I plan to invest half of my savings in a Standard & Poor’s 500 index fund, half in a total bond market index fund, withdraw 3.5% the first year of retirement and then adjust that amount annually for inflation. Is this a low-risk way to ensure my money will last throughout a long retirement?—J.R.

I can’t guarantee that you won’t outlive your money if you follow your plan. But I do think that if you embark on retirement with your strategy and are willing to make some adjustments along the way, there’s a good chance that your nest egg will be able to sustain you throughout a post-career life of 30 or more years.

The most important thing is that you’re starting with a reasonable initial withdrawal amount. As you probably know, the 4% rule, or withdrawing 4% of the value of your savings initially and then adjusting that dollar amount annually for inflation, has long been considered the go-to strategy if you want to ensure your savings will last at least 30 years.

But with many investment pros projecting lower investment returns in the years ahead, a number of retirement experts (although not all) believe that 4% might be too ambitious, and thus some recommend starting with an initial withdrawal of around 3% or so. Your 3.5% is a bit higher than that, but it’s hardy what I’d consider profligate or imprudent.

Related: 4 tips for investing a big windfall in today’s market

As for your retirement portfolio, I don’t see anything that would raise red flags there either. A 50-50 mix of stocks and bonds should be able to generate enough growth to maintain your purchasing power while also providing a decent level of protection during market corrections and bear markets.

Just to make sure that your asset allocation jibes with your tolerance for risk, however, I suggest you take a few minutes to complete this risk tolerance-asset allocation questionnaire. If it turns out that even a 50-50 mix represents a little more risk than you’re prepared to handle, you might want to scale back your stock stake a bit. To see how your chances of depleting your nest egg too soon might vary based on different asset allocations and different withdrawal rates, you can check out this retirement income calculator.

I’d also note that, while I have no problem with the two index funds you already have, they don’t give you exposure to small-cap stocks or the international markets. I’m not saying that you’re jeopardizing your retirement if you limit yourself to these two funds. But you might consider broadening your diversification. You can do that pretty easily by adding a small-cap index fund to your portfolio or replacing your S&P 500 index fund with a total US stock market index fund (which includes small stocks) and by investing a portion of your savings in a total international stock index fund and a total international bond index fund.

You should know, however, that a retirement income plan requires more than just setting a withdrawal rate and coming up with an appropriate asset allocation for your savings. Fact is, the financial markets — not to mention your retirement income needs — can change, sometimes dramatically. So you have to be ready to make adjustments as you go along.

For example, even with the relatively modest withdrawal rate you’re contemplating, it’s possible that a meltdown in the market, especially if it occurs early in retirement, combined with withdrawals from savings could so deplete your nest egg’s value that it might have trouble recovering even after the markets rebound. The result could be that you run out of money more quickly than projected.

Conversely, if the financial markets thrive, sticking to your inflation-adjusted 3.5% withdrawal strategy could leave you with a sizable nest egg late in life, possibly even one larger than you started with. That may not seem like much of a problem, and may not be if you’d planned to leave a large legacy to your heirs. But ending up with a big pot of savings in your dotage could also mean that you could have spent more freely and enjoyed life more earlier in retirement.

Related: How should I invest my nest egg for maximum retirement Income?

So how can you mitigate the risk of running through your money too soon while not stinting unnecessarily on withdrawals and spending?

Flexibility is the key. For example, if your nest egg’s value takes a hit in a given year because the market dropped or because you had to withdraw a larger-than-scheduled amount to meet an emergency, you might forego an inflation increase or even scale back your withdrawal a bit the next year or two to give your portfolio a chance to recover. Conversely, if your nest egg’s value starts to swell because of strong investment performance, you could use that growth as an opportunity to boost spending, perhaps take an extra trip or otherwise indulge yourself.

You can get a sense of what size adjustments, if any, may be in order by periodically revisiting the retirement income calculator I mentioned above and, depending on whether the chances of your money running out are rising or falling, reduce or increase withdrawals. Alternatively, you could employ a “dynamic” approach to retirement spending like the one outlined in this Vanguard paper, which lays out a “ceiling and floor” system of boosting or paring back withdrawals within specific limits based on the prior year’s spending and your portfolio’s performance.

Or, for a different perspective on drawing down your nest egg, you could try the new LifePath Spending tool that asset manager BlackRock has recently made publicly available on its website. Unlike other tools that attempt to answer the likelihood that a given level of spending will last a specified number of years, the BlackRock tool asks your age and how much you have saved and then estimates how much you can spend year by year throughout retirement based on longevity assumptions and the firm’s forecast for market returns.

Of course, no withdrawal system can guarantee your money will last a lifetime (although, granted, if the amount you pull out each year is so small relative to the size of your nest egg, your chances of running out could be infinitesimal). But if you want to be sure that you can count on at least some guaranteed lifetime income in addition to Social Security, you can always devote a portion of your nest egg to an immediate annuity or longevity annuity, and then rely on a combination of annuity payments and withdrawals from your investment portfolio for your spending cash. If this idea appeals to you, you’ll want to make sure you know how to choose an annuity before you commit to one.

The main point, though, is that you want your nest egg to last and you want to enjoy retirement as much as possible given the resources you have, you can’t just set a withdrawal rate and put it on autopilot. You’ve got to be prepared to make adjustments in response to the shifts and changes that are a normal part of the financial markets and life.

CNNMoney (New York) First published June 6, 2018: 10:28 AM ET

In its frenzied rush to write a tax bill that could win enough votes, the Senate inadvertently weakened a powerful tool for promoting innovation.

The research and development tax credit allows companies to write off a portion of their spending on experimentation for new and better products. It’s been particularly popular with drug companies and the software industry since first being enacted in 1981.

After the credit was made permanent in 2015, the Treasury Department estimated it would cost $148 billion between 2017 and 2026, making it one of the largest tax breaks in the revenue code.

The credit survived in both the House and the Senate tax bills, which eliminated several tax breaks in order to justify lowering the corporate tax rate to 20%. And it would have continued to help corporations lower their taxes even further, but for a last-minute decision by the Senate to keep the alternative minimum tax (AMT) instead of repealing it, as conservatives have long sought.

The AMT serves as a backstop that prevents corporations from taking so many credits and deductions that they pay no tax at all. Currently, companies calculate their “regular” corporate tax rate — which tops out at 35%, minus any exemptions — and pay either that or a 20% rate on an “alternative” income formulation, whichever is higher. The Treasury’s most recent published analysis of the corporate AMT, from 2002, found that it applied to only about 13,000 businesses.

The AMT was repealed in the House’s version. But when the bill finally passed the Senate in the early hours of Saturday morning, the AMT remained in place. If it’s not removed, that could render the R&D credit moot, since more companies will have to pay a minimum tax under the AMT that can’t be lowered further by most credits or deductions.

Related: 13 ways the tax bills would affect people

“With the current proposed changes, there’s going to be more middle market companies that are going to be subject to the AMT, and would lose the ability to get R&D credits,” says Charles Goulding, CEO of a Long Island-based tax consultancy that specializes in research credits.

The snafu highlights the challenge of balancing a drive to lower overall rates with the desire to use the tax code as a carrot that rewards socially and economically beneficial behavior, like investing in research. When companies aren’t paying much in taxes in the first place, it’s more difficult to offer them incentives.

Of course, companies would still get a very large tax cut, freeing up money that could be used for research and development. But studies suggest that making it cheaper to invest in research than pay out larger dividends to shareholders, for example, leads them to innovate more than they might otherwise.

The R&D situation is less of a problem for small companies — those making less than $50 million in the past three years can still apply the R&D tax credit against the AMT. Currently, 73% of businesses who claim the R&D tax credit fall under the $50 million threshold, according to the U.S. Treasury.

But it’s still a problem for large companies, like Google (GOOG) and Intel (INTC), which account for the vast majority of the value of the credits. Caught off guard, they mobilized over the weekend to try to get the AMT taken out of the final bill.

“Retaining the AMT in reform is even more harmful than it is in its present form,” wrote the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a blog post on Monday morning. “This cannot be the intended impact from a Congress who has worked for years to enact a more globally competitive tax code.”

Related: Here’s what’s in the Senate tax bill

The AMT dust up isn’t the only way in which tax reform could hurt scientific research, however. The House and Senate bills also require research expenses to be amortized over several years, rather than deducted immediately, which draws out the benefit for those who claim the credit.

“While it is true that to some extent this is a timing issue, it is in fact a significant detriment to small companies who need the money sooner,” says Steven Miller, national director of tax at the consultancy Alliantgroup.

Tax reform could have repercussions for publicly funded research as well. Federal science funding has been declining as a share of GDP since the 1970s, and took a particularly hard hit during the recession. President Trump’s proposed “skinny budget” from the spring, which didn’t go anywhere, would have further slashed budgets for research supported by the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health.

Adding $1 trillion to the deficit won’t brighten the picture for federal science funding, says Joe Kennedy, a fellow with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a D.C.-based think tank that has pushed for the R&D tax credit to be expanded.

“I think a much much better bill could’ve been passed,” Kennedy said. “Corporate reform is so important. But is it worth introducing all these other flaws?”

CNNMoney (New York) First published December 5, 2017: 10:08 AM ET

While the Geico gecko has been busy charming us in his commercials, the company has allegedly been discriminating against low-income drivers in California.

Geico is accused of failing to offer policies that offer the minimum amount of coverage legally required to these drivers, which also happen to have the lowest premiums, according to the Consumer Federation of California.

In fact, insurance companies are required by state law to offer good drivers this option.

Geico is actually owned by Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA), which is run by Warren Buffett, a billionaire who often speaks up for the little guy.

An idea that’s been dubbed the “Buffett Rule” is that billionaires like himself should never pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle class family pays. Buffett has also advocated for a higher earned income tax credit, which helps low-income working families.

Related: The rich are 8 times likelier to graduate college than the poor

Insurance companies must offer good drivers plans with the minimum level of coverage OK’d by the state. In California the lowest coverage policy covers up to $15,000 for a single injury in an accident, $30,000 for injury to more than one person, and $5,000 for property damage.

But the Consumer Federation of California found that this policy was not being offered to some drivers in California who asked for quotes online. It charges that drivers who are single, lack a college degree, are currently uninsured, unemployed or not working an a professional job.

The group contends that it offers these individuals plan with higher limits and higher premiums.

It also claims that Geico still labels this option as a “lowest limit” coverage plan.

A majority of people already choose insurance plans that offer more than the minimum coverage, said Michael Barry at the Insurance Information Institute.

The Consumer Federation of California filed a complaint Thursday with the California Department of Insurance. Geico could not be reached for comment.

CNNMoney (New York) First published February 13, 2015: 3:32 PM ET

Some student loan borrowers will get another chance to qualify for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

Congress has set aside $350 million to help fix what lawmakers have called a “glitch” in the enrollment process.

Teachers, social workers, public defenders and others who work for the government or non-profits can qualify for student loan forgiveness after making 10 years of payments. But many who thought they were on track for forgiveness have since found out they were in a repayment plan that makes them ineligible for debt relief.

The money was included in Congress’s spending bill signed by President Donald Trump Friday. It funds the government through September.

Many student loan borrowers have claimed their loan servicers led them to believe they qualified for the program, when they actually did not.

Mike White, who works in higher education, said he was thrilled when the forgiveness program was announced in 2007. But he was recently told that none of his payments would count because he was in the wrong repayment plan. He had to switch into a new plan and start all over.

But if the new funding makes his earlier payments eligible, he could see his debt erased in three years, instead of nine.

“I’m cautiously optimistic. I’m curious to see what will really happen,” he told CNN in an email Friday.

Related: Lawsuits filed over Public Service Loan Forgiveness program

Lawmakers have blamed the problem on complex program requirements. Separate bills were introduced in the House and Senate last year to find a solution.

“Rather than let good actors slip through the cracks, we’re fighting to provide relief to all those who fulfill the spirit of the program despite paperwork errors or bureaucratic complications,” said Congressman Brendan Boyle in a statement when he introduced the original legislation in November.

Borrowers are encouraged to submit a certification form annually to make sure their employer and loan repayment plan qualify. But that form wasn’t made available until 2012, five years after the program launched.

About 740,000 people had submitted the form as of last September, but 45% haven’t made any qualifying payments, according to a Federal Student Aid document.

Related: Is anyone actually getting public service loan forgiveness?

Consumer advocates were pleasantly surprised to see the funding for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program in the spending bill.

“I think Congress is recognizing that communication was poor when it was first rolled out,” said Betsy Mayotte, the president and founder of the Institute of Student Loan Advisors.

It’s hard to say how far the $350 million will go, she said.

This is the first year borrowers would have had enough time to make 10 years of payments and receive forgiveness from the program. In January, the Department of Education said it expected fewer than 1,000 people to see their debt erased this year.

Early data suggested that many borrowers who qualify have racked up large amounts of debt after going to law or medical school.

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

To qualify, a borrower must be enrolled in one of four income-driven repayment plans offered by the government. But there are other repayment plans that also lower monthly payments. As of May 23, borrowers in those plans may now qualify for forgiveness.

But you must have already made 10 years of payments and applied to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program previously to qualify for expanded eligibility.

The funds will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. If you think you may have become eligible for forgiveness, you must email FedLoan Servicing, the company handling applications to the forgiveness program.

More information can be found on the federal student aid website here.

Related: Want student loan forgiveness? Here’s how to qualify

The expanded eligibility will not help borrowers who may have had the wrong kind of loan while in a qualifying repayment program. Only loans from the federal Direct Loan Program are eligible. Some older borrowers may have Family Federal Education Loans, which still won’t qualify.

The additional funding came as the Trump Administration has proposed killing the program for future borrowers. It’s not the only provision in the Department of Education’s proposed budget that Congress ignored. The bill also increases the maximum Pell Grant amount for low-income students and expands the federal work-study program. But it does not include the $1 billion Secretary Betsy DeVos requested for school choice programs.

Editor’s note: This story was updated on May 23, 2018 when the Department of Education released more information about how to apply under the new eligibility requirements.

CNNMoney (New York) First published March 23, 2018: 2:34 PM ET

Chinese funds just experienced the biggest exodus of money ever.

Investors abruptly pulled out nearly $7 billion from Chinese funds and ETFs over the past week, according to financial data firm EPFR.

The withdrawal comes after index provider MSCI surprised investors by announcing that it wouldn’t include shares traded in Shanghai and Shenzhen in its widely-tracked global benchmarks due to concerns over China’s market restrictions.

MSCI benchmarks help investors access a wide variety of global markets and direct billions of dollars into stock exchanges when they get the official nod of approval.

When MSCI didn’t grant its coveted approval on Wednesday, investors fled, causing the largest pull out ever in a one-week period.

Related: China stocks are still not ready for primetime

Foreign investment is still largely restricted in China, and institutional investors can only buy into the domestic stock market once licensed and approved, and are assigned specific investment quota.

Many outside investors try to access Chinese markets by investing in exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which track the performance of the wider market.

China has been working to open up its markets, introducing a pilot program last year that connects the Hong Kong and Shanghai stock exchanges to allow for cross-border trading. But critics say it’s still not enough.

Related: Chinese stocks have surged by over 100%

In total, EPFR data shows investors withdrew nearly $9.3 billion from emerging market funds in the past week, which ran from June 4 to June 10. That’s the most money to flow out of emerging markets since January 2008.

The vast majority of the money was withdrawn from Chinese ETFs.

“I wouldn’t say investors are turning cold on emerging markets. This is a one-off China event,” explained Ian Wilson, managing director of fund data at EPFR.

Related: Chinese billionaire cracked joke as his stock crashed

Stock markets in mainland China have posted some remarkable performance over the past few months as domestic investors bid shares higher.

The China Shenzhen A Share index has shot up by 122% since the start of the year, making it the best performing stock market in the world

The Shanghai Composite has gained 60% over the same period.

CNNMoney (London) First published June 12, 2015: 12:11 PM ET

Elon Musk shocked Wall Street and Silicon Valley when he tweeted Tuesday that he wanted to take Tesla private.

But can Musk really strike a deal? And what would it mean to Tesla shareholders if he succeeds?

Musk said in a series of tweets that he had the funding and investor support.

“Only reason why this is not certain is that it’s contingent on a shareholder vote,” Musk said in one tweet.

But it may not be that simple.

It would have to buy back all of its public shares.

Musk proposed an offer of $420 per share for Tesla (TSLA), or about 12% higher than where Tesla’s stock was trading late Wednesday morning. That would value the company at more than $70 billion.

Musk is Tesla’s biggest shareholder, with a nearly 20% stake.

It’s unclear who Musk secured funding from. The Financial Times reported that he met with Saudi Investors, but the company has not commented. Typically investment banks provide the huge amount of capital to take a company private. But that comes with substantial risk — and adds a huge amount of debt to a company’s balance sheet.

The next three largest shareholders — investment firms T. Rowe Price, Fidelity and Baillie Gifford — have a combined 25% stake. None of those firms would comment about Musk’s proposal, but it’s not clear that every investor would be on board. If those shareholders vote against the proposal the company would not go private.

Musk also said that shareholders would have the option of selling their stakes or retaining their shares for partial ownership of a privately held Tesla.

So that’s led to confusion about how “private” Tesla would be if it kept some of its existing investors.

Tesla’s board said in a statement Wednesday that Musk talked to board members last week about why going private would make sense and how a deal could be funded. The board said it is now taking the “appropriate next steps” to evaluate the proposal.

One Tesla shareholder said he thought a deal to take Tesla private was doable.

Ross Gerber, CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management, which owns 38,000 shares of Tesla, told CNNMoney he would hang on to his investment even if Tesla went private because he believes in its growth potential.

Gerber noted that Musk’s startup SpaceX is private, and investors — including mutual fund giant Fidelity — are given the chance every few months to cash out.

“The structure envisioned for Tesla is similar in many ways to the SpaceX structure: external shareholders and employee shareholders have an opportunity to sell or buy approximately every six months,” Musk said in an email to employees Tuesday that was published on Tesla’s corporate blog.

Not necessarily.

The company has $2.2 billion in cash and $9.5 billion in debt.

If Tesla adds to its debt load to finance a buyout, rising interest rates could make it more expensive for Tesla to make payments.

“The company can’t afford more debt,” Gerber said.

Tesla could raise funds by issuing more stock, but that would dilute the company even more and make it harder to go private.

The company also remains unprofitable and going private wouldn’t change that.

It would just allow Musk to make more investments in the company without having to worry about short-term focused investors clamoring for profits sooner rather than later.

That’s debatable. The new tax rules enacted by Congress last year could be bad news for Tesla.

The IRS now caps how much a company can deduct on interest payments for corporate debt. That’s a key reason why Michael Dell decided to list shares of Dell Technologies (DVMT) on Wall Street again after taking the company private in 2013.

Nonetheless, Gerber said that he understands why Musk wants to take Tesla private.

Musk seems tired of dealing with skeptical Wall Street analysts and short sellers who are trying to profit from declines in the stock.

One person on Twitter even mentioned Dell going private as a model for Tesla. A user named Evoto Rentals wrote “Been saying this all along. Just like Dell did. It saves a lot of headaches.”

Musk responded to that tweet with a simple, “Yes.”

If Tesla were private, short sellers would no longer have a way to make money from negative Tesla headlines. And Musk would not have to hold quarterly earnings calls and deal with questions from analysts that he finds tedious.

Musk would have a lot more freedom to invest even more in solar roofs, the Tesla Semi truck and any other new products without having to incur the wrath of investors and analysts who question the strategy.

Perhaps not. Other Tesla bulls have said in the past they have no interest in selling anytime soon.

Money manager Ron Baron told CNBC in May that “we’re going to make 20 times our money because the opportunity is so enormous” for Tesla.

Baron’s firm — Baron Capital — owns nearly 1.7 million shares of Tesla, the 13th largest stake. Baron declined to comment to CNNMoney when asked specifically about Musk’s proposal to take Tesla private.

And Gerber said he personally would rather have Tesla remain public because he thinks the stock could go much higher than $420. But even he has a price at wihch he’d cash in.

“If Musk wants to go private at $570, I would sell my stock,” he said. “I would be happy and buy a new house.”

CNNMoney (New York) First published August 8, 2018: 2:30 PM ET

How can I get down-side risk protection with robo-advisors?

Robo-advisors have remade the investing landscape: they’re simple, low cost and passive investments almost always outperform active investments over the long term.

For most people, the set-and-forget mode of passive investing will produce better results than trying to manage your own portfolio — or not investing at all. But while robo-advisors can do well with rules based on modern portfolio theory during a bull market, nailing algorithms during a correction, bear market, period of high inflation or higher-than-usual volatility can be more challenging.

“Because robo-advisors have a one-size-fits-all approach, the downside protection may be limited,” says Mark Struthers, certified financial planner and founder of Sona Financial. “They most often only use basic bond ETFs as a risk diversifier, which, given the possibility of a down equity market combined with a down bond market, may not be enough. Few robos use inflation-sensitive or interest-rate hedged assets.”

Here are some strategies to build in some risk protection, either within a robo-advsior platform or outside of it.

As interest rates rise, investors may want to augment robo-advised holdings in risk-aware investments like fixed maturity ETFs (exchange-traded funds), individual bonds, individual TIPs (treasury inflation-protected securities) or TIP-related mutual funds and ETFs to act as a diversifier, suggests Struthers.

“When you are talking risk, it becomes personal, especially the older you get,” says Struthers. He says he often sees robos use vehicles like LQD, EMB, and AGG (corporate, emerging market and aggregate bond ETFs, respectively) from iShares. “These are all fine basic bond funds but may not be enough as a risk diversifier.”

He says he appreciates the approach of Dimensional Fund Advisors for core bond holdings, because it aims to push past traditional index funds and avoid stock picking and market timing.

“I know that if there is a market dislocation they have the ability to ride it out,” Struthers says. “They don’t have to sell because the index tells them to. If you can find a core that has low-cost and some common-sense risk diversification, all the better.”

Another alternative is the Swan Defined Risk Fund, a mutual fund of ETFs that aids investors who struggle to stick with the “buy and hold” plan during headwinds and who want positive returns while minimizing the downside exposure of the equity markets, according to Sean Gillespie, registered investment adviser and co-founder of Redeployment Wealth Strategies. “You can have that downside protection built in: always fully invested and always full hedged.”

Some investment advisers say downside risk protection is antithetical to the robo model. “I don’t think you get downside protection from a robo-advisor,” said Thomas J. Duffy, a certified financial planner at Jersey Shore Financial Advisors. “Robo-advisors have come about to provide an investment experience at a steep discount to what the investment management establishment has offered,” he says. So you essentially get what you pay for, risk-protection wise.

But some, like Wealthfront, are offering services within the platform (at an added cost) to increase the risk-adjusted returns in a variety of market environments through an enhanced asset allocation strategy called risk parity.

“We are always on the lookout for academically proven, passive investment strategies that are rules-based,” says Andy Rachleff, the co-founder and CEO of Wealthfront, a robo-advisor that has $11 billion in assets under management.

Risk parity was popularized by Bridgewater Associates, the juggernaut hedge fund, and offered in the 1990’s for its institutional investors as an “all weather fund.” It’s based on research that showed specific kinds of exposure to low volatility stocks could outperform investing in high-volatility stocks.

Wealthfront brought this more sophisticated allocation strategy, once reserved for only the wealthiest, to a broader swath of investors. Those with $100,000 in taxable assets can take advantage of the risk parity investment. The expense ratio for its risk parity mutual fund is 0.25%, which was cut in half from its initial cost of .50% when it launched earlier this year.

Of course, one of the most sound hedges against downside risk when using robo-advisors is reliably old fashioned and low tech: an emergency fund.

“If someone is using a robo and they are concerned about risk, I would make sure you have a large emergency fund,” says Struthers. “Then they can hopefully ride out any downside flaw of the robos.”

CNNMoney (New York) First published September 20, 2018: 1:26 PM ET

If I just invest my money in some good low-cost mutual funds, do I really need to pay a financial adviser for help?—Daniel

The answer depends on you — but not just on your ability to pick mutual funds. Ideally, you also want to be sure you can put those funds to work in a coherent strategy to achieve your financial goals.

Let’s start, though, by taking a closer look at the specific issue of choosing funds. You say you want to invest in good funds with low costs. That makes perfect sense. But even with those two criteria (both of which, while sound, nonetheless allow lots of room for interpretation), you’d still have hundreds of funds to choose from.

There are certainly ways you can narrow down the choices. For example, you can home in on funds with below-average annual expenses and solid long-term performance by revving up to a tool like Morningstar’s Mutual Fund Screener. Or better yet, you could simply limit yourself to index funds, which not only have low costs but also track the performance of a market index or benchmark.

But even if you go the index fund route, you still have dozens of index funds to choose from, as many focus on specific segments of the market — large-stock index funds, small-cap, growth, value, short-term bonds, long-term bonds, etc. Here too, there’s an easy way for you to cut through the clutter. Focus on index funds that give you a broad swath of the market rather than a small slice of it — namely, a total US stock market index fund, a total US bond market index fund and, if you want international exposure, a total international stock index fund and a total international bond index fund.

Related: Is there a low-risk way to avoid running out of money in retirement?

You’re still not done, however. You also have to decide how much of your money to allocate to each of these funds, so you end up with a portfolio that gives you a decent shot at the returns you need without subjecting you to more risk than you can handle.

Again, this is an issue you should be able to navigate on your own, as there are relatively simple ways to figure out how to spread your money around. By spending a few minutes with this risk tolerance-asset allocation tool, for example, you can come away with a recommended mix of stocks and bonds that makes sense given, among other things, how long your money will be invested and how far you’re willing to see your portfolio’s value drop during market setbacks. Or, if you want to take an even easier approach, you could invest in a target-date fund, a type of fund that provides an entire diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds in a single fund.

All of which is to say that I think that many people can not only identify good low-cost funds on their own, but also create a diversified portfolio that achieves a reasonable trade-off between risk and return (and then maintain that trade-off through periodic rebalancing). But the question is, Are you one of those people? Building and maintaining a portfolio of funds is hardly a superhuman task. But it does require some thought, a little initial effort and then some follow-up and monitoring.

One more thing: Up to now, we’ve focused only on investing. But creating a portfolio of good low-cost funds alone won’t put you on the road to financial security. You also need to address broader issues, including how much you need to save, whether you’re on track to a secure retirement (and, if not, how to get up to speed) and, once retirement is within sight, how to come up with a viable plan to turn your savings into steady income that will support you the rest of your life.

Related: 4 tips for investing a big windfall in today’s market

Once again, these are all matters that many individuals can resolve on their own. For example, to see if you’re making adequate progress toward retirement, you can check out Fidelity’s Get Your Retirement Savings Factors tool. And if you want to gauge how much you can withdraw from your nest egg without running out of money too soon, you can go to T. Rowe Price’s Retirement Income Calculator.

This is where a realistic self-assessment comes in. You have to determine whether you’re comfortable taking on these financial issues on your own and decide if you can address them adequately. If you’re confident that you can, fine. Go for it. But it’s important that you be honest with yourself.

If you decide you’re not okay with flying solo — or at least not for now — then it probably makes sense to look for help. That doesn’t mean you have to hire someone on an ongoing basis. You could opt for an adviser who’s willing to provide advice on a specific issue — building a portfolio, investing IRA rollover money, creating a retirement income plan, whatever — for a flat or hourly fee. But whatever type of assistance you end up getting, you want to make sure you’re paying a reasonable amount and, even more important, dealing with someone who’s competent and trustworthy. Asking these five questions can help on that score.

As I’m sure you’ve gathered by now, I can give you some guidance about how to better think about the question you’ve asked and how to gauge whether you need a pro’s help. But I can’t give you a definitive answer. You’ll have to come up with that.

CNNMoney (New York) First published June 13, 2018: 10:26 AM ET

It’s better than nothing.

Lawmakers have decided not to touch a tax deduction for teachers who spend their own money on school supplies — effectively splitting the difference between competing proposals.

Currently, teachers can deduct up to $250 for classroom materials from their taxable income. It applies to both those who take the standard deduction, and to those who itemize.

That deduction won’t change if the House and Senate pass their compromise tax bill in its current form. Votes are expected next week.

Last month, the House passed a bill that would have eliminated the deduction. The Senate bill, meanwhile, would have doubled it to $500.

The tax break for educators helps offset the hundreds of dollars many teachers spend out-of-pocket each school year for supplies like paper, scissors and posters.

Teachers surveyed by education publishing company Scholastic in 2016 personally spent an average of $530 in the past year. Teachers who worked at high-poverty schools spent an average of $672.

Related: Grad students have been spared under the GOP tax plan

Sonia Smith, president of the Chesterfield Education Association in Virginia, said increasing the deduction to $500 would have been helpful.

“That’s closer to what most of my colleagues spend,” said Smith, who is a high school English teacher. “And I can tell you for an elementary school teacher, it’s far more.”

Smith said teachers have to spend their own money to decorate their classrooms, and to buy standard items like pencils, pens and highlighters.

Related: Will Obamacare survive the tax cut?

The deduction’s burden on the federal budget is limited. According to the Treasury Department, the deduction cut federal tax revenue by an estimated $200 million in the 2017 fiscal year.

Despite the tax break’s survival, the National Education Association maintains its opposition to the bill.

“Clearly, Congress heard the outcry from educators and parents when House Republicans tried to eliminate the $250 deduction for school supplies,” Lily Eskelsen García, the group’s president, said in a statement. “But the overall GOP tax bill is full of giveaways to corporations and the wealthy. It’s outrageous that working families will now have to pay that bill.”

CNNMoney (New York) First published December 15, 2017: 7:49 PM ET

Singles may have more fun, but they also pay more than their married friends for car insurance.

A single 20-year-old pays 21% more than a married 20-year-old for the same policy, a new study from InsuranceQuotes.com found.

To an insurer, it comes down to statistics — and singles get into more accidents.

Married drivers might be more cautious since they’re more likely to have kids, said Laura Adams, an analyst an InsuranceQuotes.com.

Drivers in their 20’s who are married actually get bigger discounts than married drivers in their 30’s, who only get a roughly 3% break.

Gender and age also play a big role in what drivers pay.

Men pay more than women when they’re younger. A 20-year-old man pays 22% more than a woman the same age for the same policy, the report found.

Related: Teen drivers: Buckle up and lower the volume, Dad’s monitoring you

The good news: Car insurance costs for both men and women decrease every year until age 60.

The report used data from the largest insurance carriers in each state and D.C. In its comparisons, it assumed the drivers were employed, had a bachelor’s degree, a clean driving record, an excellent credit score, and drove a 2012 sedan.

Hawaii is the only state that prohibits insurance companies from considering marital status in rate calculations. And age cannot be a factor in either Hawaii or California.

CNNMoney (New York) First published March 26, 2015: 10:05 AM ET