The Retirement and IRA Show

If you would prefer to skip Jim and Chris chatting about fall weather in Colorado and Ohio, Jim’s upcoming trip to Nashville, and country music, you can skip to (11:30). Chris’s Summary Jim and I look at stretch IRA eligibility after the SECURE Act and who now qualifies as an eligible designated beneficiary. We start with why naming a beneficiary matters, then trace how the stretch was assembled from the Keogh Act, TEFRA, and IRS regulations before SECURE curtailed it. From there, we define the five categories still allowed to stretch, how the date of death determines eligibility, and how IRAs and employer plans treat disability and chronic illness certification differently. Jim’s “Pithy” Summary Chris and I take a deeper dive into eligible designated beneficiaries, something that seems benign but isn’t as straightforward as it sounds. What a lot of people don’t realize is that Congress never created the stretch IRA. It was stitched together like Frankenstein from two different acts and separate IRS regulations, and it got so ingrained that it took a specific act of Congress to greatly curtail it. Under the old rules, if a 1-year-old inherited an IRA, it could stay open for 80-plus years. But Congress wanted to get money out of IRAs sooner rather than later for the tax revenue so the rules changed. Think of the Black Knight from Monty Python, gravely injured but still doing its best to carry on. Congress wounded the stretch IRA, but they didn’t kill it. What survived is the eligible designated beneficiary, or eligible humans, and there are 5 categories still allowed to stretch. Some we go through wicked quick. Others send us down little rabbit holes. We dig into stretch IRA eligibility questions like does the IRS accept common-law marriage? Do stepchildren and foster children count as a minor child? And why can one day before an 18th birthday change how disability is defined? Then there’s the question of how a beneficiary proves they’re disabled or chronically ill. The IRS waived some of the certification requirements, but it didn’t treat IRAs and employer plans the same way. I don’t get why that is, but I share Ed Slott’s theory on it. The post Stretch IRA Eligibility: EDU #2641 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.

Chris’s Summary: With Jim traveling, I’m joined by the newest member of the Jim Saulnier & Associates team, Tom Stivers, to review an email from a listener couple who both chose a single life pension, with term life insurance on the higher earner. Their situation raises concerns about Social Security claiming ages, their Minimum Dignity Floor catching up to income if their pensions lack a cost-of-living adjustment, health insurance before Medicare, Roth conversions, and a potential need for a long-term care plan. Jim’s “Pithy” Summary: While I’m traveling, Chris brings in Tom Stivers, a newer member of our team, to work through a longer listener email that doesn’t fit a Q&A show. George and Georgette both took their state education pensions without a survivor benefit. George has the bigger pension, so he bought a term life policy to age 78 to help replace his income if he dies first. Chris admits the hair went up on the back of his neck the moment he saw a single life pension, and it went up again at the word “term”. Tom zeroes in on that word too, because almost none of us know the date we’re going to die. But the rest of the email does change the picture. They believe they might be unicorns, and with $191,000 of secure income once George claims Social Security at 70, against $110,000 of spending, you can see why. Chris pictures it as a race: income starts way out ahead, but spending keeps slowly catching up, and their pensions likely have no automatic cost of living adjustment. Tom also spots a sneaky line about Georgette’s health insurance before Medicare. George thinks Roth conversions matter for taxes and IRMAA. Georgette isn’t worried and doesn’t want to pay the taxes now. And when Chris asks whether conversions should stop once Social Security starts, Tom answers with a question: what’s your 2-1-0 Tax Ordering Number? And then there’s what the email never mentions: a long-term care plan. Chris explains why their savings may not stretch as far as it sounds if one of them needs care, and why secure income that continues for the survivor can matter. He points out people can obsess over decisions that barely move the needle while missing the ones that do. The post Single Life Pension Tradeoffs: EDU #2640 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.

If you would prefer not to learn about Jim’s upcoming drive to Ohio and the family change of plans also sending him to Massachusetts, you can skip to (10:00). Chris’s Summary Jim and I walk through retirement milestone ages, from age 21, when a minor child beneficiary’s stretch gives way to the 10-year rule, through catch-up contributions, penalty-free withdrawal ages, Social Security survivor and retirement claiming ages, the IRMAA lookback at 63, Medicare at 65, QCDs at 70½, and RMDs at 73 or 75. We also cover an obscure age 75 RMD rule for pre-1987 403(b) contributions and the age 85 limit for starting a QLAC. Jim’s “Pithy” Summary Chris and I work through a list of retirement milestone ages I’ve been holding onto for a while, and the first stop, age 21, is a deep one. Folks, the stretch IRA is the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It’s gravely wounded, but it’s not gone. A minor child of the deceased IRA owner, an eligible designated beneficiary, or as I call it, an eligible human, can still stretch until 21. Then the 10-year rule applies, and Chris and I guessed wrong on what happens next. I checked with the Ed Slott Group, and the answer comes down to one phrase: at least as rapidly. Then we hit catch-up contributions at 50, including a new Roth rule this year that some listeners call a loophole. I don’t. We cover the carve-out that lets public safety employees skip the 10% early withdrawal penalty at 50, and the rule of 55, including a strategy the IRS has implicitly blessed. And then there’s the super catch-up. Folks, I have no idea what Congress was thinking. An extra $3,250 a year in your 60s is not going to fix anybody’s retirement. Let people in their 20s and 30s put more in, where it can compound. Chris brings in the Social Security and IRMAA ages, including a disabled surviving spouse rule that taught both of us something new. At 70½, QCDs can help at the margins when a big RMD threatens an IRMAA tier. I make Chris guess an obscure age 75 rule tied to 403s, and he earns a B+. Then he pulls out one I totally missed at 85: QLACs. I give Treasury credit here, not Congress, and I explain why we’re a little softer on QLACs than on other deferred income annuities. The post Retirement Milestone Ages: EDU #2639 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.

Chris’s Summary Jim and I use a Life Annuity Specialist article on pension risk transfer mortality models to examine longevity risk for individual retirees. These models weigh sub-ZIP codes, income, and over 200 socioeconomic factors, suggesting some retirees may live more than 10 years past age-65 life expectancy. We discuss why a household is a risk pool of one, why projections should reach well into the 90s, and why advocacy matters as the tax planning window closes. Jim’s “Pithy” Summary Chris and I dig into an article from Life Annuity Specialist, and no, this is not an annuity discussion. It covers a new approach to mortality tables that a consulting firm built to help insurers price pension risk transfers, and I’m not a fan of those, as you know. What amazed me was how granular it gets: sub-ZIP codes, pension size, blue-collar versus white-collar, and a model trained on millions of life years of data. Here’s the thing, folks. The subset of the population this model says will live longer is pretty much those of you listening to this podcast. You VGers, you do-it-yourselfers, you’re more likely to have taken care of your health and followed what Dr. Phillip Snider shares about healthspan, not just lifespan. These risk tables let insurance companies handle that uncertainty because they’re spreading it across thousands of people, so no single long life throws them off. You don’t get that luxury. You’re a risk pool of one, a zebra on the Serengeti trying to survive outside the herd. You can pool longevity and cash flow through an annuity if you want, but you cannot pool your cognitive ability or your ability to avoid fraud. Whether or not you ever buy a lifetime stream of guaranteed income to protect your Minimum Dignity Floor, that’s up to you. What we talk about in this episode is longevity risk that goes beyond outliving your money. Who is going to advocate for you at 85, 90, 95? Who updates your power of attorney, checks your beneficiaries, and looks out for the surviving spouse who was never into this stuff? As the tax planning window closes, the need for advocacy grows, and many of you are going to live a lot longer than you think. The post Longevity Risk Beyond Money: EDU # 2638 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.

Chris’s Summary Jim and I discuss five common power of attorney mistakes flagged in an estate planning attorney’s article, along with points from Peter Scott. We cover naming an alternative agent, the friction a springing agency can create, gifting authority that is either absent or overly broad, notifying old agents and financial institutions after a change, and the boilerplate real estate language that title companies may refuse to accept. Jim’s “Pithy” Summary Chris and I go through an article timestamped December 2022, one of the 72 sitting in my iPad folder, where an estate planning attorney lists her five biggest mistakes to avoid with a financial power of attorney. I’m not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV, but I’ve been in this industry 27 going on 28 years and we deal with these forms quite often. I read her five, opine on them, and Chris weighs in after each. I also bring in Peter Scott, who shared with us on this show before he retired, because Pete flagged two of these as the big ones. Her list covers backup agents, springing powers, gifting authority, changing agents, and real estate. I used to be a fan of springing powers. I’m not anymore, and it was Pete who turned me around on it. I had never thought of it that way before. Gifting is the one I think gets overlooked most, and I use my own mother’s document to explain why, because what wasn’t in hers had me beside myself. It involved my sister, my niece and nephew, and a lot of college tuition. Chris adds that locking a document down too tightly can backfire just as badly, and suggests what to do with wishes that don’t fit into legal language. We also get into why banks and financial institutions often refuse older forms, the Colorado law Pete said he could fly a 747 through, and two clients whose documents came from the exact same software, where one attorney took the time to do the job and the other just clicked print. Pete’s warning on real estate was about boilerplate language, and Chris explains why the address you use every day may not be the one that matters. The post Power of Attorney Mistakes: EDU #2637 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.

If you’d like to skip past Jim, Chris, and Jacob’s opening chat about Jacob relocating to Iowa, Jim’s hiking plans, weather, office dog Apollo, and generational pop culture gaps, skip ahead to (10:00). Chris’s Summary Jim and I continue our discussion on the Fun Number, joined this time by Jacob as we turn to investment positioning of those pieces. Jacob walks through tracking positions without professional software, using individual fund assignments, spreadsheets, and a two-credit-card approach, plus the liquidity account and fall tax planning. We then cover delay period and post-delay Minimum Dignity Floor investment options, moving from full principal protection in the near term to a lesser degree of it further out. Jim’s “Pithy” Summary Chris and I pick back up on the Fun Number series, this time bringing Jacob on to tackle investment positioning, the piece everybody asks about once they’ve done the math from the first two episodes. Jacob spent years helping me build this from scratch, back when we tracked everything by hand before we ever had access to professional-grade tracking software, and he shares some of the tools do-it-yourselfers can use to keep track of their own toy box of positions without that kind of software. We also dig into the liquidity account, the piece that quietly connects your positions to your actual spending. Jacob’s two-credit-card idea for separating Minimum Dignity Floor from fun spending ties directly into it, and I explain why we do our tax planning once a year, in the fall, rather than guessing all year long. There’s a reason we’d rather convert to a Roth than take a straight withdrawal when refilling that account, and it comes down to what happens if your plans change. Once Jacob turns to investment options for the delay period and post-delay portions of your essential spending needs, we get into how the degree of principal protection shifts depending on how far out that money is needed, from fully protected in the near term to something with a little more market exposure further down the road. This is the heart of what I call the See-Through Portfolio, the whole reason we break things out this way instead of running one big portfolio, and there’s a real difference in how we treat money a couple of years away versus a decade out. The post Investment Positioning Explained: EDU #2631 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.

Chris’s Summary Jim and I continue our discussion on the Fun Number, this time tackling what comes out first and how we plan for covering retirement income gaps. We look at funding both the delay period and post-delay period, including how a SPIA quote helps determine how much to set aside today to close a future gap. We also address aging and long-term care, and the smaller, less common carve-out for a guaranteed inheritance tied to a special needs dependent. Jim’s “Pithy” Summary Chris and I pick up the Fun Number conversation right where we left off, and this time we’re finally cracking open the toy box to show you what has to come out before anything gets set aside for fun. I still say it best with the seesaw: younger you on one side, older you on the other, and every dollar you carve out first is a promise you’re making across that fulcrum. We walk through the delay period, those years before your Social Security or pension is fully turned on, and why we don’t discount those dollars down the way you might expect. Then Chris shifts to the post-delay period, pulling a real annuity quote to price out a future income gap and translating that future need into a present-day number using our See Through Portfolio thinking, so you can actually see which assets are spoken for and which ones aren’t. We talk through how to close retirement income gaps step by step, and I even work in my usual gripe about the crystal ball nobody’s built yet. From there we get into the harder, more emotional carve-outs, the ones tied to aging, long-term care, and in some cases a guaranteed inheritance, before circling back to what’s actually left over for you to enjoy. There’s a reason people tend to want to spend now rather than reserve for later, and we talk about why that instinct is so hard to fight. Next week Jacob joins us to talk through how we actually invest each of these positions, so consider this the setup for that conversation. The post Covering Retirement Income Gaps: EDU #2630 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.