Kelly and I are expecting a baby in June, so we recently enrolled in a series of birthing classes. The curriculum is eye-opening, especially for an ignorant guy who’s never been forced to empathize with a pregnant woman before. Shame on me!
In Monday’s class, one quote caught my eye:
“You can’t control the waves, but you can learn to surf.”
Jon Kabat-Zinn**
**Kabat-Zinn, coincidentally, is the son-in-law of Howard Zinn – a big friend of The Best Interest. The elder Zinn famously wrote, “If you don’t know history, it’s as if you were born yesterday.” He didn’t intend for this to be an investing quote. But it is. For that matter, the same applies to his son-in-law’s quote above!
The surfing quote is perfect for childbirth. So much of the birthing process is innate, instinctual, or subconscious. The body does what it does. It’s easy, therefore, to think that mothers are along for the ride, victims of their own bodies, like a listless boat being pushed to and fro in the crashing waves.
But the birthing class teacher is trying to empower her students to realize that they can “surf.” They can’t fight nature’s momentum outright, but they can go with the flow, find smooth pathways, avoid getting overwhelmed by waves crashing over them, etc. There are physical and mental exercises that can help mothers get more prepared for the fantastic challenge of labor and delivery.
Do these exercises actually work? I assume so, but I’m not sure. I’m just a dude. You’ll have to take our teacher’s word for it.
What I do know, though, is Kabat-Zinn’s quote applies perfectly to long-term investing:
“You can’t control the waves, but you can learn to surf.”
Jon Kabat-Zinn
The stock market (or any investing market) is an ocean with millions of waves moving to and fro. Sometimes those waves combine into overwhelming tsunamis and cavernous trenches. When the inexperienced or unknowledgeable investor gets swept away, it can be a life-changing negative experience.
You can’t control the market, but you can learn to use it to your advantage. To wit, here are some of my favorite investing quote that strike at this chord:
“Reversion to the mean is the iron rule of investing.”–John Bogle
“In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run, it is a weighing machine.” –Ben Graham
Those “votes” (aka opinions) can cause large waves. But in the long run, gravity (aka true fact) pulls those waves back to earth and wins out.
“Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections, or trying to anticipate corrections, than has been lost in corrections themselves.”–Peter Lynch
Waves will happen. You know it. I know it. Get used to it. If you think you can perfectly time the waves and avoid all turbulence, you’ll do more harm than good.
“The secret to being successful from a trading perspective is to have an indefatigable and an undying and unquenchable thirst for information and knowledge.“–John Tudor Jones
Well, “trading” is hard and not something I recommend. But being “thirsty” for information and knowledge is a terrific recommendation! Learn to surf!
I’ve spent much time these past 10 years “learning to surf,” taking lessons from those far more experienced than me. Like Zinn, “If you don’t know history, it’s as if you were born yesterday.”
My articles and podcasts serve as little “surfing lessons” to you all. Thank you for enjoying them!
And no! This isn’t my first article about the oceans, seas, waves, etc
Thank you for reading! If you enjoyed this article, join 8000+ subscribers who read my 2-minute weekly email, where I send you links to the smartest financial content I find online every week.
-Jesse
Want to learn more about The Best Interest’s back story? Read here.
Looking for a great personal finance book, podcast, or other recommendation? Check out my favorites.
Was this post worth sharing? Click the buttons below to share!
After a few real-life conversations and my running the math, I’ve decided that a “50/50” rule for college saving achieves the best of both worlds.
The rule is:
~50% of your college savings goals should be saved via a 529 plan.
The other ~50% should be saved via a taxable brokerage account.
Why is that the case? Let’s discuss what we do and don’t want from our college savings plan.
PS – if you want further background reading on 529 plans, here are some other useful articles…
What We Do and Don’t Want from College Savings
We do want to save for college. Ground-breaking stuff.
We do want to reduce our income taxes.
We do want our investments to grow tax-free.
We do want flexibility while we save, in case life throws us a curveball.
We don’t want to end up with permanently frozen assets. We don’t want “leftover” 529 dollars.
529 College Savings Plans offer some of these ideals. But not all.
In fact, 529 plans are terrible at achieving some of the abovementioned goals.
Reducing Income Taxes
Many states offer income tax deductions on 529 contributions. In New York, for example, the first $10,000 contributed to 529s per year is exempt from state tax. That’s a ~$600 annual savings (depending on tax bracket).
Tax-Free Growth
529 investments grow tax-free, just like 401(k) or IRA assets. There’s no annual tax on dividends and interest. This leaves more dollars behind to compound.
Let’s Measure That Tax Savings
If we apply these two tax advantages to a reasonable scenario**, it’s realistic to expect a 529 account to result in 15-20% more dollars for college than a taxable brokerage account.
**see this Google sheet for detail.
But taxable brokerage accounts have distinct advantages on our other ideals.
Flexibility & “Frozen” Assets
Taxable accounts are very flexible. You can withdraw from them anytime (e.g. during an unexpected emergency). 529 dollars, on the other hand, must be spent on educational expenses and cannot be withdrawn for other reasons.
What if your kid decides to skip college? Unused funds in a 529 can be impossible to withdraw without taxes and penalties. Taxable accounts avoid this situation.
What’s the 529 Withdrawal Penalty?
Every 529 withdrawal—whether for education purposes or not—is made pro rata between your contributions and your earnings. The contributions are never taxed and never penalized, but the earnings can be if your withdrawal is not for a qualified educational expense.
For example:
Your 529 plan has $100,000 of contributions and $50,000 of earnings. (Two-thirds and one-third)
You make a $30,000 withdrawal. You have no choice in that $20,000 will come from contributions and $10,000 will come from earnings (Two-thirds and one-third)
If your withdrawal is not for qualified education expenses, the $10,000 earnings portion will be taxed as income (more marginal tax dollars, ouch!) and will suffer a 10% penalty.
If you run the math, you’ll see this penalty eats away at all the 529’s tax benefits. You do not want to suffer this penalty.
Finding Balance Between 529 and Taxable
The question is how to balance these various pros and cons. The 50/50 Rule does so!
Let’s say you aim to gift your children $100,000 over their four years of college. How generous! I submit you should aim to have:
$50,000 of that gift coming from a 529
And $50,000 from a taxable brokerage
You know it won’t be a perfectly ideal scenario. Whatever reality throws at you, you’ll wish you had decided to go all-in on the 529 or all-in on the taxable.
But you don’t know the future! This fact – that we’re more mortals without a crystal ball – is one of the fundamental frustrations in financial planning. If we knew the future, we could make a perfect financial plan. But we don’t, so we can’t. Our best solutions, therefore, involve hedging our bets. We’d rather know we’re 50% correct than be surprised later we’re 100% wrong.
The 50/50 Rule guarantees a middle-of-the-road solution. You’ll capture tax benefits and retain flexibility.
If Johnny gets a little scholarship and only needs 70% of your saved money, great! Use the 529 dollars completely. Dip into the taxable account when needed, and keep the remaining taxable dollars for other goals in life. You’ll be confident your 529 account will be completely drained, avoiding frustrating taxes and penalties.
Does It Have to Be 50/50?
I’ll admit: dividing the two accounts down the middle, 50/50, is an easy shorthand. You can choose a different fraction. But when thinking it through, my primary concerns are:
You need to be confident you’ll drain the 529s. If Johnny’s college will cost $200,000 and you aim to have all $200,000 in a 529, I don’t like that. There’s no margin for error.
You want to have a large enough portion in the taxable account to provide “just in case” flexibility.
Maybe 75/25 makes more sense for you. I can get on board with that. But I wouldn’t go much higher than 75% from the 529.
Working Backward
You can work backward from your future goal to discover what today’s saving rates need to be. In our hypothetical scenario of $50K in a 529 and $50K in a taxable (for college in ~15 years, we’ll say), a reasonable starting point is to put $2000 per year (or ~$170 per month) into each account. That’s how the math shakes out.
Depending on your timeline and assumed rate of compound growth, a simple spreadsheet or question to your financial planner will inform what your savings plan should be.
Thank you for reading! If you enjoyed this article, join 8000+ subscribers who read my 2-minute weekly email, where I send you links to the smartest financial content I find online every week.
-Jesse
Want to learn more about The Best Interest’s back story? Read here.
Looking for a great personal finance book, podcast, or other recommendation? Check out my favorites.
Was this post worth sharing? Click the buttons below to share!
After I wrote a simple primer on Roth conversions a couple weeks ago, several readers reached out asking for more details. A few specific snippets of those questions include:
I see many articles like this about lowering your tax bracket when doing Roth conversions. But, what about the amount of money that can be made by not doing Roth conversions and letting the taxable [sic: qualified, or not taxable] money grow in an account like an IRA or 401K? Is that math too hard to explain?
Sure your RMDs will be higher and you will be taxed more, but how much more money will you make by letting that tax deferred money grow? You could assume a rate of return at 6% for the illustration.
Kelly M., Question 1
A wise man once said “never pay a tax before you have to.” Back around 2015 I had the owner of an income tax service try to convince me to convert all my traditional IRA money to Roth. He said tax rates were going to go up and he was converting all of his own personal traditional IRAs. Fast forward to 2017 and Congress actually ended up lowering tax rates. I wonder what he thought about his conversions after that.
Anonymous, Question 2
Even with my spouse still working, I don’t think we’ll hit the IRMAA limits while I do Roth conversions before I take Medicare. But, could Roth conversions now help me avoid the IRMAA thresholds when I’m taking RMDs in the future? Or, is it worth doing Roth conversions to avoid the IRMAA thresholds? I’d be interested in an article like that.
Anonymous, Question 3
To summarize those three questions:
Does the math of Roth conversions really work?
But since we don’t know future tax rates, how can we confidently convert assets today?
What about IRMAA (the income-related monthly adjustment amount), which is an additional Medicare surcharge on high-earners?
Let’s address these questions one at a time.
Does the Math of Roth Conversions Really Work?
Roth conversions involve many moving pieces, as you’ll see in this simple Roth conversion spreadsheet.
Reminder: you can make a copy of the spreadsheet via File >> Make a Copy
There are terrific financial planning software packages that take care of this math. I wanted to present 95% of the good stuff in a free format that you all can look at. Hence, Google Sheets.
Nuanced Tax Interactions
Especially important is the interaction between normal income (via Traditional account withdrawals), capital gains, and Social Security. These taxes interplay in nuanced ways. A simple example:
Let’s say a Single retiree’s annual income is:
$5000 in interest income
$5000 in long-term capital gains
$30,000 in Social Security benefits.
If you plug that into a 1040 tax return, you’ll find that:
None of that Social Security income is taxable.
All of the interest and capital gains are enveloped by the Standard deduction
Resulting in zero taxable income and a $0.00 Federal tax bill.
But if we copied Scenario A and added in $30,000 in Traditional IRA distributions, what happens? I think we all expect that the $30,000 distribution itself must have a taxable component, but you might not know that:
The IRA distribution affects Social Security taxability. Now, $22,350 of the Social Security income becomes taxable. That’s right. Simply by distributing IRA assets, you’ve now increased how much Social Security you pay taxes on.
The Standard deduction still helps, but there’s now a remainder of $48,500 in Federal taxable income.
Resulting in a $5584 Federal tax bill.
It’s not the end of the world. Taxes happen. They pay for our public shared interests.
But part of tax planning is understanding ahead of time what your future tax bills will look like. It’s important to understand how taxes interact. And this is just a simple example!
Measuring Roth Conversion Benefits
Going back to this spreadsheet, you’ll three tabs full of retirement withdrawal math. The Assumptions tab contains important information on our hypothetical retiree’s starting point (e.g. $2.9M in investable assets), their annual spending ($100K), their future assumed growth (5% per year, after adjusting for inflation), and other important numbers.
Note – this math takes place in “the convenient world” where inflation is removed from the math.
Then three tabs are presented with different Roth conversion scenarios, described below:
“Baseline Calculations“
This tab shows a retiree not focused on any conversions
They want to leave to their children both Roth assets (if possible) and taxable assets (on a stepped-up cost basis).
Therefore, they attempt to fund as much of their retirement using Traditional assets as possible
“No Trad Withdrawals”
This tab shows a “worst case” scenario, to help bookend the analysis. This retiree is not pulling any funds from their Traditional accounts (unless necessary). Thus, we’d expect them to have large RMDs and large RMD-related tax bills.
“Reasonable Conversions”
This tab shows a “reasonable” Roth conversion timeline, electing to convert $1.7 million throughout their retirement, while funding their lifestyle using a mix of Traditional, Roth, and taxable assets along the way.
By no means is this “optimized.” But it’s reasonable, and better than the first two scenarios, as we’ll see below.
Pros, Cons, and Results
The three scenarios end up similar in multiple ways.
Our retiree never has an issue funding their annual lifestyle. This is of utmost importance.
Our retiree reaches age 90 (“death”) with roughly $5M in each scenario.
But there are important differences (as we’d suspect).
The Baseline scenario ends with $5.00M. Of that, 27% is Traditional, 35% is Roth, and 34% is Taxable. They’ve paid an effective Federal tax rate of 20.7% throughout retirement.
The No Traditional Withdrawal scenario ends with $5.20M. Of that, 63% is Tradtional, 0% is Roth, 37% is Taxable. They’ve paid an effective Federal tax rate of 18.8% throughout retirement.
The Reasonable Conversions scenario ends with $5.17M. 18% is Traditional, 68% is Roth, and 14% is Taxable. They’ve paid an effective Federal tax rate of 13.9% throughout retirement.
The Same, But Different
These three scenarios share many similarities. All three result in successful retirements. But there are important differences.
Our Roth converter paid far fewer taxes and, ultimately, left a majority of their tax dollars to their heirs via Roth vehicles, and thus tax-free.
The No Trad Withdrawal retiree paid 28% effective tax rates in their final years (only going further up in the future) and left 63% of their assets in Traditional accounts with a large asterisk on them.***
***TAXES DUE IN THE FUTURE*** …unless you’re leaving the Traditional IRA assets to, for example, a non-profit charity. But if you’re leaving the Traditional IRA to your kids, they’ll owe taxes when they withdraw the funds.
Long story short: Roth conversions work to your benefit when executed intelligently.
Should You Worry About Leaving Behind Traditional Assets?!
I don’t want to freak you out. Your heirs will appreciate you leaving behind a 401(k) or Traditional IRA for them.
But it’s worth understanding that they’ll owe taxes on that money (usually). Let’s dive into an example with simple math: a $1 million Traditional IRA left to one person (e.g. your child).
That person will most likely set up an Inherited Traditional IRAand (via new-ish rules in the SECURE Act) will have to empty that account by the end of the 10th year after your death. The withdrawals can be raised and lowered during those 10 years. Much like with Roth conversions, it makes sense to take larger withdrawals during otherwise low-income years and vice versa.
But if the beneficiary is in the middle of their career, a series of 10 equal withdrawals makes sense. Some rough math suggests ~$135,000 per year is a reasonable withdrawal amount (based on account growth over the 10 years).
That withdrawal is taxed as income for the beneficiary. If they’re already earning $100,000 per year of normal income, then taxes will consume ~$41,000 of their annual $135,000 withdrawal. State taxes might take another bite.
Again – I don’t want anyone to cry over the prospect of inheriting $94,000 annually for 10 years. Where can I sign up?! But it’s also worth understanding that 30% of this inheritance is going to Federal taxes.
“Never Pay a Tax Before You Have To”
What about Question #2 from the beginning of the article? A reader wrote in and suggested one should “never pay a tax before you have to.”
While pithy, it’s false.
If you can reasonably front-load low tax rates to prevent later high tax rates, the math supports you. What we’ve covered so far today is clear evidence of that.
Now, in the reader’s defense: I’d rather delay taxes if thedollar amounts are exactly the same. That’s one argument behind the tax-loss harvesting craze: I’d rather pay $100 in taxes in the future than $100 in taxes today.
But Roth conversions work differently. Done well, Roth conversions allow you to pay a 22% tax on $50,000 today to prevent a 37% tax on $100,000 in the future. It’s apples-and-oranges compared to the tax-loss example.
And perhaps the bigger lesson: there are few universal rules in personal finance. The pithy rule that works in one scenario (“never pay a tax before you have to”) might fail miserably in another scenario. Let the math guide you.
What About IRMAA?
Irma used to only be a name you’d give to the great-grandmother character in your 11th-grade B-minus fiction story.
No longer! Today, IRMAA has been given new life (which, I bet, was covered by Medicare!)
IRMAA (Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount) is a Medicare premium surcharge imposed on higher-income beneficiaries in addition to their standard Medicare Part B and Part D premiums. The amount of IRMAA is determined based on an individual’s modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) and can result in higher healthcare costs for those with higher incomes.
In plain English: high-earners pay more for Medicare.
Question #3 today asked if Roth conversions can be used to avoid IRMAA premiums. The answer is: yes.
But first, how painful are these IRMAA surcharges in the first place?!
Important note: you’ll see below that the 2023 IRMAA brackets are based on 2021 modified adjusted gross income (MAGI). That same 2-year delay holds for future years. Your 2024 Roth conversions (or lack thereof) will be important in determining IRMAA in 2026
If a married couple’s MAGI in 2021 was $225,000, they’d end up paying $231 per month (or, more accurately, $462 per month for the couple) as opposed to $330 for the couple if they earned less than $194,000. That’s a difference of $132 per month or $1584 for the year.
I’m of two minds here. Because:
Yes, I believe in frugality. A penny saved is a penny earned. Why pay $1584 extra if you don’t have to?
But if you’re earning $200,000in retirement, do you also need to stress over a $1500 annual line item?
Personally, I’ll be stoked if my retirement MAGI is $200,000. It’ll be a sign that my financial life turned out unbelievably well. I won’t mind the IRMAA.
The people most likely to suffer IRMAA are also best positioned to deal with it.
Will IRMAA Get You?
The 2-year delay in IRMAA math means you might get IRMAA’d early on in retirement.
Imagine retiring at the end of 2023. The peak of your career! You and your spouse earned a combined $300,000 and now you’re settling down to mind your knitting. Like all U.S. citizens, you sign up for Medicare just before you turn 65.
Come 2025, Uncle Sam and Aunt IRMAA are going to look back at your 2023 income and surcharge you.
But the good news, most likely, is that your 2024 income is quite low in comparison and IRMAA will drop off in 2026.
Can Roth Conversions Help?
Remember: RMDs are forced and count as income, and that has the potential of “forcing” IRMAA on retirees as they age.
So to answer our terrific reader question: yes, Roth conversions can help here. You can use Roth conversions to shift the realization of income from high years to low years, preventing or mitigating IRMAA in the process.
But once more, make sure the juice is worth the squeeze.
If a 75-year-old has a $200,000 RMD that kills them on IRMAA, ask yourself: where does a $200,000 RMD come from? Answer: it’s coming from an IRA of over $5 million. Should someone with $5 million be losing sleep over IRMAA? I don’t think so.
That’s A Lot of Numbers…
A long and math-heavy article. I hope this helped you out! We covered:
Roth conversions can be objectively helpful, decreasing taxes in retirement and shifting large portions of portfolios from Traditional accounts (with potential taxes for heirs) into Roth accounts (no taxes for heirs)
Taxes in retirement are nuanced and interconnected. In today’s example, realizing extra income (via IRA distributions) also triggered extra Social Security taxes.
It’s not bad to leave behind Traditional assets to heirs. They’re getting a wonderful gift from you. But there will be taxes, which should be planned for.
There are many scenarios where it makes sense to pay taxes before you “have” to.
IRMAA is a negative reality for many retirees, but the people most likely to suffer IRMAA are also best positioned to deal with it.
Roth conversions can be used to mitigate IRMAA over the long run.
As always, thanks for reading!
Thank you for reading! If you enjoyed this article, join 8000+ subscribers who read my 2-minute weekly email, where I send you links to the smartest financial content I find online every week.
-Jesse
Want to learn more about The Best Interest’s back story? Read here.
Looking for a great personal finance book, podcast, or other recommendation? Check out my favorites.
Was this post worth sharing? Click the buttons below to share!
I grew up east of Rochester, in Upstate New York’s apple country. New York produces ~30 million bushels of apples per year, second among the 50 states (behind Washington).
But apples start to rot 5-7 days after they’re picked. So how does New York harvest 30 million bushels of apples in September and October without eating 30 million bushels over the following week?
The answer is cold storage.
Apples can be stored near 35°F for 6-12 months without decay. We gain an entire year of “freshness!” But first, we must put forth an effort of time, resources, and money to build that cold storage infrastructure.
Today’s effort allows us to keep more of our harvest in the long run. We get to choose our consumption schedule, not Mother Nature.
Roth Conversions
It might seem like an odd transition, but the same concept applies to Roth conversions. Today’s planning can allow us to keep more of our “harvest” in the long run. We gain control over our tax schedule rather than leaving it entirely up to the IRS.
Roth conversions are among many tools in a good “tax planning toolbelt.” Done correctly, Roth conversions allow an investor to turn high tax rates in the future into lower tax rates today. This article was inspired by Catherine (a listener of The Best Interest Podcast), who wrote me the following email:
Can you please explain the connection between RMDs and Roth conversions? Is this something I should look into? I’m 57, single, and have ~$2.3M in my 401k right now.
An Example: Required Minimum Distributions
Most retirees have heard of required minimum distributions, or RMDs, which are mandatory withdrawals that individuals with tax-deferred retirement accounts, like Traditional IRAs and 401(k)s, must make once they reach a specific age.
RMDs are forced. You must withdraw money from your 401k. Thus, the income tax associated with RMDs is forced. That’s not ideal.
Let’s use Catherine as an example. She’ll start taking RMDs at age 73 (although Congress might change that minimum age, as they’ve done before). That’s 16 years from her current age 57.
We don’t know the rest of Catherine’s scenario. Her Roth assets, taxable assets, Social Security, etc. are a mystery to us. So is her monthly spending need. All that info is essential to proper planning!
But I want to be extreme, so we’ll say Catherine’s lifestyle is wholly supported by her Social Security, taxable assets, and Roth assets. She doesn’t withdraw a single dollar from her 401k. Thus, it will grow from $2.3M today to $6M by the time she’s 73 (the assumption: 16 years at 6% per year).
Now in 2040, it’s time for her first RMD.
To calculate that RMD, we’ll look at Catherine’s year-end account value from the prior year ($6.0M) and divide it by her age-based Life Expectancy Factor. For age 73, that factor is presently 26.5. Here’s the full table of Life Expectancy Factors.
Catherine’s RMD is $6M / 26.5 = $226,415
That entire RMD is taxable as income, so her marginal Federal tax bracket is 32% based on the current tax code.
I’d bet Catherine’s account continues to grow past 2040, despite the RMD withdrawals. Her first 10 RMDs are all in the 4-5% range, and we’d expect her investment growth to outpace that. Her RMDs will grow in size. And that means she’ll be paying higher and higher marginal taxes in the 32% bracket, the 35% bracket, and potentially even the 37% bracket.
How Can Roth Conversions Help?
Paying high tax rates on RMDs is like letting your apples rot during the glut of harvest season. We need a “cold storage” to gain control over our tax rates and spread those taxes over time.
So let’s return to 2024, while Catherine is still 57 and her 401(k) is still at $2.3M. How do Roth conversions work?
First, we need to ensure Catherine’s 401(k) – which is still active – allows “in-service Roth conversions.” If it doesn’t, Catherine will have to wait until she retires and rolls over the 401(k) into an IRA.
Some simple paperwork with Catherine’s custodian will allow her to convert a number (of her choosing) of Traditional dollars into Roth dollars. Since the Traditional dollars have never been taxed, this conversion is taxable, triggering income tax.
Those converted Roth dollars will never be taxed again! That’s fantastic. But did Catherine save money? Was this a smart move?
We’d want to know all of Catherine’s personal financial details to run an accurate analysis, but we certainly need to understand what Catherine’s tax rate is today.
Her 2024 regular taxable income is $100,000, so she’s paying Federal taxes in the marginal 24% bracket. And she has another $90,000 available in that 24% bracket this year.
We can fill that ~$90,000 space in her 24% bracket with Roth conversions. Catherine would pay 24% Federal tax on those dollars today to prevent 32% (or higher) marginal tax rates once her RMDs hit. That’s the essence of Roth conversions.
Not Too Much Roth Conversion
Catherine needs to be careful not to overdo it. And so should you.
If you’re in your high-earning years and paying high marginal taxes, the odds are Roth conversions don’t make sense for you right now. There’s no reason to move extra income into your current high tax years.
But! You might have a few low-income years as soon as you retire. Your W2 income will disappear. Your financial plan might dictate you delay Social Security for a while.
Your only income might be dividends and income from your Taxable accounts and small withdrawals from your Traditional accounts. If so, fill up those low tax brackets with Roth conversions! This is a very common strategy for new retirees.
What If…?
But even as I write this article, “What if…” questions are bombarding my head.
Retirement planning withdrawal strategies are far from one-dimensional, and what I’m describing today is a one-dimensional view. I’m only focusing on a few details to provide an example of Roth conversions. Other nuanced planning questions include:
Roth conversions and (more generally) tax planning are essential aspects of retirement planning. But just two of many aspects.
A cold-stored apple a day keeps the IRS away.
Thank you for reading! If you enjoyed this article, join 7500+ subscribers who read my 2-minute weekly email, where I send you links to the smartest financial content I find online every week.
-Jesse
Want to learn more about The Best Interest’s back story? Read here.
Looking for a great personal finance book, podcast, or other recommendation? Check out my favorites.
Was this post worth sharing? Click the buttons below to share!
The Adirondack Mountains are a gorgeous outdoor wonderland, attracting tourists from all over the world. The park covers 20% of New York state (3x larger than Yellowstone!). Perhaps the “ADK’s” most extraordinary natural resources are the 46 “High Peaks” in the park’s northeast corner.
Friend-of-the-blog/pod Tyler led me on one of my first High Peak adventures (hey Tyler, thanks for reading!). We conquered the Dix Range, summiting four peaks in one day, trudging ~15 miles through the mountainous woods over 11 hours
Hiking is Hard Work
It was a draining day. I drank more water than expected and chafed in…uncomfortable…ways. I ate dinner for two that night and slept like a baby and learned many applicable lessons for my next hike.
For example, during our rest breaks at the summits, I observed the other hikers around us. What were they doing that I wasn’t? Some were fit and lean, others a bit overweight. Some had expensive gear, others had gym shorts and sneakers. The pros drank from Nalgene bottles and ate rehydrated meals. The amateurs had Poland Spring bottles and Nutrigrain bars.
All shapes and sizes. There was a broad spectrum between the expertly prepared and the woefully inexperienced. Yet all of these hikers had reached the top. And hopefully they all got back to the bottom, too.
Are You Prepared?
More preparedness requires more research, more time, and more money. But it provides a higher probability of summiting the mountain(s), a more straightforward path, and the mental confidence of knowing you’re prepared.
Less preparedness is easier upfront. But is it easy in the long run? Likely not. “A stitch, in time, saves nine,” as Ben Franklin said. This idea rhymes with the concept of, “Hard choices, easy life. Easy choices, hard life.”
Where do you want to fall on the spectrum of preparedness? That’s totally your call. There is no correct answer in general, but only a correct answer for you.
You’ll hopefully reach “the summit” either way. But your preparedness provides flexibility in how easy or hard that journey will be.
Retirement Works the Same Way
In my experience running The Best Interest and working professionally in financial planning, retirement preparedness works the same way. I received a perfect example last week via email from a blog reader, Jon…
Hi Jesse, my wife and I are 56 and 58 years old, respectively, and on the verge of retirement, I hope. We have about $2M in Traditional accounts, $510K in Roth accounts, and $430K in taxable accounts. 95% of that money is invested in diversified stocks. We’ll both receive significant Social Security benefits (north of $3K/month each at age 67). We live within our means…last year our total outflow of money was just shy of $90,000. Do you think we’re ready to retire? Can we chat with you about retirement readiness?
Jon (and Eva)
Some quick math: Jon and Eva have $2.9M in assets to support an $90,000 annual lifestyle. They’re at less than a 3% annual withdrawal rate, and we haven’t even accounted for their Social Security income. They are more than set!
Do Jon and Eva need professional help? I don’t see how.
Could Jon and Eva benefitfrom professional help? I’m positive.
It’s like my adventure in the Dix Range. I conquered the mountains! I didn’t need to be more prepared. But I could have (and should have) done many things differently to make my day more manageable and eliminate the probability of failure.
Many of us don’t need intervention. But it would undoubtedly help.
Questions for Jon and Eva
I find it hard to imagine a scenario where Jon and Eva live a failed financial retirement, regardless of professional advice. They’re on course to “summit the mountain.” Still, many critical financial questions come to my mind:
They’re retiring before 59.5 (the age of normal IRA distributions). What’s their plan for funding those intervening years?
Fof 99%+ of people on the verge of retirement, a portfolio of 95% stocks is inappropriate. Red flag!
In general, how do they plan on balancing withdrawals from their Roth accounts (no tax), their Traditional accounts (fully taxable as Income), and the taxable accounts (with capital gains)? Done poorly, they’ll “leak” money to taxes.
Are they sure waiting until 67 is the optimal Social Security move for both of them? It usually isn’t.
What’s their healthcare plan before Medicare?
Do they have any significant financial goals beyond “live our normal lifestyle?” Are they prepared to fund those goals?
And many more.There are lots of puzzle pieces to retirement and many ways to arrange them.
I’m sure Jon and Eva have answers. However, my experience with similar families is that their answers are rarely optimized. While it’s terrific that they’re better off than most, there’s still room for optimization – and therefore, room for dollars saved and dollars earned.
If they were hikers, they’d be in peak physical shape (peak?!) with plenty of water. I can’t see them failing to get up the mountain. But did they bring a map and compass, just in case? Are they aware those cotton underpants are going to get very uncomfortable? Or that the trailhead parking lot is “by reservation only?”
They’ll reach the summit regardless. But their day will be more annoying than it needed to be. Who wants that?!
Is Preparedness Worth It?
Just as I wrote earlier, I’m asking Jon and Eva,
“Where do you want to fall on the spectrum of preparedness? That’s totally your call. There is no right answer in general, but only a right answer for you.”
Based only on Jon’s short email, I have plenty of questions for them. They could use a sanity check (or more) for retirement preparedness.
But preparedness costs money, time, energy, etc. Do they want to incur those costs to get more prepared? Will they see enough benefit from those costs, or are they beyond the point of diminishing returns?
Perhaps they’re ready to hit the trail as is. They’ll reach their retirement goals regardless. But they might have more annoying financial moments than needed. Who wants that?!
Thank you for reading! If you enjoyed this article, join 7500+ subscribers who read my 2-minute weekly email, where I send you links to the smartest financial content I find online every week.
-Jesse
Want to learn more about The Best Interest’s back story? Read here.
Looking for a great personal finance book, podcast, or other recommendation? Check out my favorites.
Was this post worth sharing? Click the buttons below to share!
The Adirondack Mountains are a gorgeous outdoor wonderland, attracting tourists from all over the world. The park covers 20% of New York state (3x larger than Yellowstone!). Perhaps the “ADK’s” most extraordinary natural resources are the 46 “High Peaks” in the park’s northeast corner.
Friend-of-the-blog/pod Tyler led me on one of my first High Peak adventures (hey Tyler, thanks for reading!). We conquered the Dix Range, summiting four peaks in one day, trudging ~15 miles through the mountainous woods over 11 hours
Hiking is Hard Work
It was a draining day. I drank more water than expected and chafed in…uncomfortable…ways. I ate dinner for two that night and slept like a baby and learned many applicable lessons for my next hike.
For example, during our rest breaks at the summits, I observed the other hikers around us. What were they doing that I wasn’t? Some were fit and lean, others a bit overweight. Some had expensive gear, others had gym shorts and sneakers. The pros drank from Nalgene bottles and ate rehydrated meals. The amateurs had Poland Spring bottles and Nutrigrain bars.
All shapes and sizes. There was a broad spectrum between the expertly prepared and the woefully inexperienced. Yet all of these hikers had reached the top. And hopefully they all got back to the bottom, too.
Are You Prepared?
More preparedness requires more research, more time, and more money. But it provides a higher probability of summiting the mountain(s), a more straightforward path, and the mental confidence of knowing you’re prepared.
Less preparedness is easier upfront. But is it easy in the long run? Likely not. “A stitch, in time, saves nine,” as Ben Franklin said. This idea rhymes with the concept of, “Hard choices, easy life. Easy choices, hard life.”
Where do you want to fall on the spectrum of preparedness? That’s totally your call. There is no correct answer in general, but only a correct answer for you.
You’ll hopefully reach “the summit” either way. But your preparedness provides flexibility in how easy or hard that journey will be.
Retirement Works the Same Way
In my experience running The Best Interest and working professionally in financial planning, retirement preparedness works the same way. I received a perfect example last week via email from a blog reader, Jon…
Hi Jesse, my wife and I are 56 and 58 years old, respectively, and on the verge of retirement, I hope. We have about $2M in Traditional accounts, $510K in Roth accounts, and $430K in taxable accounts. 95% of that money is invested in diversified stocks. We’ll both receive significant Social Security benefits (north of $3K/month each at age 67). We live within our means…last year our total outflow of money was just shy of $90,000. Do you think we’re ready to retire? Can we chat with you about retirement readiness?
Jon (and Eva)
Some quick math: Jon and Eva have $2.9M in assets to support an $90,000 annual lifestyle. They’re at less than a 3% annual withdrawal rate, and we haven’t even accounted for their Social Security income. They are more than set!
Do Jon and Eva need professional help? I don’t see how.
Could Jon and Eva benefitfrom professional help? I’m positive.
It’s like my adventure in the Dix Range. I conquered the mountains! I didn’t need to be more prepared. But I could have (and should have) done many things differently to make my day more manageable and eliminate the probability of failure.
Many of us don’t need intervention. But it would undoubtedly help.
Questions for Jon and Eva
I find it hard to imagine a scenario where Jon and Eva live a failed financial retirement, regardless of professional advice. They’re on course to “summit the mountain.” Still, many critical financial questions come to my mind:
They’re retiring before 59.5 (the age of normal IRA distributions). What’s their plan for funding those intervening years?
Fof 99%+ of people on the verge of retirement, a portfolio of 95% stocks is inappropriate. Red flag!
In general, how do they plan on balancing withdrawals from their Roth accounts (no tax), their Traditional accounts (fully taxable as Income), and the taxable accounts (with capital gains)? Done poorly, they’ll “leak” money to taxes.
Are they sure waiting until 67 is the optimal Social Security move for both of them? It usually isn’t.
What’s their healthcare plan before Medicare?
Do they have any significant financial goals beyond “live our normal lifestyle?” Are they prepared to fund those goals?
And many more.There are lots of puzzle pieces to retirement and many ways to arrange them.
I’m sure Jon and Eva have answers. However, my experience with similar families is that their answers are rarely optimized. While it’s terrific that they’re better off than most, there’s still room for optimization – and therefore, room for dollars saved and dollars earned.
If they were hikers, they’d be in peak physical shape (peak?!) with plenty of water. I can’t see them failing to get up the mountain. But did they bring a map and compass, just in case? Are they aware those cotton underpants are going to get very uncomfortable? Or that the trailhead parking lot is “by reservation only?”
They’ll reach the summit regardless. But their day will be more annoying than it needed to be. Who wants that?!
Is Preparedness Worth It?
Just as I wrote earlier, I’m asking Jon and Eva,
“Where do you want to fall on the spectrum of preparedness? That’s totally your call. There is no right answer in general, but only a right answer for you.”
Based only on Jon’s short email, I have plenty of questions for them. They could use a sanity check (or more) for retirement preparedness.
But preparedness costs money, time, energy, etc. Do they want to incur those costs to get more prepared? Will they see enough benefit from those costs, or are they beyond the point of diminishing returns?
Perhaps they’re ready to hit the trail as is. They’ll reach their retirement goals regardless. But they might have more annoying financial moments than needed. Who wants that?!
Thank you for reading! If you enjoyed this article, join 7500+ subscribers who read my 2-minute weekly email, where I send you links to the smartest financial content I find online every week.
-Jesse
Want to learn more about The Best Interest’s back story? Read here.
Looking for a great personal finance book, podcast, or other recommendation? Check out my favorites.
Was this post worth sharing? Click the buttons below to share!
Let’s discuss the proper way to account for inflation in retirement and FIRE planning.
I lurk in some online personal finance forums, and what I see scares me. I see “the blind leading the blind” discussing how to account for inflation as part of your retirement or financial independence plan.
These mistakes can be gut-wrenching. If you double-count inflation, you’ll assume a worse-than-real future and mistakenly believe retirement is impossible. But if you improperly discount inflation, you’ll assume a better-than-real future and torpedo your retirement with false hopes.
We’re going to fix that today.
What’s the Problem in the First Place?
The problem is that it’s challenging to understand if/when/how to apply inflation. It’s entirely understandable. Inflation is a weird phenomenon and the math isn’t intuitive.
Should you inflate your current salary into the future? What about your current spending? What about investment returns? You’ve probably heard of the 4% Rule; but how does inflation affect its usage?
All great questions. We’ll answer them all today.
The True World vs. The Convenient World
I’ve heard intelligent people tackle this concept before. It’s tough. Lots of numbers are involved. There are mysterious rules about when to apply those numbers and when not to. My friends Cody Garrett and Brad Barrett expertly tackled this topic on a recent episode of ChooseFI. :
As I listened to Cody and Brad, I thought: a few visual aids and analogies might help here.
My preferred analogy is what I call “The True World” vs. “The Convenient World.”
“The True World” involves numbers as they actuallyexist in our society and economy.
“The Convenient World” involves shortcuts that financial experts frequently use.
I’ll explain both worlds below.
Good news: you can do math in either world and get correct answers for your life. Hooray! This is wonderful. It shows the power of smart mathematics.
Bad news: you cannot flip-flop between worlds. You must do all your math in “The True World” or do all your math in “The Convenient World.”
The problems I see every week arise when DIYers flip-flop between worlds. So I say again: you cannot flip-flop between worlds!
Let’s describe these worlds.
The True World
Let’s talk about The True World a.k.a. our actual society and economy.
Inflation: inflation exists in the True World, typically varying between 2% and 4% per year. We don’t know what future inflation will look like. But it’s reasonable to use a benchmark like 3% per year.
Stock returns: stock returns vary in the True World and can do so by significant amounts. Still, a pattern emerges when we zoom out to large time scales (20+ years). On average, a diversified stock portfolio has returned ~10% per year over long periods. It’s reasonable to use that 10% benchmark for the future. $100 this year turns into $110 next year.
Bond returns: bond returns also vary in the True World, though typically by smaller amounts than stocks. Over the past 100 years, intermediate-term, high-grade bonds have returned ~5% per year. It’s reasonable to use that 5% benchmark for the future. $100 this year turns into $105 next year.
In the three bullets above, I made an interesting assumption: that the future will closely resemble the past. You’re allowed to disagree with me and say, for example, that you want to assume inflation will be 4% ongoing and stock returns will be 8% ongoing. That’s fine.
The critical point is that all your numbers occur here in the True World. Inflation is above zero. Stocks and bond returns are measured using the actual amount of dollars. When we combine these factors, we conclude:
Your future income will be higher than your current one, increasing with inflation.
Your future raises will be greater than current, increasing with inflation
Your future spending will be higher than current, increasing with inflation.
Your future annual savings will be higher than current, increasing with inflation.
Your future nest egg will grow by some mix of true-world return percentages (assuming you build a diversified portfolio).
Keep those four components in mind: income, raises, savings & spending, and investment growth.
If you do all of your future planning using “True World” numbers, your analysis results will show reality as it is. That’s the goal.
The Convenient World
In the True World, as we’ve seen, it seems everything gets adjusted up by inflation. Lame! And also a bit tedious. Can’t we just do a mathematical trick to remove inflation from the equation entirely?
Yes. That’s exactly right. Some intelligent people wanted to make The True World more convenient for us. We’re here today (discussing a confusing financial planning topic) because of that desire for convenience.
…which, in my opinion, is a great idea! Unfortunately, those good intentions paved the road to our present confusing situation. Those intelligent people said,
“Three of our four main components (income, raises, spending & saving) are adjusted by annual inflation. To make the math easier, let’s remove inflation. No more adjustments! But to even out all facets of the equation, we must also decrease the investment growth by the inflation rate.”
The Convenient World contains no inflation! Here in the Convenient World, our four components are:
Your future income will equal your current income (assuming no merit-based raises).
There are no raises (at least, no “cost of living” or “COLA” raises)
Your future annual spending & saving will equal your current values.
Your investments will grow by a mix of true-world return percentages minus the annual inflation rate.
There’s no inflation in any of the four factors. While we’ve decreased our future spending needs, we also decrease the amount we save in the future and the rate at which our investments grow. Everything is a bit muted in The Convenient World.
But because we’ve discounted inflation in both positive ways (less future spending) and negative ways (less investment growth), you can do future planning using these “Convenient World” numbers and your results will show reality as it is.
Don’t Believe Me?
“But Jesse! How can the math work if we remove inflation in retirement and FIRE planning?! We’re ignoring a very real phenomenon!”
Trust me. Trust the math. Take a look at this simple spreadsheet.
The True World tab uses true world data. The Convenient World tab removes inflation entirely as I’ve described above.
Both tabs yield the same exact retirement savings results (Column I).
What About “The 4% Rule?”
The famous 4% rule throws an important question at us.
As my 4% rule explainer article details, the 4% rule builds inflation into its math. The creators of the 4% rule told us, “Hey future retiree – don’t you worry about inflation in retirement, we’ve already built it into our mathematical construct. All you need to worry about is hitting your 4% or 25x nest egg goal at your retirement date.”
What’s that sound like? What world washes inflation away? The Convenient World!
Now, the 4% Rule applies starting Day 1 of Retirement and extends until the day you meet Charlie Munger (RIP). That stretch of time is covered by the 4% rule (or whatever retirement rule/simulation you choose to utilize).
How should you get from today to Day 1 of Retirement? I recommend continuing to do all of your math in The Convenient World. Remove inflation from your numbers altogether.
Can you mix and match? While dangerous, the answer is technically yes!
To get from Today to Your Retirement Date, you can either:
Do all your math in The Convenient World, where both your future annual spending AND your future nest egg need will be muted values, but the ratio of those two will be 4% or 25x.
Do all your math in The True World, where both your future annual spending AND your future nest egg will reflect reality, and the ratio of those two will be 4% or 25x.
You can technically use True World math to get from Today to Your Retirement Date, and then let the 4% Rule (which is Convenient World math) take over from there.
But you CANNOT mix-and-match True World and Convenient World math when determining how to get from Today to Your Retirement Date.
In this example, both True and Convenient math get us to a place we can start using the 4% Rule.
But – Those Future Nest Egg Amounts Are Different?!
We’re sitting here in 2024. The True World tells us we’ll need $3.75M to retire in 2040. The Convenient World tells us we’ll need $1.875M. Those two numbers are vastly different…so which one is right?
The way to think about that is:
We’ll need $1.875M to retire as measured in 2024 dollars
We’ll need $3.75M to retire as measured in 2040 dollars
Either way, the most important takeaway from these types of planning analyses is to understand what we need to do right nowin 2024 to hit these future goals. Then we can revisit in 2025, 2026, etc.
Thankfully, both True and Convenient math will inform us precisely what we need to do here in 2024. Both methods would tell us, for example, “You need to save $30,000 in 2024 to stay on track for your retirement goal.”
What About “Real” vs. “Nominal” Returns
You might have heard of “real returns” and “nominal returns” before. I use those terms regularly here on The Best Interest, but I’ve intentionally excluded them so far in our discussion of inflation in retirement and FIRE planning.
The reason is that “real returns” confuses my analogy of “The True World.” Ugh.
Investment professionals use the term “nominal returns” to describe the actual dollar amounts that investments are increasing/decreasing by. If $100 turns into $110, the nominal return is 10%. In other words, nominal returns exist in The True World.
Investment pros use “real returns” to describe whether investments increase your purchasing power. In other words, have the investments outperformed inflation? If $100 turns into $110 but there was also 4% inflation, the real return is ~5.77%. “Real returns” exist in The Convenient World.
Yes, it’s confusing. You’ve been warned. Good luck.
Lessons and Takeaways
What have we learned?
Inflation in retirement and FIRE planning is a touchy topic. It’s not intuitive or easy. In fact, it requires great attention to detail.
You can use True World numbers and get all the answers you need.
You can use Convenient World math that excludes inflation, and you’ll also get the answers you need.
I recommend against mixing and matching. That said, if you’re very comfortable with the math, you can mix-and-match and end up fine.
You don’t want to mess this up. Misapplying inflation (a ~3% annual mistake) compounded over decades will lead you to a dark place.
Talk to an expert if you need to. CFP financial planners know how to handle this. Modern financial planning software takes care of the math for you.
Go get ’em!
PS: Here’s a straightforward financial independence and 4% rule calculator where you can input your own data.
PPS – you’ll notice my calculator does all its math in The Convenient World!
Thank you for reading! If you enjoyed this article, join 7500+ subscribers who read my 2-minute weekly email, where I send you links to the smartest financial content I find online every week.
-Jesse
Want to learn more about The Best Interest’s back story? Read here.
Looking for a great personal finance book, podcast, or other recommendation? Check out my favorites.
Was this post worth sharing? Click the buttons below to share!
I want to share a fantastic Q&A from this past week. A reader, “Vince,” wrote in and said:
Hi Jesse. I just reread your best of 2023 post about Compounding. Well, I’m late 50s. No debt. Have stayed the course, and am retiring with 4.2m dollars and 5.5m net worth. I’m the poster child for DCA, yearly rebalancing and living below your means but enjoying life. My wife and I know we’re very fortunate.
Here’s the irony. Bernstein said ‘when you win the game, stop playing ‘ To me, that means going to a 55/45 (or even a 50/50) portfolio in perpetuity because a 3% withdrawal rate is likely all we need to keep us happy. Yet, I’m giving up some return that comes with 60/40.
Thoughts? I can afford to be more aggressive, maybe much more so, but is it worth it? Or should I just chill, rebalance annually or every 18 months, and watch the portfolio grow but a bit more slowly.
Thanks!
Vince is in an awesome situation. To add some context to his message:
I wrote back to Vince and said:
Hey Vince. Thanks for reading and for writing in. It’s fun to chat with folks like you.
First off…wow. You find yourself in a terrific position! I love those details…dca, rebalance, live below your means. Do you mind if I ask…looking back, what was your rough average career household salary? And where did that salary max out? I’m just curious.
[And now I’m coming back up here after having written the entire email…this would be a wonderful blog post Q&A, with your permission. Happy to anonymize you entirely. Let me know your thoughts?]
Yes – great Bernstein quote. I have a thought experiment that might put you at ease…
Take your current household spending needs…let’s say, $150,000 per year.
Social Security will cover some…let’s say $50,000 per year (assuming you’re US? your country might have a different social safety net)
Therefore, your portfolio needs to cover $100,000 every year.
And I’m going to assume (?) the $4.2M you mention is fully investable.
If you went 50/50 in your portfolio – roughly $2.1M in stocks, $2.1M in bonds – you’d have 21 years of annual spending in bonds. Ideally, high-grade Treasury bonds. In theory, you have 21 years of buffer before you “need” to tap into your stocks.
Do we have faith that your stocks will outpace bonds over a 21-year period? That’s now the critical question. Based on the stuff I talk about on The Best Interest, my answer is: yes, 21 years is a sufficient period for stocks to do their thing.
Next question: can/should we pull that period closer to the present? 15 years? 10 years?
60/40 –> $2.5M stocks, $1.7M bonds –> 17 years
70/30 –> $2.95M stocks, $1.25M bonds –> 12.5 years
I think you can feel good about 60/40. 17 years of bonds is a great buffer.
But should you? You’re right that, technically speaking, you’re adding more risk to your portfolio. And for what reason? To die with a larger pile of money?
It all comes back to Bernstein’s quote: what game are you playing, Vince? Have you “won?” If not, that’s fine. But ask yourself: when will that answer change? What is “winning” to you?
For example, if you have big goals for your “Excess Money,” that’s a different story. Do you want to donate $1M to the dog shelter when you die? In that case, we should separate that portion of your money from the rest of your money, and invest it differently.
But if you’re main/most important goal is, “Live comfortably forever,” and the 55/45 gets you there…great! You’ve done it.
…now I’m curious, how much return are you actually giving up in the long run by shifting down from 60/40 to 55/45?
Assume 7% annualized inflation-adjusted returns for stocks and 2% inflation-adjusted for bonds
60/40 –> 5.00% per year, or 165% inflation-adjusted growth over 20 years.
55/45 –> 4.75% per year, or 153% inflation-adjusted growth over 20 years.
Definitely a difference. But not a huge one, IMO, especially when you (specifically you) won’t define success or failure based on that ~0.25% per year annualized difference.
Alright – that’s a lot. But I hope it helps.
If Vince’s portfolio is $4.2M and his annual needs are $100,000, he’ll be entering retirement following (essentially) a “2.38% Rule.” That’s way more conservative than the classic 4% Rule.
He doesn’t need to expose himself to undo risk. 60% stocks, 55% stocks, 50% stocks…Vince will be successful in any of these portfolios. Since he has “won the game” of career financial success, he can “stop playing the game” by taking some of his chips off the table a.k.a. reducing his exposure to risk assets (stocks).
Stocks outperform bonds over long periods of time, and Vince will be able to leave his stocks untouched for decades (if he wants to).
Now, Vince did get back to me and shared some of his personal story. I want to share some of those details with you.
On his salary and investing: “I started at 35k in 1994 and ended at about 560k this year. One outlier year was about 600k. I’d bet my average was around 200k but there were so many big jumps it’s really hard to say. (I never moved jobs for a bigger salary. In fact sometimes I took less to be happier. Eventually , the money came). Also, I got married and we both worked so I’d guess 275k average over 30 years, but this may be off. As I mentioned, dca, rebalance, live below our means. Also, 95% indexing with 4 funds and occasionally buying a stock or two and holding it.
Vince’s top-end salary ($500 – $600K) is top 1% territory. His average salary ($275K) is top ~4%. Vince earned great money. But his starting salary is relatively low. Salary growth was essential for Vince’s success. The lesson: you can – and should – look for ways to increase your income over your career. It might take decades. But it makes a huge difference.
And Vince’s investing technique is…boring! Index funds, dollar-cost averaging, buy-and-hold, annual rebalance. Sound familiar?! The boring stuff, while BORING, really does work.
I’m not pulling your leg here with my articles and podcasts about boring, long-term investing. I’m serious. It works. Just look at Vince. Moving on…
On his lifestyle: “We drive old cars and jeans and t shirts are our preferred outfits. We researched our area before buying and our house that cost 350k is now worth about 1.2m. Actually, not the best 25-year return, but we’re very happy here.We want to keep living simply but comfortably. We’ve put 2 kids through college and have no debt. We love traveling but can do it rather inexpensively. In fact, we just spent a month in Portugal for a small amount. So 55/45 it is. THANK YOU!!!!!
(FYI, the housing return Vince mentioned is about 5.5% nominal / 2.7% real annual return. )
The important takeaway is Vince’s choice to drive cheaper cars and wear cheaper clothes than he otherwise could. By my math, you could buy a Corvette on a $500,000 salary. You could fly first class. You could eat caviar. But Vince is an example that wealth is what you don’t see.
“Wealth is created by a slow, steady drip of investment deposits, just like decades of waves carving a shoreline rock. Wealth is compound interest that grows slowly at first, then rapidly in the end. Wealth is what you choose not to spend money on. Wealth is quiet.”
It sounds like Vince still doing what he loves. He’s cutting costs where he can (or where he simply doesn’t care), but then spending where he wants to. That’s bimodal spending. Vince is enjoying the journey.
Vince is a success story. He’s won the game. And now, like a smart investor, he’s opting to “stop playing” by taking some of his investment risk off the table.
Thanks, Vince, for sharing your example with us.
Thank you for reading! If you enjoyed this article, join 7500+ subscribers who read my 2-minute weekly email, where I send you links to the smartest financial content I find online every week.
-Jesse
Want to learn more about The Best Interest’s back story? Read here.
Looking for a great personal finance book, podcast, or other recommendation? Check out my favorites.
Was this post worth sharing? Click the buttons below to share!
The SECURE 2.0 Act, passed in 2022, featured many new tax and investing rules. Perhaps the most publicized change is that people can convert 529 dollars into Roth IRA dollars.
It’s a popular idea. Traditionally, 529 dollars had no “pressure release valve.” They’d be subject to income tax and a 10% penalty if they weren’t used for educational expenses. This new rule gives those unused dollars a new path: into a Roth IRA.
But there’s much more to this Roth conversion than meets the eye, and faulty advice bouncing around the Internet.
Why is this Conversion Useful in the First Place?
Traditionally, 529 dollars could only be used for educational expenses (college being the most common education expense).
But what if the 529 beneficiary chooses to not attend college? Can the parents reclaim those 529 dollars for themselves?
No, they can’t. In fact, the parents can only pull money out of the 529 account by paying income tax on all the account’s investment gains and an additional 10% penalty. This downside of 529 plans influences some people to avoid using them. What’s the point of a tax-advantaged account that investors avoid using?
This new conversion rule aims to fix that problem.
What are the Basics of the New 529-to-Roth Conversion?
With the passing of the SECURE 2.0 Act in 2022, 529 account holders can now convert $35,000 from the HSA account into a Roth IRA. That money can then grow tax-free in the Roth IRA and can be withdrawn in retirement, also tax-free.
Who Receives the Roth IRA Dollars?
Most of the time, investors create 529 accounts with another person (e.g. their child) as the beneficiary of the account. For this Roth conversion, the Roth IRA has to be in the name of the beneficiary of the 529 account (e.g. the child/student).
However, investors can set up 529 accounts with themselves as the beneficiary. In that scenario, the investor can convert 529 money into their own Roth IRA.
Are There Timing Restrictions?
Yes, and this is important. The 529 account must be held for the designated beneficiary for at least 15 years before it’s eligible for Roth conversion.
If start a 529 account today, it won’t be eligible for Roth conversion until 2038.
Can the Conversion Happen All at Once?
It depends. The maximum conversion in any one year is determined by two factors:
The maximum annual conversion is equal to the maximum annual Roth IRA contribution limit (in 2024, that’s $7000)
The maximum annual conversion must be less than the 529 beneficiary’s earned income.
If you want to convert the full $35,000 (the max under current rules), it will have to occur over 5 years (at $7000 each year), and you’ll have to earn at least $7000 of earned income each of those 5 years. This conversion does not work if the beneficiary isn’t working (and has no earned income).
Are There Other Limitations?
Yes. Any 529 assets contributed in the past 5 years (and their associated earnings) are not eligible for Roth conversion.
But we already covered that with the 15-year rule, right?
Not quite. The 15-year rule applies to the age of the account itself. This 5-year rule applies to the actual dollars in the account. Only dollars that are at least 5 years old (or earned from dollars that are 5 years old) are eligible for conversion.
Can I Do This for “Child A,” Then Do It Again for “Child B”?
If each child has their own 529 plan, yes.
But if the Roth conversion dollars are only coming from one 529 account, it’s challenging. The 15-year rule is the main reason why.
The 529 account would have to list Child A as the beneficiary for 15 years, then start a ~5-6 year Roth conversion window. Then Child B would become the beneficiary, beginning a new 15-year window, then a new Roth conversion window. It’s a 40-year total timeline.
Some of My Commentary…
Here are some of my thoughts on 529 accounts in general, and this Roth conversion rule more specifically.
This 529-to-Roth rule is a good thing. But with in-state college costs well above $30,000 per year (and many out-of-state costs more than double that), it’s a small solution to a larger problem. The larger problem is that it’s feasible for $100,000+ to get “stuck” in a 529 account. This Roth conversion rule only “fixes” $35,000 of that problem.
What to do instead?
First, parents should determine a dollar amount they’d like to contribute to their children’s college. $10,000 per year? $100,000 total? Pick your number.
Next, parents should work towards that goal by saving in both 529 accounts and taxable brokerage accounts. At most, 50% of the college savings should end up in a 529 account. The other 50%+ goes into the taxable brokerage.
This solution, by design, isn’t perfect. Instead, it intentionally “splits the difference.” Half the money is tax-advantaged but “locked” for college. The other half is not tax-advantaged, but is perfectly flexible. The Roth conversion rule adds another knob to turn in our benefit.
The 529-to-Roth conversion is a good rule for savers and investors. But it has specific rules you’ll need to follow, and it won’t be applicable (or possible) in every case.
And despite it’s good progress, the 529-to-Roth rule doesnot solve the “pressure release” or liquidity issues that many 529 savers face.
Thank you for reading! If you enjoyed this article, join 7000+ subscribers who read my 2-minute weekly email, where I send you links to the smartest financial content I find online every week.
-Jesse
Want to learn more about The Best Interest’s back story? Read here.
Looking for a great personal finance book, podcast, or other recommendation? Check out my favorites.
Was this post worth sharing? Click the buttons below to share!
At the beginning of inflation/rate hike cycle, everything I read said invest in stocks and real estate (and TIPS) to beat inflation. It sure doesn’t feel like stocks beat inflation but I haven’t run the numbers… Can you show how accurate these suggestions were and what, if anything, did beat inflation the past 2 or 3 years?
Michael
What a fantastic question. Let’s answer it today. We’ll need to take a few baby steps to answer Michael’s question.
What time frame are we going to look at (and why)?
What asset classes are we going to look at (and why)?
What tools can we use to look at those asset classes and compare their performance?
What’s Our Timeframe?
We must start by determining a “before” and “after.” Are we looking at inflation? Or the Fed’s interest rate hikes? A combination of both?
The current jumble of inflation and interest rates is undoubtedly connected to COVID-19. The Federal Reserve swiftly lowered interest rates in response to the pandemic’s economic slowdown and printed a few trillion dollars.
To answer today’s question, we should start prior to that period. January 2020 makes sense. For an end date, we’ll pick right now – December 2023. Here’s how interest rates (in orange) and inflation (purple) have changed over time. For ease of comparison, the inflation line shows a total increase of 19.03% in the past 36 months.
What Asset Classes Are We Looking At (And Why)?
Specifically, Michael asked about stocks, real estate, and TIPS** in his question.
TIPS are Treasury Inflation-Protected Bonds. These bonds provide a small nominal return plus a variable return based on rates of inflation.They are, as the name implies “inflation-protected” and, in theory, should not have been negatively affected by recent inflation.
We must also look at the most basic, inflation-exposed asset: cash. I also want to look at traditional bonds and commodities.
Most bonds aren’t TIPS. They’re not inflation-protected. In fact, inflation is a bond investor’s worst nightmare. The cashflow from a bond is guaranteed to be fixed. Inflation guarantees the value of those fixed dollars slowly decays. Not good.
Commodities – like oil, gold, timber, pork, etc. – should, in theory, rise with inflation. As prices rise around us, the price of commodities should rise too. While the magnitude of commodity inflation might not match CPI data 1-to-1, we *should* see some correlation.
The Results
Remember: our inflation figure is 19.03% over this time period. In comparison, our six asset classes have performed:
Cash = +6.33% (in purple below)
Stocks = +49.32% (orange)
Real estate = +3.59% (blue)
TIPS = +11.17% (green)
Bonds = (-5.27%) (pink)
Commodities = +42.36% (brown)
Back to Michael’s original question:
Stocks provided a legitimate real return (despite 2022 being a bad year). Take it with a grain of salt, though. I’m not a proponent of using a 3-year stock market return to prove an investing idea – stocks are just too volatile. Today’s article is a special case based on the inflation/interest rate timeline we chose.
Real estate got crushed. Some of you might be thinking, “Aren’t houses and apartments crazy expensive?! How can real estate be doing poorly?” For today’s purposes, we’re using Vanguard’s most diversified real estate index fund as our measuring stick. That fund includes various commercial real estate sectors, many of which got 1) crushed by COVID and then 2) got similarly throttled by the interest rate hikes of 2022. It’s been a tough period for real estate investors.
TIPS “only” returned 11.17%, despite the promise they’d keep up with inflation. What gives?! The main explanation is, once again, rising interest rates. TIPS should be thought of as two-products-in-one. The first product is a normal bond with a fixed nominal return. The second is a variable aspect that protects against unexpected inflation. While the second portion is doing its job, the first “normal bond” portion has been negatively affected by rising interest rates just like all other bonds (in pink). TIPS are doing what they’re meant to do…but that doesn’t mean TIPS investors are excited about it. In fact, if you compare TIPS (+11.17%) to normal bonds (-5.27%) the difference is pretty close to the overall rate of inflation, which is what we’d expect.
Commodities are up 42.36% – wow! But when I see that commodities plot, I see volatility! Plus, commodities are not income-producing assets. That’s the main reason I don’t own commodities, and not even today’s graph is going to change my mind.
Finally, we have cash providing a slow, steady 6.33% return. The lesson is clear: cash loses ground to inflation. Period. Cash is vital to meet your near-term financial needs. That cash should be parked somewhere earning ~5% right now. But that’s not a long-term solution, nor a reason to be overexposed to cash right now. Long-term assets need to be elsewhere, earning a real return above inflation.
Michael, thanks for the awesome question. Hopefully these lessons help us out some time in the future.
Thank you for reading! If you enjoyed this article, join 7000+ subscribers who read my 2-minute weekly email, where I send you links to the smartest financial content I find online every week.
-Jesse
Want to learn more about The Best Interest’s back story? Read here.
Looking for a great personal finance book, podcast, or other recommendation? Check out my favorites.
Was this post worth sharing? Click the buttons below to share!