MONEY Ask the Expert

How Smart Savers Choose Between a 401(k) or Roth IRA

140605_AskExpert_illo
Robert A. Di Ieso, Jr.

Q: My husband and I are in our middle 30s and both have good jobs in a professional field. We each make $60,000 a year. Should we be saving in our 401(k) plans, or contributing to a Roth IRA?

A: The answer, of course, is that you should be doing both—but not necessarily in equal amounts, and much depends on your expenses and how much you are able to sock away. Let’s look at some of the variables.

The first consideration is making certain both of you get the full amount of your employer’s matching 401(k) plan contributions. “Fill up the 401(k) bucket first,” says IRA expert Ed Slott, founder of IRAhelp.com. “That is free money and you shouldn’t leave any of it on the table.” In many 401(k) plans, companies kick in 50 cents for every $1 you save up to 6% of pay. If both of you are in such plans, you should each contribute $7,200 per year to your 401(k) plans to collect the $3,600 your employers will match. But don’t contribute more than that, and if you get no match, skip it entirely—for now. It’s time to move on to a Roth IRA.

A Roth IRA is a far different savings vehicle than a 401(k) plan. Having one will give you more flexibility in retirement. Your 401(k) plan is funded with pre-tax dollars that grow tax-deferred. You pay tax when you start taking distributions no later than your 71st year. A Roth IRA is funded with after-tax dollars that grow tax-free for the rest of your life and that of your spouse, and they have tax advantages for your heirs as well. You can also take early distributions of the principal that you contribute, without penalty or tax, should you run into a cash crunch. So after you have each maxed out your 401(k) match, shift to a Roth IRA. Each of you can save up to the $5,500 annual limit.

The downside of a Roth IRA is that you lose the immediate tax deduction that you get with a 401(k) contribution. Still, “you eliminate the uncertainty of what future tax rates may do to your retirement income plan,” says Slott. If tax rates go up, as many believe they must in the years ahead, your 401(k) savings will become a little less valuable. But your Roth IRA savings will be unaffected.

Once you have each saved $7,200 to get the company match of $3,600, and have also fully funded a Roth IRA to the tune of $5,500—congratulate one another. That comes to $16,300 each of annual savings, or a Herculean savings rate of 27%. Most experts advise saving at a 15% rate, and even higher when possible. If you still have more free cash to sock away, you can begin to put more in your 401(k) to get the additional tax deferral. But you should first consider opening a taxable brokerage account where you invest in stocks and stock mutual funds. After a one-year holding period these get taxed as a capital gain, currently a lower rate (15% to 20%) than the ordinary income rate that applies to your 401(k) distributions.

Do you have a personal finance question for our experts? Write toAskTheExpert@moneymail.com.

MONEY Pensions

How To Be a Millionaire — and Not Even Know It

Book whose pages are hundred dollar bills
iStock

A financial adviser explains to two teachers why they don't need a lot of money in the bank to be rich.

Mr. and Mrs. Rodrigues, 65 and 66 years old, were in my office. Their plan was to retire later this year. But they were worried.

“Our friends are retiring with Social Security, lump sum rollovers, and large investment accounts,” said Mr. Rodrigues, a school teacher from the North Shore of Boston. “All my wife and I will get is a lousy pension.”

Mr. Rodrigues continued: “A teacher’s pay is mediocre compared to what our friends earn in the private sector. We know that when we start our career. But with retirement staring us in the face, and no more regular paycheck, I’m worried.”

Public school teachers are among the worst-paid professionals in America – if you look at their paycheck alone. But when it comes to retirement packages, they have some of the best financial security in the country.

For private sector employees, the responsibility of managing retirement income sits largely on their shoulders. Sure, Social Security will provide a portion of many people’s retirement income, but for most, it is up to the retiree to figure out how to pull money from IRAs, 401(k)s, investment accounts, and/or bank accounts to support their lifestyle each year. Throughout retirement, many worry about running out of money or the possibility of their investments’ losing value.

Teachers, on the other hand, have a much larger safety net.

Both of the Rodrigueses worked as high school teachers for more than 30 years. Each was due a life-only pension of $60,000 upon retirement. That totaled a guaranteed lifetime income of $10,000 per month, or $120,000 per year. When one of them dies, the decedent’s pension will end, but the survivor will continue receiving his or her own $60,000 income.

The Rodrigueses told me they needed about $85,000 a year.

Surely their pension would cover their income needs.* And since the two both teach and live in Massachusetts, their pension will be exempt from state tax.

As for their balance sheet, they had no mortgage, no credit card debts, and no car payments. They had a $350,000 home, $18,000 cash in the bank, and a $134,000 investment account.

But as far as the Rodrigueses were concerned, they hadn’t saved enough.

“All my friends boast about the size of the 401(k)s they rolled over to IRAs,” Mr. Rodrigues said. “Some of them say they have more than $1 million for retirement.”

It was time to show the couple that their retirement situation wasn’t so gloomy – especially considering what their private-sector friends would need in assets to create the same income stream.

“What if I told you that your financial situation is better than most Americans?” I asked.

They thought I was joking.

Their friends, I explained, would need about $1.7 million to match their $120,000 pension income for life.

To explain my case, I pulled out a report on annuities that addressed the question of how much money a person would need at age 65 to generate a certain number of dollars in annual income.

Here’s an abbreviated version of the answer:

Annual Pension Lump Sum Needed
$48,000 $700,539
$60,000 $876,886
$75,000 $1,100,736

If you work in the private sector, are you a little jealous? If you’re a teacher, do you feel a little richer?

The Rodrigues were shocked. Soon Mr. Rodrigues calmed down and Mrs. Rodrigues smiled. Their jealousy was replaced with a renewed appreciation for the decades of service they provided to the local community.

Whether your pension is $30,000, $60,000 or $90,000, consider the amount of money that’s needed to guarantee your income. It’s probably far more than you think. And it’s not impacted by the stock market, interest rates, and world economic issues.

With a guaranteed income and the likelihood of state tax exemption on their pension, Mr. and Mrs. Rodrigues felt like royalty. After all, they had just learned that they were millionaires.

—————————————-

* The survivor’s $60,000 pension, of course, would be less than the $85,000 annual income the two of them say they’ll need. A few strategies to address this: (1) Expect a reduced spending need in a one-person household. (2) Draw income from the couple’s other assets. (3) Downsize and use the net proceeds from the house’s sale to supplement spending needs. (4) Select the survivor option for their pensions, rather than the life-only option. They would have a reduced monthly income check while they are both living, yet upon one of their deaths the survivor would receive a reduced survivor monthly pension benefit along with his or her own pension.
—————————————-

Marc S. Freedman, CFP, is president and CEO of Freedman Financial in Peabody, Mass. He has been delivering financial planning advice to mass affluent Baby Boomers for more than two decades. He is the author of Retiring for the GENIUS, and he is host of “Dollars & Sense,” a weekly radio show on North Shore 104.9 in Beverly, Mass.

MONEY Ask the Expert

How To Tap Your IRA When You Really Need the Money

140605_AskExpert_illo
Robert A. Di Ieso, Jr.

Q: I am 52 and recently lost my job. I have a fairly large IRA. I was thinking of taking a “rule 72(t)” distribution for income and shifting some of those IRA assets to my Roth IRA, paying the tax now while I’m unemployed and most likely at a lower tax rate. What do you think of this strategy? – Mark, Ft. Lauderdale, FL

A: It’s a workable strategy, but it’s one that’s very complex and may cost you a big chunk of your retirement savings, says Ed Slott, a CPA and founder of IRAhelp.com.

Because your IRA is meant to provide income in retirement, the IRS strongly encourages you to save it for that by imposing a 10% withdrawal penalty (on top of income taxes) if you tap the money before you reach age 59 ½. There are several exceptions that allow you to avoid the penalty, such as incurring steep medical bills, paying for higher education or a down payment on a first home. (Unemployment is not included.)

The exception that you’re considering is known as rule 72(t), after the IRS section code that spells it out, and anyone can use this strategy to avoid the 10% penalty if you follow the requirements precisely. You must take the money out on a specific schedule in regular increments and stick with that payment schedule for five years, or until you reach age 59 ½, whichever is longer. Deviate from this program, and you’ll have to pay the penalty on all money withdrawn from the IRA, plus interest. (The formal, less catchy name of this strategy is the Substantially Equal Periodic Payment, or SEPP, rule.)

The IRS gives you three different methods to calculate your payment amount: required minimum distribution, fixed amortization and fixed annuitization. Several sites, including 72t.net, Dinkytown and CalcXML, offer tools if you want to run scenarios. Generally, the amortization method will gives you the highest income, says Slott. But it’s a good idea to consult a tax professional to see which one is best for you.

If you do use the 72(t) method, and want to shift some of your traditional IRA assets to a Roth, consider first dividing your current account into two—that way, you can convert only a portion of the money. But you must do so before you set up the 72(t) plan. If you later decide that you no longer need the distributions, you can’t contribute 72(t) income into another IRA or put it into a Roth. Your best option would be to save it in a taxable fund. “Then the money will be there if you need it down the road,” says Slott.

Does it make sense to take 72(t) distributions? Only as a last resort. It is true that you’ll pay less in income tax while you’re unemployed. But at age 52, you’ll be taking distributions for seven and a half years, which is a long time to commit to the payout plan. If you get a job during that period, the income from the 72(t) distribution could push you into a higher tax bracket. Slott suggests checking into a home equity loan—or even taking some money out of your IRA up front and paying the 10% penalty, rather than withdrawing the bulk of the account. “Your retirement money is the result of years of saving,” says Slott. “If you take out big chunks now, you might not have enough lifetime to replace it.”

Do you have a personal finance question for our experts? Write to AskTheExpert@moneymail.com.

MONEY retirement planning

How Today’s Workers Can Dodge the Retirement Crisis

For Millennials and Gen X-ers, it all depends on whether we can rein in spending after we stop working.

Trying to figure our whether mid-career folks like myself are adequately preparing for retirement can get a bit confusing. If you look at Boston College’s National Retirement Risk Index (NRRI), as of 2013 as many as 52% of households aged 30-59 are at risk of falling at least 10% short of being able to produce an adequate “replacement rate” of income.

That doesn’t sound too good, does it? But a discussion of the methodology of this survey and others at a recent meeting of the Retirement Research Consortium in Washington D.C., shows that things might not be so dire after all.

It turns out that the NRRI might be setting an unrealistically high bar for retirement income. The index’s replacement rate assumes that a household’s goal is to maintain a spending level in retirement that is equal to their pre-retirement living standard. It also includes investment returns on 401(k)s and IRAs in its calculation of pre-retirement income, even though those earnings are specifically earmarked for post-retirement. By including those investment gains, the NRRI may be targeting a replacement rate that is too high, causing more households to fall short, as Sarah Holden, director of retirement and investment research at the Investment Company Institute, pointed out in the meeting.

It’s already hard for someone in their 30s or 40s to figure out how much they need to be contributing today to replace the income they will have right before they retire. Adding to this guessing game is the debate over whether spending really goes down in retirement. You’ll pay less for work lunches, commuting expenses, and so on, but you might spend more for travel in the early years of retirement and, later on, more for health care costs.

In contrast to the NRRI calculations, many financial planners assume that would-be retirees will automatically cut spending when their children turn 21, and therefore only need to replace about 70% to 80% of their pre-retirement income. But as Frederick Miller of Sensible Financial Planning explained at the consortium’s meeting, that’s simply not the case anymore. He sees many clients continuing to support their adult children, helping them to pay for health insurance, rent, graduate school or a down payment on a home. While generous, this support obviously detracts from retirement savings.

So which assumption is correct? Should we be saving with the expectation of spending less in retirement or not? In reality, we should certainly prepare for eventually reducing consumption since, in the long run, we may have no choice about doing so. When spending does decline after retirement, it is almost twice as likely due to inadequate financial resources rather than voluntary belt-tightening, as Anthony Webb of Boston College discovered in a small survey of households.

The question of how much is enough will vary greatly by household. But it’s clear that my generation, and those that follow, face stiff headwinds—longer life expectancy, a likely reduction in Social Security benefits, and low interest rates, which greatly reduce the ability to generate income. Cutting back on spending during retirement, as well as during our working years, may be the single greatest contributor to our financial security that we can control.

Konigsberg is the author of The Truth About Grief, a contributor to the anthology Money Changes Everything, and a director at Arden Asset Management. The views expressed are solely her own.

MONEY Savings

How to Thrive in Retirement After Falling Short of Goals

Turns out, many retirees don't need as much in savings as they once thought. They are surprisingly delighted with their downsized life and embrace a flexible budget.

Maybe the experts are wrong. Retirement planners say you will need at least 70% of pre-retirement income to enjoy your golden years. Some target as much as 80% or even 85%. Yet recent retirees with less say they are doing just fine, thank you.

Three years into retirement, the average replacement income of people with an IRA or 401(k) plan is just 66% of final pay, mutual fund company T. Rowe Price found. Yet more than half say they are living as well or better than when they were working, and 89% say they are somewhat or very satisfied with retirement so far.

Such findings belie our widely accepted retirement savings crisis. In aggregate, we are way under saved. The average 50-year-old has put away just $44,000. But clearly a large subset—those with either a 401(k) plan or IRA, or both—are doing pretty well. This is the group that T. Rowe Price surveyed by filtering for those retired less than five years or over 50 and still working.

This particular group of savers may want to let up on the handwringing. As recent research by EBRI and ICI show, consistent 401(k) investors (those who held accounts between 2007 and 2012) had balances 67% higher than overall plan participants, reaching an average $107,000.

For years a small band of economists led by Lawrence Kotlikoff, the Boston University economics professor, have been making the case that many people are over saving. Kotlikoff argues that the financial services industry is essentially scaring people into over saving in order to collect fees. The fright factor is evident in the T. Rowe Price survey, where those still at work expressed far more anxiety than those who have reached retirement and found it to be less financially challenging than they may have been led to believe.

Half of workers believe they will have to reduce their standard of living in retirement, compared to just 35% of recent retirees who think that way. More workers also believe they will run out of money (22% vs. 14%), and workers are much less likely to believe they will be able to afford health care (49% vs. 70%), the survey shows.

Recent retirees in this survey have median assets of $473,000. That includes investable assets plus home equity minus debt. Home equity is a big part of their holdings at $191,000. They have just 52% of investable assets in stocks and asset allocation mutual funds, and are playing it fairly safe with 31% in cash.

How are they managing on pre-retirement income that falls short of most planners’ models? A third are working at something or looking for work, and to augment Social Security and pension income they are drawing down their savings by an average of 4% a year, which is a rate that many planners consider reasonable.

But the real source of new retiree satisfaction may be their genuine appreciation for a downsized life: 85% say they do not need to spend as much in order to be happy and 65% feel relieved to no longer be trying to keep up with the Joneses. In addition, they embrace flexibility with 60% saying they would rather adjust their spending to maintain their portfolio than maintain their spending at the expense of their portfolio. With that attitude, almost any retiree can feel good about their life.

Related links:

 

MONEY IRAs

This Simple Move Can Boost Your Savings by Thousands of Dollars

Stack of Money
iStock

Last-minute IRA savers and those who keep their money in cash are paying a procrastination penalty.

Individual Retirement Account contributions are getting larger—an encouraging sign of a recovering economy and improved habits among retirement savers.

But there is an “I” in IRA for a reason: investors are in charge of managing their accounts. And recent research by Vanguard finds that many of us are leaving returns on the table due to an all-too-human fault: procrastination in the timing of our contributions.

IRA savers can make contributions anytime from Jan. 1 of a tax year up until the tax-filing deadline the following April. But Vanguard’s analysis found that more than double the amount of contributions is made at the deadline than at the first opportunity—and that last-minute contributions dwarf the amounts contributed throughout the year. Fidelity Investments reports similar data—for the 2013 tax year, 70% of total IRA contributions came in during tax season.

Some IRA investors no doubt wait until the tax deadline in order to determine the most tax-efficient level of contribution; others may have cash-flow reasons, says Colleen Jaconetti, a senior investment analyst in the Vanguard Investment Strategy Group. “Some people don’t have the cash available during the year to make contributions, or they wait until they get their year-end bonus to fund their accounts.”

Nonetheless, procrastination has its costs. Vanguard calculates that investors who wait until the last minute lose out on a full year’s worth of tax-advantaged compounded growth—and that gets expensive over a lifetime of saving. Assuming an investor contributes the maximum $5,500 annually for 30 years ($6,500 for those over age 50), and earns 4% after inflation, procrastinators will wind up with account balances $15,500 lower than someone who contributes as early as possible in a tax year.

But for many last-minute savers, even more money is left on the table. Among savers who made last-minute contributions for the 2013 tax year just ahead of the tax-filing deadline, 21% of the contributions went into money market funds, likely because they were not prepared to make investing decisions. When Vanguard looked at those hasty money market contributions for the 2012 tax year, two-thirds of those funds were still sitting in money market funds four months later.

“They’re doing a great thing by contributing, and some people do go back to get those dollars invested,” Jaconetti says. “But with money market funds yielding little to nothing, these temporary decisions are turning into ill-advised longer-term investment choices.”

The Vanguard research comes against a backdrop of general improvement in IRA contributions. Fidelity reported on Wednesday that average contributions for tax year 2013 reached $4,150, a 5.7% increase from tax year 2012 and an all-time high. The average balance at Fidelity was up nearly 10% year-over-year to $89,100, a gain that was fueled mainly by strong market returns.

Fidelity says older IRA savers racked up the largest percentage increases in savings last year: investors aged 50 to 59 increased their contributions by 9.8%, for example—numbers that likely reflect savers trying to catch up on nest egg contributions as retirement approaches. But young savers showed strong increases in savings rates, too: 7.7% for savers aged 30-39, and 7.3% for those aged 40-49.

Users of Roth IRAs made larger contributions than owners of traditional IRAs, Fidelity found. Average Roth contributions were higher than for traditional IRAs across most age groups, with the exception of those made by investors older than 60.

But IRA investors of all stripes apparently could stand a bit of tuning up on their contribution habits. Jaconetti suggests that some of the automation that increasingly drives 401(k) plans also can help IRA investors. She suggests that IRA savers set up regular automatic monthly contributions, and establish a default investment that gets at least some level of equity exposure from the start, such as a balanced fund or target date fund.

“It’s understandable that people are deadline-oriented,” Jaconetti says. “But with these behaviors, they could be leaving returns on the table.”

Related:

 

MONEY 401(k)s

Stock Gains (and Saving) Push 401(k)s to Record Highs

Staying the course has rarely paid off so well as average retirement account balances soar.

The financial crisis is so yesterday. Retirement savings accounts have never been plumper, according to a new survey of 401(k) plans and IRAs at Fidelity Investments.

At mid-year, the average 401(k) balance stood at a record $91,000, up nearly 13% from a year ago. The average IRA balance stood at $92,600, also a record, and up nearly 15% from the previous year.

These figures include all employees in a plan, even those in their first year of saving. Looking just at long-time savers the picture brightens further. Workers who had been active in a workplace retirement plan for at least 10 years had a record average balance of $246,200—a figure that has grown at an average annual rate of 15% for a decade.

Over the past year, the resurgent stock market accounted for 77% of the higher average balance in 401(k) plans, Fidelity said. Ongoing employer and employee contributions accounted for 23% of the gain. The typical worker socks away $9,590 a year—$6,050 from her own contributions and $3,540 from an employer match.

Of course, the financial crisis still weighs on many Americans. Employment has been an ongoing weak spot and wage growth has been all but non-existent. Meanwhile, those in or nearing retirement may have fallen short of their goals after losing a decade of market growth at just the wrong point in their savings cycle. Many had to sell while prices were down.

But the Fidelity data reinforces the value of steady savings over a long period. By contributing through thick and thin, savers were able to offset much of the portfolio damage from the crisis. They not only held firm and enjoyed the market’s robust recovery but also were buying shares when prices were low. They earned a spectacular return on new money put into stocks the last five years. In calendar year 2013 alone, the S&P 500 plus dividends rose 32%.

Despite continuing contributions, savings balances did not rise as fast as the S&P 500 due to plan fees, cash-outs and broad plan exposure to lower-return investments like bonds and cash. Roughly a third of job switchers do not roll over their plan savings; they take the money, often incurring taxes and penalties. The average 401(k) investor has 33% in fixed-income securities.

Related:

 

MONEY retirement planning

The Amazing Result of Actually Trying to Save Money

Many Americans aren't saving for retirement, but those who are making a real effort are tantalizingly close to hitting their mark.

The retirement savings crisis in America is real. But it is also skewed by vast numbers of people who have saved next to nothing. Looking only at those who are making a serious effort to put something away reveals a more encouraging data set.

Pre-retirees working full-time and who have both a 401(k) plan and an IRA are tantalizingly close to securing sufficient retirement income—and their situation has improved in the past 12 months, a recent study by investment firm BlackRock found. These savers can likely close the gap with a few simple adjustments.

We are all familiar with the doomsday statistics about retirement savings: A third of workers have less than $1,000 in savings and investments that could be used for retirement, and roughly two-thirds have less than $25,000. So large numbers of people will be stuck working longer than they like and counting on Social Security for nearly all their retirement income.

BlackRock weeded out less serious savers by looking only at those with a balance in both a 401(k) plan and an IRA. The typical working 55-year-old meeting this criterion has $264,000 saved and earns $58,000 a year. That level of savings will produce $19,000 a year in guaranteed lifetime income at age 65, based on calculations from the firm’s CoRI index. (This benchmark estimates the amount of annuity income a pre-retiree would be able to purchase at retirement.) Coupled with $21,000 a year from Social Security, this saver is on track to a secure retirement income equal to 69% of final salary.

Most financial planners believe that replacing 70% to 80% of final household income is the mark savers need to hit. So this typical 55-year-old saver is just about there and can close the gap by saving a little more, spending a little less, or working just another year or two. And if market conditions remain favorable, the pre-retiree may get over the hump without changing a thing. A year ago, the typical 55-year-old saver was on track to replace just 64% of final earnings. But the stock market soared, giving savers additional funds to purchase guaranteed lifetime income when they retire.

Of course, what the market gives it can also take back. This is a moving target. But stocks usually rise over a 10-year period, and if interest rates rise over the next 10 years—most believe that will be the case—it will have the effect of boosting replacement income even further because products like immediate annuities will offer a higher return.

The picture is less rosy for older pre-retirees. The typical 60-year-old saver is on track to replace 64% of final earnings and the typical 64-year-old saver is on track to replace just 59% of final earnings. The poorer preparedness of these groups probably stems from their getting a later start saving in 401(k) plans and IRAs, says Chip Castille, head of the BlackRock Retirement Group. The working years of this age group overlapped the transition between defined-benefits plans, which began to disappear, and the rise of defined-contribution plans. They didn’t react right away and missed years of growth.

In general, the retirement readiness picture in the U.S. remains bleak. Even regular savers are falling well short of the more aggressive retirement income replacement goals. But clearly those who have taken action are much better positioned, and with only modest spending adjustments, they can easily hit the lower range of what planners advise.

MONEY Taxes

The Moves to Make Now So You Can Cut Taxes Later

A financial adviser explains that to maximize income, you need the right kinds of investment accounts, not just the right investments.

In my work with financial planning clients, I can see that people understand the merits of having a diversified mix of securities in an investment portfolio. Investment advisers have done a good job of explaining how diversification can improve clients’ risk-adjusted returns.

What can be a little harder for advisers to explain and clients to understand, though, is the value of “tax diversification” — having investments in a mix of accounts with different tax treatments. By having some securities in taxable accounts, others in tax-deferred accounts, and still others in tax-free accounts, people can maintain the flexibility that makes it easier to minimize their taxes in retirement.

The benefits of traditional tax-deferred retirement accounts, such as IRAs and 401(k)s, are easy for participants to see. Contributions reduce people’s current tax bills. And the benefits continue to compound over the course of the investors’ careers, since none of the income is taxable until withdrawals are made.

Yet what clients don’t often grasp is the price they’ll wind up paying for this tax benefit later in life. Distributions from tax-deferred accounts are treated as ordinary income. It can be more expensive to spend money from a traditional IRA than from a taxable account, since dividends and long-term capital gains in taxable accounts are taxed at more favorable rates. And IRS-mandated required minimum distributions from traditional retirement accounts can force a retiree to generate taxable income at times when he or she wouldn’t want to.

So how do you get clients to understand that traditional IRAs and 401(k)s may cost them more than they think? Sometimes it’s a matter of being blunt — saying that the $1 million they see on their account statement isn’t worth $1 million; they may only have $700,000 or less to spend after paying taxes.

Once clients understand that, they also understand the appeal of Roth IRA and Roth 401(k) accounts, since current income and qualified distributions are never taxable. Another advantage: The IRS also does not require distributions from Roth IRAs the way it does for traditional retirement accounts. For many high income taxpayers, $700,000 in a Roth IRA is more valuable than $1 million in a traditional IRA.

But Roth IRAs and 401(k)s aren’t perfect and shouldn’t be a client’s only savings vehicle either. Participants don’t receive any upfront tax benefit. And it’s conceivable that future legislation may decrease or eliminate the benefits of Roth accounts. If the U.S. or certain states shift to a consumption-based tax system, for example, a Roth IRA will have been a poor choice compared to a traditional IRA.

And it’s useful to have money in taxable accounts, too. People need to have enough in these accounts to meet their pre-retirement spending needs. In addition, holding some stock investments in taxable accounts allows people to take advantage of a market downturn by realizing capital losses and securing a tax benefit. You can’t do this with a retirement account.

Given that each type of investment account has advantages and disadvantages, advisers should encourage all their clients to keep at least some assets in each retirement bucket. That way, retirees have the flexibility to choose the source of their spending based on the tax consequences in a particular year.

In a low-income year, retirees may want to pull some money from their traditional IRAs to benefit from that year’s low tax bracket. Depending on the retiree’s income level, some traditional IRA distributions could escape either federal or state income tax entirely. In a high-income year, when investments in a taxable account have a lot of appreciation, it may make sense for the retiree to spend from a Roth account instead.

Since we don’t know what a client’s tax situation will look like each year in the future, diversification of account types is just as prudent as investment diversification.

—————————————-

Benjamin Sullivan is a manager at Palisades Hudson Financial Group, where he helps the firm’s high-net-worth clients with their personal financial planning, investment and tax planning needs. He is a certified financial planner certificant, an IRS enrolled agent, and a member of the New York chapter of the Financial Planning Association.

MONEY 401(k)s

Do I Really Need Foreign Stocks in My 401(k)?

Foreign stocks are supposed be a great way to diversify and get better returns. But these days? Not so much.

It’s long been a basic rule of retirement planning—allocate a portion of your 401(k) or IRA to international stocks for better diversification and long-term growth. But I’m not really sure those reasons hold up any more.

Better diversification? Take a look at the top holdings of your domestic large-cap or index stock fund. You’ll find huge multinationals that do tons of business overseas—Apple, Exxon, General Electric. Investing abroad and at home are close to being the same thing, as we saw during the financial crisis in 2008, when all our developed global markets fell together.

As for growth, we’ve been told to look to the booming emerging markets—only they don’t seem to be emerging much lately. Even as the U.S. stock indexes have been reaching all-time highs, the MSCI emerging markets benchmark has had three consecutive sell-offs in 2012, 2013 and 2014, missing out on a huge recovery. That’s diversification, but not in the direction I want for my SEP-IRA that I’m trying to figure out how to invest. (See “My 6 % Mistake: When You’ve Saved Too Little For Retirement.”)

Some market watchers have pointed out that after two decades, the countries that were once defined as emerging—China, Brazil, Turkey, South Korea—are now in fact mature, middle-income economies. If you’re looking for high-octane growth, you should really be considering “frontier” markets, funds that invest in tiny countries like Nigeria and Qatar.

That’s all well and good. But when it comes to Nigeria, I don’t really feel confident investing in a country where 200 schoolgirls get kidnapped and can’t be found. As for Qatar, it’s awfully exposed to unrest in the Middle East. (Dubai shares just tumbled, triggered by escalating violence in the Iraq.)

Twenty years ago, I was more than game for emerging markets and loved getting the prospectus statements for funds listing then exotic-sounding companies like Telefonas de Mexico and Petrobras. But I just don’t think I have the stomach, or the long time horizon, for it anymore.

My new skittishness around international stocks may be signaling a bigger shift in my investing style from growth to value, the gist of which is this: since you can’t always predict which stocks will grow, the best thing you can do is to focus on price. Quite simply, value investors don’t want to pay more for a stock than it is intrinsically worth. (Growth investors, by contrast, are willing to spend up for what they expect will be larger earnings increases.) By acquiring stocks at a discount to their value, investors hope profit when Wall Street eventually recognizes their worth and avoid overpriced stocks that are doomed to fall.

As Benjamin Graham, the father of value investing, wrote in his 1949 classic, “The Intelligent Investor,” “The habit of relating what is paid to what is being offered is an invaluable trait in an investment.” (Warren Buffett, among many others, consider “The Intelligent Investor” to be the investing bible. ) “For 99 issues out of 100 we could say that at some price they are cheap enough to buy and some other price they would be so dear that they should be sold,” Graham also wrote. And he famously advised that people should buy stocks the way they buy their groceries, not the way they buy their perfume, a lesson in price sensitivity that I immediately understand and agree with.

Looking at the international question through a value vs. growth lens, my choice is seems more clear—at least on one level. If emerging markets are down, now is probably a good time to buy. But the biggest single country exposure in the MSCI Emerging Markets Index is China, at 17%, and it might be on the brink of a major bubble.

It seems a bargain-hunting investing approach isn’t always that much safer, and I’m wondering if it might be worth paying more at times to avoid obvious trouble. Still, I’ve only just discovered my inner value investor. I’m going to keep reading Benjamin Graham and will let you know.

Ruth Davis Konigsberg, a fortysomething journalist and consultant to Arden Asset Management, writes weekly about retirement planning.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser