Resist the temptation. Fight the urge. Fight for your future.
Recently, you may have heard about a spike in 401(k) withdrawals. The evidence is not merely anecdotal. Fidelity Investments recently issued its 2010 overview of the 401(k) accounts it administers and found that 22% of participants had outstanding loans from these retirement savings plans, with the average loan at $8,650. In 2Q 2010, a record 62,000 of Fidelity’s 401(k) participants had taken hardship withdrawals – a jump from 45,000 in the preceding quarter.
If at all possible, you should avoid joining their ranks.
The persuasive argument against a 401(k) loan. If you borrow from your 401(k), you are opening the door to some big risks (perhaps not immediately evident to you) and you may pay some severe opportunity costs.
• What if you lose your job? That’s an all-too-common occurrence right now. If you get laid off or leave your job and you have an outstanding 401(k) loan, guess what – you usually have just 60 days to pay it all back, 60 days without income from work. Well, what if you don’t pay it all back? The outstanding loan balance may be recharacterized as a 401(k) withdrawal. If you are younger than 59½, you may be assessed a 10% federal tax penalty on the “withdrawal amount”, which by the way would be taxed as ordinary income.
• What will you do with the money? Will it be invested in anything? If not, it won’t grow. When you take a 401(k) loan and use the money for an expense, you are forfeiting its potential for growth and compounding. (Think: how much could that lump sum grow over 20 or 30 years if your account returns 5% or 8% a year? Do the math, look at the potential.)
• The terms of a 401(k) loan are less than ideal. You can’t deduct interest on a 401(k) loan, and that interest is typically one or two points above the prime rate. Here’s another thing few people realize about 401(k) loans: when you pay the money back, you pay it back with after-tax dollars. Ultimately, those dollars will be taxed again when you take a 401(k) distribution someday.
The compelling case against hardship withdrawals. Sometimes these are made in worst-case scenarios – someone is being evicted or foreclosed on, or needs money to pay medical bills. Sometimes people think hardship withdrawals are “good debt” – they make these withdrawals in order to pay college costs or buy a house. Well, here are the reasons that you might want to look elsewhere for the money.
• You may not be able to get a hardship withdrawal. Some 401(k) plans don’t allow them. Many do, but you will have to satisfy some IRS rules. Hardship withdrawals can only be made to pay medical expenses that are more than 7.5% of your adjusted gross income, to pay qualified tuition expenses, to pay funeral/burial costs, to buy a home, to make home repairs, or to stop eviction or foreclosure on a primary residence. Beyond those IRS requirements, the company you work for might have its own stipulations. Some firms won’t give an employee a hardship withdrawal unless the employee can demonstrate that no other source can provide the needed funds.
• You may not be able to withdraw as much as you want. Okay, let’s say you are able to take a hardship withdrawal. The money is considered a retirement plan distribution. By law, your employer has to withhold 20% of it because you aren’t making a trustee-to-trustee transfer with the funds. Are you younger than 59½? If so, you may be hit with an additional 10% tax penalty for early withdrawal. Regardless of your age, the amount you withdraw will be taxed as ordinary income. So besides the potential subtractions above, you’ll lose even more of the lump sum you pull out to income taxes. Only in very rare cases can you get a hardship withdrawal without penalty (court order, total disability). Even in those circumstances, the money is still taxable.
• You can’t pay the money back. It would be nice if you could, but you can’t. To add insult to injury, after you reduce your retirement savings through the hardship withdrawal, you typically can’t contribute to your 401(k) for the next six months.
Knowing all this, would you still consider these moves? Is it worth it to possibly do harm to your retirement savings potential? There are alternatives. Talk to a financial services professional – you may be pleasantly surprised to learn what other options might be available.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
OBAMA'S MIDTERM TAX PROPOSALS
The President recommends what amounts to a second stimulus package.
Many Americans are frustrated with the pace of the economic recovery; many Democrats are worried that their party will lose its majority in the House and Senate. As elections loom, President Obama has offered a new platform of tax initiatives for Congress to consider and potentially approve.
Extending the Bush-era tax cuts (for the middle class). President Obama wants to extend the EGTRRA and JGTRRA cuts of the last decade – but not to what Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner referred to as the “most fortunate 2% of Americans.” Taxpayers who earn more than $250,000 would see those tax breaks disappear in 2011, while others would still benefit from them.
Why not extend the Bush-era tax breaks for the demographic that is probably the most economically influential? “We don’t think that’s responsible economic policy,” Geithner commented during an interview on the FOX Business Network. He felt that preserving the cuts for the highest-earning Americans would be analogous to “borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from our children.”
Some contend that EGTRRA and JGTRRA have had broader impact. The Tax Foundation (a non-partisan Washington D.C. think tank which often criticizes tax policy) claims that the Bush-era tax cuts have saved the median U.S. family of four about $2,200 per year.
However, an August Gallup poll indicated that only 37% of Americans wanted to keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for all taxpayers. A plurality (44%) wanted to end them for those earning above $250,000, and 15% wanted them gone altogether. In partisan terms, 60% of the Democrats polled favored extending the cuts for all but the wealthiest Americans; 54% of Republicans polled wanted them retained for everyone.
Offering tax breaks for capital spending and R&D. President Obama wants to allow businesses to write off 100% of their investment costs through 2011. He also wants to bring back the research tax credit for businesses – it would be expanded and made permanent.
What would a 100% expensing credit do for the business sector? On the right, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw calls it a “good idea” yet feels “the impact will be relatively modest.” In his view, this tax break amounts to “a zero-interest loan if [companies] invest in equipment. But with interest rates near zero anyway, the value of the loan is not that great.” On the left, UC Berkeley economist (and former Labor Secretary) Robert Reich thinks that “the economy needs two whopping corporate tax cuts right now as much as someone with a serious heart condition needs Botox. The reason businesses aren’t investing in new plant and equipment has nothing to do with the cost of capital. It’s because they don’t need the additional capacity.”
Historically, the R&D tax credit has favored larger companies with long track records in research rather than smaller firms. Since 1981, Congress has allowed the R&D credit to sunset 13 times – it expired again at the end of last year. In the Obama proposal, the most popular R&D tax credit offered to businesses would rise to 17% from 14%. Many Silicon Valley firms and biomedical firms would love any break they can get – R&D credits in India, China and Brazil are all greater than in the U.S., and France's R&D tax credit is six times more generous than ours.
Infrastructure projects to provide added stimulus. The President also wants to devote another $50 billion to infrastructure spending on roads, railroads and airports. The money would be used to repair 150,000 miles of highways and 4,000 miles of railways, among other uses. Some transportation industry analysts see it as merely a drop in the bucket – but also possibly a step toward the creation of a national infrastructural fund.
What might the effect be? Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi thinks the proposed tax breaks would be “helpful but they're not going to jump start the economy, at least not in the next six to twelve months.” Interviewed by CNN, Zandi noted that “Investment spending has picked up very nicely, that's not the problem. The problem is a lack of hiring.”
David Rosenberg, chief economist at investment bank Gluskin Sheff, is one voice more skeptical about the business tax breaks. He notes that “We already have business spending running at its fastest rate in three decades … how ridiculous is it for the government to be targeting tax relief to the one part of the economy that needs it the least?”
Standard & Poor’s chief economist David Wyss feels that any new government stimulus is better than none, saying that “going cold turkey” in 2010 would severely damage growth. The debate on Capitol Hill over these tax initiatives will likely amplify as we head into fall.
Many Americans are frustrated with the pace of the economic recovery; many Democrats are worried that their party will lose its majority in the House and Senate. As elections loom, President Obama has offered a new platform of tax initiatives for Congress to consider and potentially approve.
Extending the Bush-era tax cuts (for the middle class). President Obama wants to extend the EGTRRA and JGTRRA cuts of the last decade – but not to what Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner referred to as the “most fortunate 2% of Americans.” Taxpayers who earn more than $250,000 would see those tax breaks disappear in 2011, while others would still benefit from them.
Why not extend the Bush-era tax breaks for the demographic that is probably the most economically influential? “We don’t think that’s responsible economic policy,” Geithner commented during an interview on the FOX Business Network. He felt that preserving the cuts for the highest-earning Americans would be analogous to “borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from our children.”
Some contend that EGTRRA and JGTRRA have had broader impact. The Tax Foundation (a non-partisan Washington D.C. think tank which often criticizes tax policy) claims that the Bush-era tax cuts have saved the median U.S. family of four about $2,200 per year.
However, an August Gallup poll indicated that only 37% of Americans wanted to keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for all taxpayers. A plurality (44%) wanted to end them for those earning above $250,000, and 15% wanted them gone altogether. In partisan terms, 60% of the Democrats polled favored extending the cuts for all but the wealthiest Americans; 54% of Republicans polled wanted them retained for everyone.
Offering tax breaks for capital spending and R&D. President Obama wants to allow businesses to write off 100% of their investment costs through 2011. He also wants to bring back the research tax credit for businesses – it would be expanded and made permanent.
What would a 100% expensing credit do for the business sector? On the right, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw calls it a “good idea” yet feels “the impact will be relatively modest.” In his view, this tax break amounts to “a zero-interest loan if [companies] invest in equipment. But with interest rates near zero anyway, the value of the loan is not that great.” On the left, UC Berkeley economist (and former Labor Secretary) Robert Reich thinks that “the economy needs two whopping corporate tax cuts right now as much as someone with a serious heart condition needs Botox. The reason businesses aren’t investing in new plant and equipment has nothing to do with the cost of capital. It’s because they don’t need the additional capacity.”
Historically, the R&D tax credit has favored larger companies with long track records in research rather than smaller firms. Since 1981, Congress has allowed the R&D credit to sunset 13 times – it expired again at the end of last year. In the Obama proposal, the most popular R&D tax credit offered to businesses would rise to 17% from 14%. Many Silicon Valley firms and biomedical firms would love any break they can get – R&D credits in India, China and Brazil are all greater than in the U.S., and France's R&D tax credit is six times more generous than ours.
Infrastructure projects to provide added stimulus. The President also wants to devote another $50 billion to infrastructure spending on roads, railroads and airports. The money would be used to repair 150,000 miles of highways and 4,000 miles of railways, among other uses. Some transportation industry analysts see it as merely a drop in the bucket – but also possibly a step toward the creation of a national infrastructural fund.
What might the effect be? Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi thinks the proposed tax breaks would be “helpful but they're not going to jump start the economy, at least not in the next six to twelve months.” Interviewed by CNN, Zandi noted that “Investment spending has picked up very nicely, that's not the problem. The problem is a lack of hiring.”
David Rosenberg, chief economist at investment bank Gluskin Sheff, is one voice more skeptical about the business tax breaks. He notes that “We already have business spending running at its fastest rate in three decades … how ridiculous is it for the government to be targeting tax relief to the one part of the economy that needs it the least?”
Standard & Poor’s chief economist David Wyss feels that any new government stimulus is better than none, saying that “going cold turkey” in 2010 would severely damage growth. The debate on Capitol Hill over these tax initiatives will likely amplify as we head into fall.
Friday, July 16, 2010
How LTC Insurance Can Help Protect Your Assets
Create a pool of healthcare dollars that will grow in any market.
How will you pay for long term care? The sad fact is that most people don’t know the answer to that question. But a solution is available.
As baby boomers leave their careers behind, long term care insurance will become very important in their financial strategies. The reasons to get an LTC policy after age 50 are very compelling.
Your premium payments buy you access to a large pool of money which can be used to pay for long term care costs. By paying for LTC out of that pool of money, you can preserve your retirement savings and income.
The cost of assisted living or nursing home care alone could motivate you to pay the premiums. Genworth Financial conducts a respected annual Cost of Care Survey to gauge the price of long term care in the U.S. The 2010 report found that
• In 2010, the median annual cost of a private room in a nursing home is $75,190 or $206 per day – $14,965 more than it was in 2005.
• A private one-bedroom unit in an assisted living facility has a median cost of $3,185 a month – which is 12% higher than it was in 2009.
• The median payment to a non-Medicare certified, state-licensed home health aide is $19 in 2010, up 2.7% from 2009.
Can you imagine spending an extra $30-80K out of your retirement savings in a year? What if you had to do it for more than one year?
AARP notes that approximately 60% of people over age 65 will require some kind of long term care during their lifetimes.
Why procrastinate? The earlier you opt for LTC coverage, the cheaper the premiums. This is why many people purchase it before they retire. Those in poor health or over the age of 80 are frequently ineligible for coverage.
What it pays for. Some people think LTC coverage just pays for nursing home care. That’s inaccurate. It can pay for a wide variety of nursing, social, and rehabilitative services at home and away from home, for people with a chronic illness or disability or people who just need assistance bathing, eating or dressing.
Choosing a DBA. That stands for Daily Benefit Amount - the maximum amount that your LTC plan will pay per day for care in a nursing home facility. You can choose a Daily Benefit Amount when you pay for your LTC coverage, and you can also choose the length of time that you may receive the full DBA on a daily basis. The DBA typically ranges from a few dozen dollars to hundreds of dollars. Some of these plans offer you “inflation protection” at enrollment, meaning that every few years, you will have the chance to buy additional coverage and get compounding - so your pool of money can grow.
The Medicare misconception. Too many people think Medicare will pick up the cost of long term care. Medicare is not long term care insurance. Medicare will only pay for the first 100 days of nursing home care, and only if 1) you are getting skilled care and 2) you go into the nursing home right after a hospital stay of at least 3 days. Medicare also covers limited home visits for skilled care, and some hospice services for the terminally ill. That’s all.
Now, Medicaid can actually pay for long term care – if you are destitute. Are you willing to wait until you are broke for a way to fund long term care? Of course not. LTC insurance provides a way to do it.
Why not look into this? You may have heard that LTC insurance is expensive compared with some other forms of policies. But the annual premiums (about as much as you’d spend on a used car from the late 1990s) are nothing compared to real-world LTC costs. Ask your insurance advisor or financial advisor about some of the LTC choices you can explore – while many Americans have life, health and disability insurance, that’s not the same thing as long term care coverage.
How will you pay for long term care? The sad fact is that most people don’t know the answer to that question. But a solution is available.
As baby boomers leave their careers behind, long term care insurance will become very important in their financial strategies. The reasons to get an LTC policy after age 50 are very compelling.
Your premium payments buy you access to a large pool of money which can be used to pay for long term care costs. By paying for LTC out of that pool of money, you can preserve your retirement savings and income.
The cost of assisted living or nursing home care alone could motivate you to pay the premiums. Genworth Financial conducts a respected annual Cost of Care Survey to gauge the price of long term care in the U.S. The 2010 report found that
• In 2010, the median annual cost of a private room in a nursing home is $75,190 or $206 per day – $14,965 more than it was in 2005.
• A private one-bedroom unit in an assisted living facility has a median cost of $3,185 a month – which is 12% higher than it was in 2009.
• The median payment to a non-Medicare certified, state-licensed home health aide is $19 in 2010, up 2.7% from 2009.
Can you imagine spending an extra $30-80K out of your retirement savings in a year? What if you had to do it for more than one year?
AARP notes that approximately 60% of people over age 65 will require some kind of long term care during their lifetimes.
Why procrastinate? The earlier you opt for LTC coverage, the cheaper the premiums. This is why many people purchase it before they retire. Those in poor health or over the age of 80 are frequently ineligible for coverage.
What it pays for. Some people think LTC coverage just pays for nursing home care. That’s inaccurate. It can pay for a wide variety of nursing, social, and rehabilitative services at home and away from home, for people with a chronic illness or disability or people who just need assistance bathing, eating or dressing.
Choosing a DBA. That stands for Daily Benefit Amount - the maximum amount that your LTC plan will pay per day for care in a nursing home facility. You can choose a Daily Benefit Amount when you pay for your LTC coverage, and you can also choose the length of time that you may receive the full DBA on a daily basis. The DBA typically ranges from a few dozen dollars to hundreds of dollars. Some of these plans offer you “inflation protection” at enrollment, meaning that every few years, you will have the chance to buy additional coverage and get compounding - so your pool of money can grow.
The Medicare misconception. Too many people think Medicare will pick up the cost of long term care. Medicare is not long term care insurance. Medicare will only pay for the first 100 days of nursing home care, and only if 1) you are getting skilled care and 2) you go into the nursing home right after a hospital stay of at least 3 days. Medicare also covers limited home visits for skilled care, and some hospice services for the terminally ill. That’s all.
Now, Medicaid can actually pay for long term care – if you are destitute. Are you willing to wait until you are broke for a way to fund long term care? Of course not. LTC insurance provides a way to do it.
Why not look into this? You may have heard that LTC insurance is expensive compared with some other forms of policies. But the annual premiums (about as much as you’d spend on a used car from the late 1990s) are nothing compared to real-world LTC costs. Ask your insurance advisor or financial advisor about some of the LTC choices you can explore – while many Americans have life, health and disability insurance, that’s not the same thing as long term care coverage.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Should You Downsize For Retirement?
It may be better to sell that big home rather than keep it.
You want to retire, and you own a large home that is nearly or fully paid off. The kids are gone, but the upkeep costs haven’t fallen. Should you retire and keep your home? Or sell your home and retire? Maybe it’s time to downsize.
Lower expenses could put more cash in your pocket. If your home isn’t paid off yet, have you considered how much money is going toward the home loan? The typical mortgage payment in the U.S. represents about 30% of gross income and about 50% of after-tax income. When you move to a smaller home, your mortgage expenses may diminish and your cash flow may greatly increase – and don’t forget about interest savings over the life of the loan.
You might even be able to buy a smaller home with cash (if finances permit) and cut your tax liability. Optionally, that smaller home could also be in a region with lower income taxes and a lower cost of living.
You could capitalize on some home equity. Why not convert some home equity into retirement income? If you were forced into early retirement by some corporate downsizing, you might have a sudden and pressing need for retirement capital – another reason to sell that home you bought decades ago and head for a smaller one.
The lifestyle reasons to downsize (or not). Maybe your home is too much to keep up, or maybe you don’t want to climb stairs anymore. Maybe a condo or an over-55 community appeals to you. Maybe you want to be where it seldom snows. On the other hand, you may want and need the familiarity of your current home and your immediate neighborhood (not to mention the friends attached).
If you decide to downsize, it may not pay to wait. Anyone who wants to retire in the current economy needs all the financial resources that can be mustered. Of course, the real estate market will eventually improve; it depends on how long you want to wait for improvement. Some people want to retire and then sell their home, but it may be wiser to sell a home and then retire since homes tend to sit on the market these days. If you sell sooner instead of later, you can always rent until you find a smaller house that could save you thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars.
You want to retire, and you own a large home that is nearly or fully paid off. The kids are gone, but the upkeep costs haven’t fallen. Should you retire and keep your home? Or sell your home and retire? Maybe it’s time to downsize.
Lower expenses could put more cash in your pocket. If your home isn’t paid off yet, have you considered how much money is going toward the home loan? The typical mortgage payment in the U.S. represents about 30% of gross income and about 50% of after-tax income. When you move to a smaller home, your mortgage expenses may diminish and your cash flow may greatly increase – and don’t forget about interest savings over the life of the loan.
You might even be able to buy a smaller home with cash (if finances permit) and cut your tax liability. Optionally, that smaller home could also be in a region with lower income taxes and a lower cost of living.
You could capitalize on some home equity. Why not convert some home equity into retirement income? If you were forced into early retirement by some corporate downsizing, you might have a sudden and pressing need for retirement capital – another reason to sell that home you bought decades ago and head for a smaller one.
The lifestyle reasons to downsize (or not). Maybe your home is too much to keep up, or maybe you don’t want to climb stairs anymore. Maybe a condo or an over-55 community appeals to you. Maybe you want to be where it seldom snows. On the other hand, you may want and need the familiarity of your current home and your immediate neighborhood (not to mention the friends attached).
If you decide to downsize, it may not pay to wait. Anyone who wants to retire in the current economy needs all the financial resources that can be mustered. Of course, the real estate market will eventually improve; it depends on how long you want to wait for improvement. Some people want to retire and then sell their home, but it may be wiser to sell a home and then retire since homes tend to sit on the market these days. If you sell sooner instead of later, you can always rent until you find a smaller house that could save you thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars.
Friday, July 9, 2010
What Exactly is Wealth Management?
The two words signify a far-reaching kind of financial care.
There’s financial planning, and then there’s wealth management. Think of wealth management as a step up from garden-variety financial planning. One office (rather than one person) provides a range of services for a client: personal financial planning and investment management, tax reduction and estate planning strategies, and occasionally in-house legal resources. Business continuation planning, tax preparation and even budgeting and bill paying are sometimes added to the menu.
The difference is really big-picture. Financial planning usually means creating a strategy for accumulating wealth for retirement and personal goals. Investment management focuses on managing financial assets with a performance level in mind. Wealth management, in comparison, considers the total net worth of a family, a couple or an individual. It weighs financial decisions in light of an investment portfolio and additional components of the financial picture such as real estate, insurance, a business, charitable gifting and more.
Yet it is also about paying attention to detail. Every successful professional or business owner reaches a point of delegation – there comes a point at which you can’t do it all yourself. Indeed, it can be hazardous to try and keep track of every detail without help. The same goes for your finances – your taxes, your investments, your various accounts.
Good wealth management helps you stay on top of things. A skilled wealth management firm pays attention to many of the financial details in your life for you. You can free up your mind. You feel confident because the wealth management firm has an ongoing relationship with you, with regular reviews and communication.
Wealth management unites advisors from different disciplines as a team. The team looks at your goals, needs and priorities to determine the right, individualized strategy for guiding your invested assets and enhancing your net worth.
When is it time for wealth management? If you have too many financial concerns, issues or priorities to address by yourself, then it is certainly time for this kind of financial care. And even if your financial life is less complex, significant wealth calls for a vigilant, ongoing management approach.
There’s financial planning, and then there’s wealth management. Think of wealth management as a step up from garden-variety financial planning. One office (rather than one person) provides a range of services for a client: personal financial planning and investment management, tax reduction and estate planning strategies, and occasionally in-house legal resources. Business continuation planning, tax preparation and even budgeting and bill paying are sometimes added to the menu.
The difference is really big-picture. Financial planning usually means creating a strategy for accumulating wealth for retirement and personal goals. Investment management focuses on managing financial assets with a performance level in mind. Wealth management, in comparison, considers the total net worth of a family, a couple or an individual. It weighs financial decisions in light of an investment portfolio and additional components of the financial picture such as real estate, insurance, a business, charitable gifting and more.
Yet it is also about paying attention to detail. Every successful professional or business owner reaches a point of delegation – there comes a point at which you can’t do it all yourself. Indeed, it can be hazardous to try and keep track of every detail without help. The same goes for your finances – your taxes, your investments, your various accounts.
Good wealth management helps you stay on top of things. A skilled wealth management firm pays attention to many of the financial details in your life for you. You can free up your mind. You feel confident because the wealth management firm has an ongoing relationship with you, with regular reviews and communication.
Wealth management unites advisors from different disciplines as a team. The team looks at your goals, needs and priorities to determine the right, individualized strategy for guiding your invested assets and enhancing your net worth.
When is it time for wealth management? If you have too many financial concerns, issues or priorities to address by yourself, then it is certainly time for this kind of financial care. And even if your financial life is less complex, significant wealth calls for a vigilant, ongoing management approach.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Why Four Percent For Retirement?
Why are retirement plans often created assuming a 4% withdrawal rate?
When retirement planners try to estimate just how much money a couple or individual should take out of their savings annually, their model scenarios often assume a 4% annual withdrawal rate. Why is 4% used so frequently? Was that percentage plucked out of thin air? No, it actually became popular back in the 1990s.
The “Trinity Study” helped popularize the 4% guideline. In 1998, a trio of professors at San Antonio’s Trinity University analyzed historical market data between 1925 and 1995 in search of a “sustainable” withdrawal rate. They used five different portfolio compositions - 100% stocks, 100% bonds, and 25/75, 50/50 and 75/25 mixes. (For purposes of the study, “stocks” equaled the S&P 500 and “bonds” equaled long-term, high-grade domestic debt instruments.) They tried to see which withdrawal rates would leave these portfolios with positive values at the end of 15, 20, 25 and 30 years.
Their conclusion? If you are retired and withdraw more than 5% annually, you increase the chances of depleting your portfolio during your lifetime.
Subsequently, another such study was conducted by RetireEarly.com using financial market data from 1871 to 1998 – and that report reached the same conclusion.
However, that wasn’t all the study had to say. The “Trinity Study” made some other conclusions that were not entirely in agreement. The professors maintained that most retirees should have 50% or more of their portfolios in stocks. But they also noted that retirees withdrawing just 3-4% a year from stock-dominated portfolios may end up helping their heirs get rich while hurting their own standard of living.
Perhaps most interestingly, the study concluded that an 8-9% withdrawal rate from a stock-heavy portfolio was sustainable for a period of 15 years or less – but not for longer periods. In other words, while our parents and grandparents could confidently withdraw 8-9%, we who might easily live to age 90 or 100 probably can’t.
Another 4% advocate: Bill Bengen. In 1994, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ practitioner William P. Bengen published a landmark article in the Journal of Financial Planning presenting his own research findings on withdrawal rates from retirement savings. While Bengen published this article in the middle of a long bull market, he factored in the possibility of extended bear markets, minimal annual stock market gains and sustained high inflation.
Looking at 75 years worth of stock market returns and retirement scenarios, Bengen concluded that a retiree who was 50-75% invested in stocks should draw down a portfolio by 4% or less per year. He felt that retirees who did this had a great chance of making their retirement money last a lifetime. In contrast, he felt that retirees taking 5% annual withdrawals had about a 30% possibility of eventually outliving their money. He put that risk at better than 50% for retirees withdrawing 6-7% per year.
Over time, people began to call Bengen’s dictum the “4% drawdown rule”. The model 4% income distribution could be inflation-adjusted – in year one, 4% of a portfolio could be withdrawn, in year two that 4% withdrawal amount could be sweetened by .03% for 3% inflation, and so on.
A dissenting view. In 2009, William Sharpe (one of the Nobel Prize-winning principals of Modern Portfolio Theory) published an article in the Journal of Investment Management contending that “it is time to replace the 4% rule with approaches better grounded in fundamental economic analysis.” Sharpe thinks that “the 4% rule's approach to spending and investing wastes a significant portion of a retiree's savings and is thus prima facie inefficient.” If a portfolio underperforms, he notes, you have a spending shortfall; and if it surpasses performance expectations, you end up with a “wasted surplus”.
So in Sharpe’s view, by adhering to a 4% rule, you either risk living too large or short-changing yourself. Therefore, it would be better to constantly fine-tune a withdrawal rate according to time horizon and market conditions.
While not necessarily a rule, 4% is a frequent recommendation. There is some compelling research to support the “4% rule”, and that is why financial advisers often cite it and tell retirees not to withdraw too much.
Would withdrawing 4% of your portfolio annually (with adjustments for inflation) allow you to live well? For some of us, the answer will be yes; others will need to address an income shortfall. As we retire, most of us will want to practice some degree of growth investing. Now may be the right time to talk about it.
When retirement planners try to estimate just how much money a couple or individual should take out of their savings annually, their model scenarios often assume a 4% annual withdrawal rate. Why is 4% used so frequently? Was that percentage plucked out of thin air? No, it actually became popular back in the 1990s.
The “Trinity Study” helped popularize the 4% guideline. In 1998, a trio of professors at San Antonio’s Trinity University analyzed historical market data between 1925 and 1995 in search of a “sustainable” withdrawal rate. They used five different portfolio compositions - 100% stocks, 100% bonds, and 25/75, 50/50 and 75/25 mixes. (For purposes of the study, “stocks” equaled the S&P 500 and “bonds” equaled long-term, high-grade domestic debt instruments.) They tried to see which withdrawal rates would leave these portfolios with positive values at the end of 15, 20, 25 and 30 years.
Their conclusion? If you are retired and withdraw more than 5% annually, you increase the chances of depleting your portfolio during your lifetime.
Subsequently, another such study was conducted by RetireEarly.com using financial market data from 1871 to 1998 – and that report reached the same conclusion.
However, that wasn’t all the study had to say. The “Trinity Study” made some other conclusions that were not entirely in agreement. The professors maintained that most retirees should have 50% or more of their portfolios in stocks. But they also noted that retirees withdrawing just 3-4% a year from stock-dominated portfolios may end up helping their heirs get rich while hurting their own standard of living.
Perhaps most interestingly, the study concluded that an 8-9% withdrawal rate from a stock-heavy portfolio was sustainable for a period of 15 years or less – but not for longer periods. In other words, while our parents and grandparents could confidently withdraw 8-9%, we who might easily live to age 90 or 100 probably can’t.
Another 4% advocate: Bill Bengen. In 1994, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ practitioner William P. Bengen published a landmark article in the Journal of Financial Planning presenting his own research findings on withdrawal rates from retirement savings. While Bengen published this article in the middle of a long bull market, he factored in the possibility of extended bear markets, minimal annual stock market gains and sustained high inflation.
Looking at 75 years worth of stock market returns and retirement scenarios, Bengen concluded that a retiree who was 50-75% invested in stocks should draw down a portfolio by 4% or less per year. He felt that retirees who did this had a great chance of making their retirement money last a lifetime. In contrast, he felt that retirees taking 5% annual withdrawals had about a 30% possibility of eventually outliving their money. He put that risk at better than 50% for retirees withdrawing 6-7% per year.
Over time, people began to call Bengen’s dictum the “4% drawdown rule”. The model 4% income distribution could be inflation-adjusted – in year one, 4% of a portfolio could be withdrawn, in year two that 4% withdrawal amount could be sweetened by .03% for 3% inflation, and so on.
A dissenting view. In 2009, William Sharpe (one of the Nobel Prize-winning principals of Modern Portfolio Theory) published an article in the Journal of Investment Management contending that “it is time to replace the 4% rule with approaches better grounded in fundamental economic analysis.” Sharpe thinks that “the 4% rule's approach to spending and investing wastes a significant portion of a retiree's savings and is thus prima facie inefficient.” If a portfolio underperforms, he notes, you have a spending shortfall; and if it surpasses performance expectations, you end up with a “wasted surplus”.
So in Sharpe’s view, by adhering to a 4% rule, you either risk living too large or short-changing yourself. Therefore, it would be better to constantly fine-tune a withdrawal rate according to time horizon and market conditions.
While not necessarily a rule, 4% is a frequent recommendation. There is some compelling research to support the “4% rule”, and that is why financial advisers often cite it and tell retirees not to withdraw too much.
Would withdrawing 4% of your portfolio annually (with adjustments for inflation) allow you to live well? For some of us, the answer will be yes; others will need to address an income shortfall. As we retire, most of us will want to practice some degree of growth investing. Now may be the right time to talk about it.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Taxing the Rich to Pay for Health Care
That’s part of the plan. How will you be affected?
In 2013, wealthy Americans will pay extra Medicare taxes. Congress, President Obama and the IRS are putting a surcharge on the wealthy to help fund the health care reforms.
• Beginning in 2013, joint filers with adjusted gross incomes of $250,000 or greater and single filers with AGI of $200,000 or greater will have to pay 0.9% extra in FICA taxes (that is, Social Security and Medicare taxes). The employers of these taxpayers face no such increase.
• Also, joint filers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) of $250,000 or more and single filers with MAGI of $200,000 or more will be docked with a 3.8% tax on investment income. (Even estates and trusts will be subject to this new 3.8% levy.)
What might the dollar impact be? The Tax Foundation, a politically conservative watchdog organization, thinks that the richest 1% of American families will pay an average of $52,000 more in federal taxes by 2016.
What are the chances of these tax hikes being repealed? Think slim and none. Basically, you’d have to repeal the health care reforms to make it happen.
How can you avoid the 3.8% tax on dividends, capital gains & interest? It won’t be easy. Real estate investors may luck out the most, because federal law characterizes rental income as “active” rather than “passive”. On the other hand, if you sell a home you’ve owned for decades and see a taxable gain above the home sale exclusion ($250,000 single, $500,000 married), you’ll face the 3.8% tax.
Some forms of unearned income won’t be slapped with the tax. IRA distributions and income distributions from 401(a), 403(b) and 457(b) plans will be exempt. The same goes for pension income and Social Security income. Annuities that are part of a pension plan will be exempt. Any income from a business that you participate in won’t be hit with the 3.8% tax. Veterans’ benefits, life insurance payouts and interest earned by municipal bonds will also be spared.
As a result of this tax, you might start to see subtle shifts in financial strategy. You might see more muni bond purchases, more interest in life insurance, and more installment sales. As qualified Roth IRA distributions don’t boost AGI, you might be looking at another factor promoting Roth IRA conversions. Everybody will think about taking some capital gains prior to 2013.
The richest Americans have paid less tax in recent decades. Wealth for the Common Good (a liberal non-profit looking at this matter) notes that in 1955, the 400 largest incomes in America paid 51.2% of those incomes back in federal taxes. That led to the “tax shelters” of the 1960s and 1970s. In comparison, the top 400 incomes in America in 2007 paid out only an average of 16.6% in federal taxes.
So how can you reduce your taxes in 2013? It is not too early to think about it. You might want to devote a planning session to this topic, or start to read up on your options.
In 2013, wealthy Americans will pay extra Medicare taxes. Congress, President Obama and the IRS are putting a surcharge on the wealthy to help fund the health care reforms.
• Beginning in 2013, joint filers with adjusted gross incomes of $250,000 or greater and single filers with AGI of $200,000 or greater will have to pay 0.9% extra in FICA taxes (that is, Social Security and Medicare taxes). The employers of these taxpayers face no such increase.
• Also, joint filers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) of $250,000 or more and single filers with MAGI of $200,000 or more will be docked with a 3.8% tax on investment income. (Even estates and trusts will be subject to this new 3.8% levy.)
What might the dollar impact be? The Tax Foundation, a politically conservative watchdog organization, thinks that the richest 1% of American families will pay an average of $52,000 more in federal taxes by 2016.
What are the chances of these tax hikes being repealed? Think slim and none. Basically, you’d have to repeal the health care reforms to make it happen.
How can you avoid the 3.8% tax on dividends, capital gains & interest? It won’t be easy. Real estate investors may luck out the most, because federal law characterizes rental income as “active” rather than “passive”. On the other hand, if you sell a home you’ve owned for decades and see a taxable gain above the home sale exclusion ($250,000 single, $500,000 married), you’ll face the 3.8% tax.
Some forms of unearned income won’t be slapped with the tax. IRA distributions and income distributions from 401(a), 403(b) and 457(b) plans will be exempt. The same goes for pension income and Social Security income. Annuities that are part of a pension plan will be exempt. Any income from a business that you participate in won’t be hit with the 3.8% tax. Veterans’ benefits, life insurance payouts and interest earned by municipal bonds will also be spared.
As a result of this tax, you might start to see subtle shifts in financial strategy. You might see more muni bond purchases, more interest in life insurance, and more installment sales. As qualified Roth IRA distributions don’t boost AGI, you might be looking at another factor promoting Roth IRA conversions. Everybody will think about taking some capital gains prior to 2013.
The richest Americans have paid less tax in recent decades. Wealth for the Common Good (a liberal non-profit looking at this matter) notes that in 1955, the 400 largest incomes in America paid 51.2% of those incomes back in federal taxes. That led to the “tax shelters” of the 1960s and 1970s. In comparison, the top 400 incomes in America in 2007 paid out only an average of 16.6% in federal taxes.
So how can you reduce your taxes in 2013? It is not too early to think about it. You might want to devote a planning session to this topic, or start to read up on your options.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
