In most areas of our lives, the more information you get, and the more up-to-the-minute it is, the better we can do business and make astute decisions.  It is interesting that investing is one area where the opposite is true.

We're not talking here about the second-by-second blips on a Bloomberg terminal that traders and computer algorithms use to make quick-twitch buys and sells.  We're talking about the normal news reports, cable TV investment reports and investing articles that you're bombarded with on a daily basis.  In general, the news and data supplied by consumer journalists is almost always harmful to your financial health. 

How?  Consider profiles of mutual funds and mutual fund managers.  The quarterly profiles in Barron's and the articles in Money, Kiplinger's and the Wall Street Journal tend to focus a bright spotlight of attention on the hot funds-that is, funds that outperformed their peers (and the market) in the previous quarter.  Three months worth of track record is statistical nonsense, but the hot fund manager is interviewed with breathless deference normally given to a certified genius.  It is interesting that seldom if ever is the next quarter's genius the same as the last one.  Anyone who invests with the fund of the hour is in grave danger of suffering a regression to the mean-which means losses when compared with the indices.

Even one-year and five-year rankings have no predictive value, particularly when the focus is on outliers who were well ahead of their peers.  Meanwhile, when we aren't reading about hot managers, we're hearing about what the stock market did (or is doing) today.  Today's price movements are, to a statistician, meaningless white noise, indicative of nothing remotely significant about the future.  The markets go up today, down tomorrow, up for a week, down for a week, and during each of these time periods, analysts try to tell us the causes of these random bounces.  They would be more productively employed trying to explain the "causes"behind each of the waves in the ocean, yet we can't help listening to their plausible explanations as to why this earnings report, that jobs report, or some other speculation on what the Federal Reserve Board will or will not do has affected our investment outlook.

And, of course, at market tops, when new money is chasing returns at the most dangerous possible time, the news reports are telling us how the markets have been going up, up, up.  When markets are depressed, and it is the best possible time to put new money to work, the news reports are telling us all the bad news about months of market losses.  Swimming against that tide is nearly impossible, even for professionals.

There may be meaningful information among this chatter, but it's unlikely that most of us will see it amid the noisy background.  Back in the late 1990s, one analyst who couldn't believe how much people were paying for tech stocks finally broke through the background noise by pointing out that Amazon's share price had reached approximately the same level as the entire yearly economic output of the nation of Iceland, plus a few 747 cargo jets to carry it all back to the U.S.  Of course, few listened, and the bursting tech bubble cost a lot of investors a fortune.

Today, we're being told that the current market rally is long in the tooth, that the Fed is going to raise rates soon, that market valuations are kind of high, and of course that certain fund managers did really well last quarter and yesterday's market was up or down.  The problem is that we were hearing exactly the same things last year and the year before (remember?), and still the market churned ahead, cranking out new record highs.

Unlike just about any other activity you might pursue, the best, most astute way to invest is to turn off the noise and let the markets carry you where they must.  The short-term drops tend to become buying opportunities in the long run, and over time, the U.S. and global economies reflect the underlying growth in value generated by millions of workers who go to work each day and build that value.  Investor sentiment will swing around with the unhelpful prodding of journalists and pundits, but people who stay the course have always seen new market highs eventually, while people who react to every positive or negative report tend to fare much less well.  When it comes to the markets, wisdom trumps up-to-the-minute knowledge every time. 

Material adapted with permission of financial columnist Bob Veres.

One of the challenges of planning for retirement is that an unexpected event, like divorce, can dramatically change your retirement income needs. If you were counting on your spouse's Social Security benefits to provide some of your retirement income, what happens now that you're divorced?

What are the rules?   Even if you're divorced, you may still collect benefits on your ex-spouse's Social Security earnings record if:

• Your marriage lasted 10 years or longer
• You are age 62 or older
• Your ex-spouse is entitled to receive Social Security retirement or disability benefits, and
• The benefit you're entitled to receive based on your own earnings record is less than the benefit you would receive based on your ex-spouse's earnings record

If you've been divorced for at least two years, and the other requirements have been met, you can receive benefits on your ex-spouse's record even if he or she has not yet applied for benefits.

How much can you receive?  If you begin receiving benefits at your full retirement age (66 to 67, depending on your year of birth), your spousal benefit is equal to 50% of your ex-spouse's full retirement benefit (or disability benefit). For example, if your ex-spouse's benefit at full retirement age is $1,500, then your spousal benefit is $750. However, there are several factors that may affect how much you ultimately receive.

Are you eligible for benefits based on your own earnings record? If so, then the Social Security Administration (SSA) will pay that amount first. But if you can receive a higher benefit based on your ex-spouse's record, then you'll receive a combination of benefits that equals the higher amount.

Will you begin receiving benefits before or after your full retirement age? You can receive benefits as early as age 62, but your monthly benefit will be reduced (reduction applies whether the benefit is based on your own earnings record or on your ex-spouse's). If you decide to receive benefits later than your full retirement age, your benefit will increase by 8% for each year you wait past your full retirement age, up until age 70 (increase applies only if benefit is based on your own earnings record).

Will you work after you begin receiving benefits? If you're under full retirement age, your earnings may reduce your Social Security benefit if they are more than the annual earnings limit that applies.

Are you eligible for a pension based on work not covered by Social Security? If so, your Social Security benefit may be reduced.

Planning tip:  If you decide not to collect retirement benefits until full retirement age, you may be able to maximize your Social Security income by claiming your spousal benefit first. By opting to receive your spousal benefit at full retirement age, you can delay claiming benefits based on your own earnings record (up until age 70) in order to earn delayed retirement credits. This can boost your benefit by as much as 32%. Because deciding when to begin receiving Social Security benefits is a complicated decision and may have tax consequences, consult a professional.

It has been five years since the newspapers exploded with stories of the Greek debt crisis, which, we were told, threatened the very existence of the Eurozone.  Eventually, a variety of bailout packages were negotiated, and things seemed to return to normal.

As it turns out, the current rescue package will run out at the end of June.  The European Union finance ministers and leaders of the newly-elected Greek government appear to be far apart in their negotiations on extending the bailout.  The European Central Bank, International Monetary Fund and the European Commission have demanded that Greece institute another round of economic reforms, meaning austerity in government spending and services, higher value-added taxes, pension cuts, and a continuing decline in the Greek GDP and standard of living for ordinary citizens.  The citizens, naturally, have been reluctant to endure any more pain, and elected leaders from the Syriza Party who ran in opposition to any more austerity, promising instead to cut a better deal, spend more and generally use Keynesian economic theory to restart the economy..  The Greek government recently rehired 4,000 public sector workers in a clear display of independence from the creditor demands. 

Greece's finance minister has agreed to make the next 750 million euro loan repayment to the International Monetary Fund, which staves off immediate default.  But there is no question that the country will have to refinance 172 billion euros of debt.  No deal means default and, possibly, what people are calling a "Grexit"from the Eurozone.  You can expect to suddenly see headlines about the looming "crisis"and once again hear intimate details about the financial situation in Greece.  If the negotiations succeed, and Syriza officials win concessions, it could bolster the strong anti-austerity populist movements in Spain, Portugal and Ireland.

Should you be concerned?  If you're holding a private stash of Greek bonds, or are receiving a government pension from the nation, then you should be following these developments closely.  If not, then there is nothing about the negotiations which will change the underlying value of European stocks and bonds in most American portfolios.  The headlines could cause a selloff, particularly in the event of a Grexit, but corporate earnings and valuations will ultimately prevail, whether Greece is given a grace period, whether it remains part of the Eurozone-or not.

 Material adapted with permission of financial columnist Bob Veres.

The Internal Revenue Code says that if you receive a distribution from an IRA, you can't make a tax-free (60-day) rollover into another IRA if you've already completed a tax-free rollover within the previous one-year (12-month) period. The long-standing position of the IRS was that this rule applied separately to each IRA someone owns. In 2014, however, the Tax Court held that regardless of how many IRAs he or she owns, a taxpayer may make only one nontaxable 60-day rollover within each 12-month period.

The IRS announced that it would follow the Tax Court's decision, but that the revised rule would not apply to any rollover involving an IRA distribution that occurred before January 1, 2015. The IRS recently issued further guidance on how the revised one-rollover-per-year limit is to be applied. Most importantly, the IRS has clarified that:

• All IRAs, including traditional, Roth, SEP, and SIMPLE IRAs, are aggregated and treated as one IRA when applying the new rule. For example, if you make a 60-day rollover from a Roth IRA to the same or another Roth IRA, you will be precluded from making a 60-day rollover from any other IRA--including traditional IRAs--within 12 months. The converse is also true--a 60-day rollover from a traditional IRA to the same or another traditional IRA will preclude you from making a 60-day rollover from one Roth IRA to another Roth IRA.
• The exclusion for 2014 distributions is not absolute. While you can generally ignore rollovers of 2014 distributions when determining whether a 2015 rollover violates the new one-rollover-per-year limit, this special transition rule will NOT apply if the 2015 rollover is from the same IRA that either made, or received, the 2014 rollover.

In general, it's best to avoid 60-day rollovers if possible. Use direct (trustee-to-trustee) transfers--as opposed to 60-day rollovers--between IRAs, as direct transfers aren't subject to the one-rollover-per-year limit. The tax consequences of making a mistake can be significant--a failed rollover will be treated as a taxable distribution (with potential early-distribution penalties if you're not yet 59½) and a potential excess contribution to the receiving IRA.