Book Review: Master Math; Business and Personal Finance Math

I’m finishing up teaching an undergraduate course on Personal Finance this month, for which I find the assigned textbook totally useless, so I am on a quest to come up with a useful book to recommend for students as well as Bankers Anonymous readers.

What’s useful

The most impressive strength of Master Math: Business and Personal Finance Math by Mary Hansen is that it cuts out all the (mostly) banal ‘advice’ of a personal finance book, and concentrates instead on how to do the calculations.  The math level never rises beyond algebra, which frankly is all anyone needs to know, in order to competently manage their personal or small business finances.

I find this a useful guide for a ‘Do-It-Yourselfer,’ or a person intent on learning exactly how car loan companies calculate APR vs. APY, or insurance companies quote term life insurance.  A CFO for a small business or non-profit would also likely benefit from this useful introductory reference.

I’ve frequently paid but never personally calculated FICA taxes, for example, and it’s somewhat satisfying to learn how straightforward the math is.  I have personally prepared business balance sheets and budgets, debt to equity ratios, and tracked profitability, but the straightforward presentation would be useful to others who have not done so before, but who need to learn.

What’s missing

Missing from Master Math, however, is my personal pet project: Understanding discounted cashflows and compound interest – the keys to good personal finance decisions.  While the author presents a ‘compound interest’ table and defines the term (in contradistinction to simple interest), a table does not really cut it.

The limitations of print media for personal finance math

Reading the book this week has inspired a new thought, however, of which I’m increasingly convinced.

Personal finance and small business math, while not complicated, requires fluency with a spreadsheet program like Excel.

Master Math offers good, but somewhat convoluted algebraic formulas to calculate answers.  In print, the author cannot show the dynamic changes in personal finance outcomes from changes in variables.

Properly set up in a spreadsheet like Excel, by contrast, a change in loan interest rate, for example, alters every monthly payment as well as the total cost of a loan.  A small change in automatic monthly withholding, for example, changes everything when it comes to long-term retirement savings.  Only by seeing the dynamic effects, I think, can we understand what control we can have over personal financial decisions and outcomes.

What is the right media?

I know Khan Academy has changed everything when it comes to math pedagogy.  Although I enjoyed Master Math, I’m also sure personal and small business math has to be taught, and learned, through a combination of video, practice problem sets, and acquired fluency with Excel.  Static text on a page isn’t enough.

This is something I’d like to work on over the next few years.

Please see related post: All Bankers Anonymous Book Reviews in one place.

Master Math Business and Personal Finance Math

 

Post read (5585) times.

The Meaning of Jon Corzine

monopoly-go-to-jailWith the announcement that MF Global Trustee (and former FBI chief) Louis J. Freeh will charge Jon Corzine for failing in his duty to oversee the company, the meaning of Jon Corzine shifts once again.

Prior to this announcement, I understood the meaning of Corzine primarily through the following investment aphorism:[1]

“One of the worst things that can happen to you or a client is an early investment that wins big. You will become overconfident of your abilities and proceed to lose much more in the future through imprudent decisions than you initially made on the winner.”

Corzine’s career is the epitome of this wisdom, although he combined it with an uncanny ability to “fail upwards.”  A few salient points in his timeline illustrate his pattern.

The 1994 failure in Goldman’s Fixed Income department

1. He made partner as a government bond trader in the ‘80s, and later managing Goldman’s entire bond trading operation, but Corzine ramped up fixed income risk just when the wrong moment hit.

Interest rates rose sharply in 1994, prompting a bloody massacre of fixed income departments on Wall Street, including an existential threat to Goldman’s survival, due to losses.[2]  Instead of firing Corzine for his astonishing imprudence, the partnership felt it had no choice but to elevate Corzine to Chief Executive, all the better to unwind the level of risk in the fixed income department.  His elevation illustrated another finance aphorism:[3]

“If you owe the bank $1,000., they own you.  If you owe the bank $100 million, you own them.”

Corzine, as described in William Cohan’s Money and Power, How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World, in a sense ‘owned the bank,’ as the partnership could not afford to lose him due to its exposure to rising interest rates.  He was a massive risk taker in the lead-up to 1994, making extraordinary money in 1992 and 1993.  But when it all turned bad, instead of being fired, Corzine was rewarded with the top job at Goldman, paired with Hank Paulson to temper Corzine’s risk appetite.[4]

Summer of 1998, Long Term Capital Management, and Corzine’s attempted rogue portfolio trade

2. With the August 1998 Russian ruble-bond default and Solomon Brothers’ swap desk liquidation, most of Wall Street faced major exposure to the insolvent Long Term Capital Management, the first Too-Big-To-Fail hedge fund.  The New York Federal Reserve attempted a private sector “bail-in,” requiring cooperation and an infusion of capital from each of the Wall Street firms, via a Godfather-style meeting of the families, hosted by the New York Fed.

Corzine, however, nearly managed to personally blow up the whole bail-in, achieving the rare trick of pissing off not only the rest of Wall Street but the entire Goldman partnership as well.

While the Fed urged cooperation between banks, Corzine attempted a sideswipe of the portfolio out from under the rest of the Street.  He secretly negotiated a purchase of Long Term Capital’s entire portfolio using Goldman’s capital[5], presumably believing the firm could make a profit by taking on the risk of the illiquid trades.

This attempt, ultimately unsuccessful, came at a delicate time for financial markets, suffering unexpectedly large losses on Russia and exposure to LTCM.

Goldman, in particular, had been planning an IPO that Fall, which Corzine’s actions undermined.  The IPO was delayed by market conditions, but also by the frightening style of rogue trading risk which Corzine engendered with his move.  The firm leadership of Paulson, along with deputy heads John Thain and John Thornton, engineered a coup against Corzine’s leadership as a result.

Corzine seemingly never saw a risk he didn’t try to take, which ultimately proved too much for the partnership.  They allowed him to stay nominally in charge through Goldman’s IPO in June 1999, with the understanding that Corzine would be professionally sidelined after that.  His political career began shortly after.

MF Global and lack of risk controls

3. After unremarkable stints as Senator and Governor of New Jersey[6], Corzine landed the top job at MF Global, a medium-sized brokerage.

We now know Corzine continued his pattern of 1994 and 1998, in which he doubled-down and tripled-down on risks, in the face of extraordinary losses.  Although his trading led to huge losses, somehow his ability to fail upwards did not derail his own personal career.

Up until MF Global became the eighth largest bankruptcy of all time, the meaning of Corzine seemed to be about his almost Forrest Gump-like success, in the face of amazing failure.  His Midwestern affable, bearded, demeanor masked an unlimited appetite for investment risk.  Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t, but either way Corzine kept on moving upward.

We know in retrospect that Corzine’s pattern of unrelenting risk-taking continued at MF Global, and that ultimately some wrong-way bets on European sovereign bonds pushed the firm into chapter 11 bankruptcy.

We also know some $1.6 Billion in customer funds were misplaced in the final days of MF Global, for which I’ve argued Corzine should be in jail.

A new meaning of Jon Corzine

Following the debacle of MF Global, and in the light of the 2008 credit crisis, however, Corzine’s career came to represent something darker and more insidious.

Unlike failed chief executives Dick Fuld of Lehman Brothers, or Jimmy Cayne of Bear Stearns, Corzine actually oversaw the misplacement of customer funds, not just the destruction of shareholder value.

We forgive – mostly – the leaders who drove their firms into the ground through errors in judgment, or risk management, like Fuld and Cayne.  Shareholders lost, but shareholders took equity risk and our system rightly allows for losses like that.

Fuld and Cayne lost personal fortunes invested in their own firms, as they should have, and suffered for the loss in their reputation.[7]

But we should not forgive those who commit the fiduciary sin of misplacing customer funds, like Corzine.

I make a distinction between these so that we do not lose sight of the different types of losses, and the consequences.  It bothered me, up until now, that Corzine was not pursued more aggressively for the loss of customer funds.

Too Big To Fail executives

For me, Corzine additionally offered the ultimate lie to the public about executive compensation.  Namely, if you’re so essential to your business that you deserve, say, $12.1 million per year in good times,[8] how can you not retain the liability and responsibility when things go horribly wrong?

In what way did you earn the upside profitability, but not deserve the downside liability?

If you’re so good at what you do, then you need to be held personally liable when $1.6 Billion in customer funds go missing.

All of which is to say that I’m extremely pleased to see MF Global Trustee suing Corzine for his responsibility in the failure of his firm.

MF Global, the firm, was not Too-Big-To-Fail when it went under in September 2011.

Jon Corzine, the executive, until now represented a type of CEO who could earn profits and bonuses in the good years, without suffering personal consequences when things went wrong.

With the latest news, however, I’m encouraged that at least one Too-Big-To-Fail executive will suffer the consequences.

 

Please also see Arrest Jon Corzine Now

And Update on Jon Corzine by the MF Global Trustee

And One more rant on Jon Corzine

Corzine pariah


[1] All credit for this aphorism to financial planner David Hultstrom, whose ‘Ruminations on Being a Financial Professional’ is the best collection of pithy and wise investment advice I’ve ever seen collected in one place.  See especially pages 9-12.

[2] Incidentally, I’m not in the prognostication business, but when you look at this simple chart of fixed income over the past 50 years, you see we’re at the very bottom of the rate cycle with very little to go from here.  No risk manager alive has ever dealt with a massive move upward in rates, only short spurts in a secular move to lower rates.  When the trend reverses, it will by U-G-L-Y.

[3] Attributed in different variations to John Paul Getty as well as John Maynard Keynes.

[4] I didn’t work in Goldman’s fixed income department until 1997, at which point Corzine ran the firm as senior partner, along with Hank Paulson from investment banking.  Corzine was the bearded, affable, sweater-vest guy who would occasionally come down to the bond trading floor.

[5] Matched with capital from Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.

[6] An associate of mine who dealt with Governor Corzine frequently complained about Corzine’s leadership in New Jersey.  Although in agreement with his political persuasion, he found Corzine unwise politically and inconsistent to deal with.

[7] I actually wish we had more Japanese-style “begging of forgiveness” for corporate failure by chief executives.  The promise of public shaming might help temper risk appetite.

[8] Corzine’s scheduled final executive package, before he wisely offered it back, in the wake of the Ch. 11 filing of MF Global.

Post read (5938) times.

Another worrywart post on Financial Sustainability

This time, with better math!

A little while ago I wrote that, as a fiduciary, I worried about the sustainability of endowments and retiree portfolios, which traditionally have drawn 5% and 4% respectively from assets per year, in the conventional belief that this is ‘sustainable.’ 

These 4% and 5% rules of thumb for the past 50 years guided fiduciaries and retirees that live off of savings, or endowment managers who parcel out funds annually to run non-profits such as schools and hospitals.

My argument was admittedly simplistic – basically, that with bond yields as low as they are (2% on 10-year bonds) nobody has a prayer at financial sustainability without going far out on the risk spectrum – essentially all stocks, or all risky assets – just to break even with a 4% or 5% draw.  I specifically did not consider forward-looking projections when arguing for the unsustainability of current endowment or retiree practices.

We can’t see the future, I said, so I can’t predict.  All I can know is that you’ve got to take a lot of risk if you want to stay sustainable, and that’s not very comfortable for most of us.

I was pleased to see a more sophisticated presentation of this idea, which actually makes a mathematical and credible case for low future return expectations. 

Basically, their conclusion is the same, only their math is better.

Not Great Expectations

The embedded picture is explained best by the Economist, but I’ll try to express it as well, to save you the click-through.

A quantitative strategist at hedge fund AQR Group built this picture, which purports to show the expected real return of a 60/40 stock/bond portfolio available today.

Equity returns are calculated by averaging:

1. The Earnings/Price ratio of a broad basket of stocks[1] and

2. Dividend yield plus 1.5% (to allow for long-run growth.) 

Bond returns are calculated as the difference between 10 year US Treasury bond yields and inflation expectations.

All of these are totally reasonable ways of calculating expected future real returns based on a 60/40 stock/bond mix.  The picture we get, according to AQR, is that real return on assets may be reasonably projected as the lowest in over 100 years, at somewhere below 3%.

I’m left pretty worried for retirees and endowment managers drawing 4% and 5% from their principal every year. 



[1] Specifically the inverse of the Shiller P/E.  Don’t ask me,Wikipedia it yourself.

Post read (7366) times.

Do You Believe in Coincidences?

Manuel IsquierdoSAISD Superintendent candidate Manuel Isquierdo claims that his troubled experience proves he has learned from his mistakes, which will make him a better leader of my kid’s local school district.

My past experience as a distressed investor helps me plumb the public record of personal financial distress very quickly.

Let’s see what the public record shows.

Isquierdo’s home and mortgage history in Tucson, AZ

Isquierdo reported that his large IRS tax lien problems stem from the loss he took on a home in Stockton, California that he bought for $700,000 and later sold for $300,000.

He also said he has “learned from his mistakes” which is what will make him a better leader of SAISD.

If you had taken a $400,000 loss on a home, would it be fair to say you have ‘learned from your mistake’ when you move into a $1.15 million golf community home with nearly no money down?

I would like to answer that one myself.  No.  It is evidence, at least financially, of a guy who learned very little from his mistakes.  Instead, it is evidence of a guy desperately grasping for a financial solution that will only hurt him even worse in the long run.

Isquierdo purchased his home in a golf community named “El Conquistador Country Club” for $1.15 million on April 28, 2011 from Roland and Rhonda Freeland.

Isquierdo and his wife Edith purchased the home with a $5,000 down payment, and the sellers of the property, the Freelands, retained a Deed of Trust (aka a Mortgage) for $1.145 million.

Traditional mortgage-lending with a bank requires a 20% down payment.  One of the causes of the mortgage crisis was the no or low-money down mortgage, in which purchasers had little ‘home equity’ and therefore little incentive to stay current with their mortgage if they got into financial trouble.  Default rates on low-money down mortgages are very high.

The Isquierdos began their home ownership in the Tucson golf community on a $1.15 million home with no home equity.  After reportedly losing $400,000 on his Stockton, CA home, he did not regroup and learn from his mistakes.

Isquierdo and his wife do not have a 20% down-payment, nor a 10% down-payment, nor even a 3% down-payment mortgage – of the type that the FHA/VA offers for veterans.  Isquierdo and his wife have a 0.43% down-payment mortgage.

History of home mortgage mistakes.  Learning opportunities?

It appears from public records that things are not going smoothly with this choice.

Rhonda and Roland Freeland, the Deed of Trust holders, filed a UCC lien with the Arizona Secretary of State in November 2012, naming Isquierdo and his wife as debtors, securing “fixtures including proceeds and products, general intangibles, and vehicles.”

Typically a UCC lien is filed to secure a business loan rather than a home mortgage, but we can infer from this state filing that the Freeland’s feel their Deed of Trust/mortgage to be insufficiently secure.

Unfortunately, it gets worse.

A Notice of Trustee’s Sale of foreclosure was filed 2/19/13 with respect to this property, which indicates that the $1.145 million Deed of Trust is being enforced by the lien holders, the Freelands, for non-payment.

The home is now listed for sale on Zillow.com at $975,000.  That’s down from a listing of $995,000 on 2/18/13, and $1,150,000 on 12/13/12.  This is the sign of a distressed situation.

If the home eventually sells for, say $945,000, he’ll still be on the hook for approximately $200,000 in a mortgage deficiency balance.  By ignoring the IRS tax lien in 2011 and taking on a $1.15 million home with no money down, he managed to exacerbate his precarious financial situation in a way he didn’t have to do.  That’s a self-inflicted financial wound.

Needless to say many folks earning $305,000[1] per year might have managed to address their IRS liens by choosing a more affordable home situation.

All of this is awful and painful for them and not pleasant to point out.  On the other hand, it does not indicate a man who is learning and improving as a result of his past mistakes on his Stockton, CA home.

 

History of Tax Liens

The first tax lien problem in the public records actually pre-dates the approximately $150,000 in IRS liens.

The State of California filed a state tax lien on the Isquierdos in May 2009 for $17,783.  This California State Tax lien just recently got cleared up on February 1, 2013, only two months before he was named the sole finalist candidate for the SAISD Superintendent position.

Did Isquirdo learn from the experience of the $17,783 state tax lien?

Not exactly, because his tax lien position worsened two years later.

Following the California State Tax lien of 2008, the IRS filed the following liens.

2/18/11: $107,056 – Federal Tax Lien

1/25/12: $45,618 – Federal Tax Lien

Look, I can’t tell from the public record exactly the source of the Federal Tax Lien, but I do know that this happens only over a long period of time after the IRS has gone to extraordinary lengths to collect past tax debts.

Delinquent taxpayers literally get years of notification before the IRS files this type of lien.  Taxpayers who approach the IRS in a straightforward manner, with a payment plan or offer to make good on their debts do not get suddenly slapped with this type of Federal Tax lien.

At the time of the first filing, Isquierdo earned a $230,000 salary from the Sunnyside District in Tucson, later increased to $305,000 in September 2011.  Instead of paying his Federal Tax Liens, he bought a $1.15 million home two months later with virtually no money down.

 

History of traffic and license violations.  Is this also a learning opportunity?

I think it’s safe to say nobody begrudges anyone an occasional speeding ticket or parking violation.  We learn from the painful $25 or even $100 fine, and we resolve in the future to park only in designated areas or to obey traffic speed indicators.  No problem there.  It’s a learning experience.

The problem, however, arises if we do not learn from our mistakes, avoiding future fines and violations.  The public record on Manuel Isquierdo makes a mockery of his claim that he’s a man learning and improving from his mistakes.

One or two citations is human, fallible, and no big deal.  Nine court citations in five years is weird, problematic, and gives lie to the ‘learning as he goes’ excuse.

From the public record:

  1. 1/24/08 – Lack of Registration, Guilty Plea, Oro Valley Municipal Court
  2. 7/7/08 – Resident with Out of State Plates, Guilty Plea, Marana Municipal Court
  3. 7/23/09 – Failure to stop at red light, Guilty plea, Phoenix Municipal Court
  4. 7/27/09 – Guilty plea, suspended plates, Tucson Municipal Court
  5. 8/7/09 – Failure to carry vehicle registration, Marana Muncipal Court.
  6. 10/21/09 – Non-Criminal Ordinance violation – Tucson Municipal Court
  7. 2/22/10 – 2 Traffic violations (including failure to obey signs) and one misdemeanor for driving with a suspended license.  Tucson City Attorney dismissed these
  8. 7/8/11 – Speeding/Traffic violation, Forfeited bail. City of Eloy Justice Court,
  9. 11/26/12 – Unspecified non-criminal charge, Tucson Municipal Court

 

I’m tempted to speculate on what is going on here.  Is he just laser-like focused on improving student outcomes – so little things like registrations, license plates, driver’s licenses, speed limits, and traffic laws don’t faze him?

Is there a part of him who enjoys petty brushes with the law, or the feeling of ‘getting away with something?’

Is he incapable of following all the minor bureaucratic rules that serve as mini-tyrants over all of our daily lives?[2]

Concluding, scary thought: I don’t believe in coincidences

These public record histories of not-learning and not-improving directly contradict this candidate’s recent plea to the SAISD community.

I have to confess, however, this isn’t my biggest worry about Manuel Isquierdo’s candidacy and the SAISD board.

I haven’t addressed the investigation of Isquierdo for charging his school district credit card for $12,500 in improper expenses, or Isquierdo’s grand jury subpoena for his and his wife’s role, in marketing and selling a program called ‘Project Graduation,’ for which a school district superintendent was fired following an investigation.  I haven’t studied the public records on those so I won’t comment, although I find them significant and troubling.

The selection of Manuel Isquierdo reflects terribly on the SAISD board.

At the end of the day, this process has reminded me that I don’t believe in coincidences.

Members of the SAISD board have stated that they knew this was a candidate with “some history,” or “baggage.”

Unfortunately my immediate thought was the following: A superintendent with a known history of financial distress and a record of desperate moves to correct it could be just the kind of guy that members of the SAISD Board could do business with.

If you see the board the way I do, it just doesn’t seem like a coincidence.

 

Please also see subsequent post: Recalling Isquierdo from the “Where Are They Now File” in August 2013

and a later post in the Tucson paper about his ongoing financial trouble, tax liens, and another bankruptcy from December 2013.



[1] or more, if you include his assistant-superintendent wife’s salary

[2] If it’s the last one, boy is he going to chafe at SAISD.  Welcome to my 7 year-old daughter’s life at Bonham Academy!

Post read (19295) times.

You Prepare Your Own Taxes?!?

crazy tax manYou prepare your own taxes?!?

Are you insane?

I ran into a friend at the local coffee place recently.

She made the mistake of mentioning that her husband prepares their household taxes, by himself.

“What?  Is he insane?”

“I know, seriously, I keep telling him not to.”

Dear friend, don’t do this to yourself.

I would no more do my own personal taxes than I would hand-sew my wife’s wedding dress, do her hair and makeup just before the ceremony, and then administer the vows for the both of us.  Because I might, just might, make a mistake along the way.

I would rather rebuild the household toilet, sewage and drainage system and connect it to the city system, while everyone was living there, than do my own personal taxes.  I mean, what could go wrong?

I would no more prepare the infamous fugu sashimi for my friends and relatives than attempt my own taxes.

 

Who writes the tax code?

The income tax code consists of hundreds of specialty provisions written by and for relatively narrow interests who know how to maximize their advantages.[1]  Trying to navigate this even half-way intelligently makes no sense for a non-specialist.[2]

Now, I’m no Steve Forbes[3], but I too long for the day when taxes are so simple we can all prepare them ourselves, for free, in a couple of minutes.

I don’t expect comprehensive overhaul of the tax code, however, will be Obama’s legacy – it doesn’t seem his style, and he’s got nobody on the other side of the aisle who would risk giving him that legacy opportunity – but, boy do we need it.

Until that tax simplification and overhaul however, I’m not doing my own taxes.

 

Is there any time its ok to do your own taxes?

My personal finance students wanted to know this.  Yes, if you are a student with, say, less than $5,000 in income, I’ll endorse your do-it-yourself approach.  But if you’re a working adult with a regular salary, you can’t afford the risk of doing this yourself.

 

What about using tax-preparation software?

Stop.  Just hire someone.

 

What about using one of those pop-up stores like H&R Block or Jackson Hewitt?

Well, now you’ve upgraded the DIY approach to working with someone who received 1 weeks’ worth of training, and used the same tax-preparation software you could have bought off the shelf.

Also, their business model has always been about short-term and sub-prime lending, making tax-refund anticipation loans.  I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

 

But isn’t it costly to hire a tax preparer?

No, wrong question.

Right question: Isn’t it costly not to hire a tax preparer?   Answer: yes.

First, there’s the high probability you will pay too much in taxes.  In one year, many taxpayers will save more than the cost charged by their tax preparer.  Over many years, I suspect, the advice of a professional will save you from paying many times their professional cost, in taxes.

Second, there’s the possibility you will make a mistake and not pay enough in taxes. The IRS is a big nasty bully when it doesn’t get paid enough.  You don’t want to risk any chance of not paying the IRS what it wants.[4]

So, in sum:  Save yourself money.  Save yourself time.  Go to a professional.

Happy tax week, everyone.

 

Please see related post: 2012 IRA Contribution Infographic



[1] Who are the narrow-interest people who write the tax code?  As Lawrence Lessig brilliantly points out in this must-watch Ted talk, just 0.05% of people matter when it comes to selecting people who run for Congress.  There’s a high correlation between those 0.05% and people who can privately benefit from narrow provisions in a tax code.

[2] Do you want to really know who writes tax codes?  Max Baucus’ former senatorial aides, that’s who.  Senator Baucus is the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.  His former aides go on to lucrative tax lobbying gigs in record numbers.  A picture is worth a thousand words here, of which senatorial aides go on to become tax lobbyists.  Baucus, you win.

[3] Flat-tax guy.  Everyone pays the same % on income or corporate profits.  Terrible idea.  But our present overly complicated system almost makes Forbes’ terrible simplicity seem sane by comparison.

[4] There’s a third reason why it pays to hire a tax preparer – it opens up the world of wealth-creation possibilities.  If you want to open or expand a business you’ll eventually need to borrow money from a bank, which will depend greatly on your taxes when reviewing your application.  Banks like to see you pay taxes properly, because it shows income as well as the ability to track and pay your obligations.  They’re not impressed by poorly prepared taxes.

 

Post read (23981) times.

Your Traditional IRA Contribution: The 2012 Infographic

BANKERS_ANN_INFOGRAPHIC_highlightedlinksWant to figure out your tax-deductible 2012 contribution?

Let Bankers Anonymous guide you through the process of figuring it out.

What could be easier than this?

Please see related post: You do your own taxes??!

And please see related posts on the IRA:

The Humble IRA

IRAs don’t matter to high income people

A rebuttal: The curious case of Mitt Romney

The magical Roth IRA and inter-generational wealth transfer

The DIY Movement and the IRA

Angel Investing and the IRA

BANKERS_ANN_INFOGRAPHIC

 

Post read (10844) times.