December 17, 2012 By

Don’t tap retirement funds to pay kids’ student loans

Dear Liz: I’m in my 50s. My kids have college loan debts that might total more than $200,000. I allowed them to take out loans because I expected to inherit $300,000 to help them pay off the debt. Now that inheritance will not happen.

I have $250,000 saved for retirement. When I’m 58 1/2 years old, I would like to pull that money out and pay some or all of these debts. Or use home equity. I’ve recently been downsized in employment, but I am looking to increase my income so I can help with their debt. Advice?

Answer: If your goal is to impoverish yourself so your kids will have to take care of you in your old age, by all means proceed with your plan. Otherwise, you need to rethink this.

You’ve been laid off in the middle of what should be your peak earning years. Older workers often have a tougher time than younger ones finding replacement jobs, even in a better economy than this one. You may not be able to replace your former income, which means you may not be able to add much to the amount you’ve already saved. You should be conserving your resources, including your home equity, and not squandering it repaying debts that aren’t yours.

And “squandering” is the right word. You may be able to avoid paying federal and state tax penalties on withdrawals under certain conditions; distributions made after age 59 1/2 avoid the penalties, as do those made if you’re “separated from service” if the job termination occurred in or after the year you turn 55. But you’ll still owe income taxes on the withdrawal, and those can be considerable.

Your children are the ones who will benefit from their educations. Those educations should allow them to earn incomes to repay these loans. The amount of debt they’ve accrued might be excessive — you didn’t specify how many kids, or whether this debt is being incurred pursuing undergraduate or graduate degrees. Ultimately, though, they will be in a better position to pay the debt than you are.

If you promised them help you can’t deliver, sit down with them now to break the bad news and strategize on how they can finish their educations without incurring substantially more debt.

Your story also should serve as a cautionary tale for anyone counting on an inheritance to pay future bills. Until the money is in your bank account, it’s not yours and shouldn’t be part of your financial planning.

Filed Under: College, College Savings, Kids & Money, Q&A, Retirement Tagged With: , , , ,
October 1, 2012 By

Should you take a lump sum now or an annuity check later?

Dear Liz: My former employer is offering the one-time opportunity to receive the value of my pension benefit as a lump-sum payment. The other option is to leave the money where it is and get a guaranteed monthly check from a single life annuity when I reach retirement age. I am 40 and single, and I have been investing regularly in a 401(k) since graduating from college. I have minimal debt aside from a car payment. When does it make financial sense to take a lump sum now instead of an annuity check later?

Answer: Theoretically, you often could do better taking a lump sum and investing it rather than waiting for a payoff in retirement. That assumes that you invest wisely, that the markets cooperate, that you don’t pay too much in investing expenses and that you don’t do anything foolish, like raid the funds early.

That’s assuming a lot. Another factor to consider is that the annuity is designed to continue until you die. It’s a kind of “longevity insurance” that can help you pay your bills if you live a long life.

Some financial advisors will encourage you to take the lump sum, since they may be paid more if you invest it with them. Consider consulting instead a fee-only financial planner who charges by the hour — in other words, someone who doesn’t have a dog in this particular fight. The planner can walk you through the math of comparing a lump sum to a later annuity and help you understand the consequences of both paths. This is a big enough decision that it’s worth paying a few hundred bucks to get some expert advice.

Filed Under: Annuities, Q&A, Retirement Tagged With: , , , , ,
August 14, 2012 By

Working longer means more money overall

Dear Liz: You’ve been answering several questions about when to start Social Security benefits. Most people who talk about the break-even point seem to fixate on when you’ll end up with the most money, but they’re only considering Social Security money. It’s worth pointing out that if one continues to work until full retirement those wages, for most of us, will add up to much more than the reduced Social Security payments for those first four or five years. So unless a person really hates his or her job, or poor health makes the person no longer able to do that job, working until age 66 or 67 will give a person the highest total.

Answer: That’s a good point, and it’s not just the wages you earn that are important. It’s the fact that you can delay tapping your retirement savings, so that those can continue to grow tax deferred. The effect of delaying retirement even a few years is so powerful that people who have saved substantially over their working lives can actually stop saving in their 60s — and use the extra cash for fun stuff like travel — without increasing their risk of running out of money, according to research by mutual fund company T. Rowe Price. The company has dubbed this approach “practice retirement,” and you can read more about it at http://www.troweprice.com/practice.

Filed Under: Q&A, Retirement Tagged With: , , ,
May 14, 2012 By

Is a 3% withdrawal rate too conservative?

Question: In a recent column you repeat advice I have often read that withdrawing about 3% of my investment capital will reduce the chances of my running out of money in retirement. But that doesn’t make sense to me. I have been retired for over 19 years and I have sufficient data now to extrapolate that I could live for 100 more years with so meager a drawdown because, through good and bad times, my earnings after inflation and taxes always exceed 3%. If I am missing something, I must be extraordinarily lucky because it hasn’t hurt me yet, and at age 77 I think it unlikely to do so in my remaining years. Can you explain this discrepancy between my experience and the consequences of your advice?

Answer: Sure. You got extraordinarily lucky.

You retired during a massive bull market, which is the best possible scenario for someone who hopes to live off investments. You were drawing from an expanding pool of money. Your stocks probably were growing at an astonishing clip of 20% or more a year for several years. Although later market downturns probably affected your portfolio, those initial years of good returns kept you comfortably ahead of the game.

Contrast that with someone who retires into a bear market. She’s drawing from a shrinking pool of money as her investments swoon. The money she takes out can’t participate in the inevitable rebound, so she loses out on those gains as well. All that dramatically increases the risks that she’ll run out of money before she runs out of breath.

It’s the first five years of retirement that are crucial, according to analyses by mutual fund company T. Rowe Price, which has done extensive research on sustainable withdrawal rates. Bad markets and losses in the first five years after withdrawals begin significantly increase the chances that a person will run out of money during a 30-year retirement.

Some advisors contend that a 3% initial withdrawal rate, adjusted each subsequent year for inflation, is too conservative. If you retire into a long-lasting bull market, it may well be. But none of us knows what the future holds, which is why so many advisors stick with the 3%-to-4% rule.

Filed Under: Investing, Q&A, Retirement Tagged With: , , , ,
April 17, 2012 By

Most investors under 50 plan to work in retirement

A new T. Rowe Price survey shows seven out of 10 investors aged 21 to 50 plan to work at least part time during their retirement years, and most (75%) will do so because they want to stay active. Only 23% expect to work out of necessity, because they won’t have saved enough.

T. Rowe Price has been surveying the investment practices of Generation X (defined as people aged 35 to 50) and Generation Y (ages 21 to 34).  Harris Interactive conducted the poll in December, surveying 860 adults aged 21-50 who have at least one investment account.

Gens X and Y are following in the path of the Baby Boomers, a majority of whom have told pollsters over the years that they plan to continue to work. The percentages who expect to do so by choice vary with economic conditions, but the polls show a new vision of an active retirement has emerged, said Christine Fahlund, CFP®, senior financial planner with T. Rowe Price.

Continuing to work into your 60s, if you can do so, can have hugely positive effects on your finances as well, even if you cut back on saving for retirement.

From T. Rowe Price’s press release:

“We believe that beginning to incorporate more leisure in your 60s, when you’re still likely to be in good health can be a fun way to make the transition from work to retirement easier,” she added.  “By working a little longer and playing, investors can maintain earned income to fund their activities, hold off on tapping their nest eggs earmarked for retirement, and defer taking Social Security payments.  Delaying Social Security, in particular, positions people to have potentially considerably higher guaranteed payments – adjusted annually for inflation – for the rest of their lives.”

If you want to read more about how you can work longer and have fun, too, read “Retire without quitting your job.”

Filed Under: Liz's Blog Tagged With: , ,
March 28, 2012 By

Want to know more about Roths? Check out these links

Nearly 150 bloggers so far have contributed posts to the Roth IRA Movement, which financial planner Jeff Rose organized after speaking to a group of college seniors and discovering none of them knew what a Roth was, or how important it was to their financial futures. (It’s “the best thing since sliced bread,” and really, really important, as you can read in my post “Young and broke? Open a Roth.”)

You can read Jeff’s post here, which is also where you’ll find links to the other 146 (so far) posts. That’s probably more about Roths than anyone can absorb, so here are a few good ones to start with:

Studenomics: “Read This if You Want to Retire Before 70.” An excellent, clear guide to why it’s so important to contribute to a Roth while you’re young.

House of Rose: “I Opened My First IRA Account. Age 22.” The blogger’s personal story of early enlightenment.

Parenting Family Money: “Opening a Roth IRA for a Child.” An early start is good; an even earlier start is better.

Bible Money Matters: “10 Reasons Why I Love The Roth IRA (And Why You Should Too).” If this doesn’t convert you to the wisdom of a Roth, what will?

Amateur Asset Allocator: “Roth IRA: How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Ways.” This blogger wrote a sonnet. Seriously. You must read this.

Lauren Lyons Cole: “How To Pay Taxes Like the Rich.” Why has no one given financial planner Lauren Lyons Cole her own TV show yet? She’s delightful, and hits the highlights of the Roth in a two-minute video.

Please share these links with your friends and anyone you know who isn’t already contributing to a Roth. Help us get the word out about this wonderful vehicle for future financial independence.

Filed Under: Liz's Blog Tagged With: , , ,
March 27, 2012 By

Young and broke? Open a Roth

You young’uns, listen up. Roth IRAs are the best thing since sliced bread. And the best time to contribute is when you’re young and broke, since you won’t always be that way.

Here’s the deal: contributions to a Roth don’t give you a tax break up front. But when you aren’t making much money, you aren’t paying much in taxes, so that’s an easy sacrifice to make.

The beauty of the Roth is when you take the money out. You can always withdraw your contributions without paying income taxes or penalty on the cash. But I recommend you don’t, because if you leave your Roth alone, those contributions—and all the lovely gains they’ll earn over the years—can be withdrawn entirely tax free.

Chances are, your tax rate will be higher in the future than it is now. The future you will be blessing the current you for tucking aside all that tax-free wealth. Every $1,000 you contribute in your 20s could grow to $20,000 or more by the time you’re ready to retire. If you’re so rich by then that you don’t need the money, you can pass the account on to your kids, and THEY can pull out money tax free.

That doesn’t mean you should ignore your workplace retirement plan—your 401(k) or 403(b)—especially if it has a match. But if you can possibly tuck some money away in a Roth, you probably should.

Starting one is easy—just about any bank, brokerage firm or mutual fund company under the sun will be happy to take your money. I like Vanguard’s target date retirement funds, since they do all the asset allocation and rebalancing for you, their expenses are dead cheap and you only have to have a $1,000 minimum investment to start a Roth there. (Don’t have $1,000 yet? Start a Roth at a credit union, save up and then transfer the account to Vanguard.)

Even if you aren’t so young anymore, the tax benefits of a Roth make sense if you’re likely to be in the same or higher tax bracket in retirement.

The ability to contribute to a Roth starts to phase out once your modified adjusted gross income exceeds $110,000 if you’re single and $173,000 if you’re married filing jointly.

Making money is a good thing. But I’ll admit to some sadness when hubby and I stopped being able to contribute to our Roths. These accounts really are a great deal.

 

Filed Under: Liz's Blog Tagged With: , , , ,
March 21, 2012 By

Retire in style: What you need to know

Reuters has a nice package of retirement stories that are worth checking out:

Ecuador seen as new retirement hot spot
I mentioned Ecuador in my column “Retire overseas on $1,200 a month,” and now it’s been named a top spot for bargain-seeking retirees, according to International Living magazine’s 2012 Global Retirement Index.

What retirees wish they’d done differently
Reuters asked several retirees what they would tell their 40-year-old selves if they could go back in time. Interestingly, the answers aren’t all about money–they’re about quality of life. (A great book on this topic is Ralph Warner’s “Get a Life: You Don’t Need $1 Million to Retire Well.”)

How low must retirement withdrawals go?
Linda Stern tackles the tricky math of how much you can afford to take from your retirement savings to have a reasonable chance of making your money last as long as you do.

Growing numbers work into retirement
I’ve written about “When only one of you can retire” and the huge numbers of people forced into early retirement by layoffs, but this article picks up the flip side: people who keep working because they want to. If that’s you, you might also want to read “Retire without quitting your job.”

Is an annuity in your future?
One solution to the risk of outliving your money is the income annuity (also known as the fixed annuity). Learn more about it here.

When to start tapping Social Security
Some people have little choice but to take Social Security benefits early. But if you can wait, you probably should.

Filed Under: Liz's Blog Tagged With: , ,
March 5, 2012 By

Use windfall to pay down debt, boost savings

Dear Liz: I am closing a business deal that will net me just under $1 million. I have an interest-only loan on my home, two car loans and credit-card debt. My plan was to “clear the plate” and pay everything off, leaving me about $175,000. I am not worried about getting into further debt, as my wife and I are pretty grounded, but I wonder if I should be giving up the tax break of a mortgage. My wife and I make a fair income, so we will need advice on investment options as well.

Answer: You say you and your wife are “pretty grounded,” yet you carry a huge amount of debt, including a ticking time bomb of a mortgage.

Interest-only loans were quite fashionable in the boom years but make little sense for most people. That’s because the low initial payments ultimately reset much higher, as the interest-only period ends and the borrower must begin repaying principle.

Carrying credit-card debt is foolish as well, and a sign that you’re living beyond your apparently quite comfortable means.

Furthermore, you don’t say anything about your assets — whether you’re on track saving for retirement or if you have an adequate emergency fund. That would make a difference in how you should deploy this windfall. If your savings are inadequate, it would make sense to invest a good chunk of this money, even if it meant continuing to carry a mortgage. If you must have a home loan, though, it should be a traditional, fixed-rate version to avoid future payment shock.

The big danger is that you’ll pay off what you owe now, only to wind up deeper in debt in a few years because you haven’t changed your approach to money. Use some of your windfall to hire a fee-only (not fee-based) financial planner to review your situation. You can get referrals from the National Assn. of Personal Financial Advisors (www.napfa.org).

Filed Under: Credit & Debt, Q&A Tagged With: , , , , ,