Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Investing

Q&A: A husband handles the investing. What happens when he’s gone?

By

Dear Liz: My husband has always handled our investments. He doesn’t think it makes sense to pay someone 1% to do what he can do on his own. As we’re getting older, I’m starting to worry about what I would do if he dies first. We also have a friend who got scammed, and it’s made me wonder whether that could happen to us. I would like to talk to a fee-only advisor like you always recommend, but I’m not sure how to get him on board.

Answer: Start with your concerns about having to take over the finances should he die or become incapacitated. Having someone trustworthy to help you through this process can be incredibly valuable, and it doesn’t need to be someone who charges 1% to manage your investments.

You can get referrals to fiduciary, fee-only planners who charge by the hour at Garrett Planning Network. The XY Planning Network and the Alliance for Comprehensive Planners represent fiduciary, fee-only planners who charge retainer fees. (Fiduciary means the planner is committed to putting your best interests first. Most advisors are held to a lower suitability standard, which means they don’t have to put your interests ahead of their own.)

Researchers have found that our financial decision-making abilities peak at age 53. Unfortunately, our confidence in our financial acumen remains high even as our cognition declines. The growing gap between our self-regard and reality can leave us vulnerable to bad investments, bad decisions and bad people.

An advisor could take a look at your portfolio and recommend ways to make it easier to manage as you age. The advisor also could discuss strategies and safeguards to protect you from mistakes and predators. Once you have established the relationship, you should be able to get more help down the road if you need it. (Consider the advisor’s age and status, though; a younger advisor or one who’s part of a large practice might be a better idea in this scenario than a solo practitioner who is approaching retirement age.)

Q&A: Trust in the flexibility of living trusts

By

Dear Liz: Is naming a beneficiary for a nonretirement, “payable on death” account as effective as putting the account in a living trust? It seems easier than doing all the paperwork each time I open an account, but is it a good idea?

Answer: Both living trusts and payable on death accounts avoid probate, the court process that otherwise typically follows death. But living trusts offer more flexibility and control.

Let’s say you want to benefit two relatives equally, and are leaving a savings account to one and a brokerage account to the other. The balances of the two accounts may be roughly equal today, but could be dramatically different by the time you die. A trust allows you to divvy up your assets regardless of where the money is kept.

Trusts also allow you to put restrictions on how money is spent, which can be important if your heir is a minor child, a spendthrift or someone reliant on public benefits. Payable on death accounts don’t allow restrictions.

Should you become incapacitated, the successor trustee of your living trust could access trust assets to pay for your care. Beneficiaries of payable-on-death accounts can’t get to the funds until you die, so a court procedure may be necessary to provide for you.

After you die, the person settling your estate probably will need money to cover your burial and funeral expenses, pay your bills and final taxes and perhaps get your house ready for sale. If the needed funds have already been distributed to beneficiaries of payable on death accounts, this person might be faced with asking for funds to be returned or paying out of their own pocket, says Jennifer Sawday, an estate planning attorney in Long Beach.

There’s also the piecemeal nature of payable on death accounts. Keeping track of and updating beneficiaries can be a chore. If a beneficiary dies before you, that can create administrative problems as well.

Payable on death accounts can be a low-cost solution for people who don’t have much money and who can’t afford to pay for a trust. If you already have a trust, though, it makes sense to use it.

You typically don’t have to update your living trust every time you open a new account, by the way. Discuss the issue with your estate planning attorney, but typically all that’s needed is to add the account to the schedule of assets that’s usually at the end of your trust document.

Q&A: Beware the insurance salesperson in financial planner’s clothing

By

Dear Liz: Do you have any general advice for choosing a tax preparer? My financial advisor has recommended switching my 403(b) contributions over to Roth 403(b) with the same investment plan. I am worried that this could put us at risk for a higher tax bracket currently.

Answer: Ideally, a financial advisor wouldn’t recommend switching to a Roth option without knowing a fair amount about your current and future tax situations. Otherwise, the advisor wouldn’t be qualified to determine whether giving up the current tax break is likely to pay off later.

Unfortunately, not all financial advisors are truly qualified to give the advice they do. Some, particularly those advising people about 403(b) investments, are insurance salespeople rather than fiduciary financial planners.

You can get referrals to tax pros from the National Assn. of Enrolled Agents and your state’s chapter of certified public accountants. (The American Institute of CPAs has compiled a list of those at its website.) Both enrolled agents and CPAs are fiduciaries who promise to put your best interests first.

For broader financial advice, consider getting referrals from one of the organizations representing fee-only fiduciary planners such as the Garrett Planning Network, the XY Planning Network, the National Assn. of Personal Financial Advisors and the Alliance of Comprehensive Planners.

Also, teachers should consider spending some time on the nonprofit 403bwise website, which grades school districts’ retirement plans and seeks to educate teachers about the costs of trusting the wrong people.

Q&A: He’s held stocks for decades. Should he sell before he dies?

By

Dear Liz: My father-in-law, age 100, has more than $1 million in stocks and bonds purchased in the 1980s and 1990s. With the stock market so high, I have suggested that he might want to sell the investments, take the tax hit and consolidate into short-term certificates of deposit or similar. This would make it easier for his family to manage (in trust) upon his death. Does this make sense or do we leave it alone?

Answer: Selling now means your father-in-law would have to pay a substantial and perhaps unnecessary tax bill on the gains he’s incurred over the years. If he instead leaves those assets to his heirs at his death, most likely no tax would be owed on the gains.

There are some exceptions, such as if the investments are held in retirement accounts or an irrevocable trust. But investments held in revocable trusts, such as living trusts, should qualify for the favorable step-up in basis that would eliminate the taxable capital gain at his death.

Yes, there’s always a risk that the markets could drop — but they would have to drop pretty far to wipe out all his gains, assuming he’s got a reasonably diversified portfolio. A fee-only, fiduciary financial planner could review the portfolio and offer recommendations about any changes that might be needed, while a tax pro could discuss potential strategies for minimizing the tax bill.

Q&A: Closing the case on the couple moving into their rental property

By

Dear Liz: You recently answered a question from a couple who wanted to move into their rental property, make it their primary residence and use the $500,000 home sale exclusion if they sold the property after living there for two years. You should have made it clearer that not all of the gains on the property would qualify for the exclusion.

Answer: Quite right. In 2008, Congress closed the loophole that allowed people to exclude all the gains when they turn rental property into their primary residence. So the couple would not be able to count the gain that occurred between 2009 and whenever they move in. They would, however, be allowed to include the gain from 1988, when they bought the property, through 2008, as well as any increase in value after they move in if they live in the house at least two years, says Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting.

In some parts of the country, there may not be enough gains from those two periods to qualify for the full $250,000-per-owner exclusion, especially after accounting for the depreciation recapture, which requires landlords to pay back the depreciation tax break when they sell a rental property.

In higher-cost areas, however, there still could be more than $500,000 of qualifying gains, Luscombe says.