Markus Andrews

ETF Strategist

ETF Street
ETF Strategist

Tax-loss harvesting can turn your portfolio losses into tax breaks.
But investors need to know the “wash sale rule,” which blocks the tax break if you buy “substantially identical” assets within the 30-day window before or after the sale.
If you want to stay invested, exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, can help avoid the wash sale rule, experts say.

Izusek | E+ | Getty Images

Despite a strong year for the stock market, you could still be sitting on portfolio losses. But you can leverage down assets to score a tax break, experts say.
The tactic, known as “tax-loss harvesting,” involves selling losing brokerage account assets to claim a loss. When you file your taxes, you can use those losses to offset portfolio gains. Once your investment losses exceed profits, you can use the excess to reduce regular income by up to $3,000 per year.

“Tax-loss harvesting is a tried and true strategy to lower investors’ tax bills,” said certified financial planner David Flores Wilson, managing partner at Sincerus Advisory in New York. 

More from ETF Strategist:

Here’s a look at other stories offering insight on ETFs for investors.

After offsetting $3,000 in regular income, investors can carry any additional losses forward into future years to offset capital gains or income.
“Investors can benefit substantially over time” by tax-loss harvesting consistently throughout the year, Wilson said.

What to know about the wash sale rule

Tax-loss harvesting can be simple when you’re eager to offload a losing asset. But it’s tricky when you still want exposure to that asset.That’s because of guidelines from the IRS known as the “wash sale rule,” which blocks you from claiming the tax break on losses if you rebuy a “substantially identical” asset within the 30-day window before or after the sale.In other words, you can’t sell a losing asset to claim a loss and then immediately repurchase the same investment. 

How exchange-traded funds can help

While the wash sale rule is a challenge, exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, can help investors avoid trouble with the IRS, experts say.”The beauty of using ETFs for doing tax-loss harvesting … is that there are so many similar, but not identical, ETFs that could be exchanged for a losing one,” said George Gagliardi, a CFP and founder of Coromandel Wealth Strategies in Lexington, Massachusetts. For example, many ETFs in the same sector, such as large-cap value, emerging market or small-cap growth, use the same pool of stocks with different selection criteria, he said.But ETFs with identical indexes, like the S&P 500, “will run afoul of the wash sale rule” and the loss won’t be allowed, Gagliardi said.

Ultimately, the IRS definition of “substantially identical” isn’t black and white and “depends on the facts and circumstances” of your case, according to the agency.
When in doubt, consider reviewing your plan with an advisor or tax professional to make sure you’re safe from violating the wash sale rule. More

When asked, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” the answer for many older voters ages 50 and over was “no,” according to a new AARP poll.
More than half of voters ages 50 and up prioritized personal economic issues, including inflation, the economy and jobs, and Social Security when determining their vote.

Voters line up to cast their ballots at a voting location in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, on Nov. 5, 2024.
Samuel Corum | Afp | Getty Images

When asked, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” the answer for many older voters ages 50 and over was “no,” according to a new postelection poll released by AARP.
Almost half — 47% — of voters ages 50 and over said they are “worse off now,” the research found, while more than half — 55% — of swing voters in that age cohort said the same.

In competitive congressional districts, President-elect Donald Trump won the 50 and over vote by 2 percentage points — the same margin by which he carried the country, AARP found.
Among voters 50 to 64, Trump won by 7 points. With voters ages 65 and over, Vice President Kamala Harris won by 2 points.
More from Personal Finance:What Trump’s presidency could mean for the housing marketTrump’s win may put popular student loan forgiveness program at riskWhat the Fed’s latest interest rate cut means for your money
AARP commissioned Fabrizio Ward and Impact Research, a bipartisan team of Republican and Democrat firms providing public opinion research and consulting, to conduct the survey. Interviews were conducted with 2,348 “likely voters” in targeted congressional districts following Election Day between Nov. 6 and 10.
Older voters, who make up an outsized share of the vote and tend to lean Republican, made a difference in a lot of key congressional races, according to Bob Ward, a Republican pollster and partner at Fabrizio Ward.

“Overall, 50-plus voters really are what delivered Republicans their majority,” Ward said.

Older swing voters focused on pocketbook issues

When asked “How worried are you about your personal financial situation?” in a June AARP survey, 62% of voters ages 50 and over checked the worry box, while 63% of voters overall did the same.
Voters continued to place an emphasis on their money concerns on Election Day, the latest AARP poll found.
“All these surveys that we conducted for AARP spoke to a lack of economic security for people,” said Jeff Liszt, partner at Impact Research.
“The shock of inflation had left them without a feeling of security,” he said.
For voters ages 50 and over, food ranked as the top cost concern, with 39%, the poll found. That was followed by health care and prescription drugs, with 20%; housing, 14%; gasoline, 10%; and electricity, 6%.
More than half — 55% — of voters ages 50 and up said they prioritized personal economic issues, including inflation, the economy and jobs, and Social Security when determining their vote.

Older swing voters were more likely to turn out at the polls due to those pocketbook issues than any other priorities, the poll found.  
Republicans won older voters on most personal economic issues, though voters ages 50 and up still favored Democrats on Social Security by 2 points.  
Democrats have traditionally had a stronger lead on Social Security, Ward said, while the poll results show it is now “completely up for grabs.”
“Looking at the midterms, whether I’m Republican or Democrat … this is going to be an issue I want to win on,” Ward said.
Voters 50 and over broadly support Medicare negotiating prescription drug prices, as well as policies to help the older population age at home. Nonfinancial issues such as immigration and border security and threats to democracy were also among top concerns for some older voters.

Social Security reform may be bigger focus

While both presidential candidates promised to protect Social Security on the campaign trail, they did not provide plans to restore the program’s solvency.
The trust fund Social Security relies on to pay benefits is projected to run dry in 2033, at which point 79% of those benefits will be payable.
“What’s absolutely clear is that there’s an action-forcing event that we’re getting closer to, and that at some point Congress is going to have to act,” said Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, an advocacy group focused on expanding the program.

While Trump has touted plans to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, research has found that would worsen the program’s insolvency. The House voted this week to eliminate rules that reduce Social Security benefits for certain people who have pension income, which would also add to the program’s costs.
For most Americans, Social Security is the primary source of retirement income, according to AARP. About 42% of people ages 65 and over rely on the program for at least 50% of their incomes; about 20% rely on it for at least 90% of their incomes.
Like Social Security, Medicare also faces a looming trust fund depletion for the Part A program that covers hospital insurance.
“We want to ensure that we’re protecting Medicare, Social Security and that it’s done in a fiscally responsible way,” AARP CEO Dr. Myechia Minter-Jordan told CNBC in a recent interview.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

Cathie Wood is defending her underperforming ARK Innovation exchange-traded fund following a rocky stretch.
Shares of the technology fund have lost nearly two-thirds of their value from their Covid-19 pandemic heyday.

Cathie Wood, CEO of Ark Invest, speaks during an interview on CNBC on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Feb. 27, 2023.
Brendan McDermid | Reuters

Cathie Wood is defending her underperforming ARK Innovation exchange-traded fund following a rocky stretch.
“We have a volatile fund,” she told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Friday. “We should not be a huge slice of any portfolio. We are more of a satellite strategy now, although we think this is the way the world is going.”

Shares of the technology fund have lost nearly two-thirds of their value from their Covid-19 pandemic heyday, when market excitement and the meme stock craze drove shares to nearly $160 and led the fund to more than double in 2020, soaring 149%.
Since then, the fund has underperformed, fueling skepticism over the Ark Invest CEO’s investment strategies. Shares are up 2.8% this year, far behind the S&P 500’s 24% gain, and over the past three years have lost about 23% annually, according to FactSet data.
Wood acknowledged that several “interesting behaviors” during the pandemic sent ARKK shares higher, but asserted that many of the technologies and research underpinning her firm’s investments are “much more advanced.”
She called out the multiomics life sciences and health-care sectors as the biggest drag on the fund. This should change as new genome therapy editing companies such as Intellia Therapeutics emerge as providing alternative disease-curing methods.
“We think we’re a very good complement to the broad-based benchmarks out there, because we don’t look anything like them,” she said of her fund. “And truth will win out.” More

The average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage in the U.S. slightly dipped to 6.78% for the week ending Nov. 14, barely changed from 6.79% a week prior, according to Freddie Mac data via the Federal Reserve.
That stabilization may be a good sign for the housing market.
“When rates are moving around a lot, it makes a lot of uncertainty in the market,” said Jessica Lautz, deputy chief economist and vice president of research at the National Association of Realtors. 

Pekic | E+ | Getty Images

Mortgage rates seem to have steadied. That may be a good sign for the market, experts say.
The average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage in the U.S. slightly dipped to 6.78% for the week ending Nov. 14, barely changed from 6.79% a week prior, according to Freddie Mac data via the Federal Reserve.

“Even though it’s higher than it has been over the course of several weeks, it’s probably good news for homebuyers,” said Jessica Lautz, deputy chief economist and vice president of research at the National Association of Realtors. 

“When rates are moving around a lot, it makes a lot of uncertainty in the market,” Lautz said. 
Mortgage rates declined this fall in anticipation of the first interest rate cut since March 2020. But then borrowing costs jumped again this month as the bond market reacted to Donald Trump’s election win.
While the president-elect has talked about bringing mortgage rates down, presidents do not control borrowing costs for home loans, experts say.
Instead, mortgage rates closely track Treasury yields and are partially affected by what happens with the federal funds rate.

“They foresee inflationary policies, whether it’s tariffs or greater government spending, the tax bill … they’re pricing in more inflation,” said James Tobin, president and CEO of the National Association of Home Builders. “As the bond market reacts, mortgage rates are going to react to that, too.”
More from Personal Finance:What Trump’s presidency could mean for the housing marketCredit card debt hits record $1.17 trillionHere’s the inflation breakdown for October 2024
Less volatility can be a good sign, said Chen Zhao, chief economist at Redfin, an online real estate brokerage.
“High volatility by itself actually pushes mortgage rates even higher above treasury yields,” Zhao said. “More stable rates also means that homebuyers don’t have to worry during their home search about what their budget allows for changing.”
Trump’s team did not respond to a request for comment.

Don’t expect ‘huge swings’ on mortgage rates

Election uncertainty contributed to an upward swing in mortgage rates during October. Then rates went up even more last week as the stock market and yields reacted to the election results.
The 10-year Treasury yield jumped 15 basis points on Nov. 6, closing to trade at 4.43%, hitting its highest level since July, as investors bet a Trump presidency would increase economic growth, along with fiscal spending. The yield on the 2-year Treasury was up by 0.073 basis point to 4.276% that day, reaching its highest level since July 31.
But now that we have a president-elect, mortgage rates are expected to gradually come down over time, Lautz said.
From a monetary policy standpoint, future rate cuts are up in the air. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said Thursday that strong U.S. economic growth will allow policymakers to take their time in deciding how far and how fast to lower interest rates.
If the Fed continues to ease the federal funds rate, it could provide indirect downward pressure on mortgage rates, according to NAHB chief economist Robert Dietz.
“However, improved growth expectations would lead to higher rates, as would larger government deficits,” he said.
Experts say that mortgage rates might head into a “bumpy” or “volatile” path over the next year.
“I don’t think that there’s going to be any huge swings down into the 5% range,” Lautz said. “Our expectation is that rates are going to be in the 6% range as we move into 2025,” she said.

How buyers, sellers and homeowners can benefit

Rates that are trending lower can present an opportunity for buyers who have been house hunting for a while, especially as the winter season kicks in. Competition tends to slow down in the winter months in part because homebuyers with children are in the middle of the school year and reluctant to move, Lautz said. 

Our expectation is that rates are going to be in the 6% range as we move into 2025.

Jessica Lautz
Jessica Lautz, deputy chief economist and vice president of research at the National Association of Realtors

Current homeowners can also make the most of lower rates.
For example, if you bought your home around this time last year, when mortgage rates peaked at around 8%, you might benefit from a mortgage refinance, Lautz said. 
It “makes sense” to consider a refinance if rates have fallen one to two points since you took out the loan, Jeff Ostrowski, a housing expert at Bankrate.com, told CNBC after the Fed’s first rate cut this fall.
Remember that a loan refinance isn’t free; you may incur associated costs such as closing costs, an appraisal and title insurance. While the total cost will depend on your area, a refinance is going to cost between 2% and 6% of the loan amount, Jacob Channel, an economist at LendingTree, said at that time.
If you’re pondering on whether to refi or not, look at what’s going on with rates, reach out to lenders and see if refinancing makes sense for you, experts say.

Homeowners have earned record home equity. U.S. homeowners with mortgages have a net homeowner equity of over $17.6 trillion in the second quarter of 2024, according to CoreLogic. Home equity increased in the second quarter of this year by $1.3 trillion, an 8.0% growth from a year prior.
If you’re looking to sell your current home, you may be able to counteract slightly high borrowing costs on your next property by placing a larger down payment, Lautz said. More

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange at the opening bell on November 13, 2024, in New York City. 
Angela Weiss | AFP | Getty Images

Stocks @ Night is a daily newsletter delivered after hours, giving you a first look at tomorrow and last look at today. Sign up for free to receive it directly in your inbox.
Here’s what CNBC TV’s producers were watching as the postelection rally waned, and what’s on the radar for the next session.

Vaccines

After President-elect Donald Trump nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, concerns began to swirl about how he’ll deal with vaccinations.
Moderna slid 5.6% Thursday. The stock is 75% from the May high and is down 27% in November.
Pfizer was down 2.6% Thursday. The stock is 17.5% from the July high.
AstraZeneca fell slightly on Thursday. The stock is now 26% from the 52-week high. Shares are down 8.6% in November.
Merck was flat during the session, but the stock is 27% from the June high.
The SPDR S&P Biotech ETF (XBI) dropped 3%. It is 8% from the high it reached earlier this week.  

Stock chart icon

SPDR S&P Biotech ETF (XBI) in 2024

CNBC will have several big guests on ‘Squawk Box’ Friday morning

Home Depot CEO Ted Decker will be on “Squawk Box” in the 8 a.m. hour, Eastern. The stock is 4% from the mid-October high.
Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood will also be on “Squawk Box” in the 8 a.m. hour. The ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK) fell about 3.5% Thursday. It is up 17% in November, and it’s up 12% since the election.
Investor Ron Baron of Baron Capital is on in the 7 a.m. hour. Among other successes, he was an early backer of electric vehicle giant Tesla. Shares dropped 5.8% on Thursday. Tesla has fallen 13% since hitting a high Nov. 11. It is still up about 25% in November.

Electric vehicles

Stock chart icon

Rivian Automotive shares in 2024

Alibaba

13F filings

Different people have varying feelings about the value of 13F filings, in which big investors reveal their stakes from the previous quarter. Sometimes they’re dated. Sometimes they’re not.
I think they’re kind of neat-o. They provide insight into what these investors — some of whom are the best of our time — are doing.
David Tepper’s Appaloosa Management was buying shares of Chinese companies PDD and JD.com. You might remember that he told CNBC viewers to buy Chinese stocks and ETFs on Sept. 26. 
PDD Holdings owns online marketplace Temu. The stock is 32% from the May high and down nearly 18% in a month. JD.com is 30% from the October high. Shares are down about 18% in November. 
Appaloosa doubled its stake in Lyft. The stock is up 38% in November… 14% from the March high.
Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway bought more than 1.2 million shares of Domino’s Pizza. The stock is down 5% in four days. The stock is up roughly 6% in 2024, and it’s 20% from the April high.

Stock chart icon

Domino’s Pizza in 2024

Intuitive Machines

CNBC TV’s Morgan Brennan did some out of this world reporting on this space stock Thursday.
The company reported a big earnings jump Thursday morning, showing revenue was up 360%.
Brennan reports this is another commercial space company that could benefit from the new administration which could be aggressive on the next frontier.
The ticker is LUNR. The stock took off like a rocket early this morning, hitting a new high. However, it fell back to Earth quickly, losing 13% on the day.
Intuitive Machines is up 31% so far in November and 185% in three months.
Redwire is another space company on Brennan’s radar. The stock is up about 14% in four days and has almost doubled in three months. 

Retail sales

New numbers are due Friday at 8:30 a.m. Analysts are looking for a slight uptick.
The SPDR S&P Retail ETF (XRT) is up 6% in November.
It hit a high on Tuesday.
Revolve is the top performer in the sector in November. I’m told by someone a lot more fashion-forward than I am (which is a low bar) that it’s like an online department store.
Grocery Outlet is up around 27% in November.
Warby Parker is up 26% in November.
The biggest losers are Groupon, American Eagle and Five Below.

Boeing’s CEO hits the 100-day mark

A lot has happened since Kelly Ortberg took the helm at Boeing, including a strike and a resolution of that labor dispute.
Since early August, the stock is down 15%.
Boeing is 48% from the December 2023 high. The stock is down 9% in four days. More

Prices have declined for many consumer items over the past year, a dynamic known as deflation.
Largely, that’s been for physical goods — such as new cars, appliances and consumer electronics — as pandemic-era supply-and-demand contortions return to normal, economists said.

97 | E+ | Getty Images

As inflation has throttled back from pandemic-era highs, consumers have seen prices decline outright for many household items.
This dynamic, known as deflation, generally doesn’t occur on a broad, sustained scale in the U.S. economy: With limited exceptions, businesses are generally loath to lower prices once they’ve increased, economists said.

But prices in some pockets of the economy, largely for physical goods — from new cars to appliances, sporting goods, consumer electronics and certain apparel — have deflated over the past year, according to the consumer price index.

“We are seeing [deflation] to some extent,” said Stephen Brown, deputy chief North America economist at Capital Economics.
Largely, prices have pulled back as pandemic-era contortions in supply-and-demand dynamics unwind, economists said. The U.S. dollar has also been relatively strong against major global currencies, making it cheaper to import goods from overseas.
But supply chains have “normalized” and deflation has “moderated to a pretty significant degree” as a result, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s.

Where there has been deflation

Prices among all physical goods are down 1% since October 2023, according to CPI data. This figure is for “core” goods, a measure that strips out volatile food and energy commodities, the prices of which can be volatile.

More from Personal Finance:Credit card debt hits record $1.17 trillionHere’s a key move for investors to reduce future crypto taxesThe best ways to save money this holiday season
Appliances were roughly 2% cheaper in October than they were a year ago, for example, according to the CPI.
Annual prices have also declined for clocks, lamps and decorative items, down about 3%; dishes and flatware, down 7%; women’s outerwear, down 6%; children’s apparel, down 1%; toys, down 3%; pet products, down 1%; and new cars, down 2%.

Prices for some categories — such as furniture and bedding, men’s clothing, cosmetics, and used cars and trucks — are down from October 2023, but they’ve rebounded somewhat in recent months, according to CPI data.
That said, used cars and trucks should see a resumption of deflation since “wholesale prices have fallen recently, and supply and demand continues to improve in the sector,” Bank of America economists wrote Monday in a research note.

Energy prices and electronics

Gasoline prices are also “way down,” Zandi said.
They’ve declined more than 12% in the past year, according to CPI data. Drivers paid $3.05 a gallon, on average, at the pump as of Nov. 11, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Consumers “could get more relief there because global oil prices are soft,” Zandi said.
That softness may be in anticipation of President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed policies around China, said Zandi. Those may include tariffs of at least 60% on goods imported from China, a nation with a huge appetite for oil. If Trump’s policies were to negatively affect the Chinese economy, they’d also likely dampen China’s oil demand.

Other energy commodities refined from oil have also seen huge price declines. Fuel oil prices, for example, are down over 20% in the past year, a trend that should contribute to lower prices elsewhere, such as for airfare, economists said.
Food prices are also generally underpinned by their own unique supply-and-demand dynamics, economists said. Bacon, turkey and snacks are about 4% cheaper than they were a year ago, for example.
Lower energy prices can also take pressure off food prices, as it costs less to transport and distribute food to grocery store shelves.

Consumer electronics have also seen big price declines: Computers, video equipment and smartphones are respectively 5%, 10% and 9% cheaper than they were a year ago, according to CPI data.
But consumers might not experience those lower prices at the store. They may exist only on paper.
That’s due to how the Bureau of Labor Statistics measures inflation for certain consumer goods, such as electronics, economists said.
Technology continually improves, meaning consumers get more for their money. The bureau treats those quality improvements as a price decline, giving the illusion of falling prices on paper. More

In “All The Presidents’ Money,” author Megan Gorman takes readers into a side of U.S. presidents that is often overlooked: how they were with their own money.
“Calvin Coolidge was incredibly frugal,” Gorman said, while “the biggest spender of them all was Thomas Jefferson.”

Thomas Jefferson, 1848/1879. Artist George Peter Alexander Healy.
Heritage Images | Hulton Fine Art Collection | Getty Images

Before becoming president, ‘they are just like us’

Arrows pointing outwards

Courtesy: Megan Gorman

Annie Nova: How much do presidents actually manage their own money? I imagine they outsource much of that strategizing and effort.
Megan Gorman: Well, up until most of them become president, they are just like us. They are managing their budgets and trying to grow assets. But what was striking in looking at their finances across different eras is that a lot of the same issues that we struggle with today, are ones that Americans have always struggled with.

The difference is that in many ways it is much harder today to achieve the American Dream. 
After all, Richard Nixon was able to go to college in 1930 for $230 a year. That’s around $8,000 in today’s dollars. And, in 1886, Grover Cleveland could buy a home on 26 and ¼ acres about three miles north of the White House for $21,500, the equivalent of $700,000 today.

‘Money caused and causes anxiety for everyone’

AN: Who was the most frugal president?
MG: Calvin Coolidge was incredibly frugal. He would have told you he was “thrifty.” Part of this comes from advice he received from his father growing up: that it was important to save and allow money to compound. Even when he was in the White House, the head housekeeper complained that he was always poking his head in to check on the cost of food being purchased.
The one that surprises most people was that John F. Kennedy was pretty frugal as well. Just because he came from money didn’t mean he wasn’t keeping an eye on the bottom line. Throughout his life, friends noted that he was “tight with a buck” and monitored costs.
AN: Was there a president who overspent?
MG: The biggest spender of them all was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson had very nice taste, and that taste was enhanced from his time in France. If there was ever a dinner party you wanted to attend, it was Jefferson’s. Even up to the time he passed away, he was still trying to buy wine on credit.
Interestingly enough, given the debt he had when he was dying — more than $2 million in today’s numbers, he was clever in that he made sure in his estate plan that assets passed to his daughter and son-in-law could not be attached by creditors.

Megan Gorman, author of All The Presidents’ Money.
Photo: Marc Cartwright

AN: For whom did money cause the most anxiety?
MG: Money caused and causes anxiety for everyone. That being said, some handled it better than others. 
For instance, Ronald Reagan used budgeting as a mechanism to manage emotion when it came to money. This is no surprise given that he grew up in a financially unstable household with an alcoholic father. The Reagans would at times have to leave town in the middle of the night to get away from their landlord as they didn’t have the money to pay rent. As Reagan got older, he found that having a budget and sticking to it allowed him to manage his financial anxiety.

Early experiences informed money habits

AN: Who had the most financial struggles before becoming president?
MG: Harry Truman is one that easily comes to mind. Truman spent the first four decades of his life going through a lot of financial volatility. From his father losing all their money so he couldn’t go to college, to Truman having a series of unsuccessful business ventures including a zinc mine, an oil well and the famous haberdashery, he really struggled. 
But it wasn’t until he was in the presidency that he was able to save his salary along with a special stipend he received for two years that was tax-free. At the time of his death, he was worth $750,000, or $8 million today.

AN: How did a president’s childhood experiences impact their financial behavior?
MG: The best example would have to be Herbert Hoover.
Hoover’s story could have gone completely wrong for him. He lost both of his parents by the age of 9. He and his siblings are split up among different family members but they share the same financial guardian. So from an early age, Hoover is required to budget and submit his expenses to this guardian.
As he becomes a teenager, he takes on bookkeeping for his uncle’s business and really learns to be a “financial apprentice.” The budgeting and bookkeeping have such an impact on his financial skills that he becomes the treasurer of his class at Stanford. 
He just keeps building on his skill set again and again. That skill set would grow him great wealth — and allow him to do a lot of charitable work over his lifetime.

Money opps in post-presidential life

AN: Did presidents change their financial habits after their time in the White House?
MG: Before Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, previous presidents went back to practicing law, wrote a book or died. But Ford changed that.
He built a substantial speaking career and served on corporate boards. At the time he did this, it was seen as a big risk. In fact, Carter made it clear when he left the presidency, he wasn’t going to take the same path as Ford.
Today post-presidential life has continued to evolve. Bill Clinton is still an in-demand speaker and the Obamas are building a media brand.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

Family caregiving had a “political moment” this election cycle, according to AARP.
President-elect Donald Trump touted a caregiver tax credit during his campaign.
Here’s what experts are saying about Trump’s proposal.

JGI/Tom Grill | Tetra images | Getty Images

At a recent campaign rally, President-elect Donald Trump promised new financial help for family caregivers.
“I will support a tax credit for family caregivers who take care of a parent or a loved one,” Trump said during an October speech at New York’s Madison Square Garden.

“It’s about time that they were recognized, right?” he said. “They add so much to our country and are never spoken of ever, ever, ever, but they’re going to be spoken of now.”
Trump has not elaborated on the details of that tax credit, and his team did not respond to requests for comment. He has also promised other tax breaks, including eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits, tips and overtime and a deduction for auto loan interest payments.
“It definitely adds up to big net tax cut,” Garrett Watson, senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, said of the president-elect’s tax proposals.

Family caregiving has a ‘political moment’

Family caregiving had a “bit of a political moment” this election cycle, with both presidential candidates addressing the topic, Nancy LeaMond, chief advocacy and engagement officer at AARP, said during a webinar Monday hosted by the organization, which represents people ages 50 and up.
About 48 million Americans help take care of aging parents, spouses or other loved ones, according to AARP. And about 78% of those caregivers have paid for care-related expenses out of their own pockets. On average, that adds up to about $7,200 per year.

“This adds to the economic strain they feel and anxiety about their long-term financial security,” LeaMond said. “They’re cutting back on personal spending, dipping into their savings and reducing what they’re saving for their own retirement.”
A record number of Americans are expected to turn 65 in the coming years. However, the share of potential caregivers is projected to shrink versus the number of older adults who may need long-term care, according to AARP.

No one policy will be a ‘silver bullet,’ expert says

To enact a caregiver tax credit, Trump will need Congress’ support.
A bipartisan bill — the Credit for Caring Act — proposes a credit of up to $5,000 per tax year to help caregivers cover long-term care costs. Under the terms of the proposal, the credit would cover 30% of expenses exceeding $2,000. To be eligible, caregivers would need to have more than $7,500 in income and be paying for long-term care for a spouse or other dependent.
“We will urge new leadership in Congress and the White House to take it up and pass it,” LeaMond said.
Some states have already taken up the issue, she said. Oklahoma and Nebraska recently passed their own caregiver tax credits, while Maryland has created a caregiver expense grant program.
An October AARP survey found about 90% of Americans ages 50 and over support a federal tax credit for eligible family caregivers. Earlier this year, a national poll from Bipartisan Policy Center Action found 82% of registered voters support caregiver tax credits.
More from Personal Finance:What Trump’s presidency could mean for the housing marketTrump’s win may put popular student loan forgiveness program at riskWhat the Fed’s latest interest rate cut means for your money
The federal caregiving tax credit proposal provides a “key opportunity” to include family caregivers in upcoming federal tax policy discussions, said Jason Resendez, president and CEO at the National Alliance for Caregiving.
However, no one policy is going to be a “silver bullet” to alleviate the burden of caregiving, he said.
“We can’t lose sight of the bigger and larger-scale investments that we need,” Resendez said, including stronger home and community-based supports, paid family and medical leave and additional long-term services and supports.
As lawmakers consider tax policy proposals, they may adjust the parameters to limit how much Trump’s proposed tax breaks may cost, Watson said.
“Step one is to figure out amongst Congress what their tolerance is for any debt increase,” Watson said. More