Professional designation programs for financial planners continue to expand year by year - as some disappear, others (more?) emerge to take their place. And although many are appropriately critical of some designations in particular, the trend begs the question: is an expanding number of professional designation programs good news, or bad?
Given the wild unpopularity of the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the implicit higher tax burden it carries, it's no great surprise that most people wish to avoid the AMT. However, the reality is that while the actual higher tax burden of the AMT may not be desirable, the tax impact - at the margin- of having more income subject to the AMT can actually be good news!
Are you a "good" sleeper, able to fall asleep as soon as your head hits the pillow, or to take a nap at a moment's notice? As it turns out, if this describes you, it is almost certainly a sign that you are severely sleep deprived, to the point that it is adversely impacting your alertness in client meetings!
It seems that the common wisdom in the financial planning world to improve client referrals is either "ask more often for referrals" or "do a better job when you ask for referrals." However, it may be that the single greatest reason why most planners don't get very many referrals is simply because... well, they're not actually that referrable.
Earlier in the week, this blog posed a number of questions to the CFP Board in response to the Fact Sheet that the organization had issued, seeking to address a number of issues the planning community has raised that still appeared to be unanswered. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with several staff members at the CFP Board, and wanted to share the information that I received.
Annuity owners sometimes wish to make a change to a portion of their annuity holdings without facing adverse tax consequences - and under current law, this can be accomplished by exchanging part of the existing annuity for a new contract on a tax-free basis.
However, the recent private letter ruling 201038012 from the IRS may have unintentionally expanded the flexibility of partial annuity exchanges to the point that they might not just be used, but could be abused as well.
