Many "financial planners" were, in the past, required to have a simple training course that was taken by people who were planning to sell mutual funds. Pretty rudimentary. In those days, people who had taken the course that stockbrokers take were much more knowledgeable, and many people calling themselves "financial planners" later took a six-component course leading to be a Chartered Financial Planner (later changed, and now the designation is "Certified Financial Planner"). In recent years regulations have been tightened a good deal. However, with the amount of money to which you refer, it's important to have an accountant advise, as they have thorough knowledge of the laws, and in cases such as yours, making any mis-steps can be costly. And accountants are required to keep up-to-date as new rules come out. As you know, the tax rules change frequently. Many accountants are quite conservative, and may suggest investing systems that persons willing to deal with some level of risk would find more safe that they could handle. In our area, if one invests in assets where the amount of the principal can't grow, one loses. All of the return that such principal develops is developed currently. The tax man wants to talk to each of us annually relative to our current income - and in Canada, some types of investment income is taxed at a much lower rate than others (mainly the kind that most folks use). If one earns about 4.5%, and is taxed at 33%, that takes the amount of after-tax money left in hand at 3%. And if the size of your principal can't grow - you need to add some current earnings to it annually in order to keep your purchasing power intact. If you'd given the bank $10,000.00 15 years ago in a 5-year guaranteed certificate, and renewed it twice ... ... when you invested it, the $10,000. would have bought a decent car. Not now, 15 years later. The government quotes figures for inflation, i.e. growth in consumer price index ... ... but most of us don't believe them, as our experience is that prices that we pay are rising faster then the recent 2 - 2.5% that they tell about. Here in Canada, for example, people have been telling us lately that the index doesn't include energy cost!!! Check out your various courses available carefully with a fully qualified person - in your Mom's state and yours. Not in the state of confusion, though, we hope. Moreover, if interest rates rise, as many expect them to do, especially in the U.S., carrying their huge government plus individual debt, plus government going deeper into debt each year (under a conservative regime, no less!) another problem arises for bond holders. If they hold them to maturity, they'll receive the full face amount, but if they want to sell them prior to maturity, the price offered by a potential purchaser will be much lower, for s/he can buy a current issue paying much higher rate of interest. My bias is in favour of high quality stocks for the major part of one's portfolio, even for an old fart like me, past 756 - drat this keyboard ... that figure was supposed to be 75: I ain't in the running against Methuselah! For reasons that I won't go into here, but will tell you if you email me. Good wishes for your Mom's choosing to deal with her assets in a way that won't back-fire later on either her or you her offspring. ole joyful

Hi Cube1067, and all, Part of my training as an overseas missionary was to listen and learn, not go around spouting a lot of good, often unrequested advice. Some people have asked me what right I had, as a missionary in another country, to ram the Bible down someone's throat. I asked them if I could ram the Bible down their throat, to which they replied that they would not allow it. I replied that I know the situation here much better than in another country, where I am a guest. That I would have even less success at trying to do that there than here. As a clergyperson and personal financial advisor I've tried to do the same. I sold no financial products, so was not trying to sell stuff: my main goal was to help clients figure out goals that they wanted, and plan how to achieve them, including the steps needed to get there. I value my freedom, and feel that I should respect the right of others to decide how they wish to live their lives. Sometimes when I talk to a group of teens at the plaza about using money to smoke or to save it and put it to work for them, some of them ask me whether I am telling them not to smoke. I say that I'm not: I value my freedom and need to respect theirs, but am only offering some alternative ideas that they might find useful. The choice is theirs. The thousand that you save now, if you learn to manage it effectively, might enable you to retire a year earlier, if there are enough years in between. When you could kick up your heels and do whatever you wish. Good wishes as you continue to consider how to use your money most effectively, joyful guy P.S. When I stayed with an old, arthritic uncle for a couple of months last year, after his wife died, an evaluator for seniors and I recommended that he use a wheeled walker that he has, but he wouldn't. Now, with even more pain in lower back, hip and leg, he has discovered it on his own and now feels that it's a great help to him. How much effect did the suggestions and arguments that we used last year have on him? None, then. How much, in the months between and recently? No one knows, of course. joyful guy P.S. My Dad used to say, "Convince a man against his will, "He'll be of the same opinion still". In politically correct terms, that includes females, as well. jg

"The debt doesn't generate income. Rent generates income. Debt costs money. It always has and always will. Sometimes, you can net out positive, but you are always increasing your risk. Lots and lots of people have bankrupted themselves by financing multiple rental properties." That mans they did not know what they were doing, and likely over leveraged the debt they carried. The frast ;itte hicup om cash flow ad they crash ad burn. while debt costs money, it is one of the things that allows our economy to work and prosper. he lack of any method to borrow is one of the things that holds may economies back. It is also a trap for fools that do not understand the money is not free and creditors expect (and often can demand) repayment. Or you can try to save up to put enough down on investment properties (normally a minimum of 20%, ad often more is actually needed) and not ever get very far. While it is true the rent is what pays the income, without the ability to borrow at least some portion of the purchase price the income would never have existed. Better rethink that whole concept a little bit. Yep, the lender gets a cut. But I get a nice cut also. I really like having someone else make my mortgage investment payments for me, while I skim off some cash every month, and then have an increase in value when I sell. Even when I have 50% of the price into the property, if the value increases by 2%, that is 4% on my investment (and the tenants are paying the expenses). If only you could find someone to pay for a loan on stock andlet me pcket the increases.

Vesur first joined this site on Jan 22, 2014. __________________________ Rates offered on annuities have a close relationship to interest rates offered at the time that they are set up. As you've heard, our governments have been keeping interest rates low, the reason claimed to be to encourage our entrepreneurs to invest, to get our economy growing again. They don't mention that they owe huge amounts of money ... and growing monthly ... so the idea of having to pay higher rates of interest on that huge and growing debt ... makes their hair stand on end (if those old mostly male legislators have much left). But ... considering that huge and growing debt ... if they don't offer increased interest rates, aren't potential investors going to be unwilling to lend them money, fearing that they won't be able to pay off their debts? Plus ... as they are printing money hand over fist ... won't buyers of those bonds fear that, what with so many more dollars floating around ... that they'll be paid off with dollars that won't buy much? On our province-wide phone-in discussion group weekdays at noon for an hour on our national radio, a little over a year ago the question of the day was, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?". I don't remember how much attention was paid to the matter of four years from late '12 having been late '08, which, with early '09, was a bad time to be in the stock market. I said that I was ... but only because I disobeyed the usual advice given to people about their investment planning. We've been told that we should invest in equities, stocks, real estate, etc. where there's a good possibility of growth when we're young, with many years ahead to replace possible losses - a long time horizon. About 80% equities, 20% bonds at age 20. Yeah, right: when young folks carry student debt, maybe have credit card debt, are buying a car, renting/buying a roof over their heads, getting married ... having kids. As we age, to shift a percentage of our assets into more secure investments and fewer in the volatile ones, e.g. at 35, 65% equities, 35% bonds and other quaranteed-asset instruments: at age 50, about 50-50. At 80, they recommend that we have 80% bonds, GICs, CDs, etc. where the amount of the principal is guaranteed not to shrink (and carries another never-mentioned guarantee ... that, apart from the rent on the money, it isn't going to grow, either). But, as each dollar's value shrinks each year, due to inflation, I must put part of the rent with the principal in order to maintain its purchasing power at the earlier level. In Canada, interest income is taxed at top marginal rate ... with no offsetting credits. If I buy a bond paying 2%, and am in 25% tax bracket, that reduces my after-tax retention to 1.5% ... and have you heard what the official rate of inflation is, these days? When I take that 2% official rate from the 1.5% left to me after taxes are paid ... I'm under water! Losing money. And ... have you visited a grocery store lately? Do you agree that prince increases there, or in other areas of the economy (apart from wage rates), are limited to 2%? At age 80+ ... I was better off at the time of the phone-in (and even more so, now) than I was 4 years previously ... and for one reason, only: I'm invested 80% in well-chosen, quality equities. And I own a major proportion of the asset in stocks of quality corporations that I own directly, not through mutual funds, most of whom, in Canada, take on an annual basis, about a quarter to a third of average, long-term growth rates in the stock market ... and they get theirs, every year, even if there is no growth ... and they have no skin in the game (except that, if you get mad enough at their low rates of growth, about 85 - 90 percent of the time not outperforming the sector of the market in which they invest, you take your money and invest elsewhere). ole joyful