Chrysler reports quarterly loss on buyout charges

Chrysler Group, now wholly owned by Fiat, reported on Monday a first-quarter net loss $690 million after about $1.2 billion in charges related to the January buyout of the United Auto Workers 41.5% stake in the company.

Excluding the buyout items, the company had net incomes of $486 million, up from $166 million in the quarter a year ago.

Net revenue for Chrysler Group in the quarter was $19 billion, up 23% from a year ago, the company reported. Free cash flow was $919 million, up from $449 million a year ago, and Chrysler had $12.4 billion in cash as of March 31.

Global vehicle shipments were 668,000, up 16%, and sales were 621,000, up 10%. U..S. retail sales were up 19% in the quarter and U.S. market share was 12.5%, up from 11.4% a year ago, driven primarily by sales growth for Ram trucks and the Jeep brand..

The UAW health care trust got a stake in the company in exchange for taking over retiree health care liability as part of the government sponsored bankruptcy reorganization in 2009. The $4.35 billion deal with the union and Chrysler and Fiat allowed Fiat to take full ownership of Chrysler.

The two are being combined into Fiat Chrysler Automobile, a new company that says it will be formed and begin trading in the U.S. by the end of this year. Fiat shareholders will get shares in the new company under a plan due to be voted on by Fiat shareholders this summer.

The items related to the UAW deal were a $504 million non-cash loss related to the prepayment of a UAW trust note and a $672 million charge for buying the shares held by the union.

Fiat last week reported a first-quarter loss of 319 million euros ($444 million), that also included charges related to the UAW deal.

Guaranteed Income: How Not to Need a McJob in Retirement

Jim West/Alamy Last week, we talked about investing, the second circle of wealth in my series of "Six Absolute Necessities for Acquiring Long-Term Wealth." The third is guaranteed income. When I study people with successful retirements, filled with abundance and options, almost all have things in common: They carry very little, if any, personal debt. They have stable, secure income from multiple sources that they can set their watch by every month Starting about 10 years before they retire, they begin shifting their assets from riskier investments to low- or no-risk income assets. A mortgage is generally the biggest debt most of us have. Many argue that you should never pay off your house because the equity you put into it is tied up and not making you money. They might recommend borrowing as much as you can now because interest rates are low. I say you can have the best of both worlds. First, pay off your mortgage before you retire. By adding small amounts directed to your principle every month, you will take months, even years off your payoff date. When your house is paid off, get the biggest equity line of credit you can. This way, if you see an attractive investment opportunity, you can put your equity to use, and if you don't, you have removed the pressure of a big mortgage payment in retirement. If you can pay off your mortgage while you are working, why not now shift that payment over to a solid savings or income product? This could work out to tens of thousands of extra dollars producing monthly income for when you retire. An abundant retirement is about strong positive cash flow that you can count on for years to come. Do you have any idea how much money you need to retire every month? Do you know where you can get that income from? Do you have enough money for home health care or long-term care? Are you protected from big market downturns during your retirement years? How much will inflation eat into that monthly income needed? Can You Answer These Questions? All these questions must be part of an income plan. We calculate these for clients all over the country. First, know how much income you and your spouse will receive from Social Security when you retire. You can get an estimate from the Social Security Administration. If you believe that number is at risk because of issues with Social Security, you better start putting more away and growing it safely. If you need $5,000 per month to retire and the Social Security for you and your spouse is only $3,500, then you have a $1,500 shortfall. Do you have a pension? How much will that be when you begin to draw it? Do you have a 401(k) or Individual Retirement Account? How long could that account last if you need to draw $1,500 a month -- $18,000 in a year? Will you have to pay taxes on what you take out? If you have a 401(k) or traditional IRA, the answer is yes. If you lose 50 percent of your capital to a bear market, how long will you be able to get $18,000 per year? As you get to be in what we call the "retirement danger zone," which is 10 years before your projected retirement, you need to start shifting assets away from market risk and over to guaranteed products. A solid fixed indexed annuity with a long-term income rider might be a very good call. I wrote an article about the different types of annuities and how to purchase one that fits your needs. A lifetime income rider (state and product variations exist) will guarantee that you have a certain amount of income (depending on how much you have in your annuity and at what age you start withdrawing) for you and your spouse's life. If you live to be very old, your normal retirement funds might run out, but a lifetime income rider guarantees that income stream regardless of what happens to the underlying cash in the account. Also if you have five to 10 years, you have time for that income rider to grow. Many income riders offer 6 percent and more guaranteed growth every year. When you purchase a $200,000 annuity, many companies might offer a 10 percent bonus on your initial purchase price so your starting amount would be $220,000. When you add compound growth at 6 percent over 10 years, your income rider would top $400,000. Then you would start to draw your lifetime income at 6 percent of the $400,000, giving you $24,000 a year income for you and your spouse's life. Presto! You have filled your income gap. If you have the resources to purchase another annuity, you might get one with a cost of living clause to hedge against inflation.

SEC's Mary Jo White's top priority: uniform fiduciary standard

Bloomberg News

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Jo White said Friday that she is pushing the commission to make a decision on whether to propose a regulation that would raise investment advice standards for brokers.

"We will intensify our consideration of the question of the role and duties of investment advisers and broker-dealers, with the goal of enhancing investor protection," Ms. White said at the SEC Speaks conference in Washington sponsored by the Practising Law Institute.

In a meeting with reporters after her remarks, Ms. White said that she wants the five SEC commissioners to come to a conclusion on whether to implement a uniform fiduciary standard for investment advice and to decide whether to harmonize regulations that govern investment advisers and brokers.

The Dodd-Frank financial reform law gave the SEC the authority to promulgate a regulation that would require that brokers who provide retail investment advice must always act in the best interests of a client — the standard that investment advisers already meet. Brokers are held to a suitability standard when they sell investment products.

The SEC is conducting a cost-benefit analysis of a potential uniform-fiduciary-duty rule but has not indicated whether it will advance a proposal.

"The threshold issue is whether to proceed and what to proceed with, if so," Ms. White told reporters after her speech. "It's a primary, immediate focus."

Ms. White declined to reveal her own position on a uniform fiduciary standard.

"I'm not going to comment on that here," Ms. White said. "I have said, and I firmly believe, that it's a very high priority to make that decision, and it's something I have given a high priority to within the agency."

Three of the five SEC commissioners would have to support a rule proposal for it to move forward for public comment.

In her speech, Ms. White said that the SEC also will increase its oversight of broker-dealers "with initiatives that will strengthen and enhance their capital and liquidity, as well as providing more robust protections and safeguards for customer assets."

This year, the SEC also will step up its monitoring of asset management companies for potential risks they pose to the financial markets.

"I asked the [Division of Investment Management] staff for an action plan to enhance our asset manager risk management oversight program," Ms. White said in her speech. "Among the initiatives under near-term consideration are expanded stress testing, more-robust data reporting, and increased oversight of the largest asset management firms. To be an effective 21st-century regulator, the SEC is using 21st- century tools to address the range of 21st-century risks.”

The Long-Term Costs of the RadioShack Super Bowl Ad

RadioShack Corp. (NYSE: RSH) is actually ticking up on the admission by the company that it has to shed its very outdated image. The admission was a Super Bowl commercial, and RadioShack was not even among our own six stocks looking to benefit from the Super Bowl. What investors and outsiders alike really need to consider is what the ultimate cost will be in capital spending to live up to its image rebranding.

The commercial showed nothing but 1980s entertainment icons being hoisted out, only to have the new concept store unveiled. The ad itself was actually one minute, and spots sold for roughly $4 million per 30-second slot.

RadioShack is still losing money, but the company had $316 million in cash at the end of September. It also had almost $500 million in direct long-term debt as of that time. Where things get interesting is that RadioShack announced in December that it was closing on an $835 million financing pact with GE Capital and two others. That capital is being used to refinance existing debt and was represented as offering an additional $200 million or so in liquidity.

The USA Today Ad Meter showed an average 7.0 vote for the company. That implies that maybe the new store concept will do better, or at least have more eye appeal, hopefully. If RadioShack had 4,300 company-operated stores in America alone, what is a fair cost of fulfilling the new image of that commercial? Assuming RadioShack closes down another 300 of its stores to a raw 4,000, how does one calculate the cost per store on a capital spending basis? Here is a total based on various per store costs, including new point of sales, inventory tracking, buildouts and more:

$500,000 per store is probably too high, but that is $2 billion. $250,000 per store is hopefully too high — that is still $1 billion. $100,000 per store may be close, maybe, and that is $400 million. Even $50,000 per store is $200 million.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that RadioShack’s liquidity could be consumed entirely in this effort, when you consider that it is expected to keep losing money. The company’s stock also continues to remain in the doldrums. At $2.40, the 52-week trading range is $2.02 to $4.36. And the market cap is a mere $240 million.

It seems hard to imagine that investors would bid this up over a commercial, but the stock was up more than 5% at $2.55 in early Monday trading. RadioShack is just lucky that it had its ad early in the first half, because the interest in the game started to fade even before the end of the first half.

What Does GNC's Renewed Agreement With Rite Aid Imply About Its Future?

Have you ever heard in business that it's not what you know, it's who you know that counts? The saying implies that relationships are not just important in business, but imperative if you want any hope of success. One company that realized this early on was GNC Holdings (NYSE: GNC  ) , a provider of nutritional supplements based out of Pittsburgh.

Throughout the past several years, the company has struck deals with Rite Aid (NYSE: RAD  ) , PetSmart, and Sam's Club, a segment of Wal-Mart. The company's most recent agreement involved it renewing its relationship with Rite Aid through 2019 and adding GNC locations to at least 300 additional Rite Aid stores. Using these relationships, GNC strives to increase its market share, but as I chronicled in an earlier article, it has to accept some downsides. It is also provided some very attractive benefits.

Revenue is impaired
Perhaps the most interesting of GNC relationship's is with Rite Aid. According to an agreement between these two companies, GNC has been able to set up a store-within-a-store model inside of various Rite Aid locations. Such a decision between two companies to join forces in this way may appear to be odd, but the model has worked out so well that other retailers like J.C. Penney (NYSE: JCP  ) have adopted it.

In an effort to grow its business, J.C. Penney began implementing a store-within-a-store setup as early as 2007. However, the company began experiencing financial strain after its former CEO, Mike Ullman, retired and Ron Johnson, a former executive at Apple, took his place. Johnson, who believed that coupons were bad for customers and that instead J.C. Penney should abolish them and adopt a policy of everyday low prices, was also responsible for pushing the store-within-a-store initiative with Martha Stewart Living as its flagship test subject.

After seeing revenue decline significantly and a net gain transform into a net loss, Johnson was ousted and Ullman was brought back in with the goal of turning the business around. Recognizing the appeal of the store-within-a-store model, Ullman elected to continue and expand the concept by bringing in big names like Disney. Since then, the store-within-a-store design has been a cornerstone for J.C. Penney's attempted turnaround.

By the end of GNC's 2012 fiscal year, it had this kind of setup inside 2,181 Rite Aid locations. To put this in perspective, 26.8% of GNC's locations were located inside of Rite Aid stores, far from being insignificant. Despite this, total revenue from these locations only accounted for 2.5% (or $60.75 million) of the company's consolidated revenue for the year.

On a per-store basis, this implies revenue of $27,854. In contrast, revenue for the stand-alone retail and franchise locations averaged $367,538 per year, which indicates there is a lot more value to be had by foregoing said partnerships.

Unlike the company's agreement with Rite Aid, its relationships with Sam's Club and PetSmart don't involve a store-within-a-store design. Because of this, it's impossible to break down revenue the company receives from each entity, but we can conclude that it generated combined revenue of $176.1 million from them in 2012 and $158.8 million in 2011.

This means that while revenue only grew 1.1% for its Rite Aid locations between 2011 and 2012, it rose 10.9% in the company's other business alliances. Growth like this is nothing to scoff at, but it fell short of the 17.3% growth the company experienced on a consolidated basis.

But revenue isn't all that matters!
Looking only at revenue, we might say that GNC would be better off not having its stores located within Rite Aid and possibly not even through its connections with Wal-Mart and PetSmart. This would be especially true if the company's margins from these relationships were smaller than its retail and franchise segments. If this were the case, management would be wise to abandon these endeavors and instead refocus their efforts on adding to their retail or franchise locations.

Interestingly, this isn't the case. Although growth is lower than it is in the company's retail and franchise operations, margins are considerably higher. In 2012, the operating margin for this segment came out to an impressive 40.3%. This marks an annual increase from the 37.7% operating margin earned in 2010 and has been attributed to higher wholesale margins (aka economies of scale) and greater proprietary shipments.

These results are far higher than the 19.4% operating margin of the company's retail segment and slightly higher than its franchise segment, which earned 33.4% last year. Admittedly, these operating segments have both experienced improvements over the past three years, but still have some ways to go before matching the company's manufacturing/wholesale segment.

Foolish takeaway
Based on the data provided by GNC, the company is trying to take a multifaceted approach to improving its business. By focusing on its retail or franchise operations, management could ensure greater prospects but would be forgoing some considerable margins. For this reason alone, the company is smart in focusing most of its time and energy growing its other segments in the hopes that as its business becomes larger, management's ability to engage in these lucrative contracts will grow as well.

Ideally, management and shareholders alike are probably hoping to move more toward such licensing agreements down the road, but unless the company wants to cut revenue significantly, this isn't likely anytime soon. Rather, it would be reasonable to see licensing agreements with third parties grow as a percentage of revenue over time, especially as franchise opportunities eventually slow their growth in light of more market saturation.

What would Buffett do?
Warren Buffett has made billions through his investing and he wants you to be able to invest like him. Through the years, Buffett has offered up investing tips to shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway. Now you can tap into the best of Warren Buffett's wisdom in a new special report from The Motley Fool. Click here now for a free copy of this invaluable report.

24/7 Wall St.: The most dangerous holidays

AAA estimates that during this Christmas and New Year's season, nearly 95 million Americans will hit the road, traveling long distances to visit friends and family. Unfortunately, during the end-of-year holiday travel period, nearly 27,900 Americans will be seriously injured in auto accidents, and more than 250 will die.

The National Safety Council (NSC) has released reports estimating the number of traffic accidents and fatalities that occur on major holidays, including Christmas, New Year's, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, Labor Day, and Independence Day. According to the NSC, the deadliest holiday this year will likely be the Fourth of July, which saw an estimated 540 motorists die during the travel period, which spans roughly four days. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the NSC's most recent estimates of motor vehicle accidents and casualties for the six big holidays.

Ken Kolosh, manager of statistics at the NSC, explained that while travel during all these major holidays increases, the number of fatalities doesn't always jump significantly. "The New Year's holiday generally results in a significant increase in the number of fatalities when looking at a comparable period in same month," Kolosh noted. On the other hand, he added that in the case of Christmas, there isn't a significant increase.

One major reason for the difference may be alcohol consumption. A separate report released by the Council this month shows that holidays like New Year's Day and Independence Day are more likely to see people drink and drive. During the New Year's period, between 2007 and 2011, an estimated 42% of traffic fatalities were the result of drinking and driving. On Christmas, just 35% of accidents were the result of drinking and driving, less than any of the major six holidays.

As might be expected, poor weather is regularly a factor in the accidents and deaths on the road. However, according to Kolosh, the actual effects of a severe blizzard on a major holiday are not what you might expect. "It's a little bi! t counterintuitive, but good weather in winter months actually results in more fatalities," he said. The reason for this, he explained, is people are less likely to travel more than absolutely necessary in bad weather.

For each holiday, the number of accidents fluctuates each year. In 2012, there were more than 350 fatalities during the Christmas travel period. This year, the National Safety Council estimates there will be just 105. The figure is lower largely because Christmas falls in the middle of the week and the travel period isn't spread out over a weekend.

Traffic accidents and deaths during a holiday are also influenced by how many people actually travel that year. According to Kolosh, the strength of the economy influences the amount of driving Americans do. "Macroeconomic issues such as recessions greatly impact fatalities on the road," he said. "Recessions actually tend to save lives on the road. We've reached some really historic lows during the last recession."

Between 2003 and 2008, years when U.S. unemployment was relatively low, there were at least 370 traffic fatalities during the Christmas season. Between 2009 and 2011, when U.S. unemployment was at its worst, fatalities averaged around 250 per Christmas travel period.

To identify the most dangerous holidays, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the National Safety Council's estimates for the six holidays it measures of traffic accidents and fatalities occurring during that holiday travel period. All figures for 2013 and 2014 are estimates from the NSF. Travel periods change year-to-year, depending on which day of the week the holiday occurs. The NSC also estimated the proportion of traffic fatalities caused by alcohol consumption. Those figures are based 2007-2011 averages.

These are the most dangerous holidays

6. Christmas Day

> Estimated fatalities: 105
> Deaths prevented by seatbelts: 38

According to AAA estimates, holiday travel at Christmas will increase this holiday season for the fifth! year in ! a row. About 30% of Americans are expected to travel during this time. From the afternoon of Christmas Eve through Christmas Day, the NSC estimates there will be 105 deaths and an additional 11,200 severe injuries in traffic accidents. This is significantly lower than in previous years. Last year, there were 351 fatalities. This decline is largely because Christmas falls in the middle of the week and the traveling period is significantly shorter than usual. The worst Christmas in recent history was in 2001, when 575 people were killed.

5. New Year's Day

> Estimated fatalities: 156
> Deaths prevented by seatbelts: 57

People are much more likely to drink and drive around January 1 than during any other major holiday. Nearly half of all 286 traffic fatalities during the New Year's travel period in 2010 were alcohol related. Between 2007 and 2011, alcohol accounted for 42% of all traffic deaths during the holiday. By comparison, during Christmas, alcohol was a factor in just 35% of fatalities. The 2010 New Year's period represented a low point for fatalities, at just 286. Traffic deaths ticked up to 348 by 2012. However, since the upcoming New Year's day — like Christmas — falls in the middle of the week, the total travel period for the holiday is shorter, the estimated 156 fatalities would be the lowest in some time. Safety is another reason the number of fatalities is projected to be so low, as the NSC estimates that 57 lives will saved by seat belts during the holiday.

MORE: Top 10 cars with the best resale value

4. Labor Day

> Estimated fatalities: 394
> Deaths prevented by seatbelts: 143

According to a AAA estimate, roughly 34.1 million Americans traveled at least 50 miles over the long Labor Day weekend this year. During the holiday period, which ran from Friday evening through midnight Monday, there were nearly 400 traffic-related deaths and more than 42,000 serious injuries, according to the NSC. If this year's estimate is accurate, th! ere will ! not have been more than 400 driving fatalities during Labor Day for five straight years. Between 1995 and 2008, there were at least 450 deaths every year.

3. Thanksgiving Day

> Estimated fatalities: 436
> Deaths prevented by seatbelts: 158

Over the six-year period between 2006 and 2011, traffic deaths around Thanksgiving accounted for nearly 15% of all vehicle-related fatalities in November. Between 2001 and 2007, driving fatalities during the holiday were in excess of 500 each year, peaking at 623 in 2006. Over the last five years, however, deaths have not exceeded 500. In 2011, just 375 people died on the road over the holiday, the fewest deaths since at least 1995. This year, the NSC estimates deaths rose to 436, with an additional 46,600 nonfatal injuries, which include all unintentional injuries that require medical consultation, over the travel period running from Wednesday evening through Sunday.

MORE: Eight states with the highest minimum wages

2. Memorial Day

> Estimated fatalities: 407
> Deaths prevented by seatbelts: n/a

Fireworks over the U.S. Capitol and Washington Monument on July 4, 2013.(Photo: Paul J. Richards, AFP/Getty Images)

Memorial Day weekend — the first major holiday weekend of the year and widely considered the start of summer — has 13.1% more traffic deaths, on average, than a typical non-holiday weekend. The Monday of the four-day weekend, Memorial Day itself, has 32% more fatalities than the preceding three days, according to a study on holiday fatalities by Arnold and Cerrelli. The reason is likely the increased travel during the last long weekend day. The NSC estimate of 407 traffic deaths during the 2013 Memorial Day weekend is slightly higher than the 367 deaths du! ring the ! 2012 holiday weekend. Since 2010, driving deaths during the holiday have remained below 400. Before 2010, the last time there were less than 400 deaths was 1998.

1. Independence Day

> Estimated fatalities: 540
> Deaths prevented by seatbelts: 196

The NSC estimates that the Fourth of July will go down as the most dangerous holiday for travelers in 2013 with 540 deaths and nearly 58,000 serious injuries. Drinking and driving played a major role in this. According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, between 2007 and 2011, alcohol accounted for 61 traffic fatalities per day over the Independence Day travel period, more than any other major holiday. Between 2007 and 2008, motor vehicle deaths around Independence Day more than doubled from 184 to 472. However, even the fatality rate that year did not approach the levels of the early 2000's, when deaths exceeded 500 nearly every year. In 2006, there were 629 automobile-related deaths. In 2002, there were 662.

24/7 Wall St. is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news and commentary. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY.

Don’t let retirement stress marriage: Plan to b…

Author and former financial planner Frank Maselli tells a story of a man who retired and went home to spend his days with his wife. It didn't take long for him to become a major intrusion in his wife's world. He told her the way she did everything was wrong, even the garden she had tended for 25 years.

"She had to kick him out of the house," he said. "She made him get involved with a charity group and start going to the gym."

It's a huge adjustment to shift from spending two or three hours a night to spending all day together, says author and psychologist Robert Bornstein. "It happens all at once. It would be nice to go from full-time to half-time to quarter-time, but that's not how it works."

"Take the normal stress of a transition into retirement," says Maselli, "and throw in the fact that your wife can't stand seeing you all day."

People are working with financial planners to make sure that they will have enough money to retire. But what they are not doing, retirement experts say, is preparing psychologically for retirement. And as a result, three big problems are popping up.

First, retirees without any kind of a plan are just going home to their spouses with nothing to do and causing stress in their marriages. "We are the first generation who is going to live 30 years in retirement," says Maselli, who is based in Raleigh, N.C. "We are not prepared financially or emotionally. It will be a major issue."

Second, people who have been working for 30 or 35 years are suddenly home with absolutely nothing to do. "You lose a ready-made social network," says Bornstein. "We don't think about it that much. Much of your daily social contact comes from the office. When you are no longer going into the office, it's not uncommon for people to discover that they have few or no friends."

Third, says Bornstein, people underestimate the loss of status and self-esteem that comes from working. "So many people identify with their career or the company they own," he says. "Their pr! ofession and their identity are intertwined. The two are one and the same, So when they retire and separate, it is a loss from an emotional standpoint."

All three issues could be contributing to a record divorce rate among Baby Boomers. But the resulting stress can easily be avoided if people retire with a plan, retirement experts say. And foremost in that plan, set a schedule and make plans to do something ... anything. Just do not sit around with the TV remote.

"Most couples don't prepare well psychologically for retirement because they are so focused on financial and housing issues, which makes sense," Bornstein says.

Joe Heider, managing principal for the Ohio region for Rehmann Financial, says the issue reminds him of the Chevy Chase vacation movies. "It's kind of like being on a permanent family vacation. There is a lot of stress being with each other 24/7. All those things that were annoying suddenly became difficult — if they don't have hobbies."

"A big depression sets in with a lot of guys," Maselli says. "It's a major problem. You've worked for years. They give you a gold watch. Then what? What happens to that emotional intensity? It goes into me arranging my wife's spice drawer."

Heider says it can be a dangerous time. "I have seen clients who have developed serious drinking problems because they're bored," says Heider. "Happy hour used to start at 5:30; now it starts at noon. Retirement can be a wonderful thing. But depression, drinking, drug issues — they are all symptomatic of people bored and their lives have lost meaning for them."

Financial planner Brad Zucker, president of Safe Money Advisors in Las Vegas, says before people retire they need to find their passions. "Retirement could last 25 years," he says. "You want to be certain you have some kinds of interests and passions to make it through those years." Zucker says he has one client who turned his love of baseball into becoming an assistant coach for a high school baseball team — at 71.

Mase! lli teaches a program he calls "Never Retire," which deals with the psychological transition into retirement. "We actively tell people and teach people how to restructure their lives — not to retire," he says. "Start a business. Don't think about slowing down.

"You want to relax," he says. "That goes away in a week." He says retirees should think about mentoring, teaching, board memberships ... anything to keep busy. And make those necessary contacts before you retire.

Heider says retirees should also consider volunteering as an option. "Volunteer your expertise to whatever you were doing," he says. "Spend time mentoring a young entrepreneur. It gives them something meaningful to do with their time."

Retiree George Milonas, 84, of Las Vegas says he gets up every morning on schedule. "It's like going to a job," he says. His passions are sports, horse racing and playing the slots. And that works for him because he has the funds to do that, he says.

Janet Taylor, psychologist and a consultant with AARP's Life Reimagined program, says the success and well-being of couples in retirement depends on their pre-retirement planning. "Plan early; communicate expectations; and recognize what the existing demands are," she says.

"Initially, retirement might involve understanding and accepting changes in your personal privacy," Taylor says. "After a few months there is some normalcy and some understanding. But give yourself time to adjust to that."

But start planning early. "Rule No. 1 is to start thinking about this now," says Maselli. "What are you going to do? What kinds of things will you be doing together? How much time can you stand each other together? How will you structure your day so that you are out of the house?"

And how did it end for the husband who got kicked out of the house?

"He learned to stay active, and his wife learned to be patient with him," Maselli said. "The charity work led to more community involvement. But the gym thing never caught on."!

Is bailing out of the markets a right option?

I know it has been a frustrating five and half years, since 2008. All that can go wrong, did go wrong.  We plumbed the depths of despair more than once, in this period. Inflation has been quite high for most part of this period and had made you cry, though onions were not always the cause!

We have been despairing about the inaction, corruption, profligate spending of the government leading to fiscal deficits, the anti-business stance which they often take to score political brownie points…  The economy is in the doldrums even now.

The stock markets have inexplicably gone up inspite of the bad prognosis. There are two proximate emotional reasons for it the QE taper has been deferred in the US ( which is a case of kicking the can down the road, which means we need to confront the problem sooner than later; but that is another story ) and the euphoria which Raghuram Rajan brought in.

And you tell me it provides you with a great exit point.  Let's see if it makes sense.

Why had you invested the money?

You had invested the money to fulfill some future need -  like your children's education, retirement corpus creation etc. I suppose you had allocated the money in a premeditated manner, into different asset classes. Your advisor must have told you about the benefits of asset allocation.

Different assets have different characteristics and will not all give returns at the same point. At various points, it could be a different asset, which starts doing well. There is no way of knowing in advance, when which asset will perform. But we do know that over time a particular asset can offer returns at a certain level.

If all these were known, there should be no reason to panic in connection with the equity markets and it's returns.

Aren't the equity returns abysmally poor?

While complaining about the poor returns of over 5 years, we have forgotten the rise of the sensex from 3000 levels in 2003 to 20000 levels in end 2007. Even factoring for poor returns in the past 5.5 years, the returns from 2003 onwards till date is 18 percent plus compounded.

No asset class would be able to match that, including property. Do the math and check it out. Check out for various other periods ( longer the periods, the better  the chances for eliminating specific timing biases ) and equity will return robust double digit returns.

How long have you stayed invested?

You don't have investments done from 2003? All your investments were from 2006 & 2007 and you again sold most of it in 2009? That would be the problem.

In case of property, people are willing to stay invested for very long periods as buying and selling is too much of a hassle, has tax implications, costly due to costs like registration, stamp duty , brokerage etc, is not quoted on a daily basis and is illiquid & hence not easy to sell in the first place.

The main problem is that retail investors come in at the fag end of the rally and end up buying when prices are high. They also end up panicking and selling during downturns. That is the real reason why retail investors constantly complain that they do not make money.

So you want to exit? Where are you going to put in the money?

Many want to exit now as the stock markets are somewhere close to the historic highs. There seems to be a conviction that it cannot breach the highs made in the past. What is stopping the Sensex from going to say 25,000? We all know that the economic situation is bad. But, with time, it will resolve itself.

There is no reason to panic , exit and invest somewhere and try to time the entry back. We saw earlier that all assets will not perform at all points, didn't we? So, why are we losing sleep?

Just because debt is doing well, you cannot put all money there. That will ensure that the asset allocation suggested earlier on is deconstructed. Small tactical changes can be done, but the strategic asset allocation cannot be completely undone, without affecting the overall plan itself.

When do you get back in?

Many blithely talk of exiting now and investing when the market has bottomed out. Understanding that the market has bottomed out is as difficult as realizing that God resides within each one of us!

What happens is that when the markets trend lower, you expect it to go even lower. If it starts climbing up, you expect it to come back to the previous lowest point so that you may buy! Markets don't indulge you in your fantasies.

Apart from making some tactical changes in the asset allocation, it is best to not keep tinkering with the allocations. Maybe, there is a case for a review and recast but this does not mean undoing the portfolio created.

It may just mean supplanting some that have not done well with others that hold more potential, within the same asset class.

Conclusion -  Always seeking out what is doing well would not mean better outcomes. It only shows a lack of understanding about the fact that various assets perform well at various points and you need the various assets to reach the destination.

An orchard full of different trees will yield fruits of varying quantities and values in different years. One cannot change all papaya trees to mango trees, when Mango fruits are in demand and selling at high prices.

Every year some fruit may be very remunerative and others less so. But there is no way to predict which one will be in demand next year. On the balance it is better to have an orchard full of different trees than have only mango trees and do very well one year and court disaster the next.

Assets are no different and should be held in the right mix. It is a test of one's patience. I have heard the maxim that says that those endowed with patience rule the earth. No truer word had ever been spoken!

Before Buying ConAgra, Read the Label

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Packaged-food giant ConAgra (CAG) will report fiscal first-quarter results on Thursday before markets open.

Investors want to know if now's the best time to check out ConAgra. Perhaps. But I suggest we first read the label.

While ConAgra, which recently acquired Ralcorp, continues to take decent strides to synergize both businesses, management has been unable to address eroding margins and poor organic growth. ConAgra recently lowered its fiscal 2014 earnings-per-share guidance by 2.5%. I don't believe we can continue to pretend that meaningful operational improvements are imminent.

To that end, even though the stock has been down by as much as 17% over the past month, I'm just not yet ready to apply ConAgra to my value diet. On Thursday, I don't believe there is anything management will say to alter the near-term view of the company. From a market reaction point of view, there likely won't be any negative surprises either. [Read: Ex-JPMorgan Traders Could Face 20 Years in Prison] The company has already "pre-announced" the important details of the quarter, including what amounts to a four-year plan. Last week the company lowered its full-year earnings-per-share expectations from a high of $2.40 to a range of $2.34 and $2.38 per share. While this does suggest as much as a 10% year-over-year improvement, very little of that growth is organic. I've raised this point recently while discussing Campbell Soup Company (CPB), which, like ConAgra, has struggled with "real growth" for quite some time. Bulls have long argued how this metric is exaggerated. But I disagree, especially given the nature of this sector and how quickly consolidations occur. Organic growth, which measures a company's operational performance using only internal resources and excluding events like acquisitions, continues to be one of the best identifiable metrics (or "labels," if you will) when buying these stocks. Plus, it's anyone's guess when weak shipping volumes, which have also plagued (among others) Coca-Cola (KO), are going to rebound. Unlike PepsiCo (PEP), which has navigated the weak volume environment with partnerships like Yum! Brands (YUM) and the Doritos Locos Tacos of Taco Bell, ConAgra doesn't have that type of a card to play to offset what remains as challenging conditions. Management talked about steps that it's taking to improve sales performances. That's all well and good. But it assumes customers have suddenly been turned off by the company's many household brands including Swiss Miss, PAM and Healthy Choice.

If that were the case, deploying more sales and marketing efforts would be a great strategy. Even though ConAgra hasn't been a flawless executioner, I also believe the company's struggles are being affected just as much by macro weakness as it is by operational inefficiencies.

I won't go through the exercise of applying weight to this scale. But I believe that any overinvestment made by management to grow sales will only eat into the company's already weak earnings.

Let's not forget that first quarter non-GAAP earnings per share are expected to come in at 37 cents. This represents a 16% year-over-year decline. Given the company's history of eroding gross margins, investors should rethink applauding any efforts that increase expenses. [Read: Affordable Care Act Reality Check]

If it seems that I've being overly critical of ConAgra, it's completely unintentional. The truth is I love the brand. The stock, however, which has lagged its peers in the most important categories, including performance and returns on capital, is a completely different story. Until management can post consecutive quarters of earnings and margin growth, I would recommend that investors stay away. You don't need to take my word for it -- just read the label. At the time of publication, the author held no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Follow @saintssense This article was written by an independent contributor, separate from TheStreet's regular news coverage.

Richard Saintvilus is a co-founder of StockSaints.com where he serves as CEO and editor-in-chief. After 20 years in the IT industry, including 5 years as a high school computer teacher, Saintvilus decided his second act would be as a stock analyst - bringing logic from an investor's point of view. His goal is to remove the complicated aspect of investing and present it to readers in a way that makes sense. His background in engineering has provided him with strong analytical skills. That, along with 15 years of trading and investing, has given him the tools needed to assess equities and appraise value. Richard is a Warren Buffett disciple who bases investment decisions on the quality of a company's management, growth aspects, return on equity, and price-to-earnings ratio. His work has been featured on CNBC, Yahoo! Finance, MSN Money, Forbes, Motley Fool and numerous other outlets. Follow @saintssense

No Name, No Problem: Tesla Gains 2% Despite Naming Issues in China

Yesterday, Tesla (TSLA) gained 1.8% after Bloomberg honed in on orders for the cars in Hong Kong. Making inroads into mainland China may be more difficult, however.

REUTERS

Reuters has reports on Tesla’s may not be able to use its name in China:

The maker of the best-selling U.S. electric car, the premium Model S sedan with a price tag of $70,000, had originally hoped to launch a flagship showroom in Beijing at the start of the year, according to three sources, but has had to put that idea on hold due in part to the trademark issue.

As a result, the 10-year-old company’s first shop-front in China, at the Parkview Green Fangcaodi mall in the capital, sits boarded up. While there is no Tesla sign, the shop is adorned with billboards of the Model S, which was launched in the United States last year.

Tesla also has yet to complete the registration process necessary to sell its cars in China, though Reuters say it’s almost there.

As Stifel’s James Albertine and Lucy Webster noted yesterday, Tesla’s future success depends, in part, on its ability to make cheaper cars and tap the global market.

Shares of Tesla have gained 1.7% to $159.75, General Motors (GM) has gained 0.2% to $35.07 and Ford Motor (F) has traded up 0.3% to $16.46.