Analysts Bullish as Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AMRX) Director Sells Over 94K Shares
As a result of the transaction, Patel's stake now amounts to 1,609,144 shares of Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMRX). The sale was executed automatically in accordance with a pre-determined trading plan adopted on August 15, 2024, and in compliance with Rule 10b5-1(c). In general, analysts remain optimistic regarding the stock, with price targets ranging between $11 and $12 per share.
A pharmaceutical laboratory filled with shelves of medicines, highlighting the company's specialty drug production.
Just recently, analysts at Goldman Sachs reviewed the generic drug industry and initiated coverage on Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMRX) with a positive outlook. The reasons cited were many, from current portfolio changes favoring higher-value products to the company's track record of business execution. With a 12-month price target of $12, the analyst supported the potential upside of over 50%.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMRX), headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey, is a leading biopharmaceutical company that develops and markets generics, injectables, biosimilars, and specialty branded pharmaceutical products. Founded in 2002, the company operates through three main segments: Affordable Medicines, Specialty, and AvKARE. The giant is committed to advancing innovation in healthcare.
While we acknowledge the potential of AMRX as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock.
READ NEXT: The Best and Worst Dow Stocks for the Next 12 Months and 10 Unstoppable Stocks That Could Double Your Money.
Disclosure: None.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Evers signs ‘compromise' budget quickly after Wisconsin Legislature gives final OK
Gov. Tony Evers signed the budget, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 15, at 1:32 a.m. in his office Thursday, less than an hour after the Assembly passed it. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner) Gov. Tony Evers signed the $111 billion two-year state budget bill into law overnight following a marathon day of overlapping Senate and Assembly floor sessions where the bill received bipartisan support from lawmakers. The budget cuts taxes by $1.3 billion, makes investments in the University of Wisconsin system, boosts public schools' special education reimbursement rate to 45% and allocates about $330 for child care. Evers signed the budget, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 15, at 1:32 a.m. in his office Thursday, less than an hour after the Assembly passed it. Just before signing it, he thanked legislative leaders for working with him and said the budget reflects the fair legislative maps that he signed into law in 2024 and that were in place during November elections. 'We need to work together,' Evers said. As the Assembly and Senate prepared to meet for debate Wednesday evening, Evers was outside of the east wing of the Capitol for Concerts on the Square and telling people not to 'drop meatballs' on themselves. 'I was actually chatting with people about tonight outside,' he said. 'Many of them were saying 'How about that? Compromise.' Compare that to what's going on in Washington, D.C., and it's significantly different, so I'm very proud to sign it.' The passage and signing of the state budget comes two days after the end of the fiscal year. Following months of negotiations and the announcement of a deal between Evers, Republican legislative leaders and Senate Democrats on Tuesday, the Legislature worked for about 15 hours Wednesday to get the bill over the finish line. Their goal was to get the bill signed by Evers before the federal reconciliation bill made it to President Donald Trump's desk. One reason for the rush was a provision in the state budget that increases a Medicaid-related hospital assessment from 1.8% to 6%, the current federal limit, to supplement the state's Medicaid resources. It's estimated to result in over $1 billion in additional Medicaid revenue that will go back to Wisconsin hospitals, but the state's ability to make that change is set to be restricted under the federal bill. 'We want our health care system to be in good shape, and in order to do that, we're going to need help from the federal government,' Evers said. In addition to signing the budget, Evers exercised his partial veto on 23 items . He had agreed not to partially veto any part of the deal that he came to with lawmakers, but other pieces of the legislation were fair game. Evers vetoed language that set 2029 for closing Green Bay Correctional Institution. He said he supports closing the facility, but said more needs to be done before a date is set. 'We need more compromise on that. We need to get things going before we start taking people out of Green Bay,' Evers told reporters. 'Saying that we're going to do Green Bay by '29 doesn't mean a damn thing.' He also partially vetoed $750,000 in grants to the Lakeland STAR Academy, a Minocqua charter school that specializes in serving students with autism and diverse learning needs; vetoed language excluding two of Wisconsin's 11 federally-recognized tribes from a grant program; and vetoed $25,000 for a street project in the village of Warrens. In addition, he vetoed funds for five projects that would go through the Department of Natural Resource. 'I object to providing an earmark for a natural resources project when the Legislature has abandoned its responsibility to reauthorize and ensure the continuation of the immensely popular Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship program,' Evers stated in his veto message. Lawmakers said they are still working on legislation to continue the program. 'Instead of renewing the program and helping the many, the Legislature has opted to benefit the politically connected few,' Evers wrote. 'The Legislature must do its job and renew the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship program.' Evers said if he would change anything about the budget, he would have wanted 'more in the area of specificity in child care.' The budget will spend about $330 million on child care including $110 million to extend direct payments to providers for another year, $65 million to a new program for providers serving 4-year-olds and $123 million to increase the reimbursement for child care costs for low-income families under the Wisconsin Shares program. Evers also rejected the calls of some advocates that he veto the entire budget, noting the uncertainty that could result and the funding that could be put at risk by starting from scratch on a budget. 'Failing to reach consensus and vetoing this budget in its entirety was an untenable option, not just for me, but for the people of our state,' Evers wrote in his budget message. Evers told reporters he wasn't caught off guard by the number of Democratic lawmakers who didn't support the budget. 'They have to do what they think is right, and everybody's kind of looking for what's going to happen in a couple years, and so I'm not surprised,' Evers said. 'But there's a whole bunch of Republicans that supported it so God bless them.' Republican lawmakers also said throughout the day that the prospect of losing hospital funding if the budget wasn't signed ahead of the federal reconciliation bill moving through Congress played a role in wanting to get the budget done as quickly as possible. 'That's why we're working really fast to get it done,' Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) said during a press conference Wednesday morning. 'We will get the bill to the governor's desk prior to the President [Trump] signing the Big Beautiful bill.' Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said at a mid-afternoon press conference he expected Evers would sign the legislation late Wednesday or early Thursday. 'It's about a billion dollars that will be able to flow to an awful lot of rural hospitals, people who are taking care of those with urgent needs,' Vos said. 'We want to get it done and we want access to those dollars.' The Senate took action on the bill first, passing it 19-14 shortly after 9 p.m. Five Democratic senators, including Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton), joined 14 Republicans to pass the bill. Four Republicans, including Senate President Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk), voted with the 10 Democrats against the legislation. Democrats' votes were needed to pass the budget bill in the Senate after several Republicans expressed concerns about the legislation. Hesselbein was at the negotiating table as a result. The hospital funding, which led to lawmakers rushing work to pass the budget in one day, was also the top reason that Felzkowski voted against the budget. Democrats voting yes, in addition to Hesslebein, were Sens. Kristin Dassler-Alfheim (D- Appleton), Brad Pfaff (D-Onalaska), Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick) and Jamie Wall (D- Green Bay). Republicans voting no, in addition to Felzkowski were Rob Hutton (R- Brookfield), Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield) and Steve Nass (R Whitewater). Felzkowski said she felt bad because there were good things in the budget, but that she was appalled the budget didn't address the cost of health care, noting Wisconsin has the fifth highest health care costs in the country. Felzkowski said that there should be other health care reforms if hospitals were going to get a 'windfall' of over $1 billion a year and blamed Evers and hospital lobbyists for opposing those, including additional hospital price transparency measures. 'Gov. Evers, you failed Wisconsin,' Felzkowski said. 'You failed constituents. You failed employers.' Evers rejected the claims, calling them 'bulls – – t.' 'The people that work in those hospitals are working real hard,' Evers said. 'The last thing we need is to have hospitals going belly up in the middle of the pandemic or something.' Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), who voted no, mentioned Evers' previous vetoes of Republican tax cuts and said the current budget bill leveraged those vetoes 'to hide the 12% increase in spending' as well as a structural deficit. 'In a time of economic uncertainty, when our spending decisions warrant further restraint and discernment, we need a budget that creates proper spending priorities and puts taxpayers first,' Hutton said. Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) called the budget an 'orgy' of spending in a statement explaining his 'no' vote. Implicating fellow Republicans, he criticized lawmakers for spending the state's $4.3 billion surplus on one-time earmarks and 'funding for special interests' instead of larger tax cuts. Despite the handful of opponents, the majority of Senate Republicans supported the budget, touting the tax cuts that they secured and some of the investments. LeMahieu called it 'a responsible budget that invests in core priorities' and touted the $1.4 billion tax cut. At the Senate GOP press conference Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) singled out some of the University of Wisconsin system funding that will 'put the thumb on the scale…to help some of those campuses like UW Platteville that have had declining enrollment over the last decade.' The budget allocates $53 million for UW system funding, distributed through two formulas: one for declining enrollment and another for the number of credit hours undergraduates complete. The University of Wisconsin system will also get $840 million for capital projects, $94 million for staff wage increases, $54 million for recruitment and retention and $7 million for virtual mental health services. Sen. Dan Feyen (R-Fond du Lac), who voted yes, said the budget didn't do everything he wanted it to do and included some things he didn't support. 'I always have, and always will, advocate for a smaller, smarter state government,' he said in a statement. 'I'm glad to see that this budget cuts over 300 vacant positions from state government.' Feyen highlighted his support for special education funding and child care provisions in the document. He said if people want a more 'conservative' budget, then Republicans would need to expand their majority and elect a Republican governor in 2026. Senate Democrats, whether they voted for or against the bill, all had a similar message: it doesn't do enough. 'What we have on the floor today is better than it would have been if Senate Dems had not been at the table, but let me be clear, it is not perfect,' Hesselbein said at a Wednesday morning press conference. She described the budget as a 'bipartisan deal' where 'everybody left the table wishing it was different, but this is something that we can agree on trying to move forward.' Asked about the advocates who called for lawmakers to vote against the budget and Evers to veto it, Hesselbein said she knew some people were upset. 'I'm glad they're making their voices heard,' she said. 'That's why today, we're going to be fighting for every single Wisconsinite.' The Senate convened a little after 10:30 a.m., but didn't pass the bill until after 9 p.m. The first several hours of debate centered on Senate Democrats' 25 proposed amendments that ranged from increasing funding for the UW system, K-12 education and child care to expanding postpartum Medicaid. The body got through about half of those amendments before pausing for several hours to caucus. During the delays, Republicans were working on a 35-page 'technical amendment' with several changes, including an added requirement that the UW system conduct an efficiency study on declining student enrollment and future operations. When the Senate reconvened around 7 p.m., it tabled the rest of the Democratic amendments and started debate on the full budget bill. Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) said Democrats helped improve the budget but that it l would not allow people in Wisconsin to thrive. 'We understand the urgency to act. Congress is actively restricting our future funding. This budget must move forward, but that does not make it a good budget,' Spreitzer said. The budget broke the 'rule of 17' — the Senate Republicans' practice of making sure 17 members support a measure before it's put on the floor — Spreitzer said, and criticized them for not breaking the rule to pass other measures, including postpartum Medicaid expansion or funding for the Knowles-Nelson Conservation program in a bipartisan way. 'Wouldn't it be easier to just get it done today?' he said. Spreitzer said the Democratic votes on the budget were not an endorsement, but were rather an acknowledgement that it was better than it would have been without bipartisan negotiations. Asserting that the budget didn't deserve one more vote than was necessary to pass it, he voted against it. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said the optimism after Evers introduced his budget in February soon faded and criticized the governor for not fighting harder for his priorities. The result is 'grossly' insufficient and 'will do more harm than good,' he said 'It's a 'failure to fight' budget,' Larson said. 'This budget is cowardice. We all deserve so much better.' 'We have a guarantee that we're going to have a transformation budget that works for everyone,' Vos said during the Assembly floor debate. 'I assume, like in the state Senate where Democrats and Republicans are going to vote for the budget, we would have the same thing here in the Assembly, if people are serious about saying we want to work together.' The Assembly concurred in the bill 59-39 at around 12:40 a.m. Seven Democrats voted with Republicans in favor of the bill: Reps. Jill Billings (D-La Crosse), Steve Doyle (D-Onalaska), Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire), Maureen McCarville (D- DeForest), Lori Palmeri (D-Oshkosh), Sylvia Ortiz-Velez (D-Milwaukee) and Tara Johnson (D-Town of Shelby). One Republican — Rep. Scott Allen (R-Waukesha) — voted with Democrats against the bill. Rep. Calvin Callahan (R-Tomahawk) was not voting. Assembly Co-Chair Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) said the budget process this time was different from any other that he's worked on. This is his fourth as co-chair of the Joint Finance Committee. 'We did spend more time working with the governor's office, the governor and Democrats,' Born said, and called the budget 'more conservative' than the state's 2023-25 budget, to his surprise. He noted that the $1.3 billion tax cut will get signed into law, unlike previous tax cuts that Evers has vetoed. The budget spends the state's estimated $4 billion budget surplus down to about $800 million, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. The budget also has a 6% increase in general purpose revenue spending and a 12% increase overall. While Republicans highlighted the bipartisan nature of the budget and measures included, Democrats throughout the day focused on their critiques and the measures that didn't make it in. Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said at a press conference Wednesday morning that she was appreciative of Evers and Hesselbein for being at the negotiating table and getting what they could — but it wouldn't be enough to win her vote. 'This proposal is a far cry from the budget that Assembly Democrats would have written,' said Neubauer. She said she was not at the table when the budget deal was made. With a 54-45 majority, Assembly Republicans had the votes to pass the budget without the Democrats, Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August (R-Walworth) said at a GOP press conference. Neubauer said that as a consequence, the Assembly Democrats 'were not part of those negotiations.' School districts will get an increase in the special education reimbursement rate from about 32% to 42% in the first year of the biennium and 45% in the second year. It will be the highest that the rate has been in many years, but still lower than the 60% advocates and Democrats wanted. Democratic lawmakers said that without increases in general aid or schools, districts will have to continue relying on property tax increases to keep up with costs. 'You didn't set out to stop the cycle of [property tax increase] referendums, you set out to continue it,' Rep. Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa) said on the Assembly floor. 'When 96 of 99 Assembly districts have gone to referendum recently and the statewide demand for public school funding increases isn't partisan for our constituents, why are we fighting so hard to get Republicans to adequately fund our schools? This isn't a Democrat versus Republican issue across the state, and it shouldn't be a Republican versus Democrat issue in the state Capitol.' The four-member Wisconsin Legislative Socialist Caucus — including Reps. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee), Darrin Madison (D-Milwaukee), Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) and Francesca Hong (D-Madison) — voted against the bill. In a joint statement they called the agreement between Republican lawmakers, Senate Democrats and Evers a 'catastrophic failure of leadership that surrenders to Republican austerity.' They cited the lack of a general school aid increase for public schools, the special education reimbursement not meeting 60% and the failure to expand Medicaid. 'This is not a compromise, this is capitulation,' the caucus said. Assembly Republicans mostly focused on the parts of the state budget they were appreciative of but also took jabs at Democrats for saying they would vote against the bill. The Agriculture Roads Improvement Program, which was created in 2023 to support local agricultural road improvement projects statewide, will get an infusion of $150 million. 'That's a big deal in my community and up in the rural part of the northwest,' Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie) said. 'It helps our state's largest industry by improving the quality of our roads to get their products and goods out and inputs and services that farmers need into the field as well.' Rep. Jessie Rodriguez (R-Oak Creek) said lawmakers committed to providing tax cuts for seniors and Wisconsinites as a whole through the elimination of the utility tax, a policy Evers had advocated for. 'I know that some people on the other side of the aisle said that people are not seeking tax relief,' Rodriguez said. 'Yes, they have been. You just haven't been listening.' The Office of School Safety, housed in the Department of Justice, will get 13 permanent staff positions and $1.57 million in the budget. The office provides training and grants to schools for safety and runs the Speak Up, Speak Out tipline where students can anonymously report safety concerns. Funding for the office became a flashpoint of criticism in the 2023-25 budget debate. Rep. Todd Novak (R-Dodgeville) touted the new budget's provision for the office and spoke about working with Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul on getting the funding in this year's budget. He also credited lawmakers on the finance committee for helping to keep the office going. 'The process is ugly, but working together to get something done is a really great thing, so I will defend this budget. I will run on this budget,' Novak said. Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) said on the floor that lawmakers who voted against the budget shouldn't take credit for any of its accomplishments in the budget later or attend groundbreakings for projects it funded.'If you vote against this, do not show your face,' Kurtz said. 'You didn't have the courage to vote yes.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
E&E News
29 minutes ago
- E&E News
FERC proceeds cautiously with Trump-ordered ‘sunset' for energy rules
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is poised to start rulemaking to 'sunset' certain regulations, according to a draft 'notice of inquiry' obtained by POLITICO's E&E News. The notice follows President Donald Trump's executive order directing FERC to establish sunset dates of between one and five years for rules on energy production. It is the optional first step in commission rulemaking, allowing the agency to gather public feedback before proposing a rule. Energy experts said the draft notice, which is not yet published, shows FERC is being cautious as it begins to implement an executive order expected to create significant uncertainty for industry and legal challenges for the agency. Advertisement 'I see this as the commission being very prudent,' said Matt Christiansen, a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and former FERC general counsel, when given a summary of the contents of the document.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ask an Advisor: I'm 62 and Need ‘Reliable Income' in Retirement. What Investments Do You Suggest?
I'm 62 and will be turning 63 next month. I've been self-employed for most of my career and currently own a home that I rent out. I'm now considering investing in another property to help strengthen my retirement plan. Since I don't expect to receive much from Social Security, I'm looking for strategic and secure ways to invest my money and generate reliable income during retirement. What would you suggest? Generating reliable income is one of the most common goals among future retirees, so you are certainly not alone in raising this question. While everyone will arrive at a different solution that meets their unique needs, everyone should start with a plan before deciding how and where to invest. We'll walk through why I think this is the case before outlining some income-oriented investments you can consider. If you need help selecting investments and planning for retirement, . First things first, you should start with a plan. Even if you've done some planning already, a comprehensive financial review can help point you to the right solution. While generating income in retirement may be a goal, it should be addressed within the context of your overall financial situation-not in isolation. Not to sound extreme, but I believe it would be negligent to pick investments without taking a complete inventory of your finances. You can start by answering the following questions: What assets and liabilities do you currently have besides the home you rent out? What income do you earn from self-employment, and how consistent is that income? How much longer do you expect to work? What are your anticipated income streams in retirement besides the small Social Security payments you expect to receive and rental income if you keep the property? How much do you currently spend annually and how much will you spend in retirement? Do you have a spouse and/or dependents? What is your current health situation and expected longevity? Do you have any legacy or charitable goals you wish to fund? It's worth answering these questions before choosing any investments-especially a big-ticket rental property. Your responses can clarify how much income you'll need in retirement, how much risk you can take and what time horizon you're working with. From there, you can select investments that you expect to meet your income (or total return) needs and fit your risk tolerance. (And if you need help doing a holistic review of your finances or creating a financial plan, consider working with a financial advisor.) Once you've identified your income needs, risk tolerance and timeline, you can begin evaluating a range of investment options designed to generate reliable cash flow. If you're considering another rental property, first evaluate how it fits into your overall asset mix. Can you handle the concentration risk of one or two properties dominating your portfolio-especially with variable self-employment income? Can you reasonably expect full or near-full occupancy year-round? Will you pay cash or take out a mortgage-and if so, will rent cover your costs? Does projected net operating income (NOI) meet your financial targets and compare favorably with other options? If direct ownership seems too concentrated or hands-on, listed real estate investment trusts (REITs) offer diversified exposure, though they carry equity market volatility. On the plus side, REITs can provide both dividend income and price appreciation. Accredited investors might also consider private real estate, which may offer higher yields and tax benefits, but comes with limited liquidity. Many private vehicles restrict redemptions or lock up capital for several years, so they may not suit investors who need ready access to funds. SmartAsset and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue through links in the content below. Bonds are a traditional source of income, but they vary widely in risk and return. U.S. Treasuries carry low risk and yields near 4% to 5%, depending on maturity-suitable for conservative investors. Municipal bonds are popular among individual investors because their interest is typically exempt from federal-and sometimes state and local-income taxes. However, they still carry interest rate, liquidity, and call risks. Corporate bonds offer higher yields to compensate for credit risk. Investment-grade corporates trade closer to Treasuries, while high-yield (or "junk") bonds offer larger spreads but come with greater default risk. Depending on credit quality, corporate bond yields typically range from about 4% to more than 7%. (And if you need additional guidance, a financial advisor can help you evaluate different types of bonds for your investment portfolio.) Cash is once again an interest-bearing asset. While interest rates remain near 4%, do not discount the value cash can play in a portfolio. Worthwhile cash equivalents include money market funds and savings accounts. Both are yielding close to 4% depending on the provider. CDs are another commonly used option. Yields depend on the term, but they are exposed to interest rate (reinvestment) risk and early withdrawal penalties if you end up needing the cash. Dividend stocks are another prominent income-producing asset. These can generate yields of 2-4%+ depending on the company. Like REITs, volatility is the main risk since at the end of the day you are investing in publicly traded stocks that will have a high correlation to broader equity markets. Private credit is another variation of fixed income, but it shares some of the risks associated with private real estate-namely, liquidity risk. Loans to private companies are generally issued on a floating rate basis, so they do not have the same interest rate risk as fixed rate Treasuries or corporate bonds. However, most private companies are not rated by credit rating agencies, so investors typically ascribe a higher probability of default. This leads to larger credit spreads and, as a result, higher yields. Yields in private credit can reach high-single or low-double-digits. (A financial advisor can help you evaluate whether private credit and other alternative investments belong in your portfolio.) Once again, private infrastructure investors need to consider their liquidity needs before investing. But for those who can withstand illiquidity, infrastructure can offer mid-single-digit yields with appreciation potential. These assets-think cell towers, toll roads and power projects-can also provide inflation protection through contractual escalators. The saying "diversification is the only free lunch" conveys a key investing concept: by spreading your money across different types of investments, you can reduce overall risk without necessarily lowering your expected return. Each investment type comes with its own set of risks, and diversification is a straightforward way to manage those risks. Instead of relying on a single stock, bond, property or even one asset class, consider building a portfolio that blends different asset types to generate the income you need while aligning with your risk tolerance. If you prefer to focus on fixed income, a laddered bond portfolio can add diversification through staggered maturities. Spreading your investments across asset classes or time horizons helps reduce variability in outcomes and may improve your chances of meeting your financial goals. (And if you need help diversifying your portfolio, work with a financial advisor.) While income becomes a priority for many investors nearing retirement, it's important to frame this goal within the broader context of your financial plan. Doing so helps define your income needs and risk tolerance, which in turn guides how you allocate capital to income-producing assets. A diversified portfolio that blends investments with varying risk and return characteristics can then be structured to support your retirement income needs. An experienced financial advisor can build cash flow models, assess withdrawal strategies and evaluate tax impacts across accounts. Finding a financial advisor doesn't have to be hard. SmartAsset's free tool matches you with vetted financial advisors who serve your area, and you can have a free introductory call with your advisor matches to decide which one you feel is right for you. If you're ready to find an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals, get started now. Simulate market downturns and unexpected expenses using financial planning software or advisor tools. Testing a 4% withdrawal strategy under various return scenarios can reveal whether you may need to adjust spending or asset allocation. Jeremy Suschak, CFP®, Jeremy is a financial advisor and head of business development at DBR & Co. He has been compensated for this article. Additional resources from the author can be found at . Photo credit: © of DBR & Co, © © The post Ask an Advisor: I'm 62 and Need 'Reliable Income' in Retirement. What Investments Do You Suggest? appeared first on SmartReads by SmartAsset. Sign in to access your portfolio
