Showing posts with label Investing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Investing. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

My 401k Hidden Fees Experiment

Back in March, I wrote Uncover The Hidden Fees In Your 401(k) Plan. Because the hidden fees are so hard to pin down, I gave a method which helps find out if there are hidden fees in the plan and if so how much the hidden fees are.

  1. Find in your plan's menu one fund that you are not using.
  2. Do a one-time transfer and move $100 to it. Do not include this fund in your periodic payroll contributions.
  3. Wait until a full quarter passes. On your next quarterly statement you should have the beginning and ending balance for that fund.
  4. Calculate your gain/loss in that fund. Compare your actual gain/loss with the fund's reported performance in the quarterly statement.

I did this test in my own plan. Before the end of the first quarter, I transferred a small amount to a fund I wasn't using. During the second quarter, I did not add any more money to the fund. The money sat in the fund untouched for the entire quarter. Now I'm able to calculate my gain or loss and compare it with the performance reported by the fund.

According to my online account information, I had $99.77 in the test fund as of March 31, 2008 and $97.04 as of June 30, 2008. My gain/loss in the 2nd quarter was 97.04 / 99.77 - 1 = -2.74% in that fund. According to the mutual fund's web site, the fund's performance in the 2nd quarter was also -2.74%. My loss in the fund wasn't any larger than what the fund reported. That means there were no hidden fees deducted from my account during the quarter. Yay!!!

Did you also do this experiment? Do you know if there are hidden fees in your plan?

Thursday, June 05, 2008

Bought 20-Year TIPS

I bought more TIPS today. For people not familiar with TIPS, they are inflation indexed bonds. See previous post TIPS: Inflation Linked Bonds for more information.

Like everybody else, I feel the threat of higher inflation. A tank of gas cost me $58 last week. For the longest time it was $30-35. I still remember the exact gas station where I filled up when it crossed $40 for the first time a few years ago. Pretty soon it will be over $60. I don't even have a big car.

The price for inflation protection actually came down lately. The following chart shows the yield on 20-year TIPS (click on it to enlarge). A higher yield means a lower price.


Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

I bought some 20-year TIPS at a yield of about 2.2% (red line in the chart). Although it's way below the 2.8% peak level in summer 2007, the yield has been much lower this year. It was at a low of 1.6% just 3 months ago. 2.2% is in the middle between the recent peak and trough. So I think it's a reasonable price for more inflation protection. I chose 20-year TIPS because they have the highest yield (lowest price) and they offer inflation protection for the longest time.

I bought on the secondary market through Vanguard and I had to pay a $40 commission. It's OK because I want to lock in to this price now. Fidelity and Schwab don't charge a commission for buying TIPS online. The next TIPS auctions will be on July 10, 2008 for 10-year TIPS and July 22, 2008 for 20-year TIPS. If the yields remain attractive, I will buy more then.

Related Post: Individual TIPS Or TIPS Mutual Fund

See Also:

Friday, May 30, 2008

Imported Spreadsheets to Zoho

I mentioned in another post that I started using Zoho recently. Zoho offers a suite of "office" software online. They have online word processor, spreadsheet, presentation and many other types of software that traditionally resides on a local computer. Having these software online lets me access my documents from anywhere. It also lets me share my documents with the world without requiring Microsoft Excel. My experience so far has been very good. I have created a few Excel spreadsheets and linked to them on this blog in the past. Zoho's spreadsheet program correctly imported them without glitch. Here they are if you'd like to use or bookmark them:

ESPP Rate of Return - Calculates the annualized return from Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP) purchase and sale. See previous post Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP) Is A Fantastic Deal.

TIPS Pricing - Estimates how much cash you will need for buying TIPS at auction. See previous post TIPS: Inflation Linked Bonds.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Roth 401(k) for People Who Contribute the Max

Back in March I wrote The Case Against Roth 401(k) in which I said I think for most people the majority, if not 100%, of the contribution should go to a Traditional 401(k). I gave these reasons:

  1. Fill in lower tax brackets in retirement
  2. Avoid high state income tax
  3. Leave the option open for Roth conversion in the future
  4. Avoid triggering phase-outs and AMT

I still believe these are valid reasons in favor of contributing to a Traditional 401k instead of a Roth 401k. A few comments to that post said Roth is better because a Roth 401k lets you effectively shelter more from taxes than a Traditional 401k. That is true. My response was that the higher effective maximum comes into play only if someone actually contributes the maximum allowed, currently at $15,500 per person per year. According to a study by Vanguard, only 10% of people contribute the maximum. It's not surprising because in order to contribute the maximum, you need either a high income, a high savings rate, or both. Consider a married couple. The combined 401k and IRA maximum contributions are $41,000 per year. At 25% savings rate, this couple needs $160,000 of income. At 15% savings rate, this couple has to earn $270,000.

What if you are one of the 10%? People who read finance blogs probably earn more and save more. What is the value of the higher effective contribution limit in a Roth 401k?

It turns out that for the marginal dollar, a Roth 401k is worth about 5-10 percentage points in marginal tax rate. That is if you contribute the marginal dollar to a Roth 401k and your marginal tax rate drops 5-10 percentage points between now and retirement, you are still better off than contributing that same marginal dollar to a Traditional 401k and put the tax savings in a taxable account. Say you are down to the last $100 which you can either contribute to a Roth 401k or a Traditional 401k. If you contribute to a Traditional 401k, you also get a tax deduction. But because you already hit the max, you cannot put the tax savings into the Traditional 401k. Your only choice is a taxable account. The Roth is compared to Traditional + Taxable because the assumption is that you maxed out the contribution limit. If you are not maxing out, you can always gross up the contribution to the Traditional account.

How much exactly is a higher effective contribution limit in a Roth 401k worth depends on a number of assumptions. I made this spreadsheet on Zoho. You can plug in your own assumptions and see the result for yourself. Plug in some different assumptions and see how the results change. That's what a spreadsheet is for. Zoho is nice because it's all online. You don't need Excel or any other spreadsheet program. You don't have to register for Zoho either if you just want to use the spreadsheet.

For example, here's one set of assumptions I used.

For tax rates, I'm assuming the Bush tax cuts will expire after 2011. Dividends will be taxed as ordinary income and long term capital gains will be taxed at 20%. I also put in a factor for the cost advantage in a taxable account because 401k plans often have higher cost funds and higher admin costs. And here are the results.

Roth 401k and "Traditional 401k + Taxable" break even if the marginal tax rate at retirement is about 28%, versus the current marginal tax rate of 35%. That means the higher effective contribution limit is worth about 7 percentage points.

Here's the link to the spreadsheet again if you want to play with your own assumptions.

Traditional Or Roth 401k

Finally, please note we are still talking about the marginal dollar here. The reasons for favoring the Traditional 401k are still valid for the majority of one's retirement dollars. If you max out all your tax favored contributions, you still have to decide how much should go to traditional. Those dollars in traditional will fill in the lower brackets after you retire. They will also be converted to Roth along the way if you have a window of opportunity.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Debt Collector, Universal Default and Home Sales Data

Here are some interesting articles I found last week.

Debt Collection Done From India Appeals to U.S. Agencies (New York Times) - It shouldn't be a surprise. When you call customer service, you talk to someone in India. When they send you to debt collection, they call you from India. I wonder if people can pretend they don't understand what they are being asked.

Credit the cardholder (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, via Payments News) - Consider this. Suppose you lent money to someone. You heard from other people that your borrower started paying late or stopped paying those other people. Are you concerned you may be next? Should you not be able to raise your borrower's interest rate or cut their credit line?

Tracking NAR Spin (The Big Picture) - Nice chart of home sales data with corresponding quotes from the National Association of Realtors. Note the chart shows the number of homes sold, not the average selling price.

Specific share identification mutual fund redemption at Vanguard (IndexTown) - indexfundfan shows how to do specific share identification for selling mutual fund shares at Vanguard. Of course this is only applicable to taxable accounts.

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Links: Overdraft, ETF Conversion, Junk Mail and a Quiz

Here are some articles I found interesting this week:

Consumers Want Informed Choice on Overdraft Fees and Banking Options (pdf, via Payments News) - A survey from Center for Responsible Lending found that most consumers want debit card purchases declined if they would result in overdraft fees. Rather than begging the banks, there are better ways to do it. See my previous post How To Avoid Overdraft/NSF Fees. The interesting tidbit from the survey is that when the consumers were asked about what they'd prefer when their $5 purchase is about to trigger a $34 overdraft fee, 20%(!) of the people said they would rather pay the fee and continue with their purchase (Table 5 on page 4). When the purchase amount goes up to $40, even among people who have been stung with an overdraft fee recently, 25% of them would choose to pay the fee again.

Review of VEIEX to VWO ETF conversion at VBS (indexfundfan @ indextown) - IndexFundFan wrote in detail how to convert a Vanguard mutual fund to an ETF. If you are not familiar with ETF conversion, also read Should I convert VEIEX to VWO ETF? and Is it worthwhile to pay the ETF conversion fee? by the same author.

Stop All Junk Mail (The Sun's Financial Diary) - Take you name off mailing lists. Save the environment and save those companies some money too.

The Feds financial quiz (Marketplace) - Test your financial IQ with the Federal Reserve's personal financial literacy quiz. I aced all 31 questions. What about you?

Friday, April 11, 2008

TFB's Stumbles: Week Ending April 11, 2008

Here are some food for thought for this week:

My Very Own Risk-Based Repricing Experience (Credit Slips) - A law professor wrote about his experience with disputing a billing error on his credit card.

And It All Comes Down to This ... (Wall Street Journal) - After writing more than 1,000 columns, Jonathan Clements is leaving WSJ. He distilled his advice down to eight simple suggestions. No surprises.

Lenders Swamped By Foreclosures Let Homeowners Stay (Bloomberg) - Borrowers who don't pay their mortgage get to live rent-free for six months. That's a sweet deal.

The real reason borrowers default (Business Week) - And why do those borrowers not pay their mortgage? A recent study from Boston Fed says it's because they are upside down. They stop paying even if they can keep making payments if they really have to. It would be a different story if home prices are going up, not down. "Heads I win, tails you lose ..."

Better never than late (Enough Wealth) - See how homeowners in the U.S. are spoiled. Mortgage rates in Australia are 9%. And it looks like you can fix your rate for maximum 5 years. Perhaps they don't have Fannie Mae there.

And tell me why the U.S. government is contemplating giving billions of dollars to delinquent mortgage borrowers? What a strange world.

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

China's Stock Market Bubble Burst Fast

I wrote about China's stock market bubble in May and September last year. At that time, China was in the news all the time. People both inside China and outside China were very excited about the Chinese stock market. It continued to grow very fast after I wrote the pieces. The Shanghai Composite Index went from 4,000 points in May 2007 to over 6,000 points in October 2007, up 50% in five months. A Chinese bank became the most valuable bank in the world. A Chinese life insurance company became the second most valuable life insurance company in the world. A Chinese oil company became the most valuable company in the world. It was worth a $1 trillion, twice the value of the No.2 Exxon Mobil. A Chinese Internet company Alibaba.com had the second largest IPO of an Internet company; only Google's IPO was larger.

As usual, the euphoria had to end. If people think we have a bad stock market in the U.S., with the talk of recession and what not, look at China. It makes our stock market decline look like a walk in the park. And it's not just China's domestic stock market, which people said had a bubble because it's closed to international investors. The Chinese companies traded on the international markets didn't fare much better either. This chart below shows the decline of the Shanghai Composite Index, iShares FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index ETF (FXI), and S&P 500 from November 1, 2007 to March 28, 2008. Click on the chart to enlarge.

The green line on the top is S&P 500. It dropped a little more than 10% in this period. The blue line is Shanghai Composite Index, representing China's domestic market, which dropped 40%. The red line is iShares FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index ETF, representing Chinese companies traded on the international markets, which dropped 35%.

Both the Shanghai Composite Index and the iShares China ETF dropped 35-40% in just five months. During the 2000-2002 stock market bubble in the U.S., the S&P 500 dropped about 45% in two and half years. It was the second biggest bear market in a century. Only the 1929-1932 Great Depression was worse. Here we have China's stock market bubble bursting five times as fast as S&P 500 did in 2000-2002. Has it bottomed? Probably not.

Next time you hear about an exciting opportunity that sounds like a sure thing, don't get sucked in. What are the exciting opportunities you hear about today?

P.S. As I was preparing this post, reporters at the New York Times apparently had the same idea. See their article in today's paper: To See a Stock Market Bubble Bursting, Look at Shanghai and the included chart. It looks like there's still a lot more room to fall.

Monday, March 31, 2008

Hiring a Financial Advisor: Don't Settle for 1% Fee

As you all may know by now, I listen to the Marketplace Money program on public radio every week via their podcast. It's a great program. It always has interesting topics and their economics editor Chris Farrell always uses plain English when he answers questions. Chris Farrell recently started a blog Getting Personal where he answers one question a day from listeners. Unlike me who tends to write too long, Chris' answers are short and to the point.

Occasionally, I disagree with his answer. Back in February a caller Sue asked about finding a financial advisor after she inherited $1 million. She said she'd like to get some professional help because she and her husband were not familiar with investing. She contacted a financial advisor through referral from NAPFA but she was scared by the 1% fee the advisor charges. If you have RealPlayer, you can listen to the Q&A online .

When the host asked whether Sue would be comfortable implementing a plan herself if she gets a plan from a fee-only advisor, she said yes and she would like to do annual checkups with the advisor. Chris told Sue she will have to pay some fees and that 1% fee is normal. It's not. Paying 1% fee every year ($1 million * 1% = $10,000) for investing $1 million is outrageous. If Sue invests her $1 million with Vanguard, she gets Flagship Services immediately. She can get a financial plan, annual checkups, and telephone consultation from a Certified Financial Planner at Vanguard for FREE.

I'm always puzzled by why financial advisors charge their fees by the amount of money their clients have. It's based on the client's ability to pay, not on the time and effort to serve that client. No other professions I know of charge fees this way. Does it really take twice the time and effort to serve a client with $2 million versus a client with $1 million? I don't think so. And why should advisors  get an automatic raise at the rate of portfolio growth, which is usually much higher than inflation?

I understand the need for a financial advisor. Not everybody is interested in or good at managing their money. It's just like my hiring a gardener to maintain my yard while many others mow their lawn themselves. As the saying goes, in managing our money, the worst enemy is often ourselves. I've inflicted plenty of damage to my own finance in the past. I wish I had an advisor telling me no to my crazy ideas. Good financial advisors do add value and they do need to get paid for their work. But paying 1% on a $1 million portfolio is way too high. If I were Sue, I'd use the free service from Vanguard or pay a fee-only advisor no more than $3,000 for an initial plan and $1,000 a year thereafter for checkups and answering questions.

Friday, March 28, 2008

TFB's Stumbles: Week Ending March 28, 2008

Here are some interesting articles. Some are from last week which I didn't have room to include.

What Moves Mortgage Rates? (HSH Associates) - Excellent article from HSH Associates on what determines the mortgage rates. If you are in the market for a mortgage, their free weekly e-mail newsletter Market Trends is very helpful.

Things Can Always Get Worse (MFI Diary) - Magic Formula Investing is doing very badly since last year, but this blogger is still hanging on with discipline. In his own words,

    "Not much to say, it has been a bloodbath in the markets and my portfolio continues to do worse than the benchmarks. I can't even bear to look or print the graphs. If it was possible to drop straight down, that is what you'd see."

Will it pay off in the end? I sure hope so. Here is his graph as of Feb. 1, 2008. Click on it for a larger picture.

Wells Fargo To Offer Retail Banking Customers a Personal Online Safe (Payments News) - Will an online safe deposit box gain consumers' trust even if it's offered by a bank?

Why Don't More Employers Provide Independent 401k Advice for Free? (FiLife) - Why don't more employers provide breakfast to all employees for free? Survey shows 70% of them don't have breakfast before they come to work. :-)

Should I Contribute To A Non-Deductible IRA? Part 1, Part 2 (My Money Blog) - Excellent write-up on contributing to a non-deductible IRA. If you are not eligible for a Roth IRA, contributing to a non-deductible IRA is still worthwhile after maxing out the 401k.

Monday, March 24, 2008

Uncover The Hidden Fees In Your 401(k) Plan

Marketplace Money, the personal finance program on public radio, had a segment on 401k plan fees a few weeks ago. The host Tess Vigeland interviewed pension consultant Matthew Hutcheson, who said 90% or more of all the 401k plans pay 3-3.5% in fees. Here's a quote from the transcript:

Vigeland: How high do some of these costs go? Are we talking 3 percent? 5 percent?

Hutcheson: The average plan, which is really 90 percent or more of all of the 401k plans in the United States, is paying approximately 3-3.5 percent. However, there are some plans, especially those that are associated with insurance companies, that have additional layers of fees added on; I've seen as high as 5 percent.

The 3-3.5% number, if true (see note 1), is devastating, especially if you also don't get a match from your employer. A $1,000 investment growing at 10% a year for 30 years becomes $15,220 if you pay 0.5% in fees. If you have to pay 3% in fees though, the same investment grows to only $7,612, or only half of  what you could've got with lower fees.

It is true that it's not easy to find out exactly how high the fees are in a 401k plan. Asking the HR department or the 401k vendor won't help much because even they don't necessarily know. You are likely to get a wrong answer from them. While the expense ratios on the funds are usually disclosed, the admin fees are often hidden. Some employers pay the admin fees out of their own pocket. That's good. Some employers let the vendor take out the fees from the participants' accounts. I used to work for a company which used Manulife, now John Hancock. Their fund performance sheet lists the expense ratio (ER) for each fund. Then it says in a footnote,

"The ER does not include any contract-level or participant recordkeeping charges. Such charges, if applicable, will reduce the value of a participant's account."

That's telling you there can be hidden fees. You should find out how much the fees really are in your 401k plan. But how? You can wait until the government comes out with mandatory disclosure rules or you can take your own initiative. Here's a simple method. It requires some patience though.

  1. Find in your plan's menu one fund that you are not using.
  2. Do a one-time transfer and move $100 to it. Do not include this fund in your periodic payroll contributions.
  3. Wait until a full quarter passes. On your next quarterly statement you should have the beginning and ending balance for that fund.
  4. Calculate your gain/loss in that fund. Compare your actual gain/loss with the reported gain/loss number of the fund in the quarterly statement. If your actual gain is less than the reported gain, or your loss is higher than reported, the difference is caused by hidden fees. Multiply the difference by 4 and you will get the annual percentage for the hidden fees.
  5. Add the hidden fees to the weighted average expense ratio of the funds you are using, and you will get a better picture of the total fees in your plan.

For example, suppose your balance in the test fund was $102.53 at the beginning of the quarter, your ending balance was $105.11 and the reported gain for the fund was 2.98%. Your actual gain during the quarter was 105.11 / 102.53 - 1 = 2.516%. The missing 2.98% - 2.516% = 0.464% is caused by hidden fees. Multiply by 4 and you are paying 0.464% * 4 = 1.86% extra fees on top of the expense ratio of the funds. If the average expense ratio of the funds you are using is 1%, your fees are now 2.86%.

Notes:

(1) Read more about how Matthew Hutcheson calculated the 3-3.5% number in his paper Uncovering and Understanding Hidden Fees in Qualified Retirement Plans.

(2) The 3-3.5% number is probably on the high side for the average 401k participant. While it may be technically true that 90% or more the plans pay 3-3.5% in fees, because fees are higher in smaller plans with fewer participants than larger plans with many more participants, I don't think the average participant pays that much. Still, you should find out how much you pay in your plan. Hence this post.

Friday, March 21, 2008

TFB's Stumbles: Week Ending March 21, 2008

Market volatility continued. The Fed cut interest rate by 0.75%. The market wanted a 1% cut. For the first time, the Fed dared to give the market less than what they demanded. I added some money to my stock funds last Friday. The shares I bought are up 3% already. Not bad for a short week. We will see what happens next week. I still haven't decided whether I should go beyond my 60/40 allocation. So far I'm just adding to the stocks side to keep up with the market.

These are the interesting articles I came across this week:

Countrywide suspending equity lines of credit (QueerCents) - Proof that a HELOC can be pulled unilaterally by the bank, sometimes right before you need it the most.

Commodities lifeboat being swamped in rush to safety (Financial Times) - A sober reminder for those who believe commodities are the next sure thing. I don't have any money in commodities. I missed the boat on commodities because I didn't want to get on it.

A tale of Stock Mergers and Schedule D (The Financial Engineer) - One more reason for keeping it simple and not investing in individual stocks, at least not in a taxable account. Otherwise get ready for some math exercise.

Jeremy Siegel on Bear Stearns, Rate Cuts and the Looming Threat of Inflation (Knowledge@Wharton) - Even the forever bullish Wharton Professor Jeremy Siegel is concerned about the Fed not doing enough on inflation. Interesting quote about Bear Stearns and Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM):

"The truth is, had they had the liquidity to hold on, the Bear Stearns positions might have turned out to be very profitable. [It's] just like Long-Term Capital Management ten years ago -- had they been able to hold on, those positions became profitable. But they weren't in both of these institutions, and as a result, without liquidity, this is a major risk."

John Meriwether's Bond Fund Loses 24% on Credit-Market Plunge (Bloomberg) - Speaking of LTCM, its former chief is still at it. He's probably going to be able to hold on to his positions this time. From the article:

"Relative-value funds try to profit from price changes between related bonds. They rarely make outright bets that a specific bond will rise or fall. Investors in these funds expect to make about 1 percent a month."

1% a month is pretty decent from bond trading, isn't it? We only hear about it when he loses money. He must have made a lot of money for his clients in the last 10 years. Or else where did the $1 billion come from?

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

The Case Against Roth 401(k)

To Roth or not to Roth, that is the question. Starting in 2008, like many other employers, my employer also started offering the Roth 401k option in our 401(k) plan. This question of whether one is better off with contributing to the Traditional 401k or contributing to the Roth 401k has been the subject of a lot of debate. Although there is no one-size-fits-all answer, I think for most people the majority, if not 100%, of the contribution should go to a Traditional 401(k). I will state my case against Roth 401(k) in this post.

The basic premise of a Roth 401(k), and to some extent a Roth IRA, is that of prepayment. You are prepaying the tax now so you don't have to pay tax later. This prepayment concept is not uncommon. For example, buying a season ticket is prepaying for the individual events. Buying a timeshare is prepaying for vacation accommodation. Whenever we deal with a prepayment scheme, we have to assess whether prepaying is "worth it." The same paradigm also applies to Traditional versus Roth 401(k). There are several factors that make prepaying the taxes now not worth it.

1. Fill in lower tax brackets in retirement. I showed in a previous post Commutative Law of Multiplication that if the marginal tax rate at retirement is the same as it is now, the Traditional and Roth 401(k)'s are equivalent. If the marginal tax rate is higher now than in retirement, one is better off contributing to a Traditional 401k. If the current marginal tax rate is lower, one is better off contributing to a Roth 401k. But that applies only to the marginal dollar, which is the last dollar you can shift between Traditional and Roth 401(k). It is not necessarily the case for the entire contribution or the average dollar. The tax system in the United States is progressive and it will probably stay that way. That means that income is taxed at increasing rates as it goes higher. Even if you think the marginal tax rate in the future will be higher, there will still be lower brackets and these lower brackets should be filled with money from a Traditional 401(k).

This chart below illustrates what the tax brackets are in 2008 for a married couple earning $218,200 between the two of them if they file jointly using the standard deduction (click on the chart to see it in full size).

* Source: Tax Policy Center

The first $17,900 of income is not taxed because it's taken up by deductions and exemptions. The next $16,050 is taxed at 10%, the next $49,050 at 15%, the next $66,350 at 25%, so on and so forth. Because the way a Traditional 401(k) works, the dollars they contribute come off from the top, in the highest tax bracket for their income. After they retire, the dollars they receive from their Traditional 401(k) fill in from the bottom. Even if we assume their marginal tax bracket in retirement will be higher due to tax increases, a large portion of the 401(k) withdrawal may still be taxed at a lower rate than what it was when they contributed the money. This is the same argument raised by a reader on the AllFinancialMatters blog.

Until you know you can generate from your Traditional 401(k) enough income to fill the lower brackets, it doesn't make sense to contribute to a Roth 401(k). For people without a traditional defined benefit pension plan, it means the majority of the retirement savings should go to a Traditional 401(k), not Roth.

If you have a defined benefit pension plan and/or you expect to have a large balance in Traditional 401(k)/IRA, large enough to fill the lower brackets every year, then contributing to Roth makes some sense.

2. Avoid high state income tax. Many people work in high tax states like California and New York today. They work there because there are a lot of well-paying jobs in those states. They won't necessarily retire there because the high taxes take away a significant portion of their retirement income. States popular with retirees like Florida and Texas have no state income tax. If you are working in a high tax state today but there is a chance you will retire in a no/low tax state, contributing to a Traditional 401(k) lets you avoid paying the high state income tax on the contributions. Prepaying the high state income tax now is a dead loss.

3. Leave the option open for Roth conversion in the future. When you leave your employer, you can rollover the Traditional 401(k) to a Traditional IRA, which then can be converted to a Roth IRA at a later time when it is advantageous to you. A Roth 401k or IRA on the other hand can never be converted back to Traditional. With a Traditional 401k, you hold the option, which has value. If you contribute to Roth, you give up that valuable option. You can decide to convert and pay the tax whenever you are in a lower tax bracket than where you are now. Good times for conversion include:

  • going back to school for a career change;
  • becoming unemployed due to layoffs or burn-out;
  • starting a business (not as much income in the first few years);
  • two-income couple having one parent stay at home or work part-time for a few years after they have kids;
  • a high-income single person marrying a lower-income spouse;
  • taking early retirement;
  • moving from a high tax state to a no/low tax state;

Unless you are sure that your marginal tax bracket will never be lower throughout your career, you should leave the option open by putting money in a Traditional 401(k) and then convert to Roth when an opportunity comes.

4. Avoid triggering phase-outs and AMT. Because contributing to a Roth 401k does not reduce your gross income, you appear to be richer than you otherwise are if you contributed to a Traditional 401k. There are all kinds of income-based eligibility cutoffs and phase-outs in the tax code. When your exceed the income threshold, your tax benefits from those programs are either reduced or eliminated. Some of these tax breaks include:

  • child tax credit;
  • Hope credit;
  • Lifetime Learning credit;
  • itemized deductions;
  • personal exemptions;
  • eligibility to contribute to a Roth IRA;
  • eligibility to contribute to a Coverdell ESA

Think for example the tax rebate from the 2008 economic stimulus package. If a single person earned $90,000 in 2007 but contributed $10,000 to a Roth 401k, he/she is not eligible for the $600 tax rebate. If he/she contributed $15,000 to a Traditional 401(k) instead, he/she is eligible. When your income appears to be "too high," not only you lose tax benefits, you may even trigger the AMT. Contributing to a Traditional 401(k) will help you qualify for tax benefits and escape or reduce the impact of AMT.

With so many disadvantages, whom is Roth 401(k) good for then? Roth 401(k) is good for people in low paying jobs now but expect to have high paying jobs later. Medical doctors in residence programs fit that description very well. They are paid very low while they are in residency but their income is expected to rise substantially higher when they finish the program. Their income will stay high in their career and they will receive a high income after they retire. Prepaying tax now makes sense because they are prepaying at a low rate now and they will avoid paying a higher rate later. College students working part-time jobs or recent graduates working in entry-level jobs are also good examples for taking advantage of a Roth 401(k) while their income (and their tax rate) is low. Roth 401(k) is also good for people who are already in the top tax bracket and expect to be there forever. If they don't see any chance of being in a lower tax bracket, prepaying tax now will lock in the tax rate so they won't have to worry about future tax increases.

What about the idea of tax diversification? Some advocate doing both Roth 401k and Traditional 401k because the tax rates in the future are uncertain. Diversification is good in general but it doesn't mean automatic 50:50. Just like investing in emerging markets provides diversification, but it doesn't mean you should invest 50% of your money in emerging markets. You still have to decide how much you should allocate your retirement savings between Traditional and Roth just like you allocate a portfolio between developed markets and emerging markets. Tax diversification also doesn't mean you have to do it right now if you are in your peak earning years. There might be better times coming up in the future.

For myself, I'm 100% in Traditional 401(k). Prepaying tax now is just not worth it.

See also: Roth vs Traditional 401K on Bogleheads Forum.

[Update on May 16, 2008]: There is a follow-up to this post, Roth 401(k) for People Who Contribute the Max, which includes an online spreadsheet that calculates the value of having a higher effective contribution limit in a Roth 401k.

Friday, March 14, 2008

TFB's Stumbles: Week Ending March 14, 2008

It was another eventful week in the stock market. The Fed offered to lend up to $200 billion to banks and Wall Street firms on Tuesday. It gave an undisclosed amount of emergency funding to Bear Stearns on Friday. According to this Bloomberg article, it is "the largest government bailout of a U.S. securities firm." It's time to re-read Roger Lowenstein's book When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management.

I've been busy buying stock funds. I'm thinking of over-rebalancing beyond my 60/40 stocks/bonds allocation. I think this is the time to tap the batteries I've been charging for so long.

Meanwhile, here are the interesting articles that I came across this week.

Why I Love My Prepaid Cell Phone - Prepaid cell phone works great. I spend less than $10 a month with my prepaid cell phone.

Is Google Bashing Finally Peaking? - I remember the $700 a GOOG share days not so long ago. Whoever goes to the top will have to take the shots. In the 1990s it was Microsoft. Everything they did was evil. Is Google any better now?

Who's To Blame For The Subprime Mortgage Mess - Do you blame the supply or the demand for bad loans? The demand. For if there were no demand, there would be no supply.

Reasons Why Your HELOC Can Be Your Emergency Fund - Using HELOC as emergency fund is fine but you have to be sure you *can* access the HELOC when you really need it. If you lose your job, the bank can refuse to let you borrow against the HELOC. When the economy gets bad, the bank can revoke your HELOC. I wouldn't play games with my safety net.

Have a great weekend!

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Fed Opens the Vault

Make it 3 for 3. Yesterday I said the Fed might come out with an emergency cut after the stock market dropped below the previous low. Well they didn't do exactly that but they pulled out something else. They are going to open their vault and let banks borrow against the mortgage backed bonds they own. The banks have plenty of those but their values keep falling. This move is going to stabilize the market for a while until the market becomes desperate again. The Dow shot up 400 points! We shall see if it really works.

Monday, March 10, 2008

The Fed Is Losing It

It happened twice already. Whenever I updated my "how low can it go" table (8/16/07, 1/21/08), the Fed came out the very next day with an emergency interest rate cut. Today I read on Yahoo! some speculation that the Fed might do another emergency rate cut. So I'm not going to update that table again. I never understood why emergency cuts are necessary. I heard that the monetary policy has a 12-18 month lag. With that kind of lag, I don't understand why waiting 1 more week for the regular meeting wasn't an option and they had to do it right away. Unless the emergency was an anticipated fall in the stock market. Right now the options market is forecasting an equal chance for a 50 basis points cut and a 75 basis points cut from the scheduled FOMC meeting on March 18. I won't be surprised if they do it tomorrow for another "emergency" because the stock market fell.

* Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Data as of March 7, 2008. Today's Fed Funds rate is 3.00%.

If the Fed wants to influence the stock market, it's not working very well. Every time they cut the rate, the stock market got a temporary relief. After a few days, the effect wore off. After cutting the Fed Funds rate twice in January -- an emergency shocker 75 basis points cut followed by a 50 basis points cut -- the stock market is back to where it was prior to the cuts and perhaps even a little lower. Meanwhile inflation is getting out of control.

My message to the Fed: stop messing with the stock market and get back to fighting inflation.

This article on Bloomberg said the market lost confidence in the Fed's ability to control inflation, as evidenced by the real yield on 5-year TIPS falling to negative. I have those 5-year TIPS. They rose a lot in value in a very short time. Originally my plan is not holding them unless the real yield is at least 1.5%. I'm going to hold on to them for now. I'll buy some stock funds first and worry about the bonds later.

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Want to Encourage Savings? Simplify the Tax Rules

It has been reported that the savings rate in the United States is negative. I've heard arguments saying it isn't really negative but I think it's fair to say that the savings rate is very low. Everybody wants to encourage people to save, which is great. We already have a hodgepodge of tax favored programs. In this election year, politicians are coming up with even more tax incentive proposals of different stripes. I think they are missing the point entirely.

Right now we already have these programs:

  • 401k/403b/457, Traditional IRA, SEP IRA, SARSEP IRA, SIMPLE IRA: If you save for your retirement, you can defer taxes.
  • Roth IRA: If you save for your retirement, you can avoid tax on your gains.
  • 529 plan, Coverdell ESA: If you save for a child's education, you can avoid tax on your gains.
  • FSA, HSA: If you save for medical expenses, you can avoid some tax.

Can anybody say with any confidence that they know all the eligibility, phase-out and qualified distribution rules on all of these programs? You wonder why the average consumer is confused? When they have a number of choices which they don't know much about, they either (a) don't do anything for fear of doing something wrong; or (b) give up and hand themselves to a financial service "professional" who happily charge them a neat fee.

You think a 529 plan is simple enough? Find an aged-based portfolio, dollar cost average, and you are done? No. Every state has a different plan. Some states have more than one plans. You need a big web site just to keep it straight. Is it any surprise that nearly 80% of the 529 plan sales went through a financial advisor? Source: SmartMoney article.

We don't need more programs. We need simpler rules. When people are not worried about doing something wrong, they will save. The Canadians are smarter in this regard. They trust their people. The Canadian government recently legislated a new program called Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA). I think it serves as a good example for how a simple program really creates the incentive to save.

Simply put, in a TFSA,

  • Everybody over 18 can save 5,000 Canadian dollars a year. No income qualification. No phase-outs.
  • If you don't have money to contribute now, the contribution room carries forward, forever. That way when you have more money later, you can catch up. Most U.S. programs are use-it-or-lose-it.
  • Contributions are not tax deductible but earnings grow tax free (like a Roth).
  • Money can be withdrawn at any time, for whatever purpose, tax free. No 59-1/2, no expense qualification, no questions asked.
  • If you had to withdraw from your TFSA for whatever reason, you can make up for the withdrawal later without reducing your contribution room. In a US tax favored plan there's no way to put money back once it's withdrawn (except for limited 60-day rollovers).

If we have a program like Canada's TFSA, what excuse can anybody have for not using it? You save whenever you want, for whatever you want. Whatever you buy, the earnings are tax free. We are so into limiting people on the way in and locking the money up once they are in. That's the wrong approach. If you want to encourage people to save, let them save without so many restrictions. Obama, Clinton, McCain, are you listening?

Friday, March 07, 2008

TFB's Stumbles: Week Ending March 7, 2008

Here are some of the interesting articles I came across this week.

Gore Invests $35 Million for Hedge Funds With EBay Billionaire (Bloomberg) - Entrepreneur Al Gore increased his networth by at least 30 fold in 8 years (from $3 million to over $100 million). What about you?

Carlyle Fund Misses Margin Calls (New York Times) - A $21 billion hedge fund with 99 percent of AAA-rated US agency mortgage securities could not meet $37 million margin calls. That's what happens when you invest with borrowed money.

Study: Mortgage Intervention Programs Distribute Costs Unfairly (FreedomWorks.org) - Wharton professor writes about the inequality of the mortgage intervention programs. No good deeds go unpunished.

A Great Bargain or a Big Rip-off? Consumers Perceptions of Price Fairness in the U.S. and China (Knowledge@Wharton) - Are you upset if you find out others paid a lower price than you did for the same purchase? Charging different prices to different customers for the same thing and still keep all of them happy is an art.

Series I Savings Bonds vs the stock market (Savings Bond Advisor) - An equal amount invested monthly into I-Bonds in the last 10 years beats the same investment into S&P 500. Surprised?

Banking Fees Are Rising And Often Undisclosed (Washington Post) - Undercover agents from the Government Accounting Office posing as customers couldn't get all the info on fees from the banks. Nor are the fees on many banks' web sites. The banks said the agents spoke to the wrong people.

Knee Deep in Turbid Tax (The Financial Engineer) - Blogger Kristin raised doubts over Obama's proposal to have the IRS fill out the tax forms for you. Who fills out the tax form isn't the problem. The problem is with the complex rules. Politicians either don't think or don't bother thinking about the details.
 

Have a great weekend!

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

How $2,000 Became $20 And What To Do With It

In my foolhardy days, I bought WorldCom stock when it dropped from $60 a share to $4 a share. I thought it was a "buying opportunity." When it dropped more from $4, I thought I had only a "paper loss." You know the rest of the story. WorldCom went bankrupt. I lost $2,000.

Later, some plaintiff attorneys filed class action lawsuits on behalf of all the deceived investors like myself. I filled out the claim forms they sent to me and waited. Finally last week I received a check, for $20.46. The letter that came with the check says it's the second distribution from the settlements but I don't remember receiving a check from them before or what I did with it if I did receive one. $20 is better than nothing and I thank the attorneys. Their hard work recovered more than $6 billion for the investors. For some strange reasons, the attorneys are not seeking attorney's fees from the recoveries. I'm not sure who's paying them.

With my $20 check comes the puzzle on what to do with it and how to report it on my tax return. The letter says:

The WorldCom, Inc. Settlement Funds are "Qualified Settlement Funds", as defined in Treas. Reg. Section 1.468B-1 through 5. IRS regulations provide in part that "whether a distribution from a Qualified Settlement Fund is included in the claimant's gross income is generally determined by reference to the claim in respect of which the distribution is made and as if the distribution were made directly by the transferor."

Do you understand it? I don't. And I'm not going to consult a tax advisor about a $20 check, thank you very much. My best interpretation is because the money lost was in my IRA, I'm supposed to treat this $20 as if it came as a distribution from the IRA. Because I'm under 59-1/2, distribution from an IRA is taxable and it carries a 10% early withdrawal penalty. But wait, I have 60 days from the date of receiving the distribution to roll it over to an IRA and avoid the tax and the penalty. Therefore I'm going to send it to the IRA with a rollover form.

Invest; don't speculate. A "buying opportunity" isn't as obvious as it looks. A "paper loss" is a real loss too. These are expensive lessons for which I paid good money. Live and learn.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Restricted Stock Units (RSU) Sales and Tax Reporting

RSU stands for Restricted Stock Units. It's the new form of stock-based compensation that has gained popularity after the employers are required to expense employee stock options. The biggest difference between RSUs and employee stock options is that RSUs are taxed at the time of vesting while stock options are usually taxed at the time of option exercise. The employer is required to withhold taxes as soon as the RSUs become vested.

In a previous post, Restricted Stock Units (RSU) Tax Withholding Choices, I wrote about what I chose among the three tax withholding choices -- same day sale, sell to cover, and cash transfer -- and why. This time I'm writing about how to account for taxes on the tax return, especially if you use tax software like TurboTax or TaxCut.

I'm going to use this simple example:

Suppose you had 100 RSUs vested on October 31, 2007. The closing price of the stock on that day is $50, and the tax withholding rate is 40%.

Regardless of which choice you made for tax withholding -- some employers don't give you a choice and sell to cover is your only option -- your employer will include on your W-2 as wages the total value of the vested RSUs. In our example, it's $50 * 100 = $5,000. They will also withhold the same amount of taxes regardless of your choice. In this example it's $5,000 * 40% = $2,000. How you account for taxes on your tax return for the rest will depend on your tax withholding choice.

1. Same Day Sale. If you make this choice, you sell everything. Let's say on the day after the vesting date the shares are sold at $50.10 per share, less a $20 commission and $1 SEC fee. You total proceeds before tax withholding is $50.10 * 100 - $20 - $1 = $4,989. The employer withholds $2,000. You are left with $2,989. At tax time, you will receive a 1099-B from your broker listing the stock sale proceed of $4,989. You enter in TurboTax or TaxCut, or on Schedule D of Form 1040:

Description: 100 shares XYZ, Inc.
Net Proceeds: 4,989
Date of Sale: 11/01/2007
Cost Basis: 5,000
Date Acquired: 10/31/2007

Your cost basis is the amount your employer included on your W-2, which is the closing price on the vesting date times the number of shares vested. In this example, you will show a short-term loss of $11 on your tax return because of the brokerage commission and the SEC fee. The income and the associated tax withholdings are already included on your W-2. Use those numbers as-is.

2. Sell to Cover. [Update on April 9, 2008: I wrote a follow-up post RSU Sell To Cover Deconstructed to clarify this option. Jump ahead to that post if you'd like.] If you make this choice, or if you don't have a choice, your employer sells just enough shares to cover the tax withholding. Using the same numbers as in same day sale, they sell 41 shares. The SEC fee is a bit less, say $0.40. You receive from the sale $50.10 * 41 - $20 - $0.40 = $2,033.70. The employer takes away $2,000 for tax withholding. You are left with $33.70 in cash and the remaining 59 shares. At tax time, you will receive a 1099-B from your broker listing the stock sale proceed of $2,033.70. You enter in TurboTax, TaxCut, or on Schedule D of Form 1040:

Description: 41 shares XYZ, Inc.
Net Proceeds: 2,033.70
Date of Sale: 11/01/2007
Cost Basis: 2,050
Date Acquired: 10/31/2007

Once again, your cost basis for the shares you sold is the amount your employer included on your W-2 for those shares, which is the closing price on the vesting date times the number of shares you sold for tax withholding ($50 * 41 = $2,050). After the sale, you show a short-term loss of $2,050 - $2,033.70 = $16.30 because of the brokerage commission and the SEC fee. Again, the income and the associated tax withholdings are already included on your W-2, and you just use those numbers as-is.

For the remaining 59 shares, you keep a cost basis of $50 per share ($50 * 59 = $2,950). You have to remember this number until you sell the remaining shares. Whenever you sell them, you enter in TurboTax, TaxCut, or on Schedule D of Form 1040:

Description: 59 shares XYZ, Inc.
Net Proceeds: whatever you sell them for, copy from 1099-B
Date of Sale: your date of sale
Cost Basis: 2,950
Date Acquired: 10/31/2007

You will show a short-term or long-term gain or loss for these remaining shares depending on your date of sale and the sale price.

3. Cash Transfer. If you make this choice, you give your employer cash for the tax withholding and keep all the shares. You can sell the shares either immediately or keep them for however long you like. The tax accounting is the same as if you bought the shares at the closing price on the vesting date. Whenever you sell them, you enter in TurboTax, TaxCut, or on Schedule D of Form 1040:

Description: 100 shares XYZ, Inc.
Net Proceeds: whatever you sell them for, copy from 1099-B
Date of Sale: your date of sale
Cost Basis: 5,000
Date Acquired: 10/31/2007

You will show a short-term or long-term gain or loss for these shares depending on your date of sale and the sale price. The income from RSU vesting and the associated tax withholdings are already included on your W-2, and you just use those numbers as-is.

That's all. Hope this is helpful to someone looking for info on the tax treatment and implications of RSU sales.

Related Posts:

Disclaimer

I'm not not a financial advisor. I do have personal opinions, sometimes strong, ignorant, or biased. Everything you read here on this blog is my personal opinion, not financial advice. I'm by no means an expert on anything. I don't intend to mislead, but my facts, figures, and calculations can be incomplete, inaccurate or plain wrong. The word "you" doesn't mean literally you, the reader. In most cases it means myself. Please be sure to double check everything if you decide to act on anything I wrote about. Bottom line, please don't blame me for anything you do. Privacy policy.