When I was in the fifth grade, I worked for a teen-age acquaintance of mine. He hired me to deliver the weekday edition of the Wichita Eagle-Beacon; I'd go pick up the papers at the drop spot every week day, and walk the route on foot for $6 a week. It took a few hours, I could get it done before dark after school. Payday was every Friday; I'd take my $6 cash earnings, stop at the local laundromat, have the dollar-bill changed to quarters, and play the old (mechanical) Eight-Ball pin ball machine. What a blast! I'd usually take the fiver home and save it for a "rainy" day.
A good life lesson about earning, spending and saving for an elementary age kid, I always thought later.
"Wouldn’t she have effectively drained the original $200K in the Roth, while converting $125K?" That's the way I see it as well. This would effectively get her to the same place as just taking a taxable distribution out of her 401(k) up to the amount of the standard deduction, and then taking the rest of her income needs from her Roth.
IMO, neither of these options make much sense to me. If it were me, I'd rather just take my income needs from my 401(k) until I was ready to draw Social Security, and save my Roth accounts for later. If she really wants to get fancy, she might even convert an additional amount to her Roth up to the limit of the 12% bracket in excess of her income needs, up until the year she starts Social Security. Then forget about Roth conversions, take her income needs from the 401(k)--whatever she needs in excess of SS. Once SS starts, Roth conversions are paying extra tax--just to be paying extra tax, and might actually be doing more harm than good. Then, when RMD's start, maybe spend a little more, or just save more in her taxable account. Or make a QCD, or...?
Then, in years she when may need a little extra cash in excess of her RMD+Social Security, take a "tactical" Roth distribution, both to supplement her income, and to help control her tax bill.
My personal opinion--I don't think in this case, it's going to matter much financially when she starts Social Security, although I'd like to see her wait at least a year or two if she can. Just start SS whenever it feels right, and then forget about Roth conversions, as they're not going to make much difference one way or the other, and only complicate her finances at this point. KISS.
Thank you for your thoughtful-- and deeply personal--article on what can often be a difficult, painful subject. Communicating effectively with our own children can at times feel like the hardest thing in the world--and I have yet to figure out why. I'm still trying to figure it out, and I fear my quest is far from complete.
That is a fair point. Normally, swapping bonds for stocks could reasonably be expected to increase volatility. I think in this case, however, the question is that, with US debt reaching exorbitant levels, with no political will or interest to reign it in, the risk involved in holding treasuries is not being rewarded enough by today's current yield levels. Just look at what happened to long-term US treasuries in 2021--it may take those funds *decades* to recover their losses, if ever. For a supposedly safe,"low-risk" asset, that is terrible performance, and way more risky than many people were led to believe, in my opinion.
Under those circumstances, holding International stocks seems a safer bet to many folks, myself included. I sure don't want to be holding anything very long in bonds, with 10 years being absolute tops. The exception being, if you can get individual TIPS at something like 2.5%+; otherwise, keep it short.
Interesting. I've been thinking about this subject recently as well, and also wondering if It Really Is Different This Time. Marks makes some good points; on top of this, I see the US threatening...well, just about everybody with heavy import taxes as a condition of doing business, as well as threatening to hit foreign investment in the US with "revenge" taxes. Is this a temporary blip, or will this become part of our long-standing policy? At this point, only time will tell; markets don't seem to be too concerned at this point, and I don't really feel comfortable second-guessing them.
Still though, adding a little more international exposure as part of a long-term shift to an investment portfolio does seem like a good move. I like your idea of adding this via selling off a bit of bond exposure. Those who have some international exposure this year have been rewarded handsomely so far(at last!), and for various reasons this seems like a trend that could continue for some time.
"Over the course of a lifetime, 68% of US adults have experienced a scam..." To which I would add, ...and the other 32% just weren't paying attention..."
:)
"And when there is a couple, my opinion has always been money is ours, not his and hers and all knowledge about the money is shared." When one spouse is compromised by dementia, this no longer works. What happens when the demented spouse willingly wants to provide an obvious scammer complete and unfettered access to the couple's bank and retirement accounts? When the compromised individual refuses to to cooperate, or sign over control, it's tough for family to stop it, and even law enforcement is largely prevented from intervening. I've seen this up close and personal, and it's a painful mess to try and sort out.
As for strategies to deal with this, there aren't any quick fixes or easy answers. But thinking long-term, it is another potential advantage of a 401(k) over an IRA; most 401(k) plans require both spouses to sign off on distributions, whereas one spouse has no legal right to the other spouse's IRA. I know it sounds drastic, but once you've seen this happen up close you think about these things a lot more carefully--or at least you should.
And it makes me cringe all the more when I see people so anxious to roll over their 401(k) to an IRA without even considering this, because their financial advisor pushed them to, or they thought they would save "big money" on a Roth conversion or whatever. There could be a lot more at stake here than trying to save a few bucks in taxes, and yet most of the time this aspect isn't even mentioned.
I have yet to meet a single person--young, old, or otherwise--who's thrilled about having to live in a "totally worn out" body. In fact, just the opposite is true; I hear far more remorse over the fact that said individual didn't take better care of what they had, when they had it. Caveat emptor.
Comments
When I was in the fifth grade, I worked for a teen-age acquaintance of mine. He hired me to deliver the weekday edition of the Wichita Eagle-Beacon; I'd go pick up the papers at the drop spot every week day, and walk the route on foot for $6 a week. It took a few hours, I could get it done before dark after school. Payday was every Friday; I'd take my $6 cash earnings, stop at the local laundromat, have the dollar-bill changed to quarters, and play the old (mechanical) Eight-Ball pin ball machine. What a blast! I'd usually take the fiver home and save it for a "rainy" day. A good life lesson about earning, spending and saving for an elementary age kid, I always thought later.
Post: My Money Memories
Link to comment from August 7, 2025
"Wouldn’t she have effectively drained the original $200K in the Roth, while converting $125K?" That's the way I see it as well. This would effectively get her to the same place as just taking a taxable distribution out of her 401(k) up to the amount of the standard deduction, and then taking the rest of her income needs from her Roth. IMO, neither of these options make much sense to me. If it were me, I'd rather just take my income needs from my 401(k) until I was ready to draw Social Security, and save my Roth accounts for later. If she really wants to get fancy, she might even convert an additional amount to her Roth up to the limit of the 12% bracket in excess of her income needs, up until the year she starts Social Security. Then forget about Roth conversions, take her income needs from the 401(k)--whatever she needs in excess of SS. Once SS starts, Roth conversions are paying extra tax--just to be paying extra tax, and might actually be doing more harm than good. Then, when RMD's start, maybe spend a little more, or just save more in her taxable account. Or make a QCD, or...? Then, in years she when may need a little extra cash in excess of her RMD+Social Security, take a "tactical" Roth distribution, both to supplement her income, and to help control her tax bill. My personal opinion--I don't think in this case, it's going to matter much financially when she starts Social Security, although I'd like to see her wait at least a year or two if she can. Just start SS whenever it feels right, and then forget about Roth conversions, as they're not going to make much difference one way or the other, and only complicate her finances at this point. KISS.
Post: 100% Base Pay Replacement: What Does It Mean?
Link to comment from July 23, 2025
Thank you for your thoughtful-- and deeply personal--article on what can often be a difficult, painful subject. Communicating effectively with our own children can at times feel like the hardest thing in the world--and I have yet to figure out why. I'm still trying to figure it out, and I fear my quest is far from complete.
Post: Family Dynamics, Part 2: Supporting Adult Children
Link to comment from July 22, 2025
Agreed, having a trustworthy advisor is a valuable asset, and should give you another layer of both advocacy and protection.
Post: Pig Butchering
Link to comment from July 21, 2025
That is a fair point. Normally, swapping bonds for stocks could reasonably be expected to increase volatility. I think in this case, however, the question is that, with US debt reaching exorbitant levels, with no political will or interest to reign it in, the risk involved in holding treasuries is not being rewarded enough by today's current yield levels. Just look at what happened to long-term US treasuries in 2021--it may take those funds *decades* to recover their losses, if ever. For a supposedly safe,"low-risk" asset, that is terrible performance, and way more risky than many people were led to believe, in my opinion. Under those circumstances, holding International stocks seems a safer bet to many folks, myself included. I sure don't want to be holding anything very long in bonds, with 10 years being absolute tops. The exception being, if you can get individual TIPS at something like 2.5%+; otherwise, keep it short.
Post: Portfolio Shift: It’s Really Different This Time
Link to comment from July 21, 2025
Interesting. I've been thinking about this subject recently as well, and also wondering if It Really Is Different This Time. Marks makes some good points; on top of this, I see the US threatening...well, just about everybody with heavy import taxes as a condition of doing business, as well as threatening to hit foreign investment in the US with "revenge" taxes. Is this a temporary blip, or will this become part of our long-standing policy? At this point, only time will tell; markets don't seem to be too concerned at this point, and I don't really feel comfortable second-guessing them. Still though, adding a little more international exposure as part of a long-term shift to an investment portfolio does seem like a good move. I like your idea of adding this via selling off a bit of bond exposure. Those who have some international exposure this year have been rewarded handsomely so far(at last!), and for various reasons this seems like a trend that could continue for some time.
Post: Portfolio Shift: It’s Really Different This Time
Link to comment from July 21, 2025
Now that's some good investigative reporting done the old-fashioned way. Yikes, talk about walking into the lion's den! Good work.
Post: How do I scam thee? Let me count the ways
Link to comment from July 21, 2025
"Over the course of a lifetime, 68% of US adults have experienced a scam..." To which I would add, ...and the other 32% just weren't paying attention..." :)
Post: How do I scam thee? Let me count the ways
Link to comment from July 21, 2025
"And when there is a couple, my opinion has always been money is ours, not his and hers and all knowledge about the money is shared." When one spouse is compromised by dementia, this no longer works. What happens when the demented spouse willingly wants to provide an obvious scammer complete and unfettered access to the couple's bank and retirement accounts? When the compromised individual refuses to to cooperate, or sign over control, it's tough for family to stop it, and even law enforcement is largely prevented from intervening. I've seen this up close and personal, and it's a painful mess to try and sort out. As for strategies to deal with this, there aren't any quick fixes or easy answers. But thinking long-term, it is another potential advantage of a 401(k) over an IRA; most 401(k) plans require both spouses to sign off on distributions, whereas one spouse has no legal right to the other spouse's IRA. I know it sounds drastic, but once you've seen this happen up close you think about these things a lot more carefully--or at least you should. And it makes me cringe all the more when I see people so anxious to roll over their 401(k) to an IRA without even considering this, because their financial advisor pushed them to, or they thought they would save "big money" on a Roth conversion or whatever. There could be a lot more at stake here than trying to save a few bucks in taxes, and yet most of the time this aspect isn't even mentioned.
Post: Pig Butchering
Link to comment from July 21, 2025
I have yet to meet a single person--young, old, or otherwise--who's thrilled about having to live in a "totally worn out" body. In fact, just the opposite is true; I hear far more remorse over the fact that said individual didn't take better care of what they had, when they had it. Caveat emptor.
Post: Die With Zero? Hell No
Link to comment from July 17, 2025