Helping you achieve your personal vision based upon your individual needs, goals and risk tolerance..

Randy Carver named to Forbes 2020 Best-in-State List of Top Wealth Advisors

January 21, 2020 – Randy Carver, RJFS Financial Advisor was recognized on Forbes list of Best-In-State Wealth Advisors, as one of the top advisors in Ohio. There were more than 32,000 nominations received nationwide. Randy Carver was ranked #4 out of the 120 recognized in Ohio. This is the fourth year in a row that Randy has been included on this prestigious list of top wealth advisors from national, regional and independent firms.

Click here to view the profile on the Forbes list.

The Forbes ranking of Best-In-State Wealth Advisors, developed by SHOOK Research is based on an algorithm of qualitative criteria and quantitative data. Those advisors that are considered have a minimum of 7 years of experience, and the algorithm weighs factors like revenue trends, AUM, compliance records, industry experience and those that encompass best practices in their practices and approach to working with clients. Portfolio performance is not a criteria due to varying client objectives and lack of audited data. Out of 32,000 advisors nominated by their firms, more than 4,000 received the award. This ranking is not indicative of an advisor’s future performance, is not an endorsement, and may not be representative of individual clients’ experience. Neither Raymond James nor any of its Financial Advisors or RIA firms pay a fee in exchange for this award/rating. Raymond James is not affiliated with Forbes or Shook Research, LLC.

New Bipartisan Law Encourages Retirement Saving

True bipartisan support of just about anything in Washington has become as rare as sightings of the Loch Ness monster — and almost a tale from the past. Yet on December 17th, 2019, the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act passed in the House with a 417–3 vote. Two days later, it also passed in the Senate with bipartisan support. Late in the evening on Friday, December 20th, President Trump signed the SECURE Act into law as part of the year-end appropriations package.

This is the first major retirement plan legislation since the Pension Protection Act of 2006, and it affects millions of Americans. The far-reaching bill includes significant provisions aimed at increasing access to tax-advantaged accounts and preventing older Americans from outliving their assets. Our country needed this legislation. According to GOBankingRates’ sixth annual savings survey, in 2019, 69 percent of respondents said they had less than $1,000 in a savings account.

Yet sadly, reporting of this historic bill and its bipartisan support was lost and underreported as the media chose to focus instead on partisan politics.

So what does it mean for you? The Secure ACT has 29 major provisions. Here are just a few key provisions that could have an immediate impact on you:

  1. Section 113 of the SECURE Act raises the required minimum distribution age (RMD) from 70½ to 72. This means that people can now wait to begin making their RMDs. The age 70½ was first applied in the retirement-plan context in the early 1960s and has never been adjusted to take into account increases in life expectancy.
  2. Section 106 of the new law removes the age limitation on IRA contributions. In the past, once you reached age 70½, you could no longer contribute to a traditional IRA, if working, although you could contribute to a Roth IRA. With the new law, there is no age limitation on contributing to a traditional IRA, as long as you have earned income.
  3. Section 401 of the bill reduces the “stretch IRA” provision for nonspouses. Previously, a nonspouse beneficiary could stretch payments from a retirement plan over his or her life. The SECURE Act requires a nonspouse beneficiary to draw inherited retirement plans like 401(k)s, traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs over a period no longer than 10 years.
  4. Some 401(k) plans will automatically enroll you and start deferring part of your salary unless you actively opt-out. Currently, the maximum percentage of employee compensation that may be deferred under a 401(k) plan that includes a “qualified automatic contribution arrangement” (QACA), unless the participant affirmatively elects otherwise, is 10 percent of eligible compensation. Section 101 of the SECURE Act raises this maximum to 15 percent.
  5. Currently, safe harbor 401(k) plans are required to provide an annual notice to participants apprising them of their rights and obligations under the plan, whether the employer safe harbor contribution is satisfied by a matching contribution or a nonelective (i.e., profit-sharing) contribution. Section 102 of the SECURE Act eliminates the requirement to provide such notices with respect to safe harbor 401(k) plans that satisfy the employer safe harbor contribution with nonelective contributions. The notice requirement remains in place with respect to plans that use matching contributions to meet the safe harbor requirements.
  6. Section 112 of the Act provides the ability to draw up to $5,000 from a retirement plan without penalty for the birth or adoption of a child.
  7. Section 204 creates new rules that expand lifetime income options within retirement plans, such as annuities.
  8. Section 302 allows 529 plan owners to withdraw up to $10,000 tax-free for payments toward qualified education loans. However, there is no double-dipping when it comes to federal education tax benefits. Any student loan interest paid for with tax-free 529 plan earnings is not eligible for the student loan interest deduction. Also, the $10,000 limit is a lifetime limit that applies to the 529 plan beneficiary and each of their siblings.

One important item to note is the potential impact on IRA’s with a trust named as beneficiary or a trusteed IRA. We believe it is always good practice for all beneficiary designations of retirement accounts to be periodically reviewed to see if they are still in line with your wishes.  The changes introduced by the SECURE Act make it important to review any situations where trusts are named as retirement account beneficiaries. This is something you should discuss with your estate planning attorney.

In general, trusts created to serve as the beneficiary of a retirement account are drafted in such a manner as to comply with the “see-through trust” rules which allow the trust to stretch distributions over the oldest applicable trust beneficiary. Both Conduit and Discretionary trusts could be treated unfavorably by the provisions in the SECURE Act. For instance, many Conduit Trusts are drafted in a manner that only allows for the required minimum distribution to be disbursed from an inherited IRA to the trust each year, with a corresponding requirement for that amount to be passed directly out to the trust beneficiaries. In light of the changes made by the SECURE Act, for those beneficiaries subject to the 10-Year Rule, there is only one year where there is an RMD… the 10th year! As a result of this change, Conduit Trusts drafted with this type of language may not allow distributions of the inherited account until the 10th year after death (because prior to that 10th year, any IRA distributions would be ‘voluntary’). And then, in the 10th year, the entire balance would have to come out in one year to the trust… and be passed entirely along to the trust beneficiaries (as a mandated RMD that under the Conduit provisions ‘must’ be passed through). The end result could be what would amount to a very high tax bill, as the entire value of the retirement account is lumped into a single tax year as a distribution to the beneficiary.

 Discretionary Trusts may not fare much better though, if at all. It is not yet clear whether the IRS will allow all See-Through Trusts to actually see through the trust to an Eligible Designated Beneficiary. The SECURE Act specifically provides that such trusts can (subject to certain rules) be treated as an Eligible Designated Beneficiary when the applicable trust beneficiary is a disabled or chronically ill person. The law is silent, however, as to how a trust benefiting other Eligible Designated Beneficiaries (i.e., a spouse, a minor child, or a beneficiary within 10 years of the deceased retirement owner’s age) should be treated. Thus, it remains ambiguous. Future IRS guidance will likely be needed to address this question.

Because each person’s planning needs and situation are unique, it’s important to work with your financial advisor to develop a plan that is best for you. The SECURE Act is intended to encourage Americans to save more for their own retirement. As we live longer and do more later in life, it is critical that we have the financial resources to maintain and even enhance our standard of living.

The passage of this bill serves as a reminder that bipartisan work is possible and is happening. Ultimately, the government and regulations will not make financial security a reality for us. We have to take some personal responsibility, and the end results are largely dependent on our own actions.

Please contact our team with questions or if we can help you figure out how to optimize your retirement savings and planning. It’s your vision, and we are here to help you achieve it. Please contact me, or our team, with questions or whenever we may be of service: 440-974-0808 or randy.carver@raymondjames.com.

________

The information contained in this report does not purport to be a complete description of the securities, markets, or developments referred to in this material. The information has been obtained from sources considered to be reliable, but we do not guarantee that the foregoing material is accurate or complete. Any information is not a complete summary or statement of all available data necessary for making an investment decision and does not constitute a recommendation. Any opinions are those of Randy Carver and not necessarily those of RJFS or Raymond James. Expressions of opinion are as of this date and are subject to change without notice.

Ultimate Vacation

It’s been said that retirement is the ultimate vacation. Many people spend more time researching and planning for their next vacation than they do for their retirement. There are a number of reasons for this, but one reason is that often, the process seems overwhelming. Here are five truths about retirement that can shed some light on why many people—and maybe you—put off retirement planning.

1. Retirement planning doesn’t have to be overwhelming or scary; treat it like you’re planning for a vacation, and you’ll be better off. Research shows that 39 percent of Americans spend more than five hours exploring vacation possibilities—while only 11 percent spend the same amount of time researching their 401(k) plans. In our new book, Ultimate Vacation, I walk you through retirement planning just as you would prepare for a trip: where are you now, where you want to go (and why), how you will get there, and what will you do once you’ve arrived.

2. It’s easy to think that retirement planning is all about the numbers. It’s not. If at any point you start to feel overwhelmed, remember, numbers are only one part of the picture. Understanding your numbers is just a way of helping you answer bigger, more important questions—namely, how to align your current reality to your hopes for the future. While most financial planning is investment-centric, our team focuses on each client’s individual, personal vision.

3. You’re likely putting off important decisions because of fear. Our team has heard it from more than a few clients: they put off insurance, long-term care, and estate planning because, as they say, “I worry that if I do it, I’m going to die.” It’s human to feel this way. But even if taking these steps won’t literally kill us, it will remind us of our own mortality, which is scary. The best way to live longer—and to enjoy the time you have—is to plan for the future.

4. Can the FIRE movement really help you retire by age 40? FIRE is an acronym that stands for “Financial Independence, Retire Early.” FIRE is a movement dedicated to a program of extreme savings and investment that allows proponents to retire far earlier than traditional budgets and retirement plans would allow. By dedicating up to 70 percent of their income to savings, followers of the FIRE movement may eventually be able to quit their jobs and live solely off small withdrawals from their portfolios.

But someone using this method would have to save up between 25 and 35 times his or her anticipated living expenses. On the low end, that’s more than $1.3 million, which is a pretty distant goal for most young people. To make the FIRE method work, you would need to maintain a high-paying job and live an austere lifestyle for years—or pray that you get an unexpected financial windfall. For most people, the math simply doesn’t make sense.

5. Budgeting is a lost art. In five easy steps, you can become an effective budgeter without an overwrought or complex process. A 2019 poll by Debt.com of more than 1,000 Americans revealed that precisely 67 percent of respondents had their family on a budget, down from 70 percent in 2018.

Many people either don’t think they need to, or they don’t think they can afford to. But it’s simple to find out how much you spend and where you can save a bit. In the book, I demolish your excuses and layout exactly what you need to do to make big changes in small steps. And no, it doesn’t include itemizing every penny you spend!

Ultimate Vacation: The Definitive Guide to Living Well Today and Retiring Well Tomorrow looks at this entire process and provides a road map you can use on your own or with your trusted advisor. Contact us for more information on how to obtain a copy.

When planned properly, retirement really is the ultimate vacation!

Please contact our team with any questions or if we can otherwise be of service. We are happy to discuss your personal vision and how you can live well today while being prepared for tomorrow. There is no cost or obligation. Contact me at randy.carver@raymondjames.com or (440) 974-0808.

Any opinions are those of Randy Carver, and not necessarily those of Raymond James. Investing involves risk, and you may incur a profit or loss regardless of strategy selected.  Links are being provided for information purposes only. Raymond James is not affiliated with and does not endorse, authorize or sponsor any of the listed websites or their respective sponsors. Raymond James is not responsible for the content of any website or the collection or use of information regarding any website’s users and/or members.

Here We Go Again – Income Tax, Politics, and History

“Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today.” ― Herman Wouk

The election season is in full swing, and once again, we are hearing politicians campaigning on the idea of raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and businesses to pay for various programs. 

Intuitively, it makes sense that if you raise tax rates, tax revenue will go up. Moreover, it seems logical that if you raise tax rates on the wealthiest Americans, they will pay a larger share of the income tax.

But it doesn’t work that way. We have written about this for the last decade, and yet history continues to repeat itself with each election.

Tax policy proposed to help lower- and middle-income American’s often hurts them. This is not an economic debate; the facts stand for themselves. This is simply, and unfortunately, politics. Never before have we seen such extremes proposed as we are now, and thus the risk is higher than ever before, for those who are most vulnerable.

Taxing the rich more isn’t the answer

Bernie Sanders is proposing a 97 percent tax on the wealthiest Americans via his “Corporate Accountability and Democracy Plan.” Elizabeth Warren has proposed a 70 percent marginal tax rate, while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has also proposed a 70 percent income tax on the country’s highest-earning citizens, to pay for a new green energy plan.

The reality is that today, the wealthiest Americans are already paying the bulk of all income tax.

According to the Tax Foundation, in 2016, the top 50 percent of taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid more income tax (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).

Some politicians are ignoring history

Yet the debate continues on raising tax rates in the face of mounting government deficits. It makes sense that the government taxes people more and uses the money to reduce deficits. Yet history objectively shows us the impact of lowering tax rates versus raising them, so any debate about this is purely political. Some of today’s issues, such as health-care reform, Social Security and immigration, are often difficult to quantify objectively because we have not had experience with proposed changes. On the other hand, we do have objective experience with income tax cuts and their impact.

Tax cuts have historically shifted the tax burden from middle-income people to the wealthiest Americans while creating jobs and increasing government revenue. This seems counterintuitive, but the fact is true and undebatable. Critics, often with the best of intentions, have said that extending tax cuts and further reducing income taxes will benefit the rich over the poor and will lead to more deficit spending. This simply is not the case. The only reason any informed person would propose raising income tax rates is to gain votes — or to intentionally hurt lower- and middle-income Americans.

The public is told we cannot afford tax cuts due to government spending on entitlements, defense and all the other important things the government does. While cutting taxes in the face of mounting deficits may seem counterintuitive, critics are ignoring history.

Past income tax rate cuts have increased government revenues, boosted our economy, created jobs and shifted the tax burden away from low-income families to middle- and upper-income folks. There is no doubt that we will have to deal with excessive government spending to balance the federal budget. Independent of that, extending and expanding tax cuts, while closing loopholes, is a proven way to increase government revenue. This approach benefits all Americans by shifting the burden to those who can most afford it.

TEFRA from 1982 gives us a great history lesson

The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-248), also known as TEFRA, was enacted on Sept. 3, 1982. According to US Treasury statistics, TEFRA increased revenues by $130 billion in its first four years — after tax rates were cut dramatically. The top rate was slashed from 70 percent to 50 percent.

TEFRA was created in response to the recession at the time and faced fierce opposition from those who felt that taxes should be increased, not decreased, to offset government shortfalls. Sounds like a familiar debate, doesn’t it? TEFRA reduced the budget gap by generating revenue from closed tax loopholes and enforcement of tougher tax rules, as opposed to changing marginal income tax rates.

This legislation modified some aspects of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA). Both of these pieces of tax legislation took place during the Reagan presidency.

TEFRA was considered the largest peacetime tax increase in American history as part of a budget deal to get the federal deficit under control. Reluctantly signing the bill into law, President Ronald Reagan stated that he was supporting “a limited loophole-closing tax increase to raise more than $98.3 billion over three years in return for…agreement to cut spending by $280 billion during the same period.” In the period between 1981 and 1986, it was believed that TEFRA would reclaim approximately $215 billion of the $750 billion given up by ERTA. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the economy’s growth rates after TEFRA took effect were among the fastest in history.

Two years later, the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act increased tax collections by $72 billion in the four years after taxes were cut again. The bulk of these revenue increases came from the wealthiest Americans. This should not have been a surprise.

The broad-based income tax cuts that President Reagan implemented in the 1980s set off an entrepreneurial boom that propelled the growth of the economy for the next 20 years. Certainly, the Clinton presidency benefited from the tax cuts, and to Clinton’s credit, he even added his own cut by reducing the capital gains tax.

Reagan’s detractors point to his lack of sensitivity for social issues and the legacy of his deficit spending — yet his legacy is a positive one. In the seven years following the Reagan tax cuts, almost 20 million good-paying jobs were created, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

Top earners already pay the lion’s share of taxes

A Joint Economic Committee for the US Congress report in 1996 revealed that the share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

The middle class also benefited — those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile for income. Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. The increase borne by the top 1 percent of income earners is entirely responsible for this 8.8 percentage point decline in the middle-class tax burden.

According to the IRS, in 1981, the top 1 percent of income earners paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes. By 1988, their share had jumped to 27.5 percent — after the top tax rate had been cut from 69.13 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, inflation, measured by the consumer price index, increased by 49.5 percent between 1977 and 1981. Between 1982 and 1986, inflation was 19.1 percent — much lower than it was prior to the tax cuts.

Across-the-board tax cuts were implemented way back in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases, the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by “the rich” and also increased their share of total individual income taxes paid.

We are here for you, as always

Those who would benefit the most from lower taxes could be hurt, with the best of intentions, by the current path we are going down. Clearly, there is an optimal point below which taxes should not be cut but increasing taxes today does not make sense from an economic or even social standpoint. Lower-income taxes stimulate growth, create good jobs, increase government revenues and shift the tax burden from low-income families to upper-income payers.

If all the intellectual energy that is being used to debate historically established facts were channeled into solving problems that Americans face, instead of promoting partisan rhetoric, all Americans would benefit. Then again, it’s much easier to offer something for free if you’re just hunting for votes. We believe most Americans are too smart to fall for the false narrative about dramatically raising income tax rates.

Regardless of what happens in Washington, our team will continue to take a very proactive approach to legally minimizing taxes for our clients. At the end of the day, it’s not what you make that’s important, but what you keep, net of fees, expense and taxes.

Our Personal Vision Planning Process® focuses on developing a plan to help you achieve your personal goals, regardless of changes to tax rules, the economy or markets. We are here for you. You can contact me personally at randy.carver@raymondjames.com or (440) 974-0808.

________

The information contained in this report does not purport to be a complete description of the securities, markets, or developments referred to in this material. The information has been obtained from sources considered to be reliable, but we do not guarantee that the foregoing material is accurate or complete. Any information is not a complete summary or statement of all available data necessary for making an investment decision and does not constitute a recommendation. Any opinions are those of Randy Carver and not necessarily those of RJFS or Raymond James. Expressions of opinion are as of this date and are subject to change without notice.

Read This Before You React to Those Shocking Headlines About the Stock Market Dip

On August 14, 2019, the headlines were dire:

  • “Dow Plummets 800 Points on Worsening Global Recession Fears” (Fox Business)
  • “Dow Plummets More Than 800 Points on Recession Red Flag” (New York Post)
  • “Dow Tanks 800 Points in Worst Day of 2019 After Bond Market Sends Recession Warning” (CNBC)

Those headlines are indeed alarming…but there was a complete disconnect between what had actually happened and what the headlines implied. The dip was normal. As the MarketWatch chart below shows, this market dip was nothing unusual—and less than what we see about every two months!

Market corrections 1928–2018:

  • 5 percent—About every 2 months
  • 10 percent—About every 8 months
  • 20 percent—About every 30 months

The News Media Aim to Sell Advertising, Not to Educate

People often forget that the business of the news media is not to inform and educate, but rather to sell advertising. Whether they lean the left, right or center, media outlets must attract viewers and readers so they can sell advertising and make a profit. To do so, the media use sensational and often frightening headlines. The use of “click bait” is a widespread phenomenon on the internet. Click bait is content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular web page.

With the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) at 25,000 on August 14th, the drop of 800 points was less than 3.3 percent—again, something we see every few months! Just a 5 percent dip, which has been the average every two months for the past 90 years, would have been 1,250 points, or 50 percent more!

As of September 20, 2019, the DJIA was at 26,900. A normal dip for that number, of 10 percent, would be 2,690 points. You will notice that the media generally ignore the percentage change and rarely give any context. We expect to see 1,000-point swings and more in the coming year. Does that really matter? Only if you panic.

The Benefit of Keeping Your Emotions in Check

Dalbar, Inc., is an independent company that evaluates, audits and rates business practices, customer performance and service. Each year since 1994, Dalbar has conducted its Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior (QAIB) study to analyze investor returns. The company has consistently found that the average investor earns much less than market indices would suggest.

Hypothetical Growth of $100,000 over 20 years

Average Mutual Fund Investor – $214,220 Vs. Average Mutual Fund $346,8301.

Source: Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior by Dalbar, Inc. (March 2019)

The average investor makes far less than the fund averages largely due to moving in and out of their investments at the wrong time. We are not suggesting someone blindly buy and hold, nor are we suggesting that you can time the markets. We recommend developing and monitoring an overall plan and making changes based on your needs or the overall allocation, rather than headlines or short-term fluctuations.

Panic and Poor Timing Can Cost You

People who panic during these normal dips and sell off their stocks pay a significant price for doing so. The average investor has given up almost half of his or her potential return over the past 20 years by engaging in self-destructive behaviors such as the following:

  • Trying to time the market
  • Chasing hot investments
  • Abandoning their investment plans
  • Reflexively avoiding out-of-favor areas

In March 2019, Dalbar found that the average investor was a net withdrawer of funds in 2018, but poor timing caused a loss of 9.42 percent on the year, compared to an S&P 500 index that retreated only 4.38 percent.

Stick to Your Plan

We have developed and refined a process that accounts for both short- and long-term volatility. The key is to stick with your plan. We expect increased volatility in the markets and even more dire comments and forecasts by the media as we approach the election next year. Those who have a comprehensive plan and stick with it should not be concerned about what lies ahead. Those who do not have a plan, or act emotionally, could pay a significant price for doing so.

Before you react to the headlines you read, take a deep breath, and remember that your well-developed financial plan is designed for performance over the long term.

We are here to help you. Our team has worked with clients for more than 30 years and has the experience, insight and expertise to guide you through what lies ahead. Please contact our team with questions or concerns, whether you are a client or ours or not. We are happy to provide a second opinion, without cost or obligation, even if you already have an established portfolio or plan. Carver Financial Services, Inc. 440-974-0808 or carverfinancialservices@raymondjames.com.

_____

1. Dalbar computed the Average Stock Fund Investor Return (above, “Driven by Emotions”) by using industry cash flow reports from the Investment Company Institute. The Average Stock Fund Return (above, “Emotions Held In Check”) figures represent the average return for all funds listed in Lipper’s U.S. Diversified Equity fund classification model. The average annual return for these two was 3.9% and 6.4% respectively.

This information has been obtained from sources considered to be reliable, but we do not guarantee that the foregoing material is accurate or complete. Any opinions are those of the professionals at Carver Financial Services, Inc., and not necessarily those of Raymond James. Links are being provided for information purposes only. Raymond James is not affiliated with and does not endorse, authorize or sponsor any of the listed websites or their respective sponsors. Raymond James is not responsible for the content of any website or the collection or use of information regarding any website’s users and/or members. Investing involves risk, and you may incur a profit or loss regardless of strategy selected, including diversification and asset allocation. Examples provided are hypothetical for illustration purposes only. Actual investor results will vary. Raymond James and its advisors do not offer tax or legal advice. You should discuss any tax or legal matters with the appropriate professional The fact that buy and hold has been a successful strategy in the past does not guarantee that it will continue to be successful in the future. The performance shown is not indicative of any particular investment. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Individuals cannot invest directly in any index. The S&P 500 is an unmanaged index of 500 widely held stocks that is generally considered representative of the U.S. stock market. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), commonly known as “The Dow” is an index representing 30 stock of companies maintained and reviewed by the editors of the Wall Street Journal.

Carver Financial Services Wins Fast Track 50 Award for Lake & Geauga Counties for 2019

September 2019, Carver Financial was recognized as one of the Lake-Geauga Fast Track 50 winners for the 13th year in a row.

The Fast Track 50 recognizes the contribution of local companies to Lake and Geauga county economies. The Fast Track 50 Committee compiles a list of the fastest-growing companies in Ohio’s Lake and Geauga counties. Companies are ranked by sales and employment growth over the previous five-year period and the top 50 are recognized. Carver Financial Services Inc. has consistently been recognized on this list for the last nine years.

The 2019 Lake-Geauga Fast Track 50 honors companies and individuals in Lake and Geauga counties who have shown growth. The Fast Track 50 Committee compiles a list of the fastest-growing companies in Ohio’s Lake and Geauga counties. Companies can nominate themselves. To be eligible for the award, companies must be located within the two-county region, be organized as a for-profit business, and must meet a minimum sales profit. Companies are ranked by sales and employment growth over the previous five-year period and the top 50 are recognized. Winners are chosen by a math formula: 80% of weight is given to sales growth and 20% of the weight is given to employee growth. To more fairly compare larger and smaller companies, the Fast Track 50 is divided into Established and Emerging categories. For 2019, Established companies must report revenue of at least $2.75 million in 2018, the baseline year for all evaluations. Emerging companies are required to have 2018 sales of between $250,000 and $2.75 million. There are 25 companies on each list. Out of 100 firms nominated, 50 received the award. This ranking is not indicative of future performance, is not an endorsement, and may not be representative of individual clients’ experience. Neither Raymond James nor any of its Financial Advisors pay a fee in exchange for this award/rating. Raymond James is not affiliated with The Fast Track 50 Award.