An old saying among investors is that annuities aren’t bought, they’re sold. This is because annuities often are very complex, very expensive financial products that carry heavy commissions for the advisers who sell them.

Unfortunately, that saying is frequently very, very true.

Annuities are insurance products that are frequently marketed for their investment-like features. In general, the more complicated a product is, the more expensive it winds up being — either through direct costs and fees or through cases of “the large print giveth, the small print taketh away.”

As a result, if you’re considering an annuity, your best bet is to keep yourself focused on why you need the annuity and what features of that annuity really matter to you.

The best reason to consider buying an annuity is because you have money set aside for your retirement but have no interest or ability to manage that money. For instance, if you’ve worked your entire career without thinking about investing, and then you get a lump-sum distribution from your retirement plan at work, you might be a candidate for an annuity. Alternatively, if your spouse always took care of the household finances but is no longer able to, an annuity may be right for you.

Still, even if you fit into one of these categories, you should know what you’re getting into and the downsides of even the best-designed annuity. For one, it’s only as good as the financial strength of the insurance company issuing it. If the insurance company goes bankrupt, you’re at the mercy — and limits — of the state’s insurance-guarantee program for any potential recovery.

For another, in most cases, annuities promise to pay you for a certain amount of time — and that’s it. Frequently, that amount of your time is either for your life, the longer of your life or your spouse’s, or a specific calendar duration. If you want to leave an inheritance to your children, your alma mater, or your favorite charity, you either can’t do it with your annuity or it will cost you significantly to do so.

In most cases, the simplest form of annuity is the best to buy — the one known as a single premium immediate annuity. As the name implies, you make a one-time investment in the annuity and the annuity company begins immediately (or possibly, the very next month) paying you a monthly income. A key reason these annuities are often the best is because they’re the simplest, and thus the easiest to compare across providers.

Because single premium immediate annuities are so easy to comparison shop, annuity companies often offer solid and competitive deals on those straightforward plans. Part of their hope is to establish their reputations for “fair dealing” with their customers, and then upsell you on a more complex (and likely profitable for them) offering.

The big benefit for you is that you can turn your lump sum of cash into a reliable, predictable income stream that can potentially last the rest of your life. A key thing to watch out for, though, is that as soon as you get beyond a plain vanilla contract — such as adding inflation protection, second-to-die rights, or a guarantee your estate will get back at least what you paid into it — the costs start adding up. The insurance company knows that most annuity buyers want those features — and is happy to charge to provide them.

In a similar vein, you often can find a reasonable deal on another form of straightforward annuity known as a single premium deferred annuity. With this type of annuity, you also make a one-time investment and the annuity starts paying out that monthly income at some agreed-upon time in the future. These can be useful if you have temporary income early in your retirement — such as a severance benefit or proceeds from a deferred-compensation plan — but will need the income in a few years.

The key trick to shopping deferred annuities is to keep it simple there, as well. Once you start getting past the plain vanilla promise of a fixed payout starting at a specific date in the future, different plans and providers get tough to compare — and the costs can really add up. For instance, many annuity providers will steer their deferred annuity customers toward variable annuities. Those offer the potential of higher returns while you accumulate money, followed by a guaranteed payout based on the unknown future value of your account once you annuitize.

The danger to you is that once you get into the realm of variable deferred annuities, the insurance companies start to stack the deck in their favor. For instance, if they offer “stock-market-like returns,” they often have “participation rates” or other caps that limit the total percentage you can earn on the upside when the stock market does well.

Related links:

• Motley Fool Issues Rare Triple-Buy Alert

• This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997

• 7 of 8 People Are Clueless About This Trillion-Dollar Market

The act of mixing insurance and investments in an annuity may sound good on the surface, but the costs and fine print quickly add up to make them less useful for you. If you want to invest, then invest. If you want a guaranteed fixed income for life, consider an annuity. It’s when you try to combine the two together that you most often find yourself paying more than you should for less total benefits than you otherwise could have gotten on your own.

CNNMoney (New York) First published May 15, 2018: 10:00 AM ET

Some Democratic state senators in New York are trying an end run to get Donald Trump’s taxes into the public view by introducing legislation that would reveal his state tax returns for the last five years.

The legislation — dubbed the Tax Returns Uniformly Made Public Act (or TRUMP Act) — would require the state to post online the state tax returns of anyone elected to federal or state office in a statewide election, including the president and vice president.

Trump is a resident of New York, and bill sponsor Brad Hoylman hopes the legislation will give the public a glimpse at Trump’s taxes.

“The tax experts I’ve spoken to think we’ll get a good snapshot of what’s on his federal form,” he said. In fact, the Trump tax return that the New York Times reported on before the election was the top pages of his New York state form.

Hoylman argues it’s important for Trump’s taxes to become public as Congress debates tax reform legislation that could benefit high-income individuals, including the president.

Trump has refused to release his tax returns while in office, breaking with a 40-year tradition. He has claimed that ongoing IRS audits prevent him from doing so, even though such audits wouldn’t restrict anyone from publishing their returns. And Trump is mandated to be audited during the rest of his time in office.

Democrats and a small handful of Republicans, citing Trump’s ongoing business interests, have pushed him to release his returns or to pressure Congressional leaders to exercise their authority to obtain them legally.

Related: The two biggest ways the Trump family could benefit from his tax plan

A separate bill introduced by Hoylman would require anyone appearing on a statewide ballot in New York to release his or her federal tax returns, but that wouldn’t force Trump to release anything until 2020, if he runs for a second term.

Hoylman said he got the idea for the TRUMP Act from a Washington Post op-ed column written by University of Chicago Law Professor Daniel Hemel.

“Trump would almost certainly bring a constitutional challenge to any law requiring him to disclose his [federal] tax returns as a condition for ballot access, and it is far from clear that these laws would hold up in court,” Hemel wrote. “But publishing Trump’s state tax returns is a much more viable option — and would make his returns available to the public now, rather than three years from now.”

Related: Trump has ‘no intention’ of releasing his tax return, Mnuchin says

Republicans control the New York Senate because some Democrats have joined with Republicans to form a majority. But Hoylman said he’s confident that his bill still has a good chance at being passed into law.

“The Republican control of the senate is nominal,” he said. “I wouldn’t rule out this happening by any means. Public support is widespread.”

The law requires the release of tax returns only by those elected by statewide vote, so New York’s state representatives and senators would not be required to release their own returns. Hoylman has never released his tax return, although he said he’s not opposed to doing so.

CNNMoney (New York) First published May 5, 2017: 1:54 PM ET

When Zerleen Quader was applying to Ph.D. programs in epidemiology, she sought out a college that would cover the cost of her tuition.

“Some programs guarantee you’ll be funded, but it varies. I really tried to find one that would fund me from the beginning,” Quader said.

Emory University in Atlanta offered to pay her tuition for the first two years, and she enrolled last fall. For future years, she plans to apply for research grants, or work for a professor with an already-funded project.

But most graduate students don’t get that kind of financial help. About 60% of grad students don’t receive any kind of scholarship, grant, or tuition waiver that they don’t have to pay back, according to a report released Wednesday.

The study, conducted by Sallie Mae and Ipsos, sheds light on how graduate students pay for school. For many, it’s a combination of loans and savings or income that pays the bill. The average student said they faced $24,812 in expenses for one year, and that loans covered half that amount. But prices greatly varied. The average one-year cost for medical and law students was higher than $30,000.

The survey was conducted in the spring of 2017, and included 1,597 part-time and full-time graduate students pursuing master’s, doctoral, and professional degrees.

Related: This forgiveness program became a student loan nightmare

The report points out that graduate students are far more self-reliant than undergrads. Money they have saved, earned, or borrowed, covers 77% of the costs for the average grad student, while undergrads receive more in the way of scholarships and grants, and get help from their parents.

When grad students do receive scholarships or grants, it’s typically from the university. Unlike undergrads, they’re usually not eligible for federal need-based Pell grants or state-funded grants.

More than three-quarters of graduate students take out loans. Quader did, too, for her master’s program at the University of Minnesota. She received a scholarship for her first year there and then borrowed about $20,000 to pay for her second.

“I was pretty comfortable taking out those loans because it’s the norm for a master’s in public health program. Everyone has to take out a loan for it,” Quader said.

She borrowed student loans from the federal government. Generally, graduate students who are U.S. citizens can borrow up to $20,500 a year from the Direct Loan program and additional funds — up to the full cost of attendance — from the PLUS program.

“Grad students can borrow more than undergrads, but the rates are higher and they can’t get subsidized loans,” said Kalman Chany, the author of Paying for College Without Going Broke from The Princeton Review.

For the current year, the fixed interest rate on Direct Loans for graduate students is 6% and it’s 7% on PLUS loans.

Yet, just 34% of students with loans said they used a Direct Loan and 24% used a PLUS loan.

“I’m surprised more students aren’t taking these student loans. It could be that they are unfamiliar with the process and didn’t realize they could qualify” Chany said.

Related: The best ways to borrow money for school, if you have to

Of those who borrowed money, 21% said they used a credit card (which can have a higher interest rate than federal loans) and 19% said they used a student loan from a private lender, which typically bases the rate on your finances. About 16% borrowed money from a friend or family member.

More students said they were worried about the length of time it would take them to repay their debts than those who said they were worried about being able to make the payments. Still, 32% said they were very worried their loan payments would interfere with making other financial decisions, the report said.

Quader, who took out loans for just her second year of her master’s got a job right away and was able to pay off her debt within three years — before starting her Ph.D. program. Living at home with her parents helped, she said.

For now, Quader is living off a stipend she receives for doing research at the university and her savings.

“I haven’t had to take out a loan so far. But it’s tight, for sure,” she said.

CNNMoney (New York) First published January 11, 2018: 1:10 PM ET

It’s rare that we get a female CEO.

But it’s even rarer to see another woman follow her into the C-suite.

In the history of the Fortune 500, a female-to-female CEO succession has only happened three times: in 2009, when Ursula Burns followed Anne Mulcahy at Xerox; in 2011, when Sheri McCoy took over Avon Products from Andrea Jung; and in 2017, when Debra Crew became CEO at Reynolds American, taking over from Susan Cameron.

So why is it so rare to see a woman promoted to the role after another female CEO’s departure?

Part of this, says Christy Glass, professor of sociology at Utah State University, can be blamed on the high visibility — and accompanying scrutiny — that follows women into the C-suite.

In addition to balancing so many different expectations and battling employees’ prejudices, some female leaders fear promoting women behind them could be seen as “bias” or “having a feminist agenda,” according to Glass.

“These women are extremely aware of the scrutiny they face,” Glass says. “To the extent that they become strong advocates for women, they face potential bias that they’re not as committed to the organization overall and that instead they have this equity agenda. I think it’s problematic.”

Research also shows that when a woman or minority CEO takes control of a company, white male managers may actually withhold their support from female employees, essentially weakening the pipeline of diverse talent that could one day take over.

“They face this perfection standard,” Glass says. “They have to be flawless because of the level of scrutiny, and any mistakes are not only blamed on them, but sometimes blamed on women generally … I think it’s really difficult for those high-profile women to really be vocal advocates of other women. I think they’re in a double bind.”

Asking the wrong question

People are approaching this problem from the wrong angle, says Heather Foust-Cummings, senior vice president of research at Catalyst, a non-profit studying women and work.

“I think it’s a far more compelling question — and it gets more to the root of what I think the real problem is — if we ask ‘Why is it that men are not developing succession planning and placing women in the CEO seat?'” she says.

And in many companies, female CEOs aren’t even the ones preparing succession plans. Instead, that work falls to the board of directors — many of which struggle with their own lack of diversity.

“One thing we heard from a lot of our respondents is that board diversity really matters,” Glass says. “It mattered for their promotion and it mattered for equity overall.”

In expecting female CEOs to be the only ones who tap women, Foust-Cummings says, we’re only perpetuating the stereotypes female CEOs already battle.

“It’s really difficult when a woman CEO is being held to all these standards that the men are held to, and then, on top of that, essentially we’re asking them to be responsible for carrying an entire gender with them,” she says. “They’re the ones who are supposed to promote and develop and have women succeed them — but we’re not asking the same of men.”

CNNMoney (New York) First published August 16, 2018: 11:45 AM ET

I would like to buy an immediate annuity, but I want to know that I’m getting one from a reliable company. How can I do that?—David H.

Assuming you’ve already determined that putting some of your nest egg into an immediate annuity makes sense, you’re absolutely right to want to be sure you’re dealing with an insurance company that’s financially sound. But while identifying a reliable insurer is a good start when converting savings to guaranteed retirement income, it’s only that — a good start.

Which is why if you really want to ensure that the portion of your savings you “annuitize” will be able to generate income you can count on no matter how long you live and regardless of how the financial markets perform, you should consider taking the following four steps:

When you buy an immediate annuity, you’re essentially buying an insurer’s promise to provide you with guaranteed income for life. So while you certainly want to choose an annuity that offers a competitive payout, you also want to choose one that’s issued by an insurance company that has the financial wherewithal to back up its commitment to deliver that income.

But unless you also happen to be a financial analyst, sussing out which insurers are best positioned to do that is likely more than you can manage on your own. Fortunately there’s an easier way: limit yourself to insurance companies that receive high financial strength ratings — I’d generally say A+ or better — from ratings firms like A.M. Best and Standard & Poor’s.

To be sure, there’s no guarantee that an insurance company’s rating won’t slip over time. But when it comes to buying income you’ll be counting on for decades to come, it’s just common sense to go with insurers that ratings firms have judged as having greater resources and flexibility to meet their financial obligations than their lower-rated peers.

You can get an idea of how much immediate annuities are paying in general — as well as get quotes from specific insurers along with their financial strength ratings — by going to this annuity calculator.

Just as you wouldn’t put all of your money in a single stock or bond, so it makes sense to diversify the portion of your nest egg you decide to invest in an immediate annuity.

But you don’t have to spread your money among dozens of companies, as you would when investing in stocks and bonds. That would be overkill. Splitting your investment among the annuities of two or more highly rated insurers ought to give you sufficient security. The main idea, though, is that you don’t want to have all of your annuity income riding on the fortunes of just one insurance company, even if that insurer has a lofty financial strength rating.

There’s a relatively easy way to gain yet another layer of protection for your retirement income: Limit the amount you invest with any single insurer to the coverage limit offered by your state guaranty association.

Although the state insurance guaranty system operates differently than the FDIC’s federal deposit insurance program, it’s similar in that it provides a safety net of sorts for owners of insurance policies and annuities in the event an insurer becomes insolvent. The maximum amount of coverage varies by state, but ranges between $100,000 to $500,000 for annuities. (You can get details about how this system works and find the coverage limits for your state by going to the National Organization of Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Associations’ site.)

The coverage limits are per insurer, which means most people should be able to fairly easily ensure that their entire annuity investment is simultaneously covered by their state’s guaranty system as well as spread among highly rated insurers. For example, even if you plan to annuitize, say, $300,000 of savings and your state guaranty association’s coverage limit is $150,000, you could get full protection by splitting your annuity investment among two or more highly rated insurers.

The size of the annuity payment you’ll receive depends not just on your age and sex, but also on the level of interest rates when you buy. All else equal, the higher interest rates are, the higher your payment. You can’t control interest rates, or predict their path for that matter. But by buying in stages — say, annuitizing $300,000 with separate $100,000 purchases over a few years rather than investing the entire three hundred grand in one shot — you can at least diversify against the risk of putting all your money into annuities when interest rates are at a low.

There’s another reason to buy in stages rather than jumping in all at once. It’s not always obvious early in retirement how much income you’ll require to cover your expenses and how much guaranteed income, if any, you’ll want beyond what you’ll already be getting from Social Security and any pensions. By investing smaller amounts over a period of a few years, you’ll be able to periodically re-assess your spending needs and, in so doing, reduce the risk that you’ll end up with more guaranteed income than you actually need .

CNNMoney (New York) First published May 16, 2018: 10:24 AM ET

Here are two shockers: Big Oil wants to tax itself to fight climate change. And it wants the proceeds to go to American families.

Major oil companies including ExxonMobil (XOM), BP (BP), Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA) and Total (TOT) backed a carbon tax proposal on Tuesday that has been gaining traction in Washington.

Other big-name backers include billionaire former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, physicist Stephen Hawking and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.

The plan has found support after President Trump announced that he would exit the Paris climate accord, isolating the U.S. from global efforts to reduce carbon emissions and limit rising temperatures.

The Climate Leadership Council, which helped assemble the unusual coalition, ran an advertisement in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that described the proposal as “pro-environment, pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-competitiveness, pro-business and pro-national security.”

The ad also described the plan as embodying “the conservative principles of free markets and limited government.”

Here’s how the plan would work:

Companies would be taxed on the carbon dioxide generated by mining, drilling and other activities conducted in the U.S. The fee would start around $40 per ton and go up from there.

The tax proceeds would then be paid out to Americans — regardless of income level — in monthly installments through the Social Security Administration.

The Climate Leadership Council said the carbon tax could generate an estimated $2,000 for a family of four in its first year.

Companies would get a rebate when they export products abroad in order to ensure a level global playing field.

Products imported into the U.S. would also be taxed based on their carbon content. Proceeds from this “border adjustment tax” would be paid directly to Americans.

The group also suggests that some environmental regulations won’t be needed if the tax on carbon emissions is high enough.

Related: The prize for doing business better: $12 trillion

Writing in the Washington Post on Tuesday, Summers and former secretary of state George Shultz argued that the plan addresses Trump’s concerns about the Paris accord by ensuring that American firms are not put at a disadvantage. They assured skeptics that “our long experience in Washington has taught us that the transition from the inconceivable to the inevitable can sometimes be very rapid.”

The proposal is not likely to win support from all corners. The cost of the tax could be passed from companies to consumers, and some environmentalists argue that market forces are no substitute for effective regulation when it comes to reducing carbon emissions.

“ExxonMobil will try to dress this up as climate activism, but its key agenda is protecting executives from legal accountability for climate pollution and fraud,” Greenpeace campaigner Naomi Ages said.

Related: Solar energy is killing coal, despite Trump’s promises

Analysts also say the plan would be very difficult to implement.

“Viewed in glorious isolation from the rest of the world, it has a lot going for it,” said Gregor Irwin, chief economist at strategic advisory firm Global Counsel. “But as soon as you start looking at how they propose to make it work [with other parts of the world] … it becomes really complicated and really messy.”

Irwin said that it would, for example, be hard to calculate fair carbon taxes on imports ranging from oil to cars to semiconductors.

The plan also requires political backing and federal legislation, a process that could take years.

“It may take another presidential election for this to be fully enacted,” said Ted Halstead, who leads the Climate Leadership Council.

Halstead, who helped bring Big Oil on board, said he would like to see the U.S. government move ahead with the carbon tax, but other countries like France, China or the U.K. could take the lead instead.

“The idea could be started in any country,” he said, noting that enacting the rules in one nation could lead to a “domino effect.”

The Climate Leadership Council published a list of companies and prominent individuals who supported the carbon tax plan on Tuesday. Here are some other notable backers:

General Motors (GM)
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)
Procter & Gamble (PG)
Pepsi (PEP)
Unilever (UL)
Hedge fund titan Ray Dalio
Indian industrialist Ratan Tata

CNNMoney (London) First published June 20, 2017: 10:29 AM ET

Every summer, residents along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean coasts brace themselves for the hurricane season. An analysis of storm surges found that 6.5 million single family coastal homes are at risk from flooding during this year’s hurricane season, according to property researcher CoreLogic.

Given that oceanfront homes are among the most valuable properties along the coasts and also in the front line of incoming storms, the costs related to such flooding are also high.

Floods from storm surges represent a collective $1.5 trillion in potential reconstruction costs, CoreLogic said.

Related: For sale — dream beach homes

When tropical storms strengthen, their winds and low pressure causes water to gather. The mass of water can strike the shore and surge over low-lying lands.

Even when hurricanes are not in the highest category, storm surges can occur, warns Thomas Jeffrey, a senior hazard scientist for CoreLogic.

Related: Wilder weather, smaller losses in 2013

The forecast for this season is for slightly less storm activity than normal.

“But the early arrival of Hurricane Arthur on July 3 is an important reminder that even a low-category hurricane or a strong tropical storm can create powerful riptides, modest flooding and cause significant destruction of property,” he said.

Superstorm Sandy is a prime example. By the time it hit the Atlantic Coast in 2012, it did not even meet the strict definition of a hurricane but still managed to do an estimated $68 billion in damage from the water surge it caused along the coast line. Only Katrina, the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history, cost more.

Related: Which natural disaster is likely to destroy your home?

There are 19 states in the paths of the Atlantic and Gulf storms.

Densely populated Florida, with its shallow elevation, is most at risk. There are 2.5 million homes that could get hit with a potential damage cost of nearly $500 billion.

Other vulnerable states are Louisiana, where 750,000 homes are at risk, New York had 466,919 homes, New Jersey 445,928 and Texas 434,421.

CNNMoney (New York) First published July 10, 2014: 10:47 AM ET

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program turned 10 last year.

So far, about 7,500 people have applied to have their student loans discharged, but fewer than 1,000 are expected to qualify this year, the Department of Education has told CNNMoney.

The forgiveness program was created in 2007 under President George W. Bush. Borrowers who work for the government or a non-profit can apply to have their remaining debt wiped away after making 10 years of payments. It was meant to encourage people with student debt to remain in lower-paying jobs that serve the public — like public defenders, social workers, and Peace Corps workers.

October of 2017 was the first time anyone could have made enough monthly payments to qualify for debt forgiveness. About 7,500 people had applied for forgiveness as of January 5. But the Department of Education was “unable” to say whether any had been approved or rejected to date, a spokeswoman said in an email.

If just 1,000 are deemed eligible over the first year as the department expects, that would represent about 13% of those who have applied.

The low number is partly due to the limited pool of borrowers who were eligible for the program when it first launched, according to the Department of Education.

Dozens of borrowers have told CNNMoney they believed they were making qualified payments when they weren’t — blaming their loan servicers for providing them with misinformation. Some say they planned their careers around the program, only to learn years later that their loan payments did not qualify.

Related: Borrowers sue over Public Service Loan Forgiveness program

To qualify, a borrower must have a federal loan from the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program, as well as be enrolled in an income-based repayment plan.

But in 2007, an estimated 25% of the total federal loan portfolio consisted of Direct loans, the spokeswoman said. Most borrowers at that time had loans from the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program. There were also fewer qualifying repayment plans at that time.

Since then, the government has ended making new loans from the FFEL program and most borrowers have Direct loans instead.

Borrowers with older FFEL loans aren’t completely out of luck. They can ask their loan servicer to consolidate their loans into a Direct loan, making them eligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. The catch, though, is that no previous payments will count toward the 10 years of payments needed before debt is canceled.

While the Direct program was available at the time the forgiveness program began, the consolidation process could delay some borrowers from taking advantage of it right away. People have also reported experiencing delays with loan servicers while they certify their income each year for the purpose of remaining in an income-based repayment program, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has said.

Related: She thought her loans were forgiven. They weren’t

A handful of borrowers have filed lawsuits against their loan servicers over the matter.

Amanda Lawson-Ross, a counselor at the University of Florida, believed she had made four years of qualifying payments when a service representative told her otherwise. Now, she has to consolidate her loans into the Direct program and start all over.

Part of the problem is that there was no formal process in place for borrowers to find out if they qualified when the program launched in 2007 — leaving them to rely on what their servicer told them. An employer certification form was eventually made available in 2012, but borrowers are not required to submit it prior to making all the payments.

Currently, the Department of Education recommends that those who want to take advantage of the forgiveness program submit the employer form as soon as they can. It will confirm whether they have the right type of loan and if their employer qualifies. As of January 5, about 800,000 borrowers had submitted at least one employer certification form.

Related: Betsy DeVos limits debt relief for defrauded students

Once someone makes all 10 years’ worth of payments, they then must submit an application for forgiveness.

The Trump administration has proposed ending the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program for new borrowers. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that ending the program would save the government $24 billion over the next decade.

Eliminating the program would require an act of Congress, which is currently considering a rewrite of the federal law that oversees higher education. A House version of the bill would end the program for new borrowers. A Senate version is expected to be introduced this spring.

Have you received forgiveness from the public service program? Share your story by emailing Katie.Lobosco@cnn.com.

CNNMoney (New York) First published February 2, 2018: 12:20 PM ET

Editor’s Note: This story originally published on August 17, 2018.

Chandra Kill had scheduled face-to-face interviews with 21 candidates to fill some job openings at her employment screening firm. Only 11 showed up.

“About half flaked out,” said Kill. “They seem so excited and interested, and then they don’t show up or call and you are left wondering what happened. A year or two ago it wasn’t like this.”

With the US unemployment rate at its lowest in 18 years, and more job openings than there are people looking for work, candidates are bailing on scheduled interviews. In some cases, new hires are not showing up for their first day of work.

“We are in a unique situation where there has definitely been a shift in the employment world as far as supply and demand,” said Susie Willingham, director of talent acquisition at CareHere, a health care company.

“We are all fishing from the same pond and people have choices now and have the opportunity to really explore different positions and roles and levels of compensation. And with that choice, you have people changing their minds midstream — it can be very frustrating.”

She estimated that approximately 1 in 10 candidates aren’t showing up for interviews, and that no-shows are more common among lower level roles.

To get called in for an in-person interview at Kill’s company, candidates had to go through an hour-long online assessment and a 15-minute phone interview. So they are pretty far along in the process by the time they get invited into the office for an interview.

While there’s nothing wrong with accepting another job offer, bailing on an employer without notice could have lasting effects.

“The world is small,” said Johnny Taylor, president and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management. And even if you think you don’t want to work at the company, hiring managers move around. “You are compromising yourself. You don’t know how this will show up to hurt you later.”

He added that he’s heard of a candidate being flown out for a job interview only to skip that part of the trip.

“I expect that if I send you a plane ticket and block off two hours to meet with you, you will show up.” As a result, he said some companies are having candidates agree to reimburse for travel costs if they take the trip but flake on the interview.

In an effort to curb the problem, recruiters have been changing their tactics and moving through the hiring process faster. If they have a qualified candidate that seems like a good fit, they work to get them in for an interview the next day.

To be fair, either party in the hiring process can disappear without a word. Recruiters can also fail to follow up with candidates after an initial reach out or interview, especially during times of high unemployment.

“We all need to be respectful of people’s time,” said Willingham. “We need to keep both lines of communication open and be honest with each other. It might not be the right opportunity today, but there’s no reason to burn a bridge.”