MountainTops

Learn How to Ascend to Prosperity

  • MountainTops Home
  • Blog Home
  • About

Archive for September, 2009

Technology Moves Ahead, But Will It Leave Many Behind?

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009

The September 14, 2009 announcement of Intuit’s purchase of Mint (see link*) is yet another confirmation of the free market’s value for technology. As Dan Sullivan notes in the May 2009 issue of The Global Thinker, “the downturn in the economy is causing an upturn in the use of business intelligence software.” In theory, this is a merger that provides customers/users with a tremendous ability to quickly and accurately know and manage their financial condition.

But it should be very apparent that not everyone is using technology for economic advancement. Call it human nature, the 80-20 rule, or a byproduct of the struggling American education system, but for many people, the primary use of technology is entertainment – it’s a new cell phone with text and picture capabilities, or the latest video console to play the most realistic virtual sports games. Using technology to better manage my finances? That’s boring. Besides, the debit card tells me when I’m overdrawn. What’s the point?

So, while the masses become ever-more amused, the diligent few are applying the same technological advances to amass greater wealth. Don’t think this is true? Consider that stats from the IRS regarding incomes and tax collections reported by the Tax Foundation in a July 30, 2009 summary:

 

In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income. Both those figures – share of income and share of taxes paid – are significantly higher than they were in 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9percent of federal individual income taxes.

Simply put, a smaller percentage of Americans are increasing their real earnings, and at a faster rate than everyone else. This is not definitive demographic breakdown, but a reasonable empirical conclusion would be that the “accelerated earners” are applying their efforts and capital to growth areas in the economy, and in almost all growth areas, technology is a major player. Technology provides owners with better feedback on sales, production costs and inventory. Technology results in greater precision in manufacturing. Technology delivers real-time reports to help businesses respond to market changes.

Every one of those statements about technology could apply to individual finance as well. And for those truly interested in reaching their financial mountaintop, technology can provide essential tools. But you have to use them!

And for a lot of people, implementation is a problem. Which is where tech-savvy Prosperity Economic Advisors(TM) can help. They either offer proprietary financial management programs, or can help you customize a consumer-based program like Mint to fit your situation. Either way, when you have accurate, automatically updated financial information at your fingertips, you are in a better position to make good financial decisions, no matter how small. And a multitude of wise choices about little things inevitably leads to success on a larger scale.

There are all sorts of reasons why people choose not to use technology to manage their money. But whatever the reason, those who don’t take advantage of technology run the risk of being left behind. They will be too slow, too late, too uninformed to fully capitalize on opportunities or avoid financial loss.

Some social observers see technologies like the Internet, cell phones and personal computers as leveling agents in society, in that these devices allow more people greater access to more of the same things. But technology also serves as a polarizer, causing greater separation among groups that were already distinctly different. Eventually, the advantages accrued to the users of technology make it almost impossible for non-users to be part of the discussion.

Here’s a prediction: Five years from now, if you’re not using some sort of personal financial management program with instant-update capabilities, it means you don’t have a financial program worth managing.

On the other hand, if you’re one of those people who is going to want financial technology five years from now, why not get started on using something today?

 *Link for Mint Merger:

http://www.mint.com/press/intuit-to-acquire-mint-com/?utm_source=mint&utm_medium=email&utm_term=press&utm_campaign=intuit

Posted in Economics, Money, Prosperity, free market, mixed economy | 1 Comment »

I’m Not Sold On Long-Term Care Insurance (Yet).

Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

Have you purchased long-term care insurance yet? I haven’t. And it’s not because I’m not old enough to consider it (I’m 50) or don’t understand the product (I’ve been in the business for 20+ years). But I still have some questions about the efficacy of the coverage. By way of explanation, here are two recent articles from insurance trade publications in reference to long-term care caught my eye:

The first, from the May 18, 2009 National Underwriter announced that long-term care costs were rising again. The average annual cost of a private nursing home room in the United States rose 4.7 percent, to $74,208.

The second, reported in the August 2009 Insurance Sales Journal, declared the largest open long term insurance claim has now surpassed $1.2 million in paid benefits. The claim, which began 12 years ago, is for a woman who started receiving benefits at age 46.

What’s my take on this information?

Long-term care is expensive, whether administered in a care facility or at home. And those expenses have the potential to greatly exceed current projections. This combination makes long-term economic projections problematic, which makes insurance (of any kind) more difficult to implement.

Long-term care is essentially long-term health insurance. You are paying premiums to offset possible medical expenses, which if they occur, will most likely be incurred well into the future.

There are several factors that skew the marketplace for medical insurance. Government, through entitlement programs and tax breaks, essentially subsidizes health care. Government subsidies have a long history of inflating prices, whether in housing or medical care.

In addition, the majority of medical expenses are paid not by the patient, but insurance companies, which creates a price disconnect between the provider and the consumer. Providers charge more, and insurers pass on the cost to their policyholders, often employers. When providers and consumers do not interact directly, there is a greater chance that market pressures will not compel providers to deliver the best products at the lowest prices.

Third, there is substantial evidence that people with insurance are more likely to use it – the “want to get their money’s worth.” It is easy to see where those with long-term care insurance would have incentives to qualify for a claim, while those without would be more likely to pursue alternatives, including those more cost-effective.

In the past, these three factors result in cost increases for health insurance at a rate consistently greater than either the rate of inflation or the rest of the economy. Since long-term care insurance is a form of health insurance, it seems reasonable to expect similar increases in both costs and premiums.

A critical question for actuaries is “How much will these costs go up in the future?” While the factors mentioned above are persistent factors in cost increases, any long-term assessment of what those costs might be are difficult to assess. Which is why most long-term care policies come with a provision for premium increases at a future date (typically after 10 years).

Consider the implications of a premium increase: First, benefits stay the same, but coverage costs more. Second, because of inflation, any increase in premium without a concurrent increase in benefits means an additional loss of financial value. Third, some people will not be able to afford the increase; losing coverage is compounding by the lost opportunity costs.

One of the ways for insurers to adjust for unexpected cost increases is to deny or limit claims based on the terms of the contract. A long-term care claim is dependent on the definitions contained in the policy, such as whether one can perform activities of daily living (ADLs).

But the nature of long-term care is still developing. Initially, policies primarily covered nursing home expenses, yet recently have expanded to home care services. Considering the demographics of the baby boomers and possible advances in medical technology, who knows what long-term care will look like 10 or 20 years from now?

As an example, recall the life expectancy calculations for those diagnosed with AIDS and HIV two decades ago; most estimates were based on the disease quickly ravaging the body. Since then, new treatment protocols have greatly lengthened both lifespan and quality of life for those who contract AIDS or HIV.

These factors inevitably lead to uncertainties in pricing, no matter what insurers may say about their ability to forecast claims. When the premiums are steep and potentially open-ended, and the possibility exists that all premiums paid will not yield benefits (either because long-term care is never needed, or claims are denied because the future forms of medical care don’t match the definitions of today’s contract), there is substantial economic incentive to resist long-term care insurance.

150 years ago, the “modern” format of life insurance was a new concept. Read the histories of some of the first insurance companies operating before and after the American Civil War; many insurance companies went broke, or consolidated to stave off insolvency. It took awhile, probably 20-30 years, for actuaries and policy designers to come up with contracts and pricing that worked – i.e., workable products (like term and whole life), affordable premiums, and financial stability to deliver on promises.

The general idea of all insurance is to spread risk among a large group of people in order to manage it. Given this definition, it’s also worth considering whether everything labeled “insurance” really qualifies.

There are alternatives. If someone can afford the premiums for long-term care, using those dollars to buy the maximum amount of permanent life insurance might be a better option. Most life insurance policies include riders that authorize early disbursement of a portion of the life insurance proceeds in the event of terminal and chronic illness, and/or other afflictions that might precipitate the need for long-term care. If the policy is not needed for long-term care, so much the better; the proceeds simply add to one’s estate. And life insurance is very stable insurance product – even people with coverage have limited incentive to use it any sooner than necessary.

In the right circumstances, current long-term care policies may deliver the promised benefits. But in light of the factors mentioned above, long-term care is still a work in progress. The key factors for determining risk are still changing, as are the policy terms, and the pricing. The unsettled terms could translate to uncertain insurance benefits.

Posted in Insurance | 3 Comments »

  • Categories

    • Economics (10)
    • financial crisis (1)
    • Financial Planning (8)
    • free market (7)
    • Insurance (3)
      • Life Insurance (2)
    • Investing (5)
    • mixed economy (8)
    • Money (1)
    • Prosperity (2)
    • Uncategorized (2)
  • September 2009
    M T W T F S S
    « Jul    
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    282930  
  • Archives

    • September 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • February 2009
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
  • Blogroll

    • Development Blog
    • Documentation
    • Plugins
    • Suggest Ideas
    • Support Forum
    • Themes
    • WordPress Planet
  • Meta

    • Log in
    • Valid XHTML
    • XFN
    • WordPress

Copyright © 2010 - MountainTops | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)