Archive for the 'Retirement' Category
Friday, March 20th, 2009
Even though most people I know are too scared to even look at their 401(k) statements right now, have you ever thought about how well your company’s plan stacks up to other similar companies? The problem is that 401(k) plans lack transparency. What if every company had to publish their company match, fees, revenue sharing (*cough* kickbacks), investment choices, and vesting schedules? That would certainly produce competition and peer pressure to make better plans.
This is what the website Brightscope is trying to change. Just type in your company name and see an overall rating based on the components I listed above, also some other interesting details like average account balance. As they point out, a poorly designed plan could be costing you hundreds of thousands of dollars over time – or put another way the equivalent of an extra decade of work!
According to their site, BrightScope is the only 401k analytics firm that is truly independent and does not accept compensation in the form of revenue sharing from mutual fund companies or plan providers. This should make them objective. Found via Capital Ideas.
A related site is 401khelp.com, which covers less companies but does offer more insights and opinions on the plans it does cover. Not sure how often it is updated, though.
Posted in Investing, Retirement | 8 Comments »
Thursday, March 5th, 2009
Time for another super-happy-fun net worth update…
Credit Card Debt
For newer readers, don’t worry. In the past, I have been taking money from credit cards at 0% APR and immediately placing it into high-yield savings accounts or similar safe investments that earn 5% interest or more, and keeping the difference as profit. I even put together a series of step-by-step posts on how to make money off of credit cards this way. However, given the current lack of good no fee 0% APR balance transfer offers, I am just waiting to pay off my existing balances.
Retirement and Brokerage accounts
Unless you’ve been completely devoid of human contact for the last few weeks, you know the market is in the dumps. I really don’t have much market commentary to make, besides the fact that I still intend to keep investing. I’ve been trying to cut back on the CNN/CNBC-types of financial news actually and focus more on things I can change, which as a result has helped keep me a bit more optimistic.
Cash Savings and Emergency Funds
Our emergency fund has increased a bit, but this snapshot was taken before we each put $5,000 into our 2008 IRA contribution. So really it remains at about a year of our current expenses.
Home Equity
This is where most of this month’s drop comes from. I used the same internet valuation tools as before – Zillow, Cyberhomes, Coldwell Banker, and Bank of America (old version) – but while most of them continued their gradual decline, the Coldwell Banker estimate dropped by over $140,000 in one month! After taking off 5% to be conservative and 6% for expected real estate agent commissions (11% total), the overall average estimate dropped by $34k. Well look at that, I am nearly “underwater” on my house despite putting 20% down a year ago. Oops.
Posted in Goals, Investing, Real Estate, Retirement | 30 Comments »
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009
With the market in another funk this week, I was reminded that I had until April 15th to make my IRA contributions for 2008. It could get worse before then, or it might bounce up again, I have no predictive powers either way. I don’t like to be wishy-washy, so we went ahead and each invested $5,000 to a non-deductible IRA today.
Background
A nondeductible IRA is the same as a Traditional IRA, except that your income is too high so you can’t deduct the contribution. If you haven’t maxed out all your other options like a deductible Traditional IRA, Roth IRA, 401(k), or 403(b) plan, you should put your money towards those first. This option is mostly for those with no other better options.
Why?
So if you don’t get the tax deduction, what’s the point? The most appealing is that in 2010, unless the law is changed, you can start rolling over your non-deductible IRA into a Roth IRA with no income restrictions. I am starting to like my chances, since we are only ten months away from 2010 (I plan to convert right away) and I’m sure with the current deficit the government would like to collect all the tax revenue it can now instead of later. If it looks good, I’ll probably make my 2009 contribution in December (after making sure we don’t otherwise qualify) and convert that to a Roth too.
The second reason is that the after-tax returns might be higher if you invested in tax-inefficient products like bonds, commodities, or REITs.
Contribution Limits
The contribution limits are $5,000 for both 2008 and 2009. If you are age 50 or older, you can contribute another $1,000 that year.
What Did I Buy?
My portfolio is getting out of whack right now, so I bought what I need to bring it back into my desired asset allocation. I purchased $3,000 of an REIT fund (VGSIX), $2,000 of a US Small Value fund (VISVX), and $5,000 of an Emerging Market fund (VEIEX). We’re still making regular contributions to our 401ks, which contain our US and International “Total Market” funds.
Posted in Investing, Retirement | 20 Comments »
Monday, February 9th, 2009
These days, not too many people are singing the praises of their 401(k) plans. They have been called failures, with many having hidden fees and poor investment choices. But I was reading a Scott Burns article that had an different take on things: 401(k) plans are a miserable failure because most of us make bad choices.
Here the evidence: For the 20-year period from 1988-2007, the S&P 500 had annualized returns of 11.81%, while investment-grade bonds returned 7.56%. But what did the average mutual fund investor return? Only 4.48 percent. That’s worse than super-safe Treasury bills, which managed 4.53% annually!
This data is actually pulled from the “DALBAR study”, which I have seen referenced before. DALBAR is a research firm that provides research for financial professionals about investor behavior. Each year, they publish a report called the Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior where it compares the returns from average individual investors to various benchmarks. The news is not encouraging…
For years, mutual fund companies have been marketing their products using the long-term results of a lump-sum investment. The results typically show that the funds’ annualized returns have outpaced their designated benchmarks and inflation, implying that if investors purchase fund shares and hold them for similar time periods, they may achieve similar results.
Reality, however, is quite different from this scenario – and it’s not the fault of the fund companies. In this year’s Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior, DALBAR illustrates how investors are often their own worst enemies. By examining actual fund inflows and outflows during the 20-year period ended December 31, 2007, the analysis finds that investors often buy and sell at the worst possible times – and achieve commensurate returns.
As Burns quips, investors as a whole do seem have a great skill for “methodically buying equities when they were up and selling when they were down.” 
This sentence summarizes it best:
Investment return is far more dependent on investor behavior than on fund performance. Mutual fund investors who hold their investments typically earn higher returns over time than those who time the market.
Added: I’m not really trying to bag on 401ks, I’m trying to focus on the fact that tying to time the market has been very destructive for investors. For a related parable, read their story of Quincy and Caroline.
Posted in Investing, Retirement | 35 Comments »
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009
I pretty much have a general feeling of malaise right now. Hiring freeze at one job, big group meeting about how “we don’t have to worry about layoffs… right now” at the other. And now it’s time to look at my incredibly shrinking net worth… I know I have it really good in general, but let’s just make this quick. 
Credit Card Debt
I do not carry consumer debt. In the past, I have been taking money from credit cards at 0% APR and immediately placing it into high-yield savings accounts or similar safe investments that earn 5% interest or more, and keeping the difference as profit. I even put together a series of step-by-step posts on how I make money off of credit cards this way. However, given the current lack of good no fee 0% APR credit card offers, I am just waiting to pay off my existing balances.
Retirement and Brokerage accounts
The media has pronounced last month as the “Worst January Ever” for the Dow (-8.8%) and the S&P (-8.6%). The value of our passively-managed portfolio shrank accordingly. Our 401(k) contributions for the month and new company match got swallowed up instantly by losses. Same old, same old.
Cash Savings and Emergency Funds
Our net cash balance (aka emergency fund) increased a bit, and remains more than 12 months of our total monthly expenses. Let’s hope we don’t need it.
I intend to contribute again to a non-deductible Traditional IRA for 2008. My reasons are basically the same as last year: Should I contribute to a non-deductible IRA? The limits for Roth conversions are removed in 2010, which is just around the corner.
Home Equity
I continue to estimate our home value using internet tools, starting with the average estimates provided by Zillow, Cyberhomes, Coldwell Banker, and Bank of America. After taking off 5% to be conservative and 6% for expected real estate agent commissions (11% total), I am left with $515,257.
I need to work out the last few kinks in my new long-term goals, in order to regain some focus. You can see our previous net worth updates here.
Posted in Goals, Investing, Real Estate, Retirement | 34 Comments »
Wednesday, January 28th, 2009
I ran across a BusinessWeek article today about retirement plans in 2008 from top 401(k) provider Fidelity Investments. It stated that although the average retirement account balance fell a whopping 27% to $50,200 last year, people actually contributed slightly more in 2008 than in 2007.
This quote also caught my eye:
Are investors making a lot of changes within their retirement accounts?
Some 60% of plans administered by Fidelity in 2008 utilized a lifecycle fund as a default investment option, that’s up from 38% in 2007. What happens in a time of short-term volatility is that investors in these funds are not switching. Only 1% lifecycle fund investors made a change compared to the overall average to 6.1%.
Makes sense overall. Investors in these types of funds want all-in-one simplicity. However, almost every company these days offer a lifecycle retirement fund. And most 401(k) investors can only invest in the one that happens to be in their plan. Check out this Money magazine example of the possible extremes out there for a mutual fund designed for a worker retiring in 2010:
On the aggressive side, the Oppenheimer Transition 2010 Fund (OTTAX) has 65% in stocks for someone on the verge of retirement, resulting in a 46% loss in 2008. On the conservative end, this AP article has an even better example – The DWS Target 2010 Fund (KRFAX) only has 18.1% in stocks and only had a 3.6% loss in 2008. The rest was in cash and bonds. (Of course, it also had a fat front-end load and is closed to new investors.)
That is some pretty stark contrast. Do you know what is inside your target-date fund? Dig up the ticker symbol, plug it into Morningstar, and scroll down to “asset allocation”.
What about the big boys like Vanguard?
Even the most highly-rated mutual fund companies don’t agree on the asset allocation for each time horizon. See how Vanguard, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price differ in their target-date retirement funds.
Posted in Investing, Retirement | 16 Comments »
Thursday, January 22nd, 2009
Why the interest in 401k limits? Well, we found out that my wife now gets a company match to her 403b retirement plan. Score! I then wanted to explore how to maximize both our $16,500 401k limits and the company match.
Example: Maxing Out But Missing Out Too
You make $120,000 per year and get a full 3% company match during each pay period. Let’s just say you get paid $10,000 gross monthly. However, you are a really motivated saver and can defer 20% of your income each month into the 401k.
For the first 8 months of the year, you put away $2,000 (20% of $10,000) and the company matches $300 (3% of $10,000). That’s brings you to $16,000 in salary deferrals. On the 9th month you can only contribute $500, which the company also matches $300 again. On the remaining 3 months of the year, you can’t contribute at all, so there is nothing to match! Even though you contributed significantly more than 3% of your salary, you’ll miss out on $300 x 3 = $900 of free money.
Solutions and Potential Problems
The solution is usually given to space out your salary deferrals evenly throughout the remainder of the year. For the above example, you would divide $16,500 by 12 = $1375 each month. If you can only set percentages, you’d set aside 13.75% each month ($1,375 / $10,000).
The problem with this is that for those people who earn hourly wages, overtime, or bonuses, it can be hard to synchronize. Get paid too much, and you’ll lose match again. Get paid too little, and you might max out your match, but not fully reach the $16,500 limit. Also, if you quit or are laid off before the end of the year, you might not be able to reach the limits either.
My tweaked solution. I would vary the percentage so that you always contribute at least 3% each pay period the entire year, but otherwise front-load contributions early on. Again with the example, you could set aside the $2,000 per month for 6 months, and then put in $750 per month for 6 months. Percentage-wise, this is 20% for first half the year, and then 7.5% for the last half. This way, you are balancing getting your annual limit maxed out as closely as possible, along with getting all the available match.
True-Up Contributions
But before going too far, you should ask your benefits administrator whether they offer what is called “true-up” contributions. What this does is compare your year-to-date (YTD) contributions to your YTD salary. If you contributed at least 3% of your YTD salary, but did not receive a 3% company match, then they will send in an additional contribution to “true-up” the numbers.
Some companies perform this true-up calculation after every pay period, while others wait until the end of each year. If they true-up every pay period, then it would seem to be a good idea to contribute as much as you can as early as you can – you’ll get the full year’s match early this way.
Our company does one true-up after the end of the year, and the credit doesn’t show up until March. However, I was also told that if you aren’t employed in March, you won’t get this credit. So again, the front-load with minimum method might be the best idea to get your match as it comes available.
As I write this, I realize that I really overthink some of this stuff. What can I say, I’m excited about our new match, and I just can’t help myself!
Posted in Retirement, Taxes | 23 Comments »
Thursday, January 22nd, 2009
The 2009 inflation-adjusted limits for 401(k) and 403(b) defined-contribution plans are as follows:
- The 401(k) elective deferral limit goes to $16,500, up from $15,500.
- The “catch-up” amount allowed for those age 50 years and up increases to $5,500, up from $5,000.
- The overall annual defined-contribution plan limit goes to $49,000, up from $46,000. This usually comes into play when you have additional employer contributions.
- These numbers apply for both Traditional pre-tax and Roth after-tax contributions.
Maxing out pre-tax 401(k) contributions
$16,500 annually works out to $1375 per month. If you get paid bi-weekly that’s $635 per paycheck. But since this is gross income, if you are using pre-tax contributions (not the Roth 401k option*) your actual reduction in take-home pay will be less.
According to the calculators at PayCheckCity, if you are single with one allowance, earn a gross annual income of $60,000 per year ($5,000/month), and you live in a state with no income taxes, this works out to a reduction in your monthly take-home pay of $1,031. (It would go from $3,804 down to $2,773.)
You can also get to the same number by first finding your 2009 marginal tax rate. Since a such a person would be in the 25% bracket, taking 75% of $1375 is $1,031.
* If I were in the 15% tax bracket or lower, I would go with the Roth option (if available) because historically that is a low rate. Pay the low rates now, so you can avoid paying them later! For higher tax brackets, it depends on some personal variables like how much taxable income you expect to generate when withdrawing for retirement.
Posted in Investing, Retirement | 10 Comments »
Tuesday, January 20th, 2009
So you listened to the financial experts and dutifully contributed $5,000 to your Roth IRA in early 2008. Unfortunately, stuff hit the fan and now you’re left with a lot less. Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to find some silver lining and shield another ~$1,000 plus earnings from taxes forever?
Well, here’s a slightly controversial idea that I ran across in this Boglehead Forum thread that might help you do just that. I think the easiest way to explain it is to continue with an imaginary scenario. Note that this leaves some variables in exchange for simplicity.
Example Scenario
Sometime in early 2008 you contributed $5,000 to your Roth IRA for the 2008 tax year. At the time, your IRA was worth $20,000 in total after the contribution. Now, in January 2009, the entire IRA is now worth $15,000.
You first “undo” your 2008 $5,000 contribution by following the same steps as someone who ended up being ineligible for a Roth IRA due to too much income*. Because your entire IRA account dropped by 25%, your $5,000 contribution is considered to have dropped by the same amount. You end up receiving a check for $3,750. You have received a return of your contribution, and have now technically contributed nothing to your 2008 Roth IRA.
Soon afterward, you simply open up a new IRA either at a new broker, or at your current broker if they are on the ball and have your 2008 total contributions as zero. (Otherwise they might throw a fit…) You can now throw in another $1,250 and contribute $5,000 again to your Roth IRA for the 2008 tax year before April 15th, 2009. Even if you just reinvest the $3,750 the same way as you did before, by using this strategy you have allowed another $1,250 to grow shielded from taxes, forever.
Is This Legal?
This is somewhat similar to the Traditional-to-Roth IRA reconversion method to save taxes. I read some skeptical posts in the BH thread as to the legitimacy of this action, but none were really backed by any evidence. I don’t see why both methods aren’t equally legal.
As another example, you might have made two separate $5,000 contributions by accident, and need to undo one of them. If everything is accounted for correctly by your IRA custodian, the IRS shouldn’t blink an eye. Here is another educated discussion in support of this idea. Other tax pros please add your thoughts in the comments below.
We ended up not being eligible for a Roth IRA this year, but if I was a candidate I think I would take advantage of this idea. In the long run, even stuffing another $1,000 in a Roth could save a lot of money in taxes.
* More information on correcting excess contributions in this Investopedia article. It must be done by the owner’s tax-filing deadline, which usually April 15, 2009 unless you file for an extension. Note that this is not the same as taking a distribution.
Posted in Retirement, Taxes | 32 Comments »
Sunday, January 18th, 2009
In my last post on 2009 marginal tax rates, reader Alexandria (aka MonkeyMama) made a very good point that planning our retirements around future tax brackets is very difficult as they change all the time. But isn’t that what we are forced to do every time we contribute to a IRA and/or 401k? We can either pay tax now (Roth), or pay tax later (Traditional). In any case, I figured I should look into this more.
I previously explored this area in my post about historical marginal tax rates vs. median income. There, I concluded that at my current high income level, my personal tax rates would probably go up in the future. Now why might I change my mind?
Total Federal Tax Rate vs. Income Group
More recently, the NY Times published the following graph that plots the total federal tax rate vs. income starting from the 1960s. Total federal tax rate includes income taxes and also things like payroll taxes and capital-gains taxes.
As you can see, tax rates as a whole have been dropping recently and are relatively low compared to the past. I would also note that the total tax rate at the median income group (middle 20% line) has varied very little over the last few decades, hovering around 18-20%.
Federal Income Taxes For Median Family
Next, here is a 2006 chart from the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, which is based on Treasury Dept. data. The Center estimates that the median-income family of four will pay only 5.6 percent of its income in federal income taxes in 2006, the lowest since 1955.
As you can see, the range for this median family has stayed between 6 and 12%.
My short take. Tax rates right now are historically low. Given this and all our future governmental obligations, they will most likely go higher. However, future tax hikes will probably be more heavily placed on high income earners as opposed to those earning at the median or below. The tax rate paid by the “middle class” tends to stay in a relatively low and narrow range.
Everyone’s situation is different. Right now, we are earning in the top 5% or so. But in retirement, I think we can easily fit into this median group, especially if the mortgage is paid off. So even though the future is unknown, my bet is that our tax burden will decrease upon retirement.
Posted in Retirement, Taxes | 13 Comments »
Friday, January 16th, 2009
If you did a Traditional IRA to Roth IRA conversion in 2008, and have since suffered some significant losses, you may want to consider undoing the conversion now that it is 2009. Then, as long as you wait 30 days after that and still qualify, you can redo the conversion again. This way, you only owe income taxes on the lower amount.
This Roth IRA conversion “do-over” is discussed in this CNN Money article, which included a helpful example scenario:
One of the main considerations are that you want to make sure your losses are enough that they likely won’t be recouped in the 30 days you are “out” of the market. One option is to re-invest the money in a taxable account during that period, but you’d be subject to more potential losses, as well as taxes on gains.
Another consideration is that you are essentially doing a entirely new 2009 conversion. You’ll have to again meet the income limits, and make sure your new tax bracket is acceptable to you. I did a Traditional to Roth IRA conversion in 2007 and shared my decision process, including the eligibility requirements and how to pay for it. There are more details on reconversions in this Fairmark article.
Next up: Controversial ways to deal with other Roth IRA losses.
Posted in Retirement, Taxes | 4 Comments »
Tuesday, January 6th, 2009
Credit Card Debt
I have no actual consumer debt. In the past, I have been taking money from credit cards at 0% APR and immediately placing it into high-yield savings accounts or similar safe investments that earn 5% interest or more, and keeping the difference as profit. I even put together a series of step-by-step posts on how I make money off of credit cards this way. However, given the current lack of no fee 0% APR credit card offers, I haven’t been as active with this recently.
Retirement and Brokerage accounts
The value of our passively-managed portfolio bounced back by about 10% compared to last month. There were no new contributions. As noted, we did manage to max out both of our 401(k)s this year, and plan on making 2008 IRA contributions by the April deadline.
Cash Savings and Emergency Funds
Our emergency fund balance is nearly at 12 months of our total monthly expenses. So theoretically both my wife and I could be laid off and we would be okay for 12 months without having to sell any longer-term investments. I am very happy with this cash cushion.
Where is it? I suppose you could say I “actively manage” my cash, putting it in various places to maximize yield while maintaining the highest possible safety. For example, I have some in a previous WT Direct promo at over 6% annualized interest, some in Series I Savings Bonds at over 6%, and a chunk at a WaMu 12-month CD paying 5% APY with about 10 months remaining.
Compare this to the piddly 0.14% for 90-day T-Bills and 0.43% on 1-year Treasuries! If you didn’t get in on any or all of these, keep reading or subscribe to updates for new deals as they come up.
Home Equity
I continue to estimate our home value using internet tools, starting with the average estimates provided by Zillow, Cyberhomes, Coldwell Banker, and Bank of America. This left me with $584,516. Then, I shave off 5% to be conservative and subtract 6% for expected real estate agent commissions (11% total) to reach my final estimate. Fortunately, we bought as prices were falling already, and the area where we live has not been hit nearly as bad as other major metropolitan areas.
Looking ahead, I am working on new goals for 2009, and also better metrics for measuring our financial progress. You can see our previous net worth updates here.
Posted in Goals, Investing, Real Estate, Retirement | 23 Comments »
