HAVE THE PAST TWO YEARS CHANGED THE WAY YOU VIEW YOUR INVESTMENTS? Posted on 10/9/2009 12:00:00 AM
This week’s poll results examine what respondents are thinking about theirinvestments. The poll was not scientific and was driven by radio listeners of the syndicated Don Creech Radio Show and subscribers to its “Week in Review” email. Listen or subscribe at www.DonCreech.com. HAVE THE PAST TWO YEARS CHANGED THE WAY YOU VIEW YOUR INVESTMENTS?
Thinking about the last two years, has the amount of risk you take with your investments increased, decreased or stayed the same?
Two thirds of the respondents indicated they have reduced the amount of risk they are willing to bear. This is confirmed by recent trends in mutual fund purchases. This past year has been a winner for bond fund managers who have seen huge amounts of new capital flowing into their funds. The flip side is the departure of accounts experienced by stock mutual funds which have been recovering from the March market bottom.
Compared with two years ago, how has your attitude towards investing in the stock market changed, if at all?
When you retirePosted on 10/2/2009 12:00:00 AM
This week’s poll results examine what respondents are thinking about their retirement. The poll was not scientific and was driven by radio listeners of the syndicated Don Creech Radio Show and subscribers to its “Week in Review” email. Listen or subscribe at www.DonCreech.com. When you retire do you think you will have enough money to live comfortably?
Respondents were equally divided on this question. The 50% that answered no will have more difficulty ahead as they face longer working careers or reductions in their retirement lifestyle.
Do you expect to rely on a 401(k), IRA, Keogh or other retirement savings account as a major source of income?
These responses surprised me. Only 41% expect to rely on a retirement savings plan as a major source of retirement income. This may be due to the reduction in value caused by this past year’s market losses or the absence of a plan. I expected a higher reliance due to the emphasis on marketing company retirement plans over the past twenty years.
Is the Recession Over?Posted on 9/26/2009 12:00:00 AM
This week’s poll results examine what respondents are thinking about the economy. The poll was not scientific and was driven by radio listeners of the syndicated Don Creech Radio Show and subscribers to its “Week in Review” email. Listen or subscribe at www.DonCreech.com. Is the recession over? Seventy percent of respondents believe the recession has ended. Officially it will require two quarters of positive GDP for the recession to be declared history. The government cannot post third quarter results until next month. Currently, we have been through four consecutive quarters of negative economic activity. The second quarter of this year was only a -1.0%, a big improvement from the prior quarter of -6.4%. Until we complete the first quarter of 2010, we will not know if this recession is ready for the history books. Presumably, the wealth redistribution programs of Cash for Clunkers and First Time Home Buyer Tax Credit will have added sufficient activity to push the economy into a positive growth status. However, the unresolved issue is the sustainability of sales when the wealth redistribution programs have ended. Auto dealers are holding the lowest on-lot inventory since 1992 according to CBS News. Artificially stimulated sales activity allowed dealers to increase their profit margin due to the increase in demand. In the short run, dealers can rejoice in their good fortune. In the long run, we tax payers have to thank principally The current version of healthcare reform in the Senate requires up to a $3800 penalty be charged to any citizen who cannot prove they have health insurance, do you approve of this?Posted on 9/18/2009 12:00:00 AM
Ninety percent of respondents disagreed with the proposal to tax anyone not paying for health insurance. This is flagrant social engineering and a direct impediment to personal liberty. The largest segment of individuals not buying life insurance is young and single. Forcing them into the healthcare premium system is essential not for their own good but to subsidize the premiums required to care for their aging parents and grandparents.
Eventually, this debate will end with some system of inclusion for the young and healthy or the claims of the elderly will become so great that rationing care will be the only alternative for fiscal viability. This is the condition of most social healthcare systems in Europe and Canada which are struggling to meet increasing costs that are fast depleting national treasuries.
Do you believe the total amount that you pay in taxes will be lower when you retire?Posted on 8/8/2009 12:00:00 AM
This week’s poll results examine how respondents view the federal government’s imposition of taxes on us. The poll was not scientific and was driven by radio listeners of the syndicated Don Creech Radio Show and subscribers to its “Week in Review” email. Listen or subscribe at http://www.DonCreech.com. Do you believe the total amount that you pay in taxes will be lower when you retire?
Planning for retirement must include an assumption about income taxes. Three quarters of respondents are assuming that their income tax burden will increase after they retire. Since most retirees experience reduced gross income at retirement, the implication must be that tax rates are expected to increase.
In our discussions with people, we are amazed at how many are unaware of the expiration of our current income tax rates and the return to the higher rates that were in affect at the beginning of this decade. The Democrats will get an increase in tax rates without having to vote for one simply due to the current law expiring or “sun-setting.” They may still have to vote for even more taxes to pay for the proposed “benefit” increases that they are trying to push through Congress.
Kiss Your Health Insurance Good-Bye!Posted on 7/24/2009 12:00:00 AM
This week’s poll results examine how respondents view the federal government’s proposal to reform the US healthcare system. The poll was not scientific and was driven by radio listeners of the syndicated Don Creech Radio Show and subscribers to its “Week in Review” email. Listen or subscribe at http://www.DonCreech.com.
If a public healthcare insurance option becomes available will it increase competition amongst insurers?
Eighty percent of respondents do not believe that the government’s proposal will increase competition. There are about 1,700 health insurance carriers in the US. Adding a government option only increases providers by one. The main difference is that the new player does not have to make a profit to stay in the game. That is not a level playing field.
The bigger problem has been the systematic elimination of competition by government regulation at the state level where insurance companies are regulated. Slowly and incrementally over the past two decades, state commissioners have mandated increasingly standardized coverage and rates. Unlike auto carriers that can still underwrite risk and select the coverage they will provide, health carriers have faced mandated coverage without the ability to underwrite risk exposure. They have had to adapt to guaranteed issue and minimal or no waiting periods. The rational decision for a board of directors is to withdraw from those states and no longer offer coverage. Marketplace competition and individual choice has been effectively eliminated by government interference.
The reform proposal currently in the House of Representatives mandates no insurance company will be allowed to sell any individual or group policy after the government’s plan becomes law. The intent is not to reform the insurance industry but to eliminate it.
Will a public healthcare insurance option increase the federal deficit?
More than 73% of respondents believe that a public healthcare option will increase the deficit. Apparently, we have a lot of skepticism when our politicians tell us that any program will be “deficit neutral.” No doubt that comes from simple observation of prior political claims. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have not been able to operate anywhere close to the original forecasts of costs. Yet, the current healthcare reform proposal is a bigger commitment up front than either of those “safety nets.”
If the costs are going to be covered by “operational savings,” why are we seeing those operational changes being implemented in the current federal programs, Medicare, Medicaid and the Veteran’s Healthcare system? Is it because there is too much bureaucracy to get it done? Because there aren’t any significant changes to control costs?
It can’t be the addition of preventive care. We do not have sufficient general practitioners to accomplish that today. Further, we do not have a compensation system that rewards physicians for spending time with a patient for in depth history or counseling. Major compensation goes to major procedures using lots of staff and expensive replacement parts.
Will a public healthcare insurance option limit your treatment options in the future?
Respondents were more evenly divided with sixty percent believing that their treatment options would be limited. Limitations on treatment have certainly been the outcome in Great Britain and in Canada. Canada’s limitations have been responsible for a booming medical industry along our northern border in most every major city. There are three desired components to world class medical care. We want low cost, quality care and easy access. In the real world, you can have any two but not all three. Low cost will impact either quality or access. Quality and access come with higher cost. It is an unavoidable law of economics. The federal government cannot accomplish what is promising to do with reform.
Will a public healthcare insurance option increase your access to timely medical services?
The divide between respondents narrows even more with only fifty three percent believing their access will become more limited. As I previously explained, lower cost, an objective of the proposed plan, will impact either quality or access. In Canada, it has had a major impact limiting access at all stages of medical care. There are long waits to meet with your GP. There are long waits to see the specialist or lab your GP refers you to. Then there are long waits for the test result meeting and again for treatment to begin. To a lesser extent this happens in the US with Medicaid patients but not to the lengths experienced north of our international border.
Will a public healthcare insurance option create jobs?
No one has defined the types of jobs that are expected to be created by federal healthcare reform. However, sixty percent of respondents do not believe that reform is a job creation bill. There will be new jobs in the field as the Boomers continue aging and have increasing demands for healthcare. The need for nurses, aides and home healthcare attendants will inevitably increase. That increase is due to demographic changes in our population and not due to any systemic reform.
Government ExpansionPosted on 7/20/2009 12:00:00 AM
This week’s poll results examine how respondents view the federal government’s management of the economy and the financial system. The poll was not scientific and was driven by radio listeners of the syndicated Don Creech Radio Show and subscribers to its “Week in Review” email. Listen or subscribe at http://www.DonCreech.com.
To solve problems government should...:
A full ninety five percent of respondents believe the government should do less. This represents a much more conservative response than the NY Times/CBS poll where a 56% majority agrees with less involvement by the Feds.
I’m concerned about growth of government.
The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found 69% of respondents are greatly concerned about government growth. That is less than the 95% of our respondents but is consistent with concerns that the government is extending its reach too far into our daily lives.
I’m concerned about the size of the budget deficit…:
The Washington Post/ABC polls found only 56% of their respondents were concerned with the growing deficit. Again, our poll participants seem to be much more conservative here, too, in that, again, 95% are very concerned about the debt being built up for our children and grandchildren.
I can trust government to do what’s right…:
The NY Times/CBS poll found twenty percent who believe the government is “always or most of the time” right about the actions it takes. That is materially higher than the five percent who responded to our polling. Again, 95% take the stand that the government may be right some of the time or never.
We need more regulation of the U.S. financial system.
Our poll respondents are a little more closely aligned with those of Rasmussen Reports where those in favor of more regulation were 74% and 47%, respectively. I would argue that regulation has unintended consequences. The issues that have been the focus of proposed regulation on the financial services industry are not targeted at the areas of recent problems. The housing crisis was caused by regulations mandating loans to lower credit quality borrowers. Regulators were watching to see that banks made enough low quality loans to meet Congressional mandates, not to see if the banks financial position was being damaged. The Madoff scandal lasted because FINRA regulators refused to investigate charges of fraud made by reputable people within the industry. There are plenty of regulations. There has been lax enforcement whenever large brand names are involved.
June 26, 2009 Consumers remain pessimisticPosted on 6/26/2009 12:00:00 AM
This week’s poll results examine how respondents view their current financial situation and the near term future. The poll was not scientific and was driven by radio listeners of the syndicated Don Creech Radio Show and subscribers to its “Week in Review” email. Listen or subscribe at www.DonCreech.com.
If you have a home equity line of credit is the balance increasing or decreasing?
Nearly three quarters of respondents indicated their credit balances are continuing to increase during this recession. Home equity lines of credit kept our economy moving after the tech bubble burst in 2000. While some banks have withdrawn or reduced available credit, it is not completely gone. However, when viewed collectively, the respondents remain fairly pessimistic for the near term.
June 19, 2009 Home or Abroad; Fixed or EquityPosted on 6/27/2009 12:00:00 AM
This week’s poll results examine how respondents view the current market and its impact on personal portfolio decisions. The poll was not scientific and was driven by radio listeners of the syndicated Don Creech Radio Show and subscribers to its “Week in Review” email. Listen or subscribe at www.DonCreech.com.
Are you more comfortable in a stock portfolio made up of US companies or a portfolio with a global perspective?
A nearly unanimous 95% of respondents favors US domestic companies for their portfolio. With a tendency to reduce volatility, a general reduction in international equity exposure would help. We do not expect long-term improvement in foreign issues until we find the US consumption improving and supporting better import demand.
June 12, 2009 Free Trade or NotPosted on 6/12/2009 12:00:00 AM
This week’s poll results examine how we view the current recession and its impact on personal decisions. The poll was not scientific and was driven by radio listeners of the syndicated Don Creech Radio Show and subscribers to its “Week in Review” email. Listen or subscribe at www.DonCreech.com.
In spite of the guffaw in the mainstream press about the job losses created by free trade zones, the vast majority of respondents to this week’s poll remain strongly in favor of free trade as an economic catalyst to move us out of the recession. Fewer than 6% are opposed to free trade as part of the resolution to our economic malaise.
|
No comments yet |
Click here to listen live online
Saturdays
9 AM Pacific
- KITZ 1400 AM
- KKOL 1300 AM
- KGTK 920 AM
Sunday Rebroadcast - KKOL 1300 AM
6:00am & 2:00pm
Sponsored by:
