Investopedia

The Social Security Administration uses many factors to calculate benefit amounts for beneficiaries, including marital status. For couples who have been married a long time, calculations for spousal and survivor benefits are fairly straightforward. However, widowed or divorced Social Security beneficiaries can run into complications if they decide to remarry later in life. For individuals who remarry in their 50s or 60s, you should be aware of the ways that your new marital status can affect your Social Security benefits.

Here are some things you should consider:

Lovebirds in their late 50s with concerns about the Social Security implications of their union can crunch the numbers. With a financial advisor, they can decide whether to wait for marriage to in order to keep a widow’s benefit for longer, or if the spousal benefit from their new union will offer more financial security. Also keep in mind that as long as you are married a minimum of nine months prior to one spouse’s death, the surviving spouse is eligible for spousal benefits based on the second marriage.

If you are divorced from an ex who significantly out earned you and your new sweetheart, remarrying halts the ex-spousal benefits you would otherwise receive. While this can feel like a cynical reason to avoid marriage, it can make a big difference in your finances. Cohabitating without the ring might make more financial sense for some couples.

Calculate and compare these three amounts to determine FMB:

1. 85% of the worker’s average indexed monthly earnings (AIME).

2. The worker’s primary insurance amount (PIA) based on full retirement age.

3. 150% of the worker’s PIA.

If number three is the highest of these three calculations, then the FMB is the higher of number one or two. If number one is the highest of the three calculations, then the family maximum benefits is number three.

For example, if Vicky has an AIME of $4,000 and a PIA of $1,759, then her calculations look like this:

1. 85% of AIME is 85% of $4,000 = $3,400

2. PIA = $1,759

3. 150% of PIA is 150% of $1,759 = $2,638.50

In this case, Vicky’s FMB will equal $2,638.50, or 150% of her PIA. So what does this mean if Vicky decides to remarry? If her SSDI is paying out multiple auxiliary benefits - for instance, if she has dependent children - then marriage adds another auxiliary benefit without changing her family maximum benefit. That means everyone will receive smaller benefits that will total same amount that they are already taking home every month. There will be more people in the household, but not necessarily more money available to pay for them.

The five C's of credit is a system used by lenders to gauge the creditworthiness of potential borrowers. The system weighs five characteristics of the borrower and conditions of the loan, attempting to estimate the chance of default. The five C's of credit are character, capacity, capital, collateral and conditions.

The five C's of credit method of evaluating a borrower incorporates both qualitative and quantitative measures. Lenders look at a borrower's credit reports, credit score, income statements and other documents relevant to the borrower's financial situation, and they also consider information about the loan itself.

Sometimes called credit history, the first C refers to a borrower's reputation or track record for repaying debts. This information appears on the borrower's credit reports. Generated by the three major credit bureaus – Experian, TransUnion and Equifax – credit reports contain detailed information about how much an applicant has borrowed in the past and whether he has repaid his loans on time. These reports also contain information on collection accounts, judgments, liens and bankruptcies, and they retain most information for seven years. The Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO) uses this information to create a credit score, a tool lenders use to get a quick snapshot of creditworthiness before looking at credit reports.

Capacity measures a borrower's ability to repay a loan by comparing income against recurring debts and assessing the borrower's debt-to-income (DTI) ratio. In addition to examining income, lenders look at the length of time an applicant has been at his job and job stability.

Lenders also consider any capital the borrower puts toward a potential investment. A large contribution by the borrower decreases the chance of default. For example, borrowers who have a down payment for a home typically find it easier to get a mortgage. Even special mortgages designed to make homeownership accessible to more people, such as loans guaranteed by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) and the Veterans Administration (VA), require borrowers to put between 2 and 3.5% down on their homes. Down payments indicate the borrower's level of seriousness, which can make lenders more comfortable in extending credit.

Collateral can help a borrower secure loans. It gives the lender the assurance that if the borrower defaults on the loan, the lender can repossess the collateral. For example, car loans are secured by cars, and mortgages are secured by homes.

The conditions of the loan, such as its interest rate and amount of principal, influence the lender's desire to finance the borrower. Conditions refer to how a borrower intends to use the money. For example, if a borrower applies for a car loan or a home improvement loan, a lender may be more likely to approve those loans because of their specific purpose, rather than a signature loan that could be used for anything.

ETF issuers have a lot of questions to answer before the SEC will allow them to launch bitcoin exchange-traded products. That’s according to Jeremy Senderowicz, an attorney and expert on laws pertaining to ETFs and mutual funds.

He participated in a panel with ETF.com CEO Dave Nadig at the Inside ETFs conference in Hollywood, Florida, where the two discussed the prospects for bitcoin ETFs three days after the SEC released a letter that struck a skeptical tone about allowing cryptocurrency funds to trade on U.S. exchanges.

According to Senderowicz, the ball is in the industry’s court to try and assuage the SEC’s concerns. In its letter dated Jan. 18, titled “Engaging on Fund Innovation and Cryptocurrency-related Holdings,” the SEC hit on five broad issues that need to be addressed before bitcoin ETFs could become a reality.

When it comes to ETFs and mutual funds, net asset value (NAV) is critically important. But with cryptocurrency markets being volatile, fragmented and unregulated, how can fund companies ensure they can adequately value cryptocurrencies and come up with an accurate “fair value?”

The SEC asked what steps funds would take to assure they have sufficient liquidity to meet daily redemptions. “Given the fragmentation and volatility in the cryptocurrency markets, would funds need to assume an unusually sizable potential daily redemption amount in light of the potential for steep market declines in the value of underlying assets?” the commission asked.

With regard to ETFs that want to hold bitcoin futures, the commission raised the question of what a fund would do if its holdings became a large portion of the underlying futures market and how that possibility would impact the fund’s portfolio management and liquidity analysis.

According to the SEC, there are currently no firms providing custodial services for cryptocurrencies, which is problematic for satisfying the 1940 Act requirement that sets standards regarding “who may act as custodian and when funds must verify their holdings.”

Additionally, the commission brought up several issues with regard to the safeguarding of private cryptocurrency keys and the potential of hacking cryptocurrency wallets.

Given the fragmentation, volatility and trading volume of the cryptocurrency market, the SEC wonders whether the creation and redemption mechanism that keeps an ETF’s market price close to its NAV will be effective.

“How would volatility-based trading halts on a cryptocurrency futures market impact this arbitrage mechanism? How would the shutdown of a cryptocurrency exchange affect the market price or arbitrage mechanism?” the SEC asked.

The SEC said bluntly that cryptocurrency markets have “substantially less investor protection than traditional securities markets” with “correspondingly greater opportunities for fraud and manipulation.”

Because of this, how can fund companies make the case that products tied to cryptocurrencies are appropriate “for the wide range of investors, including retail investors, who might invest in the fund?” questioned the SEC. “Would investors, including retail investors, have sufficient information to consider any cryptocurrency-related funds and to understand the risks?”

Additionally, “are there particular challenges investment advisors would face in meeting their fiduciary obligations when investing in cryptocurrency-related funds on behalf of retail investors?”

Senderowicz said that if you could boil down the SEC’s concerns to one thing, it would be the potential for these products to be offered to retail investors and the impact on them, a point corroborated by the multiple references to retail investors in the commission’s letter.

He said alternative product structures such as exchange-traded notes would also be met skeptically by the SEC until the aforementioned questions are sufficiently answered.

“Some of the questions that were raised by the SEC are answerable,” said Senderowicz. “The other part of it is what happens with the cryptocurrency market itself,” and that’s something that will develop over time, he says.

“I think it would be tough to see an exchange-traded bitcoin product in the next 12 months,” Senderowicz said. “There’s going to have to be a very robust response from the industry to the SEC’s concerns. The underlying market for bitcoin has to evolve.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit voted on March 15, 2018 to overturn the Department of Labor’s (DOL) new fiduciary rule, requiring financial professionals who handle individual retirement and 401(k) accounts to act in the best interests of their clients. The federal court’s 2 -1 decision vacates the rule nationwide (see The DOL Fiduciary Rule Explained).

The regulation, introduced during President Obama’s administration, is intended to prevent insurance agents and broker dealers from selling their clients expensive financial products for retirement that don’t serve their best interests. Instead, those handling retirement products were to be held to the fiduciary standard.

Financial professionals held to the fiduciary standard are required to educate their clients, to be transparent about how they are being compensated, and to provide full and clear disclosure of the cost of their services.

Previously, many financial professionals were only held to a suitability standard, which required that products they sell be designated as “suitable” for their client’s needs. This made it legal to recommend more expensive products that pay substantial commissions to the sellers, rather than comparable, cheaper products with lower or no fees.

Proponents of the regulation argue that the financial industry should be held to the higher standard, while opponents say that the DOL overstepped its authority. Opponents also claim that the cost of implementing such a complex rule, and the challenges of compliance for small firms, could result in higher fees for investment advice. This could make retirement planning less accessible for individuals without a lot of assets.

What do financial advisors think about the rule and its possible elimination?

Investopedia contacted several contributors to Advisor Insights, our network of financial advisors. While many groups representing the financial services industry have expressed  objections to the fiduciary rule, all the advisors who responded remain uniformly in favor of the fiduciary rule, opposing the federal appeals court decision.

Many contributors to Advisor Insights are Certified Financial Planners (CFP®), or have joined groups like the National Association of Personal Finance Advisors (NAPFA) or XY Planning Network (XYPN). Because of their certifications or voluntary memberships, they’ve pledged to adhere to a fiduciary standard independent of federal regulation.

“Wall Street is fighting this standard of professional behavior because selling products that are not in the client’s best interest is an extremely lucrative business," responds Paul Sydlansky CFP®, founder of Lake Road Advisors in Binghamton, N.Y. "As someone who has been in the financial services industry for almost 20 years, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen consumers who were sold products that were not in their best interest because it was profitable for someone else: whole life insurance, annuities, or front-loaded mutual funds with high fees. The financial advice industry needs to do better.”

According to Alison Davies CFP®, principal of Fruition Advisors LLC in in Berkeley, Calif., “If the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Fiduciary Rule is eliminated, the financial “Goliaths” can go back to putting their own profit first….This ruling works against the individual investor’s best interests.”

Paul Ruedi, Jr. CFP®, financial advisor at Ruedi Wealth Management suggests that the elimination of the legal mandate should not change advisor’s behavior: “I don’t act in my clients' best interest because I’m required to as a Certified Financial Planner (CFP®) who works at an Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) firm; I act in my clients' best interest because my success as a financial advisor is based on my clients’ results.”

“There’s never been a clear understanding of how advisors are compensated: Individuals and families should have access to this information so they can determine what kind of firm or company they are comfortable working with,” says Herbie Kyles AWMA®, a financial planner with AspenCross Wealth Management in Westborough, Mass. Because of the increasing number of conversations about the fiduciary rule, clients of advisory firms have been prompted to discuss compensation and ultimately determine whether or not their advisor is giving them investment advice, or trying to earn a commission.”

Although the fiduciary rule is currently endangered, many suspect that the legal battle is not over and remain optimistic that the DOL will request a rehearing. Until then, the discussions that are happening as a result of the regulation have a silver lining: More people are starting conversations with their advisor about how they are compensated, and whether they act as a fiduciary. These conversations will help investors get the information they need to make the most cost-effective decisions.

Finance is a term describing the study and system of money, investments, and other financial instruments. Some people prefer to divide finance into three distinct categories: public finance, corporate finance, and personal finance. There is also the recently emerging area of social finance. Behavioral finance seeks to identify the cognitive (e.g. emotional, social, and psychological) reasons behind financial decisions.