent websites and you might be surprised at how many errors it found. Here is Reese's list of the some of the most commonly misused phrases on the Web.

1. Prostrate cancer

It's an easy misspelling to make—just add an extra r and "prostate cancer" becomes "prostrate cancer," which suggests "a cancer of lying face-down on the ground." Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Mayo Clinic websites include this misspelling.

2. First-come, first-serve

This suggests that the first person to arrive has to serve all who follow. The actual phrase is "first-come, first-served," to indicate that the participants will be served in the order in which they arrive. Both Harvard and Yale got this one wrong.

3. Sneak peak

A "peak" is a mountain top. A "peek" is a quick look. The correct expression is "sneak peek," meaning a secret or early look at something. This error appeared on Oxford University's site as well as that of the National Park Service.

4. Deep-seeded

This should be "deep-seated," to indicate that something is firmly established. Though "deep-seeded" might seem to make sense, indicating that something is planted deep in the ground, this is not the correct expression. Correctica found this error on the Washington Post and the White House websites.

5. Extract revenge

To "extract" something is to remove it, like a tooth. The correct expression is "exact revenge," meaning to achieve revenge. Both The New York Times and the BBC have made this error.

6. I could care less

"I couldn't care less" is what you would say to express maximum apathy toward a situation. Basically you're saying, "It's impossible for me to care less about this because I have no more care to give. I've run out of care." Using the incorrect "I could care less" indicates that "I still have care left to give—would you like some?"

7. Shoe-in

"Shoo-in" is a common idiom that means a sure winner. To "shoo" something is to urge it in a direction. As you would shoo a fly out of your house, you could also shoo someone toward victory. The expression started in the early 20th century, relating to horse racing, and broadened to politics soon after. It's easy to see why the "shoe-in" version is so common, as it suggests the door-to-door sales practice of moving a foot into the doorway to make it more difficult for a prospective client to close the door. But "foot in the door" is an entirely different idiom.

8. Emigrated to

With this one there is no debate. The verb "emigrate" is always used with the preposition "from," whereas immigrate is always used with the preposition "to." To emigrate is to come from somewhere, and to immigrate is to go to somewhere. "Jimmy emigrated from Ireland to the United States" means the same thing as "Jimmy immigrated to the United States from Ireland." It's just a matter of what you're emphasizing—the coming or the going.

9. Slight of hand

"Sleight of hand" is a common phrase in the world of magic and illusion, because "sleight" means dexterity or cunning, usually to deceive. On the other hand, as a noun, a "slight" is an insult.

10. Honed in

First, it's important to note that this particular expression is hotly debated. Many references now consider "hone in" a proper alternate version of "home in." That said, it is still generally accepted that "home in" is the more correct phrase. To home in on something means to move toward a goal, such as "The missile homed in on its target." To "hone" means to sharpen. You would say, "I honed my résumé writing skills." But you would likely not say, "The missile honed in on its target." When followed by the preposition "in," the word "hone" just doesn't make sense.

11. Baited breath

The term "bated" is an adjective meaning suspense. It originated from the verb "abate," meaning to stop or lessen. Therefore, "to wait with bated breath" essentially means to hold your breath with anticipation. The verb "bait," on the other hand, means to taunt, often to taunt a predator with its prey. A fisherman baits his line in hopes of a big catch. Considering the meaning of the two words, it's clear which is correct, but the word "bated" is mostly obsolete today, leading to ever-increasing mistakes in this expression.

12. Piece of mind

This should be "peace" of mind, meaning calmness and tranquility. The expression "piece of mind" actually would suggest doling out sections of brain.

13. Wet your appetite

This expression is more often used incorrectly than correctly—56 percent of the time it appears online, it's wrong. The correct idiom is "whet your appetite." "Whet" means to sharpen or stimulate, so to "whet your appetite" means to awaken your desire for something.

14. For all intensive purposes

The correct phrase is "for all intents and purposes." It originates from English law dating back to the 1500s, which used the phrase "to all intents, constructions, and purposes" to mean "officially" or "effectively."

15. One in the same

"One in the same" would literally mean that the "one" is inside the same thing as itself, which makes no sense at all. The proper phrase is "one and the same," meaning the same thing or the same person. For example, "When Melissa was home schooled, her teacher and her mother were one and the same."

16. Make due

When something is due, it is owed. To "make due" would mean to "make owed," but the phrase to "make do" is short for "to make something do well" or "to make something sufficient." When life gives you lemons, you make do and make lemonade.

17. By in large

The phrase "by and large" was first used in 1706 to mean "in general." It was a nautical phrase derived from the sailing terms "by" and "large." While it doesn't have a literal meaning that makes sense, "by and large" is the correct version of this phrase.

18. Do diligence

While it may be easy to surmise that "do diligence" translates to doing something diligently, it does not. "Due diligence" is a business and legal term that means you will investigate a person or business before signing a contract with them, or before formally engaging in a business deal together. You should do your due diligence and investigate business deals fully before committing to them.

19. Peaked my interest

To "pique" means to arouse, so the correct phrase here is "piqued my interest," meaning that my interest was awakened. To say that something "peaked my interest" might suggest that my interest was taken to the highest possible level, but this is not what the idiom is meant to convey.

20. Case and point

The correct phrase in this case is "case in point," which derives its meaning from a dialect of Old French. While it may not make any logical sense today, it is a fixed idiom.

Worried that poorly functioning spell checkers will make you look bad? Run things like your résumé, blog posts and the content of important emails through Correctica's "Proof It Free" tool.

TIME ( Inc. )

Trump reveals sensitive information to Russian foreign minister - Washington Post

Trump reveals sensitive information to Russian foreign minister 

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.

“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”

The revelation comes as the president faces rising legal and political pressure on multiple Russia-related fronts. Last week, he fired FBI Director James B. Comey in the midst of a bureau investigation into possible links between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Trump’s subsequent admission that his decision was driven by “this Russia thing” was seen by critics as attempted obstruction of justice.

One day after dismissing Comey, Trump welcomed Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak — a key figure in earlier Russia controversies — into the Oval Office. It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.

For almost anyone in government, discussing such matters with an adversary would be illegal. As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law.

White House officials involved in the meeting said Trump discussed only shared concerns about terrorism.

“The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”

“The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”

McMaster reiterated his statement in a subsequent appearance at the White House on Monday and described the Washington Post story as “false,” but did not take any questions.

In their statements, White House officials emphasized that Trump had not discussed specific intelligence sources and methods, rather than addressing whether he had disclosed information drawn from sensitive sources.

The CIA declined to comment, and the NSA did not respond to requests for comment.

But officials expressed concern about Trump’s handling of sensitive information as well as his grasp of the potential consequences. Exposure of an intelligence stream that has provided critical insight into the Islamic State, they said, could hinder the United States’ and its allies’ ability to detect future threats.

“It is all kind of shocking,” said a former senior U.S. official who is close to current administration officials. “Trump seems to be very reckless and doesn’t grasp the gravity of the things he’s dealing with, especially when it comes to intelligence and national security. And it’s all clouded because of this problem he has with Russia.”

In his meeting with Lavrov, Trump seemed to be boasting about his inside knowledge of the looming threat. “I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day,” the president said, according to an official with knowledge of the exchange.

Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States learned only through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not reveal the specific intelligence-gathering method, but he described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.

The Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities.

“Everyone knows this stream is very sensitive, and the idea of sharing it at this level of granularity with the Russians is troubling,” said a former senior U.S. counterterrorism official who also worked closely with members of the Trump national security team. He and others spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.

The identification of the location was seen as particularly problematic, officials said, because Russia could use that detail to help identify the U.S. ally or intelligence capability involved. Officials said the capability could be useful for other purposes, possibly providing intelligence on Russia’s presence in Syria. Moscow would be keenly interested in identifying that source and perhaps disrupting it.

Russia and the United States both regard the Islamic State as an enemy and share limited information about terrorist threats. But the two nations have competing agendas in Syria, where Moscow has deployed military assets and personnel to support President Bashar al-Assad.

“Russia could identify our sources or techniques,” the senior U.S. official said.

A former intelligence official who handled high-level intelligence on Russia said that given the clues Trump provided, “I don’t think that it would be that hard [for Russian spy services] to figure this out.”

At a more fundamental level, the information wasn’t the United States’ to provide to others. Under the rules of espionage, governments — and even individual agencies — are given significant control over whether and how the information they gather is disseminated, even after it has been shared. Violating that practice undercuts trust considered essential to sharing secrets.

The officials declined to identify the ally but said it has previously voiced frustration with Washington’s inability to safeguard sensitive information related to Iraq and Syria.

“If that partner learned we’d given this to Russia without their knowledge or asking first, that is a blow to that relationship,” the U.S. official said.

Trump also described measures the United States has taken or is contemplating to counter the threat, including military operations in Iraq and Syria, as well as other steps to tighten security, officials said.

The officials would not discuss details of those measures, but the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed that it is considering banning laptops and other large electronic devices from carry-on bags on flights between Europe and the United States. The United States and Britain imposed a similar ban in March affecting travelers passing through airports in 10 Muslim-majority countries.

Trump cast the countermeasures in wistful terms. “Can you believe the world we live in today?” he said, according to one official. “Isn’t it crazy?”

Lavrov and Kislyak were also accompanied by aides.

A Russian photographer took photos of part of the session that were released by the Russian state-owned Tass news agency. No U.S. news organization was allowed to attend any part of the meeting.

Senior White House officials appeared to recognize quickly that Trump had overstepped and moved to contain the potential fallout. Thomas P. Bossert, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, placed calls to the directors of the CIA and the NSA, the services most directly involved in the intelligence-sharing arrangement with the partner.

One of Bossert’s subordinates also called for the problematic portion of Trump’s discussion to be stricken from internal memos and for the full transcript to be limited to a small circle of recipients, efforts to prevent sensitive details from being disseminated further or leaked.

White House officials defended Trump. “This story is false,” said Dina Powell, deputy national security adviser for strategy. “The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced.”

But officials could not explain why staff members nevertheless felt it necessary to alert the CIA and the NSA.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said he would rather comment on the revelations in the Post story after “I know a little bit more about it,” but added: “Obviously, they are in a downward spiral right now and have got to figure out a way to come to grips with all that’s happening. And the shame of it is, there’s a really good national security team in place.”

Corker also said, “The chaos that is being created by the lack of discipline is creating an environment that I think makes — it creates a worrisome environment.”

Trump has repeatedly gone off-script in his dealings with high-ranking foreign officials, most notably in his contentious introductory conversation with the Australian prime minister earlier this year. He has also faced criticism for seemingly lax attention to security at his Florida retreat, Mar-a-Lago, where he appeared to field preliminary reports of a North Korea missile launch in full view of casual diners.

U.S. officials said that the National Security Council continues to prepare multi-page briefings for Trump to guide him through conversations with foreign leaders, but that he has insisted that the guidance be distilled to a single page of bullet points — and often ignores those.

“He seems to get in the room or on the phone and just goes with it, and that has big downsides,” the second former official said. “Does he understand what’s classified and what’s not? That’s what worries me.”

Lavrov’s reaction to the Trump disclosures was muted, officials said, calling for the United States to work more closely with Moscow on fighting terrorism.

Kislyak has figured prominently in damaging stories about the Trump administration’s ties to Russia. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign just 24 days into the job over his contacts with Kislyak and his misleading statements about them. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced to recuse himself from matters related to the FBI’s Russia investigation after it was revealed that he had met and spoke with Kislyak, despite denying any contact with Russian officials during his confirmation hearing.

“I’m sure Kislyak was able to fire off a good cable back to the Kremlin with all the details” he gleaned from Trump, said the former U.S. official who handled intelligence on Russia.

The White House readout of the meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak made no mention of the discussion of a terrorist threat.

“Trump emphasized the need to work together to end the conflict in Syria,” the summary said. The president also “raised Ukraine” and “emphasized his desire to build a better relationship between the United States and Russia.”

Julie Tate and Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

Washington Post