For those who may not have excel... http://www.openoffice.org/ This is a free "MS Office" alternative and it's quite powerful. The program "Calc" is their version of a spreadsheet. It's free, but it works as well as anything you'd pay for and it doesn't hog a lot of disc space to install it.

"As I've said in other postings, any advisor that won't give you the names of at least 3 long-time clients to call and talk to, isn't worth considering." The problems are 1) he cherry picks clients and 2) clients have no clue what they are paying or how they are really doing. They just know they 'like' they advisor and he 'seems' to be doing great. The people I have helped all thought initially that their advisor was their dear friend that was doing wonderful things with their money. They would have given glowing recommendations. I think EF Moody said it well: "And that's the same critical problem with referrals as well- and the reason that they are so effectively used in the business. Literally every salesperson is told/taught to get referrals to friends, neighbors, relatives, co-workers, Martians, whoever, since that is a great lead in. Unfortunately, the person getting the referral believes- or wants to believe- that the agent has already been critically and thoroughly analyzed and must be of the highest caliber and competency. Invariably they do NOTHING themselves to check out whether such knowledge or ability exists- and nothing was done before. Then this happens to the next person and the next, ad infinitum, as the referrals continue. It ends up that no one did any checking on anyone at all and then they later wonder how it all went wrong. They end up buying the wrong product at the wrong risk level at the wrong time- and certainly from the wrong person. They get little or ineffectual service, etc. Now referrals may work with physicians and certain other professionals (sometimes with CPA's or attorneys- but not all the time) since they at least have a degree and other background and training. Even here, people are finally recognizing there are problems. But referrals to agents who have essentially nil background (read further) is illogical. It is for these many reasons that I feel that referrals to brokers, insurance agents, financial planners, attorneys and most other entities is a waste of time unless a comprehensive review of the individual is commenced before any product is purchased or any fee paid. And such review is NOT calling the SEC/NASD or your State offices to see if any formal arbitrations or law suits have been instituted. Only an infinitesimal number of agents have ever been sued. That still says NOTHING about competency. You need to do a LOT more to assure yourself of some reasonable competency." "That seems to set you off in a very strident manner." Because I know what a scam these people are probably in for. Unless they find an honest, knowledgable, hourly fee-ONLY planner. I would totally love to see ignorant investors finding good, honest, low-cost advice. I could then turn my attentions to all my hobbies. The fact is, these people need advisors because they are ignorant and have no confidence. Salesmen will snap them up and manipulate them and hurt them. I see this over and over and over. "But any good CFP who has been in business for 10+ years should be able to show a track record of at least 6-8% after expenses." Should, but they don't. Numbers don't lie. "Yes, it is hard to track all expenses (whether you use an advisor or not), but a rough total can be managed by diligent clients and figuring out the ROI is easy after that." First, why should a client have to hunt down elusive fees? Shouldn't a financial ADVISOR (!!!!) be telling the clients all about the fees? This alone is very telling. And I can't even track down all the fees! Fund turnover is not in the prospectus let alone the expense ratio. Take a look at this: "Mercer Bullard, president, Fund Democracy and assistant professor of law at the University of Mississippi, added: "This study demonstrates conclusively what consumer groups have argued for years: fund expense ratios are misleading. Expense ratios exclude portfolio transaction costs that on average equal 43 percent of the total expense ratio. In some cases, hidden portfolio transaction costs are five or six times the total expense ratio. Congress should act promptly to ensure that America's investors are provided with full disclosure about funds' portfolio transaction costs." Even if you find the turnover, figuring out the cost from there is a bear. Can't you see what a problem this is? "People also need to consider that many CFPs offer their clients purchases at NAV and reduced management fees on funds." From the BCT study: "Do advisors help clients find funds that are lower cost (excluding distribution costs)? After analyzing several trillion dollars worth of transactions, the answer is no." "He changed all his clients over to a fee basis " Yes, the new and improved way to get big fees from clients. This is usually more expensive than loads for the client in the long run. Fee basis means he can get commissions (probably from 12b-1 fees) and a percent of the client's assets. That percent of assets gets subtracted from the client's investments year after year after year after year. Never to compound. And for what? "But I don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone enjoys doing this type of thing;" They don't have to. They can buy a target retirement date fund (very low expense ratio, no load, no percent of asset fee, no 12b-1 fee, index funds, automatically rebalanced) or have a salaried Vanguard planner do it (often at no cost) or hire a fee-ONLY planner by the hour to set up a simple portfolio. I am saving amazing amounts of money and spend less that 8 hours a year on my investments. Had I been better able to dig through the industry BS when I first started, I would have been able to set up a great portfolio in a weekend. "In the end, all we are doing here is trading opinions. " Hard numbers are not opinions. This is not an opinion: "the BCT study found that the raw returns of equally weighted mutual funds (net of all expenses) for 1996 to 2002 were 6.626% for the investors working on their own and were 2.924% for funds provided by advisors." I know that I'm passionate about this. It's because I have looked at enough evidence over the years to reach certainty. And, I have seen so many people that have lost years of retirement to fees they were never told about by their trusted financial ADVISOR. Maybe it's just my opinion, but I think that if someone pays for a service he should get a value from that service - not badly hurt. And the worst is that all those clients initially defended their broker like crazy. It was only after I took them out to Morningstar and showed them reality that they started realizing what was being done to them.

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.

I'll be happy to help you with this. First of all, there are two different reduction calculations: one for the basic insurance and one for the option B insurance. It sounds like your question pertains to the basic insurance. As I stated in an earlier post, it appeared that your husband had calculated the basic insurance premium based on a 50% reduction at age 65. What this means is that starting with the 2nd month following his 65th birthday, the amount of his basic insurance will decrease 1% per month for 50 months until the amount of the insurance is only 50% of what it was when he retired. So, if he started with $150,000 of basic life insurance, it would end up being $75,000 when he is 69. The amount that he pays will change from .925 per thousand to .325 per thousand at age 65 and will continue for as long as he lives. He could also choose the "no reduction" option, in which case the basic insurance would never be reduced and the full $150,000 would be payable upon his death. However, instead of paying .925 per $1000, his premium would start off at more than double that amount. He would be paying $2.155 per $1000. Finally, he also could choose the 75% reduction which of course is the cheapest. He would start off paying only .325 per $1000, but at age 65 the amount of basic life insurance would begin reducing at the rate of 2% per month until only 25% was left. So, if he started with 150,000 worth of basic insurance, he would be left with only 37,500 by age 68. However, he would stop paying premiums at age 65 and the 37,500 worth of insurance would be free for the rest of his life. Similar choices must be made with regard to the optional insurance, but I believe that those choices don't have to be made until he is 65. Let me know if you want me to go into detail about the optional insurance (which represents about $300,000 of his coverage). I hope that this explanation has helped somewhat.