Sometimes these posts just get buried never to get rediscovered.  So we dug through the archives to give you our best of the best on investing.  Here they are:

Markets are like Hurricanes; They cannot be Forecast – After 20 years of research, the Colorado State University forecasters have decided to stop predicting hurricanes in December. Their results: there is not predictability. This is very similar to stock markets and why trend followers approach markets differently….find out how.

4 Ways to Overcome Market and Economic Fears – I had a potential client call me just the other day in a tizzy about his investment assets, which were not with us by the way. He asked my opinion on what he should do with his investment assets and I provided him with 4 ways to overcome the current market fears and come out smelling like a rose.

Video: How To Stop Worrying About Losing Your Money in a Downturn – Stop worrying about losing your investment portfolio in a market downturn! There is a simple solution to greater control, peace of mind and better long-term returns. Check out this short video for the answer!

Only God Knows the Future…Why Do We Still Try to Forecast it? - We were looking through the usual market updates and forecasts and it struck us how many brokerage firms (and other advisors) were already making their economic and market calls for next year. Being in the business more than a few years we know what this is all about. You make a market or economic call and if you [...]

A Penny Lost is not the Same as a Penny Gained – It is not what earn that makes you a successful investor and keeps you in the markets, it is what you keep. In the toughest market we have seen since the 1930s, it is helpful to take another look at why this statement is so true.

Remember, if you need help we offer a Free Consultation.  Call us at 813-253-2388 to schedule yours today!

Although, I am not sure the debt numbers are correct (and did I choose to check them); I think it does a nice job of putting this problem into perspective.

Why the U.S. was downgraded: (AAA to AA+ on August 5, 2011)

� U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
� Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
� New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
� National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
� Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

� Annual family income: $21,700
� Money the family spent: $38,200
� New debt on the credit card: $16,500
� Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
� Total budget cuts: $385

Now you tell me how long you could survive running this kind of an annual deficit? 

The only way is with your own printing press to print dollars.  That pretty much sums up where we are right now!

And no, I am not going to offer to sell you the presses and plates as a solution.

The problem becomes bigger when other countries stop buying our paper.  As an example, India has recently started buying oil from Iran denominated in gold.  Sure, part of this is to circumvent the economic sanctions against Iran, but it is just a matter of time until no one wants the dollar, or debt denominated in dollars.

Wow, I didn't realize till I went digging how much we have already had to say on retirement.  Check out the best of the best on this subject from our past posts:

Answers to the Triple Threats to Retirement – Forbes ran a story entitled the “Triple Threats to Retirement” in which they spelled out the three headed monster that could affect your retirement. In this story they laid out the grim facts that face pre-retirees today and the measures they must take now to revise their strategies before they encounter these unexpected challenges ahead. We decided to look at these triple threats one-by-one and lend our expertise to solving this retirement dilemma.

Three Ways To Improve Your Retirement Savings – Learn the three primary ways you can improve your retirement savings and thereby increase the odds of achieving your financial dreams and objectives.

Five Reasons to Roll Your Retirement Plan Assets – According to the Employee Benefits Research Institute, 1 out of every 3 workers changes jobs without taking their retirement plan assets with them. For many this is because they may feel intimidated about or do not understand the transfer process.  Here are five reasons why you should reconsider.

Timing Required Minimum Distributions to Maximize After Tax Returns, Part I - Find out the best time to take your annual required minimum distribution from your IRA to maximize your returns on an after tax basis.

Timing Required Minimum Distributions to Maximize After Tax Returns, Part II – Find out the best time to take your annual required minimum distribution from your IRA to maximize your returns on an after tax basis.

The Retirement Fantasy – Five reasons why retirement may just be a fantasy in the future.

The Great Roth IRA Conversion Farce – Find out 8 reasons not to convert your IRA to a Roth IRA.

I was recently reading a couple of surveys on college funding.  I found the trends hard to believe, but at the same time reflective of the world we live in right now.

Here are a few of those survey results and my comments where necessary:

-67% of families have begun to save for college up from 58% five years ago.¹

-The typical family will cover 16% of projected college costs vs. 24% in 2007.¹

-48% of families plan to have a child live at home and commute, up from 38% in 2007.¹

-The number of families encouraging their kids to go to public institutions has risen from 44% from 34%.²

-22% of students from families with household income greater than $100,000 are now attending 2 year schools instead of 4 year.  This is up from 12% last year.²

-The average published tuition and fees at private nonprofit four year schools are about $3,730 higher (in 2011 dollars) vs. 2006 tuition and fees.  However on a inflation adjusted basis, this is $550 lower than comparable fees in 2006.³

So what is the take away from this survey data.  I think the primary theme is Americans are more aware of the need to save for their children's educational costs.  However, such costs are generally rising faster than the parents can speed up their saving. 

To compensate for this increased cost of college, parents are swallowing their pride and recommending to their kids they commute to local colleges and universities and consider trade or 2 year schools vs. 4 year schools.

Here are a few suggestions that we might add on the subject:

First, have a discussion with your college age kids and let them know what you will or will not pay for of their college costs.  It is alright for them to work to pay for college.  It is fine to put pressure on them to look for grants or to even apply for scholarships.

Second, realize we are in a secular bear market cycle (see Improve Your Returns, Know Your Cycle for more information).  This means you will be doing good in buy and hold strategies to realize zero long-term returns.  So where in the 90s it was taboo for an advisor to recommend prepaid college plans like the one we have here in Florida.  It is now prudent.  These plans are based on a return as high as 6% on the money invested and by using them you are putting the financial onus on the State in which you live to deliver on these plans.

Finally, if you can avoid it try not to incur debt yourself in getting your kids through school.  This will just delay or stall your planning.  College for your kids is a privilege, not a right.  However, you will need to retire someday….that is a guarantee!

¹Fidelity Investments' 2011 College Savings Indicator study.

²Sallie Mae's 2011 How America Pays for College 2010.

³College Board's "Trends in Pricing 2011" report.

Economist John Mauldin's Thoughts from the Frontline did about as good a job as I have seen in summarizing why governments cannot easily solve this problem in Europe.  Take a look: (This was pretty long…so I have cut some portions of the original newsletter.  See the complete newsletter at the above link.)

To Solve the Crisis You Must Solve Three Problems

There are three main problems in Europe. The first is that most of the banks are massively insolvent, because they have 30 times their capital invested in the second problem, which is the sovereign debt of countries that are going to have trouble paying that debt. If the banks have to mark down the debt to what its real value is – or to what it will soon be – they will be bankrupt on a scale that makes 2008 look like a waltz in the park.

Countries simply cannot function in a manner that can be called normal without viable banking systems, which is why the authorities spend so much time worrying about them. If banks can't make loans, then businesses must cut back, which means fewer jobs, products, and services, which quickly becomes an ugly spiral. Losses in the private sector mount up. This obliges the treasury secretary to get on one knee and beg some elected official who has no understanding of how business and economics work to save the world as he knows it.

But if countries must step in and save their banks, then they have to assume some of the losses. (I am assuming that this time shareholders get completely wiped out, as do most bondholders. Taxpayers – read voters –are actually paying attention this time. They are in no mood to bail out bankers.) But most of the countries in Europe with the worst banks simply do not have the money to invest. They already have too much debt. Where do they get the capital? (More on that later.)

For most of the past two years, European leaders have tried to deal with the problems as though they were short-term liquidity problems: "If we just find the money to buy some more Greek bonds, then Greece can figure out how to solve its problems and then pay us back. Given enough time, the problem can get solved."

They have now arrived at the understanding that it this not a short-term problem. Rather, it's a solvency problem of the various governments, which of course creates a solvency problem for their banks. They are now addressing the problem of solvency and providing capital until such time as certain countries can get their budgets under control and the bond market sees fit to provide the capital they need.

But they are completely ignoring the third and largest problem, and that is massive trade imbalances. Germany exports products to the peripheral European countries, which run trade deficits. As I have shown in several letters, a country cannot reduce private-sector leverage, reduce public-sector leverage and deficits (balance its budget), and run a trade deficit all at the same time. That is simple, unavoidable math, based on 400 years of accounting understanding. Ultimately, there must be a trade surplus if leverage and debt are to be reduced.

Greece runs a trade deficit of about 10% of GDP. Until they can stop that bleeding, they cannot get their government and private budgets under control. It is not simply a matter of cutting budgets or raising taxes. Indeed, their economy will continue to shrink, making it more difficult buy foreign goods without increasing their own production of goods and services. It is a vicious spiral. And that same spiral will spin up to take in all of Europe.

Getting Simple About Europe

Let's assume a country that has a gross domestic product (GDP) of $1,000. In the beginning it taxes its citizens about 25% of GDP and spends the money for the public's benefit. But alas, it spends about 30% of GDP, so it must borrow the overage (about $50) from its citizens or from the citizens of other countries. Because the country starts out with relatively little debt, interest rates on this loan are low, because those who buy the debt can easily see that the the country can pay them back. If the debt of the country is only 5% of GDP ($50) and the interest rate is 4%, then the amount that must be paid as interest is only about $2 per year. Not a whole lot, about 0.2% of GDP.

But this goes on year after year. Sometimes the deficits get smaller and sometimes they get larger, depending on the economy; but government expenditures grow at the same rate as the country grows, and the debt keeps growing at an average of 5% of GDP per year. Now, if the country is growing at 3% a year, after 24 years the economy will have doubled to $2,000 GDP. That means the debt has grown (roughly) to a total of $1,800, which is now a debt-to-GDP ratio of 90%. Debt has grown faster than the country's economy. Note that if the country had held its budget down to where it grew slower than GDP, thus reducing its need for debt, that ratio would be lower, even if the debt had grown. You can indeed grow your way out of a debt problem if the growth of government spending is less than the growth of the economy.

But what if the size of government grows to about 50% of GDP, rather than 25% or 30%, over the 24 years, as politicians decide to spend more money and voters decide they want more benefits? (Think France.) Then the private sector must pay about 50% of its production to the state – plus, the debt is now growing unwieldly. The private sector has less to invest in new businesses and tools, and the growth of the economy slows.

And then along comes a very nasty recession. The revenues of the government fall as the economy shrinks. If the economy shrinks by 3% and total taxes are 50%, then tax revenue falls to $970. But the government does not cut back; and indeed, because it must pay unemployment benefits and welfare (because unemployment rises in a recession), its expenses actually rise by 5%! So it now needs $1,050 to pay all its budgeted expenses. And it must now borrow $80 to pay everyone it has promised to pay, in addition to the $100 it was already borrowing every year to cover its deficit, or a total of $180 a year, which is 9% of GDP.

(Yes, I know that debt must change as a percentage over time and nothing is stagnant, but work with me here.)

Now debt-to-GDP is rising by about 5% a year. Not a large number in the grand scheme of things, and everyone knows that the recession will soon be over and the deficits will come down. Sovereign governments never default on their debts – our government leaders assure us of that. They can always raise taxes or cut spending, can't they?

And things rock along just fine, and the bond market continues to buy the debt, until one day you look up and the debt is 120% of GDP. Then the bond market gets nervous and says that instead of 4% it wants 7%. Now the interest payments are over 8% of GDP and 16% of government spending, which means the government must either cut back on services or salaries or benefits, or raise taxes, or borrow more money. But cutting spending and raising taxes have consequences. They reduce GDP growth over the following 4-5 quarters as the economy adjusts.

And what if the other countries who had been buying the government's debt looked at the basic math and realized that, another step or two down the current path of government spending, there was no way they would be able to get their money back?

How Much Risk Do You Want in a Government Bond?

Now, government bond investors are a curious breed. They invest in government bonds because they actually think there is not supposed to be any risk. They want their money to be safe. If they wanted risk, there are lots of opportunities to invest with the potential for more reward.

The moment that government bond investors begin to think they might be at risk, they leave. And history suggests they tend to leave seemingly all at once. It is the Bang! moment. Someone fires the starting gun, and they all head for the exits. They start selling their bonds to speculators at discounts, which makes the effective interest rates in the market rise, sometimes by a lot. That means that if a country wants to borrow more money, it will have to pay the effective price in the market, or maybe as much as 15-20% IF – a big IF – it can even get someone to buy the bonds, which of course makes it even more difficult to pay their debt as interest costs rise.

Now, let's add a twist. The other countries that have bought those bonds are not actually countries, but banks in other countries. And because the regulators of those banks knew it was impossible – inconceivable – that a sovereign country might default, they allowed their banks to buy 30 times as much sovereign debt as they had capital in their banks. They did not have to reserve against any losses, so these were "free" profits for the banks. You pay 2% on deposits or short term commercial paper and buy bonds paying at 4%. You make a 2% spread, which you then do 30 times. Now you are making 60% profits on your capital and deposits. It is a very nice business – as long as everyone pays the interest. And because it is such a good business, you just roll over the debt every time the bond comes due, because you want more easy profits.

Let's say that banks bought up to 10% of their total government sovereign-debt holdings in our problem country. If the country gets into trouble and says, we will only pay 50% of our debt (we will discuss why below), then that means the banks lose 5% of their total assets. But they only have about 3% capital, because they were allowed to leverage. That means they are functionally bankrupt.

Without a functioning banking system, other countries now have to step in and take the losses (and perhaps wipe out the shareholders and owners of their banks). That would be bad for the other countries, as that much spare cash is not just lying around in government coffers. They are ALL borrowing money already and have their own deficits to worry about.

So everyone gets together and they tell the bankrupt country (because that is what it really is), we will lend you more money to keep you alive, but you must agree to balance your budget. And since that is the only way the problem country can get more money, they initially say, "Sure. We can do that. Just give us some money now so we can get it figured out and get everything under control."

In the world of government, living within your means is called austerity. And it's an uphill slog. Let's say your deficit started out at 15% of GDP (somewhat like Greece's). If you agree to cut that deficit by 4% a year for four years running, if everything stays the same, you could be back in balance. But the other counties would have to agree to lend you the difference between what you budgeted to spend and what you took in as tax revenues. Just to keep things going. Otherwise you'd have to default on your debt. If the countries simply have to guarantee the loans and not actually spend the money, it is a lot easier than having to find real money to save their banks, so they agree.

But the cuts you have to make are not as easy as everyone hoped. It seems that employees don't like having their pay cut, and unions don't want pensions cut, and retirees certainly expect the government to fulfill its promises; and don't even get started on cutting healthcare, which is a God-given right.

So you raise taxes and cut spending by about 4% the first year. But a funny thing happens. That reduces the private economy by about 4%, so the base on which taxes are collected is reduced, which means less revenue is raised, which means that the deficit is much worse than projected. And then the following year you have to make another 4% in cuts, plus the last shortfall, just to make your plan and get to the agreed-upon deficit, in order to get more loan money. It becomes a very vicious circle.

And let's look at the endgame. That debt-to-GDP ratio will rise to at least 150%, while the economy is actually shrinking. If interest rates settle to a mere 7% (hardly likely), it means the people of the country are going to have to pay over 10% of their total production to foreign banks each and every year for decades, never mind paying down the principle.

Let's throw in one more twist. The country has been buying about 10% of GDP more from other countries than it sells to them. That is because the relative wages in the problem country are about 30% higher than in the "good" countries. The good countries get the money from what they sell and have a nice surplus. The problem country soon runs through its savings, trying to buy the goods and service it wants; and the private sector, as well as the government, must cut back.

What happens is that you are locking in what feels like a depression initially, and then you have a slow- or no-growth economy for many years, as so much of your work goes just to pay back that debt to the banks of other countries.

Understand, your government has freely obligated itself to pay that debt. But it means that its citizens in effect become debt slaves for a generation or two to foreign banks. Not a very popular platform for a politician to run on for re-election.

More debt makes if far more difficult to grow your way out of the problem. If you are already drunk, you can't get sober by drinking more whiskey. If Greece cuts its deficit by 15% of GDP, the reality is that GDP over time will be reduced by about 20%, and the debt will grow, both in real terms and as a percentage of GDP. A 20% decline in GDP is by any standard a depression and makes it even harder to grow, as so much of what you do make has to go to basic expenses and not productive capital. And if you have the burden of massive debt it becomes damn near impossible.

That is why individuals can file for personal bankruptcy. We no longer force people into slavery or debtor's prison to pay their debts, at least in most places.

So our problem country goes to its lenders and says, "We think you should share our pain. We are only going to pay you back 50% of what we owe you, and you must let us pay a 4% interest rate and pay you over a longer period. We think we can do that. Oh, and give us some more money in the meantime. And if you refuse, we won't pay you anything and you will all have a banking crisis. Thanks for everything."

The difficult is that if our problem country A gets to cut its debt by 50%, what about problem countries B, C, and D? Do they get the same deal? Why would voters in one country expect any less, if you agree to such terms for the first country?

So now let's return to the real world of Europe. Greece cannot pay its debt without a major depression. So its wants to pay only 50%, but it doesn't even want to guarantee that in any meaningful way; so bondholders scream, "We get nothing in return for agreeing to take a 50% haircut?!" Which is today's headline.

Greece cannot print its own money, so unless it leaves the Eurozone, it's stuck. They can default on their debt, but that means they are shut out of the bond market for some period of time. That would force them to make the spending cuts they are now resisting, as they would simply not have enough money to pay their bills. Even with a 100% haircut they're looking at a shorter but very real depression. And because no one will sell them products they need, like energy and food and medicine, unless they can sell or trade something in return (that trade-deficit problem), they will be forced to change their lifestyles. Wages must drop or productivity rise to be competitive with northern Europe. And that differential is about 30%. I am not certain, as I have not been to Greece in a long time, but my bet is, you won't find many Greeks who think they are overpaid by 30%.

But that is what the market is going to say. And that is the third problem, which Europe is not addressing. Germany and the northern tier are simply more productive than the Southern periphery. (With the possible exception of Northern Italy, but Italy all gets lumped together, which is why many Northern Italians want to be their own country and not have to pay taxes that go to Southern Italy. I am not taking sides, just observing what we read in the papers.) Until Germany consumes more from the peripheral countries or the peripheral countries become more productive, the imbalance will not allow a positive solution.

Prior to the euro, the imbalances would be handled by currency exchange rates. The value of the drachma would go down relative to the value of the deutschmark. Things would balance over time. Now, all of the eurozone countries are effectively on a gold standard, with the euro standing in for gold this time. Britain, the US, and Japan print their own currencies. Their currencies can rise or fall over long periods of time, based on national accounts and the desires of foreigners to buy goods or invest in their countries.

Greece and the other peripheral countries face a difficult choice. Do we stay in the euro and pay as much as we can, and watch our economy drop; pay nothing and watch our economy drop (as we get shut out of the bond market); or leave the euro and go back to our own currency and watch our economy drop?

They have no choices that allow them to grow and prosper without first suffering (for perhaps a long time) some very real economic pain. As I have written in previous letters, leaving the eurozone has severe consequences; but the economic pain of leaving would go away sooner and allow for quicker adjustments, than if they stayed. However, the initial pain would be worse than the slow pain they'd suffer by staying in the euro. Their choice is, simply, which pain do they want – or maybe, which pain do they think they want? Because whatever they choose, they are not going to like it.

Great piece by John Mauldin.  It also shows why the timing of this is so hard to decipher.  As trend followers, we are reactionary to market moves.  However, market participants do not even know which way this will go and more importantly when, so markets consolidate.  Mark my word however, "bang" (as John Mauldin writes) is coming and it will usher in a worldwide recession when it does and a real trend (which should be good for us).  The only question is when?

It is time to make sure that your investment advisor/manager can make money in trending markets that rise or fall.  If he or she cannot, please consider giving us a call in Tampa or click here to get a free second opinion.

According to State Street, there are now 1,174 ETFs with assets totaling $1.049 billion.  These ETFs are managed by 36 ETF managers as of December 31, 2011.

US ETF ASSET GROWTH YEAR TO DATE

The 2011 performance by asset class was as follows:  International – Developed and Emerging Markets dropped 0.9% and 1.2%, respectively. Domestic Large Cap and Small Cap markets gained 1.0% and 1.3%, while Mid Cap dipped 0.4%. The US Aggregate, the US Treasury and the US Corporate Bond markets were all positive in December. Commodities fell 2.1%.

PERFORMANCE BY ASSET CLASS – ETFS

Want more ETF snapshot information?  Check out the State Street ETF Snapshot.

A client recently asked me to explain "What are Exchange Traded Funds?"  So in today's Q&A, I will attempt to explain.

An Exchange Traded Fund or ETF is like a mutual fund in that it trades on a stock exchange.  Like a mutual fund, it is nothing but a "container" to hold a basket of stocks or fixed income securities.

However, unlike mutual funds, ETFs trade during the day like another other stocks.  Mutual funds trade at the close of the trading day and are priced at the market close based on closing value of its holdings.

Since ETFs trade like stocks, they can be bought, sold short throughout the day.  You can place stop loss orders on they and buy put or call options on many ETFs.

ETFs are generally very low cost.  A majority replicate an index of stocks both domestically or internationally.

We use ETFs almost exclusively at InTrust Advisors.

If you want more information, check out our Why InTrust is Unique page and click the orange link in the middle of that page.

Stock prices move up and down in a wave pattern within an upwardly moving channel.  Each up move reaches a higher high than the previous up move. Each move lower fails to fall as low as the previous move lower. Of course, the same can be true, but reversed on the downside.  Not only do cycles affect an individual stock’s price movement, but entire markets move in cycles.

There are generally two types of cycles, "bull" and "bear" cycles. These bull and bear cycles also come in two types, "secular" and "cyclical."

Secular cycles are long 7-12 year bull and 15-25 bear market periods that tend to correspond with periods of economic prosperity or retracement, respectively. The secular bull periods are times of great market and economic growth. These periods tend to be driven by such things as innovation, lower taxes, business centric government policy and global economic growth.

The secular bear periods are times of economic retracement or consolidation where excess are reined in, taxes are raised, big government policy prevails and global growth is constrained by inflation, war or anti-competitive practices.

Can you guess what period we are in right now? If you guessed a secular bear period, go ahead and give yourself a gold star.

Not all is glum of course. Within each secular phase, there are a number of cyclical bull and bear market phases. These periods are shorter, generally running 1-5 years in length, thus there can be a number of such phases in a typical secular period.

The following You Tube video does a great job of explaining where we are right now with regard to the cycles.  Check it out.

Here is a link where you can download a chart showing historical secular bull and bear cycles http://www.crestmontresearch.com/pdfs/Stock%20Secular%20Explained.pdf.

Most advisors have never seen this chart, it might be interesting to share with your investment advisor and gauge his or her reaction. Remember this is your future we are talking about, so don’t be shy in evaluating your help.

However, it is also human nature to focus on the tree or trees and not see the forest that behind the tree.  Every week Attorney John Grant, Jr. sends me his thoughts for life email.   It is a must read for me just about every week.

This week's topic was the Cycle of National Dominance.  Here is what he wrote:

As we usher in another year, I recall a question a reporter asked Benjamin Franklin as he emerged from the Continental Convention that was forming the structure of America’s government. “What kind of government have you given us’” asked the reporter. Franklin’s response was “a republic if you can keep it.”

That statement was made more than two hundred years ago and history shows that the cycle of national dominance usually expires in about that period of time. Where are we in the cycle of nations?

The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.

At the stage between apathy and dependency, men always turn in fear to economic and political panaceas. New conditions, it is claimed, require new remedies. Under such circumstances, the competent citizen is certainly not a fool if he insists upon using the compass of history when forced to sail uncharted seas.

As we usher in 2012 we are in worldwide economic chaos, fighting wars we cannot win against enemies we cannot identify. In our country, more people are getting from rather than contributing to the revenue stream that powers democracy. The world is encased in a turmoil never before known in history.

Where can we place our trust and faith in the New Year? Certainly not in men nor in nations, as both will disappoint us. Certainly not in the economy, as it is in shambles as the corporate, national and personal debt is one we can never hope to repay. Certainly not in military might, as we are vulnerable to a defense that could lead to world annihilation.

In this coming year, the only safe place to put our trust is in God. "Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him" (Psalm 2:12). "Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good; Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!" (Psalm 34:8).

So do you agree with John Grant?    Are we the next Great Britain or Spain?

Where do you think we are in this cycle?

Where do you put your trust?

Some of the other survey findings include:

About a quarter of affluent Americans say they are not confident they will have saved enough for retirement, and this is especially true for Americans with assets between $100,000 and $250,000 (33 percent) and women (31 percent).

Among affluent women — who are the lead drivers of America's consumer economy — two in five, or about 42 percent, say they need to significantly cut back spending today in order to save for retirement versus 34 percent for men who feel that way.

A quarter of middle class Americans, which was defined as those earning between $25,000 and $99,000 annually expect to work until at least age 80.  Nearly all the affluent, 12 percent, said they would work until 80 years of age, according to the survey.

The bottom line here is Americans are under saved for a traditional retirement.  However, it should be pointed out that up until the early 1900s there was no such thing as retirement.  Americans continued to work until they were not able to do so.

Maybe it's time we rethink our approaches to retirement.  Over the coming weeks and months, we plan to share some alternatives to a traditional retirement and some options available to improve the odds of reaching your goals.

What are your thoughts on retirement?  Will you be able to retire before age 80?  Will you have enough resources to maintain your current lifestyle?  Will getting there cause you to cut your spending and lifestyle today?

We want to know….please weigh in here!