Re: "Posted by jasonmi7 (My Page) on Sat, Apr 11, 09 at 22:55 My question is; if many of you feel there should be much more strict standards on GC licensing; what are you doing to make it happen? How many of you have contacted your state legislatures, your congresspeople, run petitions? What have you done?" Good point and one I hope every reader takes to heart. I personally have become quite involved in local politics over this exact issue. I've also been involved w/consumer organizations that deal w/the issue, signed petitions, written countless letters, etc. Many people quickly become discouraged and give up, when they find out the legislators are more interested in getting campaign donations from the local buiders association. But I think in time, if people stick to it, they often have some success. I've kind of concluded that licensing is not in itself a good solution--there needs to be a licensing board that is not just run by builders as that's just more self-regulation and it never works. A bond is a good idea, but also there needs to be a public complaint database that isn't censored by the govt or builders or anyone. Criminalizing certain construction frauds is also needed. Educating consumers is also needed and that's something anyone can do, to share what they know about their construction mishaps, what they learned about the state's licensing or lack of it, etc. I was, and still am, determined to make my bad experience be worth something, so I continue to work in these issues and encourage others to do the same. If you want things to improve you have to work on it. It doesn't work if people just sit there and assume a handful of consumer advocates like hadd.com and hobb.org will do all the work. They need numbers of people to help. Citizen apathy is a very bad thing, whether it's about homebuilding, taxes, health care or any issue.

Djsaw, No one has talked about 'lifestyle and money'... Jkom put it in a very technical way. I am putting a bit of a human story behind it.... but saying the same thing. The fact that you are not working right now and living off the dividends is a big red flag for your future. You have kids and your living expenses will only grow not lessen. Unless there is enough money to meet all your future needs, ie college, mortgage, new car, travel etc, you need either a job that pays well enough or an investment strategy that will give you enough to live on without eroding the principle. There may or may not be enough money for that as is. (I have no idea from your post.) This is where you need to talk to someone that can really figure out what you want for yourself and your kids with the money that is there. Most people with a young family need about $5mil to $10mil nest egg to have an upper middle class lifestyle without needing to work for life AND risking the principle. "Not risking the principle" is a very important concept because you do not have the earning power to bring it back up if you lost it. (If your wage was a $1/2 mil to $1mil a year then no big deal but you are not there...) People like Donald Trump and Ted Turner can pull themselves out of near bankruptcy but most of us cannot recoup the lost principle. I have seen multigenrationally wealthy families have this happen to them due to risky investments. If I had your money, I would want to have certain things that money can buy; a house in a good school district, enrichment for my kids, good after school care for my kids if I was working, nice vacations etc. Notice I did not list designer handbags or fancy cars. One of the joys of having money is that you can have some opportunities that enable you to enjoy life more fully and perhaps get your kids a small head start with good education and opportunities that may help them in life. We are all driven by Darwinian instinct to put our kids ahead of someone else's kids. This does not mean materially owning more things. However, there are things money can buy you to achieve that. As an example, I have piano lessons for myself and music lessons for my kids that cost about 6 to 8K per year. I get a great deal of joy out of my music. I budget about 10K to 20K for travel every year because I want to see the world and I want my kids to see the world. These items add up to a significant amount of money and I could not do these things if my salary was 50K a year, a median salary for a family of 4 in the USA. For example, if there is $1 to 2 mil in you portfolio and you have 50K to 75K before taxes to live on, then that is not a 'great income' to have a nice life style. However, if you supplmented that by having $50k salary, then you may be able to do things that you thought not possible with either the income alone or just the earnings from the inheritance alone. This is why you talk to the financial advisor/planner to help you achieve your lifestyle goals, whatever they maybe.... You are extremely lucky. I wish you the best.

Sorry for the length of this: It's half-amusing, half-offensive to be accused of shilling for anyone, since Im as self-taught as one can possibly be. Dreamgarden seems to have ignored all my many posts on other threads over the years. So let me restate my (lack of) credentials to reassure you that I have no vested interest in whether anyone ever uses a planner, advisor, broker, or banker. Havent earned a penny from anyone since 2006 when I retired and the last time I met my ex-boss for lunch, I bought HIM lunch, LOL. For the record, most of my friends and all of my family are like DH & me - we don't have enough liquid assets to be of interest to most financial planners. I have free access to CFPs thru DHs retirement portfolio, but I dont need them. Why? Because I enjoy finance and investing the same way I enjoy reading history, science, and mystery novels IOW, for the sheer fun of it. I read extensively Ive had a subscription to the on-line WSJournal since it was first offered, and read it every day plus I clip articles obsessively from a variety of websites. But I would NEVER assume that others want to spend their time the same way. Old Joyful, for instance, likes to invest in individual stocks. He and I had a recent discussion thread about this. I have no interest in anything but mutual funds. Individual stocks dont fit into our tax and financial situation. I have the healthiest respect for his knowledge and acumen, but the fact remains, he lives in Canada and I live in the US. My financial planning is going to be very different than his, just as my goals are different. I know from our own experience how hard it is to sit down and do estate planning. We dont have much of an estate compared to many, yet it took us decades to learn to identify the things we needed to do, so we could finally do the things we wanted to do. Ignorance is most certainly NOT bliss, as we, and so many others, have discovered! I am a firm believer that we should be teaching some of this stuff in school. The world has changed rapidly and drastically, and us middle-class Boomers are stuck trying to figure out a world so much more dangerous than our parents grew up with. If you read my post more carefully, you would see that I wrote that even cheapie (e.g., simple) plans can at least provide a starting point. I do my own planning, using the WSJournal calculators (a subset of which are available on Schwabs website, or so Ive been told). Ive tried others on the web, but wasnt satisfied as they cant be altered to fit our own unusual circumstances. If a simple planning software can help someone, all to the good. I havent found them very helpful, but that doesnt mean I call them all garbage. WSJs toolset comes closest to allowing me to set the appropriate parameters, without having to pay someone to do a plan for us. Why should I pay, when I have the knowledge to do it myself? Its not hard, it just takes some effort and decision-making. THIS is what a planner is for: to help you (if you cant do it yourself) quantify where you are right now, and where you want to be. This is related to investing, but investing is only a very modest part of it. Its the planning process thats critical, yet not well understood. YOU must do the decision-making. No software program or customized plan means anything if you cant accept the reality of what your current circumstances are, and are willing to work at reaching your goals. I recently talked a young family member out of seeing a planner because I was able to help her identify some long-term goals. She also needed some very basic help diversifying her portfolio. In a decade or so they should probably meet with a planner to ensure theyre on track for whatever their goals are at that time. But until then I told her there was no reason to consult with anyone unless a life-changing event occurs. Its more important for her to have all legal docs in order, at this stage of life. I learned a lot from my ex-boss "G", but I have never referred anyone to him. The people I know who have enough money for financial advisors, already have them. The one time I was emailed off-line to ask for an intro, I refused to do so as the specific circumstances of that person made it inappropriate, in my view. "G" is semi-retired, but stays in the business because he loves working with people. He does a lot of pro bono work and is both well known and respected here as he's been active in professional organizations for over 30 yrs now. He trains his office staff not so much on what to do, but what NOT to do. He is ethical and very, very precise about working for the good of his clients, which is why he has many families who are second- and third-generation clients. BTW, Madoffs clients should have known something was "funny" just in the fact he had them writing out checks to his name. Thats a definite no-no the assets should always be held by a third-party institution. The woman (also a CFP) who works in "Gs" office and produces the financial plans is a former elder care specialist who got into the financial side late in life. These customized plans cost a minimum of $4K and range up to $10K. They are certainly NOT for everyone, but when appropriate, can make a huge difference in someone's life. Most people dont need them, but the ones who do, need them a great deal! I worked with some of those clients, and their lives were definitely better for having gotten a good financial plan and then executed it properly. Actually, now that I think of it I did refer someone to my ex-boss. I told my DH that if I die before he does, he's to sell the house (I maintain it and the garden in addition to all the finances; he has no interest in such things), take the insurance proceeds, and bring the money to "G" to handle. You did not have a good advisor. Thats not your fault. Its hard to evaluate credentials when youre on that steep learning curve. But a good advisor isnt looking for the next hot thing for you a good advisor helps you identify your goals and gives you a roadmap on how to get from where you are to where you want to be. A good advisor says "no" to you almost as often as s/he says "yes." Its important, but difficult, to learn how to differentiate the good from the bad. The more educated we are in this area, the better we can tell who can help us and who cannot. Id liken financial planning/investing to painting a room. You can do it the sloppy easy way. You can do a "sorta-kinda" okay paintjob, shoving the furniture out the way and covering it. Or, you can do more extensive prep work: masking the moldings, laying dropcloths, priming and using two coats. You can use cheap paint and cheap brushes. You can use top quality paint and the best brushes or rollers. Its always your choice. Each method gets the job done, to varying levels of satisfaction, cost, time expended, and durability. Saying that **ALL** CFPs are worthless is like saying all professional painters are worthless. Some are, and some arent. Some people need one all the time/every time, and some only need one on occasion. It isnt for me OR for you to make that unilateral judgment. Using a pro for anything is always an individual decision that should never be taken lightly. Nor should that decision be disparaged, once made. Often a pro does do a better job than an amateur can. Sure, a talented amateur can sometimes better a pro but they need the talent, the interest, the skill, and the time. Not everyone has those in equal measure. To expect it of every person is unrealistic and unfair. I feel fortunate to have had the generous and thoughtful assistance of others in my life. Weve had some serious setbacks that could easily have turned out badly, but in the end everything worked out (so far at least!). If I can help others avoid some of the mistakes we've made, then I feel its worth the effort. We did okay (my ROI over 25 yrs is way better than average), but perhaps we could have done better if we hadnt been so ignorant for so long. We were at times the recipients of sheer dumb luck, but thats something one shouldnt be counting on to happen. Dreamgarden, may you have better luck in the future finding people or resources able to help you.

bob_cville brings up an important point which the rest of us had overlooked. As more and more people inherit 401k's and IRAs, it is critical to understand that one needs to make the correct decision in such a case, BEFORE the funds are distributed. For our parents this was not an issue, the grandparents of Boomers didn't have these type of accounts. However, for us and succeeding generations, it is incumbent upon us to be aware not only of the current laws, but any future changes that will made in those laws by Congress. If you are inheriting any portion of an IRA, it's important that you know whether or not the owner was taking distributions. Once distributions are begun, they MUST be continued by the heirs. An IRA passed to multiple heirs may be split in any proportion the owner has specified. The heirs are best served by opening up a new IRA. Titling of this new IRA is very specific to avoid IRS problems. I've excerpted part of a WSJournal article on this issue: "...Inherited IRAs don't work like regular IRAs. If you inherit an IRA from anyone other than your husband or wife, you can't roll it into your own IRA. And you can't consolidate IRAs you inherit from different people into one account. So, if the heir had withdrawn the assets from a parent's IRA and deposited them into her own IRA, she would have undone the inherited IRA, making all its assets taxable. She also would have to remove any assets she deposited in her IRA above her allowed IRA-contribution limit for the year -- $5,000 if she's under 50, or $6,000 if she's 50 or older -- to avoid further penalties. But it appears that the account in question was left as is, except for being improperly titled. Thus, the error should be considered an administrative one that can be fixed. The reader would need to retitle the IRA so it's clear that the owner died and that she is the beneficiary. Ed Slott, an IRA consultant in Rockville Centre, N.Y., recommends using this format: John Smith IRA/ Deceased 1/1/2009/ FBO Mary Smith as beneficiary. (note: FBO means "for the benefit of") Make sure that the financial institution gets the titling right not only on the statements it sends to you, but also on the internal records it uses for reports to the IRS, he says. Some large IRA custodians use the beneficiary's name on the statements sent to him or her, but use the formal titling (as in the "John Smith" example, above) on the information it sends to the IRS to avoid confusing beneficiaries. After you have retitled the inherited IRA, you can stretch out withdrawals from the account across your lifetime, rather than being forced to withdraw the funds sooner. That gives you a chance to extend the time that tax-deferred earnings can accrue, possibly increasing your inheritance."