If you’re driving a small SUV, chances are that your headlights are pretty crummy.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tested the headlights on 21 small SUVs, and not one earned the top rating of Good for lighting performance. Only four were even rated Acceptable.

Headlight performance is critical because, according the Institute, about half of traffic deaths occur at night or during the low-light hours of dawn or dusk. The report adds that headlights are often overlooked in favor of “jazzier high-tech crash avoidance features.”

Headlights in luxury cars rated no better than mainstream models, according to the Institute. Even high-tech headlights, like the adaptive ones that turn along with the front wheels, offered no guarantee of better performance.

The only four small SUVs to earn Acceptable ratings were the Honda (HMC) CR-V, Mazda (MZDAF) CX-3, Hyundai (HYMTF) Tucson and the 2017 model year Ford (F) Escape.

And even these Acceptable ratings only apply to specific versions of these models. For example, the rating applies only to the Limited version of the Hyundai Tucson. Other versions of the Tucson have headlights that rated Poor.

Among the dozen SUVs that earned a Poor rating were the Audi (VLKPY) Q3, Buick (GM) Encore, Honda HR-V and Subaru (FUJHY) Forester. And none of those 12 models even offer better headlights as an option. The HR-V had the worst headlights out of all of them.

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, which makes Fiat and Jeep vehicles, Nissan and Honda all pointed out that their headlights meet or exceed all applicable safety standards. Kia and General Motors (GM) declined to comment.

The Insurance Institute tested headlights at night on a test track. The lights were tested on straightaways as well as on left-hand and right-hand curves.

Researchers tested how far the SUVs lights traveled, as well as whether oncoming vehicles experienced excessive glare.

“SUV headlights are mounted higher than car headlights, so they generally should be aimed lower,” said Insurance Institute Senior Research Engineer Matthew Brumbelow. “Instead, many of them are aimed higher than the car headlights we’ve tested so far.”

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a private group financed by auto insurers. It conducts its own crash tests and other safety tests that are different from those conducted by the federal government’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

CNNMoney (New York) First published July 12, 2016: 12:01 AM ET

Confused by your college financial aid letter? It’s not your fault.

Many of them are missing important information, use jargon or acronyms, and don’t differentiate between scholarships and loans, according to a new report from think tank NewAmerica and uAspire, a nonprofit that advises students on the financial aid process.

The report, which looked at letters from 900 schools, showed 36% of award letters didn’t state how much a student will actually have to pay.

Financial aid letters are usually sent to students in the spring to tell them what scholarships and grants they’ll receive for the upcoming school year. But the confusion makes it difficult for families to financially prepare when they may have to choose a college before seeing a final bill.

“Students and families confront a detrimental lack of information and transparency when making one of the biggest financial decisions of their lives: paying for college,” the researchers wrote.

Related: How much should you pay for college?

Since there’s no national standard, it’s hard to compare offers from different schools.

When costs were calculated, the report found that 23 different formulas were used. For example, one college may include loans (money you have to pay back) in the calculation while another may not. And schools may or may not factor in things like housing, meals and books.

What might appear to be the cheaper school may actually end up costing more money.

To get a clearer picture of your options, try calculating the cost on your own. This online calculator designed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau might help.

Here are some terms you need to know before you start.

A Pell Grant is federal money awarded to some low-income students, based on family income and other information listed on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form.

Pell Grants — and grants in general — do not need to be repaid. But you might not get the same award the following year. States and colleges may also offer separate grants to students.

Related: Will saving for college reduce your financial aid?

The SEOG is another type of grant awarded by the federal government to students from low-income families. Like a Pell Grant, you do not have to pay back the SEOG, and you must submit the FAFSA form to be eligible.

If work-study money is listed in the financial aid award, a student can get a part-time job on campus and be paid up to the amount awarded. You don’t have to pay this money back, but you do have to find the job and work enough hours to be paid the full amount.

Related: Women hold two-thirds of all student debt

This is a loan from the federal government. Usually, you must start repaying it six months after leaving school. (If it’s unsubsidized, interest will start accruing immediately. If it’s subsidized, the government will pay the interest accrued while you were in school.)

The report found 136 different variations of the name of a Direct Loan were used among letters from 455 colleges that included them. And 24 of the variations did not use the word “loan.” They are also known as William D. Ford Direct Loans.

PLUS loans are also federal loans, but they are taken out in a parent’s name. While a financial aid letter may include them in the package, parents must apply for them separately and could be denied if they have an adverse credit history.

If this is listed in your letter, it is usually calculated by the college using information from the FAFSA. It’s the amount the college expects your family to be able to pay for the upcoming year. But it may not be what you actually owe, depending on whether the college offers enough aid to fill in the gap. You could end up owing more — or less.

CNNMoney (New York) First published June 7, 2018: 11:50 AM ET

BRIC investing has officially fallen out of favor.

Goldman Sachs (GS)‘ asset management business has killed off its BRIC fund, concluding that it would not “experience significant asset growth in the foreseeable future.”

The powerful investment bank was the original champion of investing in Brazil, Russia, India and China, which became known as BRIC nations.

Goldman’s former chairman Jim O’Neill coined the “BRIC” acronym in 2001 and brought the world’s attention to strong growth potential in these large emerging markets. The acronym was later expanded to BRICS to include South Africa.

However, the promise of BRIC countries has faded as Brazil’s economy slumps, Russia struggles with low oil prices and international sanctions, and China’s economy slows after previously posting double-digit growth figures.

Goldman’s BRIC fund was created in June 2006 and experienced wild swings during the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009.

An official filing shows that it averaged a measly 3% average annual return and underperformed the MSCI BRIC index.

Goldman warned in September that it planned to fold the BRIC fund into a more diversified emerging market fund on Oct. 23.

Even though the BRIC era appears to be over, Goldman Sachs said it’s not time to give up on all emerging markets.

“Over the last decade emerging market investing has evolved from being tactical and opportunistic to being a strategic part of most asset allocations,” said Andrew Williams, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs. “We continue to recommend that our clients have exposure to emerging markets across asset classes as part of their strategic asset allocation.”

An October report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies questioned whether the BRICS still matter, arguing that “the foundation of the BRICS concept is beginning to crumble.”

“Conflicting interests and the indisputable political, social, and cultural differences among the group’s members have kept the BRICS from translating their economic force into collective political power on the global stage,” the report said. “And with economic prospects decreasingly promising, the notion of the BRICS as a political project seems too fragile to stand on its own.”

CNNMoney (London) First published November 9, 2015: 8:57 AM ET

Investors should be focusing on Tesla’s growing sales and ambitious plans to reinvent the American automotive world.

They should be salivating over its exciting plans for semi trucks for big corporate fleets and its alternative energy initiatives. And they should be reassured by analysts’ predictions that Tesla will report a profit in the fourth quarter and a full year of profitability in 2019.

Instead, they are watching CEO Elon Musk smoke a blunt with Joe Rogan.

They’re looking at an easy punchline for comedians, a man who’s become a walking Page Six item.

They’re seeing rapper Azealia Banks’ bizarre Instagram posts alleging that she was in Musk’s house while he tweeted on acid, reading him tearfully talking to the New York Times about his Ambien use and making baseless accusations about a diver in the Thai cave rescue.

It’s an even bigger problem considering the brain drain that’s now going on at Tesla. Chief accounting officer Dave Morton is leaving Tesla after just a month on the job, citing concerns about “the level of public attention placed on the company.”

And in an email to employees Friday, Musk said chief people officer Gaby Toledano was extending her leave of absence to “spend more time with her family and has decided to continue doing so for personal reasons.”

All of this wackiness is taking its toll on Tesla’s (TSLA) stock. Shares fell about 6% Friday. They are now down more than 15% this year and are more than 30% below the all-time high they hit last year.

The Musk circus is a problem for Wall Street.

“Musk is not going to be conventional. Breaking the mold is part of his PR strategy,” wrote Loup Ventures analyst Gene Munster in a blog post Friday.

Munster added that he suspects Tesla’s board is trying to put controls in place to limit Musk’s outlandish behavior. But he says it’s clear Musk has a different plan. And that’s a big problem.

“At times, Musk appears to be working against himself,” Munster wrote. “At the core, we believe he wants to prove his doubters wrong, but many of his actions strengthen the case against him.”

Musk should delete his Twitter account, stop talking about the Thai rescuer and not use pot in a public setting, Munster said.

He may need to do even more than that. To paraphrase George Washington in the hit musical “Hamilton,” Tesla is a powder keg about to explode and Musk needs another person to help him lighten the load. Tesla has to hire a chief operating officer.

Yes, Musk may be difficult to work with. But another company he runs, SpaceX, has a highly regarded COO in Gwynne Shotwell.

Shotwell has worked at SpaceX since 2002 and was one of the firm’s first employees. She was named president and COO in late 2008. So it’s clearly not impossible to get along with Musk for a long period of time in a professional setting.

And you don’t hear stories about how Musk is sleeping at SpaceX. He’s only doing that at Tesla. Maybe if he had someone like Shotwell to help him out, he’d be able to catch a few more zzzs. Tesla investors would certainly sleep a heck of a lot easier too.

CNNMoney (New York) First published September 8, 2018: 8:22 AM ET

Running out of money in retirement is a huge concern. And given that a large number of workers in their 50s and 60s are behind on savings, it’s a clear source of stress for those who don’t feel adequately prepared.

The good news is that there are several tactics you might employ to boost your retirement income, and a popular one is increasing your savings rate during the tail end of your working years. But if you’re wondering how to most effectively raise your retirement income, the answer might boil down to working longer.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, working a few extra years has a much bigger impact on boosting retirement income for older workers than increasing retirement plan contributions during their last decade of work. And that’s reason enough to consider extending your career.

There are several benefits associated with working longer that make it a solid strategy for boosting retirement income. For one thing, the longer you work, the more opportunity you have to contribute to your nest egg. Currently, adults 50 and over can contribute up to $24,500 annually to a 401(k) and $6,500 to an IRA.

So imagine you’re 67 and want to retire, but instead, you extend your career by three years and max out a 401(k) during that time. In doing so, you’ll add $77,200 to your nest egg if your investments deliver a relatively conservative 5% return. And chances are, that’s a more effective tactic than simply boosting your savings rate during the tail end of your career.

But let’s run some numbers to compare. Imagine your plan has always been to retire at 67, so beginning at age 57, you increase your retirement plan contributions by $200 a month for the next 10 years. If your investments deliver a 7% return during that period (keeping in mind that you can invest more aggressively when your savings window is longer), you’ll add about $33,200 more to your nest egg, and that’s certainly helpful. But as you can see, working three extra years and maxing out a 401(k) will have a much better result, as you’re coming out $44,000 ahead. (And you should, in theory, have no problem maxing out at a time when you were ready to pull the trigger on retirement anyway.)

Related: More on retirement planning

This is just a single scenario, and there are countless ones to play around with. The point, however, is that if you’re looking to boost your retirement income, working longer may be a better way to get there than retiring on time and increasing your savings rate during the latter part of your career.

Of course, there are other factors at play that make working longer a more effective choice. When you put in a few extra years in the workforce, you get to not only keep funding your nest egg, but also hold off on withdrawing from your savings, thereby giving your money additional time to grow. Furthermore, working longer might allow you to boost your Social Security benefits, thereby securing a higher income stream for life.

For each year you hold off on taking benefits past your full retirement age, as determined by the Social Security Administration, you’ll snag an 8% boost on your Social Security payments that will remain in effect for as long as you collect them. So let’s say your full retirement age is 67, at which point you’d get $1,400 a month in benefits (which is roughly what the average recipient collects today). Working until age 70 will increase your monthly payments to $1,736. Over a 20-year retirement, that’s an additional $80,640 in income.

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

If you’re willing to extend your career by even a few years, the impact on your retirement income could be substantial. And, as an added perk, data from Oregon State University has shown that working longer could lead to a longer life. Of course, the longer you live, the more money you’ll need in retirement, but at least that’s a pretty good problem to have.

CNNMoney (New York) First published August 7, 2018: 10:02 AM ET

President Trump has hailed the GOP tax plan as a “giant tax cut” for the middle class. While many people will pay less tax in the next few years, just how much less will vary greatly.

Plus, some individuals will end up paying even more.

How do you know where you’ll fall?

Just like under today’s code, many factors will determine what your tax burden will be.

Your marital status, how many kids you have, how you make a living, where you live, which tax breaks you ordinarily take, plus other elements will affect the changes you’d see in your tax bill if the GOP plan becomes law.

The Tax Institute at H&R Block ran a number of scenarios for filers in different situations to give a more specific gauge of where you might stand in 2018 if you’re a wage earner.

In the next several years, plenty of filers are likely to see a tax cut of some kind, although not everyone will be quite so lucky.

But the story will change as the decade rolls on because individual tax cuts would expire after 2025.

Related: What’s in the GOP’s final tax plan

Here’s just a sampling of how people in different situations may fare next year.

Keep in mind, these scenarios do not delve into the more complex provisions of the Republican plan that, for instance, taxes a filer’s business income at a lower rate than their wage income. Much more needs to be unpacked by experts as to how that will play out for different filers.

Nor do they take into account the potential effects of other provisions in the tax bill — such as eliminating the penalty for not buying health insurance — or any future spending cuts that may be made to help offset the cost of the tax bill.

— $150,000 income
— Married couple with two children under 17
— Homeowners
— Itemized deductions today total $22,000 ($7,000 state/local income tax; $5,000 property tax; $8,000 mortgage interest; $2,000 charitable contributions)

The family would save an estimated $3,559 in federal income taxes: They would no longer itemize, opting instead to take the nearly doubled $24,000 standard deduction for joint filers. Their top tax rate would drop to 22% from 25% today. And they would become newly eligible to take the expanded Child Tax Credit ($2,000 per child).

Related: See new tax brackets for 2018 under today’s law vs. GOP tax plan

The Tax Institute ran another example of a married couple in Houston — with three kids under 17 — also making $150,000 and found they’d save a little more ($3,771) on their tax bill for the same reasons.

— $45,000 income
— Single parent with two children under 17
— Renter
— Takes standard deduction today of $9,550

The family would save an estimated $1,802 in federal income taxes: The standard deduction for heads of households nearly doubles to $18,000. The family’s top tax rate of 15% falls to 12%. And the child tax credit is doubled to $2,000 per child.

The Tax Institute ran another scenario of a single parent with three kids under 17 in Los Angeles making $75,000. That family would save $2,560 for the same reasons.

Single person in Queens, N.Y.

— $120,000 income
— No kids
— Homeowner (co-op)
— Itemized deductions totaling $22,500 ($10,000 state/local income tax; $5,000 property tax; $6,000 mortgage interest; $1,500 charitable contributions)

The person would save an estimated $101 in federal income taxes: While her top income tax rate would drop to 24% from 28%, the GOP bill caps her state and local tax deduction (income + property) at $10,000, which is $5,000 less than she currently takes. She would still continue to itemize under the bill because even with the $10,000 cap, her deductions combined would exceed the nearly doubled standard deduction of $12,000 for single filers.

— $70,000 income
— No kids
— Homeowner
–$10,000 in unreimbursed business expenses
— Itemized deductions totaling $19,600 ($2,500 state and local income tax; $3,500 property taxes; $5,000 in mortgage interest deduction; $8,600 in unreimbursed employee business expenses, since filers are only allowed to deduct those expenses in excess of 2% of AGI).

The person would pay an estimated $1,484 more in federal income taxes: Even though this filer’s top tax rate falls to 22% from 25% currently, he would no longer be able to deduct any unreimbursed business expenses under the GOP bill, so he would end up taking the $12,000 standard deduction instead of itemizing.

— $500,000 income
— No kids
— Homeowner
— Itemized deductions totaling $135,000 ($46,000 state/local tax; $24,000 property tax; $55,000 mortgage interest; $10,000 charitable contributions) but capped at $128,001 due to a limitation in the current code for high earners.

The person would pay an estimated $6,470 more in federal income taxes: The reason is two-fold. First, the filer’s top tax rate rises to 35% under the GOP bill, up from 28% today. And second, his state and local tax deduction is limited to $10,000, down from the $70,000 he takes currently.

CNNMoney (New York) First published December 18, 2017: 5:50 PM ET

A federal judge has ruled that Aetna wasn’t being truthful when the health insurer said last summer that its decision to pull out of most Obamacare exchanges was strictly a business decision triggered by mounting losses.

U.S. District Judge John Bates concluded this week that Aetna’s real motivation for dropping Obamacare coverage in several states was “specifically to evade judicial scrutiny” over its merger with Humana.

Aetna pulled out of Obamacare exchanges in 11 states last August, including 17 counties in Florida, Georgia and Missouri where the Department of Justice argued the merger would wipe out competition.

That decision to retreat from Obamacare came just a month after the Department of Justice blocked Aetna’s $34 billion merger with Humana on antitrust grounds.

But Bates said this week the DOJ presented “persuasive support” — including internal Aetna emails — for the conclusion that Aetna (AET) withdrew from the Obamacare exchanges in those counties “to improve its litigation position.”

“The Court does not credit the minimal efforts of Aetna executives to claim otherwise,” Bates wrote in a ruling following a trial over the merger.

He added that Aetna’s decision regarding participation in the 2017 exchanges in these counties was “in fact manipulated.”

Related: Trump and Obamacare: Where we go from here

Aetna had warned the government it may need to dump then-President Obama’s signature healthcare law if the U.S. scuttled its deal with Humana (HUM).

“It is very likely that we would need to leave the public exchange business entirely…should our deal ultimately be blocked,” Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini wrote in a letter to the DOJ last July that was obtained by the Huffington Post.

However, Bates said it’s clear that “Aetna tried to leverage its participation in the exchange for favorable treatment” from regulators.

The judge said there is “persuasive evidence” that when Aetna later withdrew from the 17 counties in question, “it did not do so for business reasons, but instead to follow through on the threat that it made earlier.”

This critique was buried in a 158-page ruling issued by Bates on Monday, in which he blocked Aetna’s merger with Humana due to anti-competitive concerns.

The ruling deals a big blow to both companies at a time of great uncertainty in the health care industry now that President Donald Trump has talked about rolling back several key provisions of Obamacare.

Aetna-Humana isn’t the only big health care merger in doubt. The DOJ also sued to block the takeover of Cigna (CI) by Blue Cross Blue Shield leader Anthem (ANTX) for anti-competitive reasons.

Aetna declined to comment on specifics of the opinion, including the criticism from Bates, because it’s still “reviewing the details.”

Related: Even as they repeal Obamacare, Republicans still have to fund it

Last summer, Aetna explained its decision to withdraw from most Obamacare exchanges by saying its individual policies business had lost $430 million since the exchanges opened in January 2014.

However, the judge noted that Aetna kept its support for exchanges in money-losing states like Delaware, Iowa and Virginia — but dumped Florida, even though that big state was projected to be profitable in 2016.

The ruling quoted an email from Christopher Ciano, president of Aetna’s Florida market, to Jonathan Mayhew, head of Aetna’s exchange business, showing how stunned he was by the decision to leave Florida.

“I just can’t make sense out of the Florida decision. Never thought we would pull the plug all together,” Ciano wrote, adding that Aetna was “making money from the on-exchange business.”

Mayhew responded by requesting to discuss by phone “instead of email.”

Bates said the response from the senior Aetna exec was an example of Aetna’s “repeated efforts to conceal a paper trail about this decision-making.”

–CNNMoney’s Tami Luhby contributed to this report

CNNMoney (New York) First published January 24, 2017: 12:36 PM ET

Discover is offering its workers a new perk: A free college degree.

Employees can choose from seven business or computer science-related bachelor’s degrees selected at three universities. Discover will cover the cost of tuition, fees and books and supplies needed to complete the program for however long it takes.

About 99% of Discover’s 16,500 workers will qualify, including full-time employees and part-time workers who work at least 30 hours a week, the company said.

The motivation behind the new benefit is two-fold, said Jon Kaplan, vice president of training and development at Discover.

One reason is to help the company recruit and retain good workers in a tight labor market. The other is to “do the right thing” by helping prepare workers for a wide range of career opportunities inside or out of the company.

“Investing in our employees and their futures will not only make us a stronger company, but have a lasting positive impact on those who might otherwise never get the chance to attend college,” Kaplan said.

Related: Walmart workers can go to college for $1 a day

As competition for good employees heats up, several companies are boosting their tuition benefits. Walmart, McDonald’s, Taco Bell, and several hotel companies have expanded their education benefits all within the past six months.

A little more than half of companies subsidized a college degree for workers in 2017, according to a survey by the Society for Human Resource Management. Many offer up to $5,250 a year because anything more is taxed as income.

But Discover, which is offering to pay the full cost of the degree, will pay the tax for the worker if their annual award exceeds that amount, Kaplan said.

An existing tuition assistance benefit at Discover covers up to $5,250 a year for a degree from any accredited college.

Related: Hotel industry wants to pay for their workers’ college degrees

Discover has partnered with Guild Education, a benefits platform, to help administer the new program. Through Guild, workers will be offered a coach who can help them with the application process as well as deciding on the appropriate degree.

Guild has helped vet the degrees Discover workers can choose from, which are offered at one of three colleges with online programs tailored to working adults: Wilmington University, Brandman University, and the University of Florida.

New hires will be eligible for the tuition benefit on the first day of work. Most Discover employees who don’t already have a college degree work in customer call centers. They are eligible, along with employees who work in Discover’s headquarters — even if they already have a college degree.

CNNMoney (New York) First published June 12, 2018: 10:39 AM ET

Wall Street banks prefer clients with millions — if not billions — to invest. Soldiers, nurses and construction workers typically aren’t anywhere near that wealthy.

That’s why a growing number of average Joes are turning to an app called Stash instead. On Stash, you can start investing with just $5. The company’s motto is “investing for real people.”

“Lots of our users start investing with less than $100. For us, that’s great because they’ve taken that first step. They’re learning,” says Brandon Krieg, co-founder and CEO of Stash.

Stash launched last fall. It already has over 150,000 users. About 10% of those are active-duty military, says Krieg. It’s a high percentage considering less than half a percent of the U.S. population overall currently serves in the armed forces.

“Stash is the solution for millions of Americans traditionally ignored or taken advantage of by big investing firms,” says Krieg. “Almost all of our customers are first-time investors.”

Related: 10 best investing apps

In addition to military personnel, the app is also popular with people who are self-employed, including Uber drivers.

Stash makes investing incredibly simple. There are only 33 investment options, which is much easier than navigating the universe of thousands of stocks and funds.

The app helps steer you in the right direction, but you still get to make the final decision. That’s different than the so-called “roboadvisor” apps like Wealthfront and Betterment, where a computer decides how to invest your money.

The co-founders of Stash wanted people to learn how to invest, not just hand over their money.

“Financial literacy in this country is a huge problem,” Krieg told CNNMoney. The Stash app is about to unveil a new feature called “learn” to help educate users even more.

Related: My job nearly drove me to commit suicide

To get going, the Stash app asks a few basic questions to determine if someone is comfortable with low, medium or high-risk investing. As you might expect, most people fall in the middle.

Stash encourages most people to put at least some of their money into the “Moderate Mix” fund. Think of it like vanilla ice cream: A very solid option that still satisfies a person’s desire to grow their money for retirement or sending a kid to college.

Users can also choose from other funds like “Internet Titans,” “Defending America,” and “Clean & Green.” These are stock funds, but the names have been translated from Wall Street jargon into normal people speak.

Stash gets high marks from users for making investing easy and accessible, but pay attention to the fees. Stash charges $1 a month. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but a user really needs to invest at least $250 or more for that level of fees to not eat up returns.

Expect even more new features and growth from Stash this fall. This week the company announced $9.25 million in a Series A funding round led by Goodwater Capital.

CNNMoney (New York) First published August 19, 2016: 1:31 PM ET