Zimbabwe Moves to Set Up Interim Govt as Mugabe is Apparently Ousted

•  Nigeria, UK, US others call for calm, respect for Zimbabwe’s constitution

Okechukwu Uwaezuoke, Tobi Soniyi in Lagos and Omololu Ogunmade in Abuja

With the Zimbabwean military insisting that its intervention in the southern African country’s politics Wednesday was not a military coup d’état, indications were that the troubled nation might be exploring an interim administration as an option out of the apparent political logjam.

The military had rolled out the tanks in the early hours of Wednesday, placing President Robert Mugabe and his wife, Grace, under house arrest in an apparent forceful takeover of government that was greeted by muted reactions from the globe’s leaders and international organisations.

President Muhammadu Buhari led the pack in urging caution, calling for calm, peace and respect for the constitution of Zimbabwe.

The governments of the United Kingdom, United States, China and South Africa were similarly inclined with the United Nations (UN), European Union (EU) and African Union (AU) urging an amicable resolution of the impasse.
Perhaps aware of the substantive objection of the world order to unconstitutional takeover of government and the abiding commitment to democratic rule, Zimbabwean military leaders have been strident in their claim that their action was not a coup.

“We assure the world that this is not a military takeover of government,” an army spokesman said in a televised statement on state television network, adding: “We are only targeting criminals around him (President Mugabe) who are committing crimes that are causing social and economic suffering in the country in order to bring them to justice. As soon as we have accomplish our mission we expect that the situation will return to normalcy.”

Addressing Mugabe as the president and commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, the military spokesman gave assurances that the president and his wife were safe and sound and that their security were guaranteed.

Although the military spokesman did not give details of how the soldiers would carry out their mission, informed analysts warned Wednesday that the military itself might have been sharply divided, leaving the country with no other option than an interim arrangement that would be based on a power sharing arrangement between the emerging contending forces.

Zimbabwe slipped into the current impasse, following the sacking of Vice-President Emmerson Mnangagwa by Mugabe in what many opposition politicians see as concealed move by the president to position his wife to take over power in 2018.

The sack immediately attracted a threat by the head of the Armed Forces of Zimbabwe, General Constantino Chiwenga, warning that the military would not hesitate to step in if the issue had to do with protecting the revolution.
Mnangagwa, a veteran of the liberation wars that won independence for Zimbabwe, is reportedly widely respected in the older cadre of the military while Mugabe’s wife, Grace, too is said to be popular among the youths of the ruling ZANU-PF with strong influence among younger elements in the military.

The military, therefore, would appear not unanimous, a situation that is said to be heading the nation towards an interim arrangement if the country is not to descend into chaos.

Nigeria’s President Buhari in a statement by his media adviser, Mr. Femi Adesina, urged all political and military stakeholders in Zimbabwe to avoid any action that might plunge the country into unnecessary conflict and impact negatively on the entire region.

According to Buhari, “Every attempt must be made to resolve all contentious issues by constitutional means in Zimbabwe to save the country from avoidable political instability.”

South African President Zuma also called for caution, asking Zimbabwe’s defence forces to show restraint.
He expressed hope that the military would not move and do more damage.

He said: “I am hoping that the situation is going to be controlled so peace and stability comes back to Zimbabwe.”
Zuma’s office said the South African’s president would send special envoys to Zimbabwe and Angola in the light of the unfolding situation in the Republic of Zimbabwe.

Zuma is the chairman of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) which includes Zimbabwe and 14 others.
“The President is sending the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, Ms. Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, and the Minister of State Security, Adv Bongani Bongo, to Zimbabwe to meet with President Robert Mugabe and the Zimbabwean Defence Force,” Zuma’s office said.

From Britain also came words of caution. Its Foreign Secretary, Mr. Boris Johnson, said it was crucial for Zimbabweans to refrain from violence.

According to him, “At the moment it’s very fluid and it’s hard to say exactly how this will turn out. I think the most important point to make is that everybody wants to see a stable and successful Zimbabwe. I think we’re really appealing for everybody to refrain from violence. That’s the crucial thing.”

The United States advised its citizens living in the country to “shelter in place” until further notice and urged its embassy’s staff to remain in their homes until the situation improves.

China said to be Zimbabwe’s biggest trading partner, said it was closely watching the situation and expressed the hope that the relevant parties could properly handle their internal affairs.

The UK government also asked its citizens living in Harare to remain safely at home or in their accommodation until the situation becomes clearer.

It said: “Due to the uncertain political situation in Harare, including reports of unusual military activity, we recommend British nationals currently in Harare to remain safely at home or in their accommodation until the situation becomes clearer. “

The European Union toed a similar line, calling for a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Zimbabwe.
“The recent political developments in Zimbabwe, and their spillover, including in relation to the country’s security forces, are a matter of concern,” an EU spokesperson said, adding: “We call on all the relevant players to move from confrontation to dialogue with the aim to a peaceful resolution.”

While the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres appealed for calm, non-violence and restraint, Sky News quoted an unnamed African Union (AU) spokesman as saying that the takeover in Zimbabwe had all the elements of a coup.

More specifically, however, African Union leader Alpha Conde, who is also Guinea’s president, said the AU condemned the actions of military chiefs in the southern African country, adding that they were “clearly soldiers trying to take power by force”.

“The African Union expresses its serious concern regarding the situation unfolding in Zimbabwe,” he said, before demanding “constitutional order… be restored immediately” as he called “on all stakeholders to show responsibility and restraint”.

The insurrection in Zimbabwe, which the military’s supporters called a “bloodless correction”, had effectively ended Mugabe’s 37-year long rule.

The roads leading to the main government offices, parliament and the courts in central Harare were blocked by armoured vehicles and the country’s radio station seized even as taxis ferried commuters to work nearby.

The calm atmosphere in the capital belied the tense political climate even as there was a cloud of uncertainty around the whereabouts of the 93-year-old Mugabe and his wife, although one of the coupists, Major General Sibusiso Moyo, according to AP, said they were being held by the military.

But BBC had reported South African President Jacob Zuma as saying the nonagenarian had been placed under house arrest in Harare. A statement from the South African leader’s office, according to BBC, also said that Mugabe had told Zuma in a phone call that he was fine.

There were also speculations that the military intervention might be a bid to replace Mugabe with his sacked deputy, Mnangagwa, as troops, who said they were targeting “criminals” were seen patrolling the streets of Harare.
On Monday, Chiwenga had stated his preparedness to “step in” to end a purge of Mnangagwa’s supporters. “We must remind those behind the current treacherous shenanigans that, when it comes to matters of protecting our revolution, the military will not hesitate to step in,” he was quoted by Reuters as saying.

Coming on the heels of his threat on Tuesday, four armoured tanks were seen heading towards Harare.

Touted as Mugabe’s likely successor before he was fired on November 6, the ousted Mnangagwa was a long-serving veteran of the southern African country’s liberation wars of the 1970s. His ouster was seen as a ploy to pave the way for Mugabe’s wife, Grace’s eventual succession of her husband.

Culled from Thisday

Should Retirees Use Robo Advisers?

We took four services for a test drive. Here’s how they compared.

Financial-service companies are rolling out robo-advisory products to help baby boomers produce steady streams of retirement income. Illustration: Carl Weins for The Wall Street Journal

By

Anne Tergesen

Robo-advisory services that pair algorithms with human help have long been popular with millennials because of their low fees. But as baby boomers increasingly embrace the trend, too, many companies are adding features for retirees.
These services used to focus mainly on helping clients save for financial goals such as retirement. Now, they also offer tax-efficient strategies for turning nest eggs into steady streams of retirement income, as well as recommendations on Social Security, Medicare and long-term-care insurance.
Client demographics explain the shift. Industry leader Vanguard Group says 85% of those enrolled in its $93 billion Personal Advisor Services are over age 50. Among participants in Charles Schwab Corp.’s Intelligent Advisory service, 53% are older than 55.
“Eighty percent of investible assets are held by people 50 and over,” says Matt Fellowes, chief executive of United Income Inc., a new service backed by investors including Morningstar Inc. that focuses on people ages 50 to 70.

To see what people in or near retirement can get from a robo-type service, we test drove offerings from Vanguard, Schwab, United Income and Betterment LLC—with the firms’ knowledge and support—using data from “Ellen and Greg,” a hypothetical 65-year-old couple in suburban New York who are about to retire.
We answered questions about the couple’s annual income ($300,000), after-tax spending ($126,000), savings ($2 million), and desire to sell their $1.5 million home to buy a $1.75 million Manhattan apartment.
The process took from 10 to 45 minutes, depending on whether we let the services estimate the couple’s spending or took the time to manually enter details including their budget.
Using screen-sharing technology, we spent about an hour with advisers at each firm. We got answers to key questions, including whether the couple can afford to retire, when they should claim Social Security, and how they should allocate their investment portfolio.
While we were impressed with much of the advice overall, we found some important differences between the services.
Here are our reviews:

Betterment Premium

Price: 0.4% (with no fees on balances above $2 million), plus investment fees of 0.07% to 0.16%.
Minimum investment: $100,000
Review: Our adviser, Garrett Oakley, said Ellen and Greg have a 97% chance of being able to maintain their desired spending until age 90—Betterment’s default life expectancy—even after using the proceeds from selling their $1.5 million home, plus $400,000 in savings, to purchase a $1.75 million apartment. (The $400,000 would cover the difference in price, plus capital-gains taxes and transaction fees on the home sale.)
Still, to minimize the drain on savings and find a way to pay for long-term-care insurance, Mr. Oakley advised Ellen and Greg to purchase a slightly cheaper apartment.
For new Medicare enrollees, Betterment often recommends traditional Medicare plus a Part D prescription-drug plan and a supplemental “Medigap” plan. Although the alternative, private Medicare Advantage—which operates like a health-maintenance or preferred-provider organization—often has lower premiums, it can expose participants to higher out-of-pocket costs if they go outside a plan’s network, Mr. Oakley said.
Betterment recommended that Ellen and Greg invest 56% in stocks and 44% in bonds at the beginning of retirement and scale back to 30% in stocks and 70% in bonds over time.
Pro: The program includes tools that estimate expenses based on a client’s ZIP Code and income and can link to a client’s Social Security benefits statement.
We appreciated the guidance with Medicare.
Con: Betterment’s default is to assume clients claim Social Security when they retire rather than recommending claiming dates that are likely to produce the highest cumulative lifetime benefits.

Schwab Intelligent Advisory

Price: 0.28% (with payments capped at $3,600 a year), plus investment fees of 0.07% to 0.22%.
Minimum investment: $25,000
Review: Our adviser, Andrew Porter, ran through a checklist of questions and told Greg and Ellen to review their will and monthly budget, obtain quotes for long-term-care insurance, and set up an emergency fund to cover three to six months of expenses, tasks the other advisers addressed as well. Mr. Porter raised Ellen’s life expectancy to age 96 from the program’s default age for women of 93, due to her family’s longevity.
Schwab gave our couple a 45% chance of having enough to buy the apartment and maintain their spending in retirement through age 91 for Greg and age 96 for Ellen. The problem, Mr. Porter said, is that after selling their $1.5 million home to pay for a $1.75 million apartment, they will have to withdraw $600,000 from their savings to cover the price difference, plus capital-gains taxes and transaction fees on the home sale.
To boost their odds of success, Ellen and Greg should reduce their budget by $1,700 a month or buy a cheaper apartment, Mr. Porter said.
Mr. Porter recommended a portfolio of bonds, dividend-paying stocks, real-estate investment trusts and other income-producing investments from firms including Vanguard, Schwab and BlackRock Inc.
Pro: The program is easy to use. It lets users drag-and-drop pictures of goals (“new home,” “travel”) into their financial plan and assess the impact of reducing spending, working longer or saving more. It also offers a choice between a 10-minute “express” sign up and a more detailed 45-minute version.
Users don’t have to decide whether to become a client until the financial-planning process is complete.
Con: Schwab recommended a 12% allocation to cash—which was much higher than what the other services advised and could be a drag on returns in a rising market. (Its other recommendations: 54% in stocks, 29% in bonds, 5% in commodities.)
A Schwab spokesman said “cash is an important asset class in a diversified portfolio” and is something “most investors care about,” especially when in or near retirement.
Mr. Porter instructed Greg and Ellen to enroll in Medicare as soon as possible. We were hoping for more detailed guidance on navigating the choice between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare—guidance Schwab says its advisers are able to provide.
Schwab’s default assumption is that investors will claim Social Security at full retirement age. The company, however, says its advisers can identify claiming dates designed to produce the highest cumulative lifetime benefits.

United Income

Price: 0.5% to 0.8% (with discounts for accounts valued at more than $500,000), plus investment fees of 0.1% to 0.25%.
Minimum investment: Financial plans and Social Security advice are free; $10,000 for those services plus investment management; $300,000 for everything in the lower tiers plus a dedicated adviser.
Review: Ellen and Greg’s adviser, Ben Meirowitz, gave them a 99% chance of having enough to last until Greg is 97 and Ellen is 102, even if they buy the $1.75 million apartment. To maximize their odds, Mr. Meirowitz told them to delay claiming Social Security until 70 and live on IRA withdrawals in the meantime.
United Income recommended that the couple invest the money they will need for essentials, such as food and housing, more conservatively than the money they will need for luxuries and health care.
To project the couple’s future spending, the company used results from a national study that finds, for example, that higher-income clients face smaller annual increases in health-care costs.
United Income avoids long-term-care insurance because it believes the market is unstable. To cover those costs, Mr. Meirowitz suggested Ellen and Greg invest money earmarked for health care more heavily in stocks, which have higher potential returns.
When designing portfolios, United Income estimates the lifetime value of clients’ Social Security benefits and—because those benefits are guaranteed—adds them to the bond side of the portfolio. To balance out that higher bond allocation, United Income advised the couple to put 65% of their investment portfolio in stocks.
Pro: For clients who pay 0.8% a year, United Income takes on such tedious tasks as filing for Social Security and Medicare, something the other services don’t offer.
The company assigns clients willing to pay 0.8% a year to a specific adviser.
You can create and update a financial plan and talk to an adviser up to four times without becoming a client.
Con: Unlike the other services, United Income doesn’t allow clients to link their bank and other financial accounts to its software, so either the adviser or the client must periodically update those values manually.

Vanguard Personal Advisor Services

Price: 0.3%, plus investment fees that range from 0.04% to 0.12%
Minimum investment: $50,000
Review: Our adviser, who identified himself only as Bryan, gave Greg and Ellen a 94% chance of success, assuming both live to 100. That’s premised on the idea that Ellen and Greg can spend slightly more than the annual amount they will need from their portfolio to supplement Social Security when the markets do well, but will have to cut back a bit when stocks decline.
Vanguard recommended 60% in stocks and 40% in bonds. The adviser suggested replacing non-Vanguard with Vanguard funds in tax-deferred accounts, but maintaining the status quo in taxable accounts to avoid triggering capital-gains tax bills. (Vanguard says clients who want to retain existing funds can do so.)
To maximize the couple’s lifetime Social Security benefits, Bryan advised the lower earner, Greg, to file at 66, so Ellen can claim a spousal benefit while delaying her own benefit until age 70.
Pro: Users don’t have to decide whether to become a client until after they review the financial plan.
Vanguard assigns clients with $500,000 or more to a dedicated adviser
Con: None that were immediately apparent.
It’s important to note that robo-advisory services aren’t for everyone. People with complicated needs or who need or want a lot of hand-holding may be better off with independent advisers.
Yahoo finance