FREE NEWSLETTER

If the parents are paying, a college education is priceless. If they aren’t, it’s an investment—and the return better outweigh the cost.

Latest PostsAll Discussions »

Beware the CFP Designation?

"I was a PE for 43 years. I gave it up three years after I retired when they still wanted fees and continuing education credits. But the only financials I did were my own."
- Jeff Bond
Read more »

Inflation, prices, COLAs, retirement and the last 16 years

"I had a government employee who was a 1040 tax client back in 1984 when an earlier law change occurred that mandated all members of congress pay into the social system. See SS historical FAQ #5."
- William Perry
Read more »

Before Someone Else Decides

"I browsed it quickly but it looks great, and what people need to consider in retirement living. Thank you for sharing this Kathleen."
- Jerry Pinkard
Read more »

Taking a Loss?

"Mark, Thanks for replying. I like your “opportunity yield“ phrasing much better than my “coin flip” phrasing…thanks for clarifying. Interest-rate direction is definitely a tough nut to crack and none of us know what really is going to happen much like the ups and downs of the equity market. I do have a plan, I’m still trying to determine the thoroughness… so still reading and still learning 🤔. TIPS may find their way in my portfolio yet 😉. The HD community is helping me in that regard."
- Andy Morrison
Read more »

Subconscious Frugality

"I applaud the cost-effectiveness of the course's double-nine concept! ... One reason I stopped even my rare rounds decades ago was that I had spent too much time searching in vain for the balls I sprayed all over the hilly courses."
- Joe Kiefer
Read more »

$400,000 Mistake

BOB MADE A very expensive tax mistake. Doctors told Bob that he only has a year to live… What did Bob do?

He decided to gift a house to his only son before passing away. The house is worth $2,000,000 that he bought back in 1970 for $50,000 in an expensive suburb of California.

The son decided to sell the house and paid about $430,000 in federal taxes.

$430,000 that could have been $0 instead…

How?

When you gift a property to someone, they receive a "carryover basis." It basically means the same price the original owner purchased it for.

The basis of that house was $50,000, so the son had to pay capital gains tax on the difference between the $2 million sale price and the basis, at rates reaching up to 23.8% on the top portion of the gain. But this is where a step-up in basis could come into play.

Assets such as a house or shares held in a brokerage account, when owned inside an estate rather than an irrevocable trust, receive a step-up in basis to their fair market value (FMV) at the time of the decedent's death, per IRC Section 1014. In our case, if Bob held that house in his own name, passed away, and his son received the house, he would've gotten a step-up in basis to the current value, or $2M.

At the time of the sale, if sold for $2M, he would pay $0 in federal taxes, though state tax might still apply. That's about $430,000 of "savings."

"But who cares, Bob is dead anyways?"

While true, many parents still want to make sure their children don't have to pay half a million in taxes. They want their children to enjoy the fruits of their hard labor.

Specifics

The step-up in basis can be a bit nuanced, depending on how the assets are held and titled.

First, the step-up in basis typically adjusts to the market value, unless an election is made to use the value six months after the date of death, subject to certain rules.

The step-up in basis also doesn't apply to assets held in an irrevocable trust , though we will cover some strategies for that later, or to assets held in qualified retirement accounts, such as IRAs and 401(k)s.

In a community property state (Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin), the basis steps up whenever a spouse dies. You will typically need to complete a form to receive this step-up in a brokerage account. 

For assets held in joint tenancy, the step-up applies only to the deceased partner's share. For example, Bob and Jenice have a house worth $300,000 with a $50,000 basis. After Bob passes away, Jenice will have a $175,000 basis in the house, calculated as ($300,000 minus $50,000) divided by two, plus $50,000.

There are also two additional things to keep in mind:

1. Living on the right assets

Bob, age 75, has two accounts: a traditional 401(k) worth $500,000 and a brokerage account worth $500,000. Bob's diagnosis isn't good.

From a tax-planning perspective, it might make a lot more sense to withdraw, say, $50,000 a year from the 401(k) to live on, $20,000 of which would be required minimum distributions (RMDs), and pass down the brokerage account to his beneficiaries.

This is because the brokerage account likely has a lot of gains. Bob bought many stocks in his 30s and 40s that could be stepped up now. But a more in-depth analysis might be needed if Bob has a lot of income and is in a high marginal tax bracket.

2. Selling the right lots

Say Bob has a $500,000 brokerage account. Some of the stock purchases have a low basis, meaning a lot of capital gains, and some have a high basis, meaning fewer capital gains.

It's best to sell the high-basis stocks, which come with a lower capital gains tax, and pass down the low-basis stocks to the beneficiaries.

Planning matters. These mistakes can cost thousands of dollars in unnecessary taxes. As always, make sure to consult a licensed CPA or estate attorney with your unique circumstances.

 

Bogdan Sheremeta is a licensed CPA based in Illinois with experience at Deloitte and a Fortune 200 multinational.  
Read more »

Social Security

AT FIRST GLANCE, Social Security appears straightforward. During our working years, we pay into it, and in retirement, it sends us a monthly check, guaranteed for life. Unfortunately, it isn’t always so simple. Below are five aspects of the system that are frequently misunderstood. Benefits estimates. Look at a Social Security statement, and an easy-to-read chart provides estimates of the benefits available at various ages. The heading above the chart reads, “Personalized Monthly Retirement Benefit Estimates Depending on the Age You Start.” That seems clear. But there’s a caveat that can make the chart misleading. Off to the side, there’s a further explanation that reads: “These personalized estimates are based on your earnings to date and assume you continue to earn [your most recently reported salary] per year until you start your benefits.” The numbers shown, in other words, are not guaranteed.  Why would the statements be presented this way? It’s because the Social Security Administration can’t predict when any given person will stop working, so for simplicity of presentation, it assumes that someone will continue working and continue earning the same income each year into the future and will then retire and immediately claim benefits. For most people, this isn’t how it works out, but Social Security has no way to know what each person will choose. That’s why benefits statements shouldn’t be taken at face value. How can you forecast your actual benefit? Fortunately, Social Security’s website provides a calculator that allows custom calculations based on actual retirement expectations. Continuing to work. Some people worry that there would be a negative impact if they chose to continue working after claiming Social Security. This concern isn’t totally unfounded. It’s known as the Social Security earnings test, but there are some details to be aware of. First, the earnings test doesn’t apply after a worker reaches Full Retirement Age. And second, to the extent that benefits are reduced in the years before FRA, Social Security will add back those amounts to future checks. So working while on Social Security shouldn’t be viewed as so problematic. Maximum benefit. All things being equal, Social Security retirement benefits increase with each year that you wait, up until age 70. This is broadly understood. The problem, though, is that oftentimes people view it almost as a rule to wait until 70, but that isn’t always the best choice. For married couples, especially where one spouse has accumulated a larger benefit, there are two reasons why one spouse might claim earlier than 70. The first relates to what’s known as the spousal benefit. This is a feature that originated in the days when more families had just one working spouse, and it provides a benefit to spouses who haven’t worked the requisite 10 years to earn a benefit. In general, the spousal benefit is equal to half of the higher-earning spouse’s benefit at their Full Retirement Age (FRA), which is now age 67 for most people. The only requirement is that the lower-earning spouse can’t start benefits until the higher-earning spouse has started his or her own benefit. The spousal benefit is terrific, but a commonly misunderstood limitation is that—unlike a worker’s own benefit—it doesn’t continue to increase each year until age 70. It hits a maximum at the spouse’s FRA. For that reason, it’s important for a spouse to not delay beyond that point.  Even when both spouses have accrued their own benefits, it often makes sense for the spouse with the smaller benefit to claim somewhat earlier than 70. To understand why, we need to look at it from the perspective of the higher earning spouse’s benefit. Because that benefit would also be available to the lower-earning spouse in the form of a survivor’s benefit (discussed further below), that larger benefit will be available to either spouse as long as either is living. The smaller benefit, on the other hand, has value only while both spouses are living. And while it’s unfortunate to say, that is statistically less likely. For that reason, I generally recommend that the lower-earning spouse claim at, or around, Full Retirement Age. When to claim. In most conversations about Social Security, people tend to talk about claiming decisions in round numbers—claiming at 67 or 68, for example. The reality, though, is that you can claim at any time between ages 62 and 70. You don’t need to wait for your birthday, and the benefit simply increases by a bit for each month that you wait. I find this helpful because it allows flexibility in how we think about claiming. Not sure whether to start at 67 or 68? You can easily split the difference. Survivor benefits. To understand how the survivor benefit works, imagine a married couple, Joe and Jane. Joe’s benefit is $5,000 per month, and Jane’s is $4,000. Now suppose that Joe passes away. At that point, Jane wouldn’t be able to claim the combined total of $9,000. However, she could claim a survivor’s benefit that would increase her monthly check from $4,000 to $5,000, matching what Joe was receiving. That’s the simplest case, but the survivor benefit decision is often more complicated because it also depends on the age of the survivor. Survivor benefits can be claimed as early as age 60, and that can be helpful in certain situations, but there’s also a penalty for claiming too early. Benefits can be reduced by nearly 30%. In other words, and importantly, Jane wouldn’t automatically be entitled to $5,000 just because that was what Joe was receiving. When would Jane be able to claim the full $5,000? For this determination, Social Security uses a yardstick known as the Full Retirement Age for Survivors. This isn’t exactly the same as the standard FRA, but it’s close. (Social Security provides a calculator to look it up.) What might this look like in practice? Suppose Jane were a year shy of the FRA for survivors at the time that Joe died. In this case, Jane would have a choice. She could claim her survivor’s benefit at that time, but her total check would come out to somewhat less than $5,000. Fortunately, Social Security doesn’t automatically turn on survivor benefits when a spouse dies, thus providing survivors more control. In Jane’s case, she might continue with her own benefit of $4,000 per month for one more year. Then, once she became eligible for 100% of the survivor’s benefit, she could claim the full $1,000 to reach $5,000.   Adam M. Grossman is the founder of Mayport, a fixed-fee wealth management firm. Sign up for Adam's Daily Ideas email, follow him on X @AdamMGrossman and check out his earlier articles.
Read more »

How Did You Find Paid Work After Retiring from Your Primary Career?

"I’ve done a lot of jobs since my official “retirement “ 15 years ago at age 57 due to a layoff. Fortunately I was fully vested in my union pension. Moved from California to Colorado, got my CDL and drove a gas truck for 6 years. Did a lot of very scenic (and sometimes scary) mountain driving. My wife tired of the cold winters, so we reretired, sold the house, bought a motorhome and started traveling. Found a company that paid us to travel doing gas line surveying across country. Did that for about 4 years and settled down near my oldest son to be near grandkids. To keep from being bored, I drove a school bus for 2 years. Now I only drive for overnight and longer field trips because they pay me for every hour I’m away from home. So it’s been a very gradual transition to fully retired."
- Mike Wyant
Read more »

Today in Financial History

"The 1971 view is obsolete. There is no need for a computer clerk."
- Cammer Michael
Read more »

What I Retired To

"Thank you for sharing your story. It sounds as though you truly found your calling in medicine, and there’s no greater compliment than hearing from patients that you made a difference in their lives. I was struck by your comment that it wasn’t the work itself that led you to retire, but everything around it that changed. Sadly, I suspect many professionals have reached that same conclusion. It also sounds as though you’ve carried your love of learning into retirement through your reading, volunteering and staying engaged. I only wish there were an easier way for experienced physicians like you to continue helping others in a volunteer capacity. There is still so much wisdom to share."
- Andrew Clements
Read more »

Value of Waiting

I WAS THINKING ABOUT Jonathan the other day on my morning walk, which happens more often than you might think. It’s hard not to think about him when you have HumbleDollar coasters in your living room and a HumbleDollar shopping bag in your car that you use for groceries. My wife confiscated the HumbleDollar cup I had been using for my morning tea, and it now has a new home in our bathroom holding her toothbrush and toothpaste. There’s even an apron somewhere in the house that Jonathan once sent to all the writers. Ever since I started writing for HumbleDollar in 2017, Jonathan has influenced my retirement. I now own the Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund (symbol: VT) in my investment portfolio because of his recommendation. He liked it for its “broad global diversification in one low-cost fund that covers virtually all publicly traded companies worldwide.” It struck me as a good way to simplify our holdings. I didn’t just borrow some of Jonathan’s investment ideas; I also borrowed some of his words he used when editing my articles. I began peppering my writing with words like fret, upshot, and folks. He once told me, “While your grammar is occasionally a bit dodgy, you have a great ear for language.” I was too embarrassed to ask him what he meant by a “great ear for language.” When I retired, I never imagined that writing for HumbleDollar would become such a big part of my retirement, and I’m grateful to Jonathan for that. I also didn’t think my retirement would be so fluid. I pictured something far more stable: remaining single, living in a one-bedroom condo, and fending for myself. My life now is different. I’m married and live in a three-bedroom home in another city. One of the biggest changes, however, has nothing to do with geography. It has to do with money—specifically, how financial decisions change when there are two people instead of one. I learned that lesson early in our marriage. We got married in August 2020. That December, I woke up one morning and saw blood in my urine. I went to an urologist who ran a series of tests, but it took about a month to determine the cause.   During that time, I decided to consolidate our remaining investment holdings to make things easier for Rachel to manage in case something happened to me. Most of our money was already at Vanguard, except for a 401(k) from my former employer that was invested in a stable value fund. It still held a significant balance. Without much hesitation, I moved it into a bond fund at Vanguard. Not too long afterward, the bond market nosedived. The fund performed poorly—especially compared to the stable value fund the money had been in. The upshot: I panicked—and paid for it. It wasn’t a good time to make a financial decision while I was under stress. Some of the worst money moves happen when emotions are running high—selling stocks at the bottom of a bear market or rushing to act after an unexpected windfall. More often than not, it’s better to wait until you’re clearheaded before making a decision. At the time, I was also fretting about whether Rachel would qualify for my Social Security benefit, which is much larger than hers. You have to be married for at least nine months. I found myself counting off the days. Another financial decision became more complicated simply because we were now a couple: what to do with the three properties we owned—my condo, Rachel’s house, and the house I had inherited. Neither of us wanted to be landlords at this stage of our lives. We were excited about getting married and starting a new life together. I decided to sell my condo during the pandemic, which wasn’t easy. Rather than wait, I accepted an offer of $380,000—$43,000 below the asking price. Rachel decided to wait and rent out her house for two years. She didn’t get caught up in the excitement or rush into selling. As it turned out, that patience paid off. When the for-sale sign finally went up, I would stop by the house to water the yard and rake the falling leaves. One day, a real estate agent and his client were there looking at the property. They kept asking me whether the price listed on the brochure was correct. Rachel’s agent had intentionally priced the house at the lower end of the range in hopes of creating a bidding war. I told them they would have to talk to my wife and her agent because it wasn’t my house. The agent asked how long we had been married. When I told him two years, he nodded and said, “I get it. She wanted to wait until she was sure about the marriage before selling the house.” Rachel laughed when I told her what he said. She wasn’t waiting to see if the marriage would work. She waited because selling a house is a major financial decision, and she didn’t see any reason to rush it. Two years later, the timing turned out to be just right. The market had improved and the strategy worked exactly as planned. There were multiple offers, and the final sale price was well above what it would have been earlier. At the time my wife sold her house, Zillow’s estimated price of my condo was $484,000—$104,000 more than I received. I don’t really know why I was in such a rush to sell. Maybe it had something to do with the pandemic, my mother’s recent death, my sister and brother-in-law moving out of state, or the stress of renovating our new house. It was an emotional time for me, and I was probably searching for some stability in my life. What I’ve learned—both from Jonathan and from being married—is that good financial decisions usually come from patience, not urgency. When I feel anxious or pressured to act, I’m more likely to make a mistake. When I slow down, think things through, and listen—especially to my wife—the outcome is usually better. Managing money well isn’t about always making the right move. It’s about avoiding the wrong ones—and knowing when to wait.  Dennis Friedman retired from Boeing Satellite Systems after a 30-year career in manufacturing. Born in Ohio, Dennis is a California transplant with a bachelor’s degree in history and an MBA. A self-described “humble investor,” he likes reading historical novels and about personal finance. Follow Dennis on X @DMFrie and check out his earlier articles.
Read more »

Beware the CFP Designation?

"I was a PE for 43 years. I gave it up three years after I retired when they still wanted fees and continuing education credits. But the only financials I did were my own."
- Jeff Bond
Read more »

Inflation, prices, COLAs, retirement and the last 16 years

"I had a government employee who was a 1040 tax client back in 1984 when an earlier law change occurred that mandated all members of congress pay into the social system. See SS historical FAQ #5."
- William Perry
Read more »

Before Someone Else Decides

"I browsed it quickly but it looks great, and what people need to consider in retirement living. Thank you for sharing this Kathleen."
- Jerry Pinkard
Read more »

Taking a Loss?

"Mark, Thanks for replying. I like your “opportunity yield“ phrasing much better than my “coin flip” phrasing…thanks for clarifying. Interest-rate direction is definitely a tough nut to crack and none of us know what really is going to happen much like the ups and downs of the equity market. I do have a plan, I’m still trying to determine the thoroughness… so still reading and still learning 🤔. TIPS may find their way in my portfolio yet 😉. The HD community is helping me in that regard."
- Andy Morrison
Read more »

Subconscious Frugality

"I applaud the cost-effectiveness of the course's double-nine concept! ... One reason I stopped even my rare rounds decades ago was that I had spent too much time searching in vain for the balls I sprayed all over the hilly courses."
- Joe Kiefer
Read more »

$400,000 Mistake

BOB MADE A very expensive tax mistake. Doctors told Bob that he only has a year to live… What did Bob do?

He decided to gift a house to his only son before passing away. The house is worth $2,000,000 that he bought back in 1970 for $50,000 in an expensive suburb of California.

The son decided to sell the house and paid about $430,000 in federal taxes.

$430,000 that could have been $0 instead…

How?

When you gift a property to someone, they receive a "carryover basis." It basically means the same price the original owner purchased it for.

The basis of that house was $50,000, so the son had to pay capital gains tax on the difference between the $2 million sale price and the basis, at rates reaching up to 23.8% on the top portion of the gain. But this is where a step-up in basis could come into play.

Assets such as a house or shares held in a brokerage account, when owned inside an estate rather than an irrevocable trust, receive a step-up in basis to their fair market value (FMV) at the time of the decedent's death, per IRC Section 1014. In our case, if Bob held that house in his own name, passed away, and his son received the house, he would've gotten a step-up in basis to the current value, or $2M.

At the time of the sale, if sold for $2M, he would pay $0 in federal taxes, though state tax might still apply. That's about $430,000 of "savings."

"But who cares, Bob is dead anyways?"

While true, many parents still want to make sure their children don't have to pay half a million in taxes. They want their children to enjoy the fruits of their hard labor.

Specifics

The step-up in basis can be a bit nuanced, depending on how the assets are held and titled.

First, the step-up in basis typically adjusts to the market value, unless an election is made to use the value six months after the date of death, subject to certain rules.

The step-up in basis also doesn't apply to assets held in an irrevocable trust , though we will cover some strategies for that later, or to assets held in qualified retirement accounts, such as IRAs and 401(k)s.

In a community property state (Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin), the basis steps up whenever a spouse dies. You will typically need to complete a form to receive this step-up in a brokerage account. 

For assets held in joint tenancy, the step-up applies only to the deceased partner's share. For example, Bob and Jenice have a house worth $300,000 with a $50,000 basis. After Bob passes away, Jenice will have a $175,000 basis in the house, calculated as ($300,000 minus $50,000) divided by two, plus $50,000.

There are also two additional things to keep in mind:

1. Living on the right assets

Bob, age 75, has two accounts: a traditional 401(k) worth $500,000 and a brokerage account worth $500,000. Bob's diagnosis isn't good.

From a tax-planning perspective, it might make a lot more sense to withdraw, say, $50,000 a year from the 401(k) to live on, $20,000 of which would be required minimum distributions (RMDs), and pass down the brokerage account to his beneficiaries.

This is because the brokerage account likely has a lot of gains. Bob bought many stocks in his 30s and 40s that could be stepped up now. But a more in-depth analysis might be needed if Bob has a lot of income and is in a high marginal tax bracket.

2. Selling the right lots

Say Bob has a $500,000 brokerage account. Some of the stock purchases have a low basis, meaning a lot of capital gains, and some have a high basis, meaning fewer capital gains.

It's best to sell the high-basis stocks, which come with a lower capital gains tax, and pass down the low-basis stocks to the beneficiaries.

Planning matters. These mistakes can cost thousands of dollars in unnecessary taxes. As always, make sure to consult a licensed CPA or estate attorney with your unique circumstances.

 

Bogdan Sheremeta is a licensed CPA based in Illinois with experience at Deloitte and a Fortune 200 multinational.  
Read more »

Social Security

AT FIRST GLANCE, Social Security appears straightforward. During our working years, we pay into it, and in retirement, it sends us a monthly check, guaranteed for life. Unfortunately, it isn’t always so simple. Below are five aspects of the system that are frequently misunderstood. Benefits estimates. Look at a Social Security statement, and an easy-to-read chart provides estimates of the benefits available at various ages. The heading above the chart reads, “Personalized Monthly Retirement Benefit Estimates Depending on the Age You Start.” That seems clear. But there’s a caveat that can make the chart misleading. Off to the side, there’s a further explanation that reads: “These personalized estimates are based on your earnings to date and assume you continue to earn [your most recently reported salary] per year until you start your benefits.” The numbers shown, in other words, are not guaranteed.  Why would the statements be presented this way? It’s because the Social Security Administration can’t predict when any given person will stop working, so for simplicity of presentation, it assumes that someone will continue working and continue earning the same income each year into the future and will then retire and immediately claim benefits. For most people, this isn’t how it works out, but Social Security has no way to know what each person will choose. That’s why benefits statements shouldn’t be taken at face value. How can you forecast your actual benefit? Fortunately, Social Security’s website provides a calculator that allows custom calculations based on actual retirement expectations. Continuing to work. Some people worry that there would be a negative impact if they chose to continue working after claiming Social Security. This concern isn’t totally unfounded. It’s known as the Social Security earnings test, but there are some details to be aware of. First, the earnings test doesn’t apply after a worker reaches Full Retirement Age. And second, to the extent that benefits are reduced in the years before FRA, Social Security will add back those amounts to future checks. So working while on Social Security shouldn’t be viewed as so problematic. Maximum benefit. All things being equal, Social Security retirement benefits increase with each year that you wait, up until age 70. This is broadly understood. The problem, though, is that oftentimes people view it almost as a rule to wait until 70, but that isn’t always the best choice. For married couples, especially where one spouse has accumulated a larger benefit, there are two reasons why one spouse might claim earlier than 70. The first relates to what’s known as the spousal benefit. This is a feature that originated in the days when more families had just one working spouse, and it provides a benefit to spouses who haven’t worked the requisite 10 years to earn a benefit. In general, the spousal benefit is equal to half of the higher-earning spouse’s benefit at their Full Retirement Age (FRA), which is now age 67 for most people. The only requirement is that the lower-earning spouse can’t start benefits until the higher-earning spouse has started his or her own benefit. The spousal benefit is terrific, but a commonly misunderstood limitation is that—unlike a worker’s own benefit—it doesn’t continue to increase each year until age 70. It hits a maximum at the spouse’s FRA. For that reason, it’s important for a spouse to not delay beyond that point.  Even when both spouses have accrued their own benefits, it often makes sense for the spouse with the smaller benefit to claim somewhat earlier than 70. To understand why, we need to look at it from the perspective of the higher earning spouse’s benefit. Because that benefit would also be available to the lower-earning spouse in the form of a survivor’s benefit (discussed further below), that larger benefit will be available to either spouse as long as either is living. The smaller benefit, on the other hand, has value only while both spouses are living. And while it’s unfortunate to say, that is statistically less likely. For that reason, I generally recommend that the lower-earning spouse claim at, or around, Full Retirement Age. When to claim. In most conversations about Social Security, people tend to talk about claiming decisions in round numbers—claiming at 67 or 68, for example. The reality, though, is that you can claim at any time between ages 62 and 70. You don’t need to wait for your birthday, and the benefit simply increases by a bit for each month that you wait. I find this helpful because it allows flexibility in how we think about claiming. Not sure whether to start at 67 or 68? You can easily split the difference. Survivor benefits. To understand how the survivor benefit works, imagine a married couple, Joe and Jane. Joe’s benefit is $5,000 per month, and Jane’s is $4,000. Now suppose that Joe passes away. At that point, Jane wouldn’t be able to claim the combined total of $9,000. However, she could claim a survivor’s benefit that would increase her monthly check from $4,000 to $5,000, matching what Joe was receiving. That’s the simplest case, but the survivor benefit decision is often more complicated because it also depends on the age of the survivor. Survivor benefits can be claimed as early as age 60, and that can be helpful in certain situations, but there’s also a penalty for claiming too early. Benefits can be reduced by nearly 30%. In other words, and importantly, Jane wouldn’t automatically be entitled to $5,000 just because that was what Joe was receiving. When would Jane be able to claim the full $5,000? For this determination, Social Security uses a yardstick known as the Full Retirement Age for Survivors. This isn’t exactly the same as the standard FRA, but it’s close. (Social Security provides a calculator to look it up.) What might this look like in practice? Suppose Jane were a year shy of the FRA for survivors at the time that Joe died. In this case, Jane would have a choice. She could claim her survivor’s benefit at that time, but her total check would come out to somewhat less than $5,000. Fortunately, Social Security doesn’t automatically turn on survivor benefits when a spouse dies, thus providing survivors more control. In Jane’s case, she might continue with her own benefit of $4,000 per month for one more year. Then, once she became eligible for 100% of the survivor’s benefit, she could claim the full $1,000 to reach $5,000.   Adam M. Grossman is the founder of Mayport, a fixed-fee wealth management firm. Sign up for Adam's Daily Ideas email, follow him on X @AdamMGrossman and check out his earlier articles.
Read more »

How Did You Find Paid Work After Retiring from Your Primary Career?

"I’ve done a lot of jobs since my official “retirement “ 15 years ago at age 57 due to a layoff. Fortunately I was fully vested in my union pension. Moved from California to Colorado, got my CDL and drove a gas truck for 6 years. Did a lot of very scenic (and sometimes scary) mountain driving. My wife tired of the cold winters, so we reretired, sold the house, bought a motorhome and started traveling. Found a company that paid us to travel doing gas line surveying across country. Did that for about 4 years and settled down near my oldest son to be near grandkids. To keep from being bored, I drove a school bus for 2 years. Now I only drive for overnight and longer field trips because they pay me for every hour I’m away from home. So it’s been a very gradual transition to fully retired."
- Mike Wyant
Read more »

Today in Financial History

"The 1971 view is obsolete. There is no need for a computer clerk."
- Cammer Michael
Read more »

Free Newsletter

Get Educated

Manifesto

NO. 21: A HIGH income makes it easier to grow wealthy. But no matter how much we earn, we’ll struggle to amass a healthy nest egg—unless we learn to spend less than we earn.

think

ANCHORING. Imagine the S&P 500 is up 20% over the past year. You might balk at buying stocks, because you’re anchored on the market’s old level and feel you’re overpaying at current prices. Or imagine your neighbors sold their home two years ago for $300,000. You might be reluctant to accept less for your home, even if property prices have since fallen.

humans

NO. 30: WE underestimate the power of compounding. Most folks grasp that invested money should grow over time, while carrying credit-card debt can trigger interest charges. But studies suggest we fail to appreciate just how much our money can grow if left to compound—and just how costly our debts can be if we fail to pay them off in short order.

think

GAMBLER’S FALLACY. When the dice hasn’t come up six for a while, we think a six is more likely. Similarly, if a money manager has previously beaten the averages or a Wall Street strategist has a history of predicting the market’s direction, we assume they’ll continue to make winning calls. But what if it's random, like the dice, and these folks were just lucky?

Great debates

Manifesto

NO. 21: A HIGH income makes it easier to grow wealthy. But no matter how much we earn, we’ll struggle to amass a healthy nest egg—unless we learn to spend less than we earn.

Spotlight: College

Games Colleges Play

WHEN OUR KIDS applied to colleges, the smallest detail of each campus visit mattered a lot. If our daughter admired the student leading our tour, the school skyrocketed in her estimation. If the class our son attended to “get a feel for the place” turned out to be a test period, Grandpa’s alma mater was forever struck from consideration.
In economic terms, the college decision features asymmetric information. Colleges know a lot about us from our detailed personal and financial applications.

Read more »

On Borrowed Time?

THE CONTROVERSY over student loans has caught up with the latest federal government repayment program. That program is known as SAVE, or Saving on A Valuable Education.
SAVE is an income-driven repayment plan, or IDR. It’s the sixth iteration of an IDR plan. Due to the favorable terms and the high estimated price tag, it was recently halted by legal challenges.
IDR plans follow the same general formula to determine the monthly payment on student loan debt.

Read more »

Making Their Own Way

OUR FIVE KIDS SPENT a collective 24 years in college. All five have bachelor’s degrees, and three also have master’s degrees. The youngest graduated May 2023. Only one child qualified for non-merit aid—a $300 Pell grant.
My wife and I didn’t give them money for college. We don’t live near a major public university, so four of the five had to live on campus. Here’s what prepared them for college and how to pay for it.

Read more »

Playing Defense

TRUTH HAS A FUNNY way of punching you in the gut. I received my punch thanks to the 2022 decline in the stock market, which put a dent in the “funded” status of the 529 college-savings plans for my two sons, ages 16 and 14.
Buy and hold is all well and good if you have an infinite investment time horizon. Strict adherents will argue that mark-to-market gains and losses are just noise. Time will smooth out the ripples.

Read more »

Getting a later start: college vs. retirement, a growing conundrum

Our oldest child is age 55, – three children ages 14 and 12 (twins),
our second is age 54 – three children ages 14, 13 and 10,
our third age 51 – three children 18,17 and 13,
and our fourth age 50 – two children ages 20 and 17
All ages are rounded.
Look at these ages and what comes to mind, college, retirement? Pretty sure not retirement any time soon. This is what I ponder when I read about FIRE or even early retirement before age 60.

Read more »

Educated Consumers

COLLEGE STUDENTS who borrow graduate with an average $37,000 in loans. While many people believe loans are the only way to finance a college education, that’s simply not the case. Here are five ways to get an advanced education while minimizing debt:
1. Stay close to home. Sure, it’s fun to think about moving across the country to go to school. But staying close to home after high school comes with several benefits.

Read more »

Spotlight: Abramowitz

Hands-On vs. Hands-Off: Real Estate’s Own Active-Passive Debate

It’s over. I’m done with it. Done with what? Ruminating about how well I negotiated for the new car? Nope. Leaving the cell phone in that overpriced restaurant? Uh-uh. Then what is it I’m done with? Well, after months of deliberation with Alberta and our son Ryan (and with myself), I’ve decided to hang on to the family’s small residential rental properties rather than sell. Tax considerations trumped quality of life. There, I said it, as preposterous as it may sound. I thought readers might be interested in how I lurched to this decision, so I’ve prepared a review of how the features of owning real estate directly compare with those held indirectly through real estate investment trust mutual funds or ETFs (REITS). Just understand that I’m performing this analysis solely for readers’ benefit, not mine, because all that’s behind me now. It truly is. Who’s at the Helm? When prospective investors weigh the virtues and pitfalls of the active vs. passive approaches they invariably start with the hands-off vs. hands-on decision. Hands-on landlords assume responsibility for management of their rental, which requires much time, energy and expertise. The experienced property owner also recognizes the inevitable assaults on her family’s freedom from periodic interruptions and stress. Active owners enjoy control over their investment. Who could possibly match the dedication and commitment of the self-interested landlord? But direct involvement exposes investors to liability, a nagging source of worry hands-off folks avoid. Such developments may entail numerous consultations with costly lawyers and accountants. People who elect instead to invest in real estate through REIT funds sidestep most of the foregoing trials of landlords. Casting a Wider Net While the pros and cons of adopting a hands-on or hands-off strategy might at first blush be considered a draw, the contest with regard to…
Read more »

Letter to Ryan

HI RYAN, DON’T FREAK out because I’ve written an actual letter rather than an email. No big news here, no emergency, we’re fine. I just have something that’s been percolating and I want to share it with you. Ry, it’s become clear learning about investing is not where you’re at right now. I’ve tried to think of what I might have done to turn you off. We know I was depressed and withdrawn for much of your childhood, and you must have felt neglected or even ignored. I was overly concerned about how well you handled money and was impatient with a kid’s normal mishaps, like losing an allowance or spending it irresponsibly. A couple of times, I blew up at you. Or maybe you just recoiled from hearing so much about the harrowing gyrations of stock investing and the obligations that come with owning rental property. Am I in the ballpark? Remember when we opened a joint brokerage account maybe five years ago? We were going to buy a stock, a mutual fund and an exchange-traded fund, so you could get an idea of how they worked. You would let me know when you felt comfortable going ahead with the plan after acquainting yourself with Morningstar. I was as excited as a little kid. But you never mentioned the account again until two years ago, when I told you I’d closed it. I could tell by your silence you were hurt, as I suspected you would be. Apparently, your wounded father was not above a bout of infantile retaliation. I’m having trouble understanding your reluctance to pick up on managing money. You’re ambitious, you’ve got some cash and you’re a math jock. You’ll someday soon need to manage our family’s mutual funds, exchange-traded funds and real estate. And you…
Read more »

Plans Interrupted

"YOU’LL STILL HAVE a retirement. It just won’t be the one you planned on." I’ve had to share this sobering assessment with many patients who were hoping to be rewarded for a lifetime of hard work and responsible saving, only to have those hopes dashed by an unforeseen health crisis. The culprit may be an external event like a disabling car accident or crippling fall, or an internal one like stage-four cancer or early onset dementia. Such family health catastrophes can interrupt retirement savings, or disrupt a retiree’s plans to travel or pursue long-neglected hobbies. I know all about this—because I’ve seen it happen in my own family. Stroke of misfortune. My father was an impoverished immigrant who started with nothing and wound up with something, but not what could have been. When only age 66, he suffered a major stroke that impaired his judgment and paralyzed him on the left side—a devastating blow for someone who’d previously exuded invincibility. A Jewish redneck, if there is such a thing, my father wasn’t averse to letting you know he was a man’s man. When I was felled by a serious depression in midlife, he told me to “hurry up and snap out of it.” My dad was a wily character who first cashed in on the TV bonanza of the 1950s. He soon pivoted, riding the gravy train of commercial New York real estate over the ensuing three decades. His modus operandi was rehabilitating poorly maintained commercial buildings whose upside rent potential could be tapped with minimal upgrading. Partly by chance and partly through shrewdness, my father concentrated his investments beneath the glamour of Midtown. He often invited me to accompany him to his office in Lower Manhattan, where he would have me stand by the window as he waved his…
Read more »

Back Where I Started

AT LOOSE ENDS DURING the summer of 1967, when I was between college graduation and the start of my psychology training, I chanced upon a book by Sheldon Jacobs. An early advocate of no-load mutual fund investing, Jacobs’s book and his subsequent No-Load Fund Investor newsletter provided my market mantra until exchange-traded index funds (ETFs) started taking off circa 2000. Buying directly from the fund company, and thereby bypassing brokers and their upfront 8.5% commission, was a roguish development in the notoriously button-down mutual fund community. Just toss a check in the mail and—voila—you owned shares in a stock portfolio. To a nerdy introvert with a knack for numbers and a hankering for money, it seemed like a miracle. It wasn’t long before I traded my RollingStone magazines and conspiracy books on the Kennedy assassination for Barron’s and The Wall Street Journal. I purchased a subscription to The Growth Fund Guide, a market glossy that followed the performance of 10 or so no-load mutual funds. Alongside each written description was a graph plotting the progress of the fund over the past year. All the lines sloped from the bottom left to the page’s upper right corner. One in particular looked like it was laced with testosterone. It belonged to the Janus Fund, and so began my whirlwind tour as an unknowing momentum investor. In my family, the road to manhood was paved with money, and I felt pressure to prove my worth. I set aside my interest in mutual funds and turned my attention elsewhere. Options became my solution for making it big and in a hurry. But anxious to avoid large losses, lest I become a family pariah, I often set my stop-loss orders perilously close to the current price and would be taken out by an innocuous dip. A…
Read more »

The Humble Landlord

MY FATHER WAS BUILT like a linebacker and hollered like a coach. One evening in the late 1950s, I accompanied him as he went door-to-door to collect rents. A tenant called Schoenfeld—I only recall his surname—paid his rent reliably, but he was always a month late and he didn’t include the late fee. This drove my father nuts. That night, he unloaded on him. When I asked my father why he had to be so hard on Schoenfeld, he had a few choice words for me, too. “Stevie, you’ll go to one of those pom-pom colleges,” my father said. “I graduated from the school of hard knocks. You’re too soft. Don’t be a wimpy landlord.” Today, I, too, am a landlord, and have been for the past four decades. Along with my wife, I’ve owned 30 or so properties over the years, and we still own 12 today. I never wanted to be a pushover for my tenants, but I also never wanted to pulverize the lives of people who, in some sense, were in my care. Folks who rent worry about their safety, their comfort and their budget, just like homeowners do. Pride of ownership is fine as far as it goes. But what about pride of partnering? Of course, there’s an inherent conflict of interest and a hierarchical relationship between owners and renters, but I believe there’s also a common thread. Both want a living space that’s functional and presentable. Partnering doesn’t only help the renter. We once had a scheduling snafu and couldn’t arrive in time to meet a prospective tenant at the property. The vacating person offered to show her around the apartment on his own time. I like to think he was returning the respect he received during his stay with us. Though never reviewed…
Read more »

Stock Therapy

PUBLIC SPEAKING WAS my nemesis throughout my academic career. Though I found it frightening, I’d always been able to tough my way through the lectures and avoid a full-blown anxiety attack. Then, during a theories of psychotherapy seminar for psychiatry residents, the panic broke through. Though only my first diagnosable episode, it portended an affliction far more sinister. It was a premorbid symptom of an underlying depression that would topple my career, derail my investment ambitions, and plunge me into an early and unplanned retirement. As 1984 unfolded, I was at the top of my game. I had just married Alberta, the woman I still love. I was granted tenure as a psychologist at a leading medical school at age 39. As director of psychiatric research, I had published more than 100 scientific articles and served as an associate editor of a prestigious psychology journal. An abundant personal and professional future seemed assured. But I was too young and immature to imagine how a cacophony of unlikely events could unravel a person’s life. In the spring, Alberta’s mother committed suicide. Then, in September, my sister was murdered by a serial killer, her decomposed body discovered in a dumpster. Years later, as a patient, I would make the connection between my sister’s suffocation and my gasp for air while teaching. My world became even more menacing a few months later. After learning of deadly assaults on a third-year-medical student and a pulmonologist in hospital bathrooms, I became afraid to enter public restrooms. By then, I realized that something ominous and powerful had taken hold. The depression exposed by that first seminar anxiety attack lasted for two decades, the heart of my adult life. I never returned to work. I crumpled as if shot from behind. Recovery was agonizingly slow. I was…
Read more »