q&a

Q&A: Health savings accounts can supercharge retirement funds, but not for this guy

May 22, 2017 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: Prior to retiring in 2015, I contributed to a health savings account. At the time my spouse and I were enrolled in my employer-provided high deductible health insurance plan. After I retired, I enrolled in an HMO plan my employer provided, which is not high deductible, and my wife enrolled in a Medicare supplemental plan. Can I make a one-time IRA rollover of $8,750 into the HSA? If not the $8,750, can I make any one-time contribution to the account while I am enrolled in the Kaiser health insurance plan? I have only $53 in the HSA. Are there any reasons to keep the account open or should I close it?

Answer: You did have the option, while you were enrolled in the high-deductible plan, to make a one-time rollover from your IRA to your HSA. The amount you could roll over is capped to the HSA contribution limit. The limit in 2015 would have been $7,650 ($6,650 for a family, plus a catch-up contribution of $1,000 for those 55 and over). You would have had to subtract from the rollover any amounts already contributed to the account that year.

Since you no longer have the high-deductible plan, though, rollovers and new contributions aren’t allowed. There’s no reason to keep open a plan with just $53 in it because most HSA providers charge monthly fees that will quickly eat up such a small balance. (Your employer may have paid these fees while you were working and covered by the high-deductible plan.)

That’s too bad, because a properly funded HSA can be an excellent way to save for medical expenses in retirement. HSAs offer a rare triple tax break: Contributions are pre-tax, the money can grow tax deferred and withdrawals are tax free when used for qualifying medical expenses. HSAs are meant to cover the considerable out-of-pocket expenses that come with high-deductible health insurance plans, but the money in the account can be rolled over from year to year and even invested so it can grow.

Q&A: This trust avoids probate (but not death and taxes)

May 22, 2017 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: Reading your articles I understand that having a revocable living trust makes transferring wealth quicker and easier. What about taxes? If you use a will to bequeath your house, for example, the beneficiaries get a stepped-up cost basis. What are the taxes with a revocable living trust? Do you pay taxes on assets going into the trust and again going out to the beneficiaries? What are the tax advantages and disadvantages of a trust?

Answer: Many kinds of trusts have tax implications, but revocable living trusts typically don’t. Your assets get the same tax treatment as if you held them outright.

Some people mistakenly believe that revocable living trusts can help them avoid or eliminate estate taxes. The purpose of a living trust is primarily to avoid probate, the court process that otherwise follows death. In some states, including California, probate can be lengthy and expensive, which often makes a living trust worth the cost and effort to set up.

Living trusts also offer more privacy because they don’t have to be made public, unlike a will, which becomes a public record at your death. Living trusts also make it easier for your appointed person to take over for you in case you become incapacitated.

Q&A: So many credit scores — here’s how to get yours

May 22, 2017 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: You recently discussed FICO scores. Please let me know how I can get mine. My bank says it can only give my husband his score because he is the principal on our account.

Answer: Remember that you don’t have one FICO credit score, you have many. Lenders use different versions and generations of the FICO formula. In addition, FICOs will differ based on which credit bureau was used. So your bank may give your husband a FICO Bankcard Score 2 based on information from Experian, while an auto lender might use a FICO Auto Score 5 from Equifax. These scores almost certainly will differ from his FICO 8 scores, which are the most commonly used scores. The FICOs for credit cards and autos typically are on a 250-to-900 scale, while FICO 8 is on a 300-to-850 scale.

Anyone can get free FICO 8 scores based on Experian data from Experian’s consumer site, Freecreditscore.com, and from credit card Discover at Discover.com. Several other credit card issuers — including American Express, Bank of America, Chase, Citi and Wells Fargo — offer FICOs of various kinds to cardholders.

If you want to see a broader range of your FICO scores, you can buy a three-bureau report from MyFico.com for about $60 that includes FICO 8s, FICO 9s and the most commonly used scores in mortgage, credit card and auto lending from each bureau.

Q&A: How to improve your FICO score

May 15, 2017 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: My FICO score is just under 800. The reason given that it is not higher is that I don’t have any non-mortgage leases. What would be the cheapest way to remedy this without buying something expensive?

Answer: When you get your credit scores, you may be given sometimes-vague reasons for why they’re not higher or lower. The “reason code” you saw probably said something like “no recent non-mortgage balance information.” What that means is that you haven’t been using revolving accounts such as credit cards. To get higher scores, you’d need to dust off your plastic and use it once in a while. (You don’t need to carry a balance to get or keep good scores, however. You can and should pay credit card balances in full each month.)

Any improvement in your scores is likely to be modest, however. Your numbers are already high and the factor known as “mix of credit” — which means responsibly using both revolving and installment accounts — accounts for just 10% of your FICO scores. Plus, there’s no real point in having scores over 800, other than to brag about them. Once your scores exceed 760 or so, you’re already eligible for the best rates and terms.

Q&A: How to find the right balance when investing

May 8, 2017 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: My brokerage wanted me to start moving from stocks that paid me steady dividends into bonds as I got older. If I’d followed that advice, I wouldn’t be nearly where I am today. I sleep just fine with my dividends. Things can change, of course, but until I see solid evidence otherwise, I am sticking with my plan. I have no idea why the brokerage is still pushing the “more bonds with advancing age” idea.

Answer: Presumably you were invested during the financial crisis and saw the value of your stocks cut in half. If you can withstand that level of decline, then your risk tolerance is a good match for a portfolio that’s heavily invested in stocks.

The problem once you retire is that another big drop could have you siphoning money for living expenses from a shrinking pool. The money you spend won’t be in the market to benefit from the rebound. This is what financial planners call sequence risk or sequence-of-return risk, and it can dramatically increase the odds of running out of money.

Perhaps you plan to live solely off your dividends, but there’s no guarantee your buying power will keep up with inflation. Most people, unless they’re quite wealthy, wind up having to tap their principal at some point, which leaves them vulnerable to sequence risk.

There’s another risk you should know about: recency bias. That’s an illogical behavior common to humans that makes us think what happened in the recent past will continue to happen in the future, even when there’s no evidence that’s true and plenty of evidence to the contrary. During the real estate boom, for example, home buyers and pundits insisted that prices could only go up. We saw how that turned out.

Bonds and cash can provide some cushion against events we can’t foresee. The right allocation varies by investor, but consider discussing your situation with a fee-only financial planner to see how it aligns with your brokerage’s advice.