So let’s accept and applaud that 80 can be the new 60, that millions of baby boomers will reinvent themselves during their 60s and 70s, and that stereotypes about being old in America will be tossed out in favor of more positive images of vibrant old age.

Even so, we will still get old. After all, isn’t that the goal of today’s enhanced emphasis on taking better care of ourselves? To age successfully, however, we also will need to contemplate important aspects of our later years, up to and including plans for our death.

The Longevity Project, a current book on traits of people who have lived long and successful lives, notes that conscientious people are favored to live long and well. One reason is that they do not leave things to chance. They tackle future needs today. Having plans in place, they are more prepared and less stressed about what their futures may hold. Such an approach does not, of course, guarantee successful aging. But it sure raises the odds.

Here are some of the key planning needs that nearly everyone will face as they age and retire. Some are practical and financial; others are very subjective but no less important. In every case, the sooner you begin to build these plans, the better off you’ll be in the future. How many of these life “boxes” have you checked off?

To continue reading go to 6 Ways to Plan for Your Later Years

BOSTON — When it comes to retirement, the average American age 65 and older generates nearly two-thirds of their total income from a combination of earned income and Social Security, with the rest coming from pensions and personal assets.

But despite the fact that millions are earning income and collecting at the same time, there’s still plenty of confusion over how Uncle Sam goes about taxing and reducing Social Security benefits for workers. Consider, for instance, some of the reasons why it can be confusing:

First, if you retire before the normal retirement age and start collecting Social Security benefits early, your benefits are reduced not only for starting early, but also as your earnings rise. In fact, if you work and collect before the so-called full retirement age, you’ll lose $1 of Social Security benefit for every $2 earned over $14,160 in 2011.

Second, in the year that you reach full retirement age, your benefits are reduced $1 for every $3 earned over $37,680 in 2011, or least that’s the case until the month you reach full retirement age.

Finally, once you’re at full retirement age, your benefits are not reduced, but as much as 85% of the benefits could be taxed if your income is above a certain amount.

According to the Social Security website, if you file a federal tax return as an individual and your combined income is between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50% of your benefits. And if your combined income is more than $34,000, up to 85% of your benefits may be taxable. If you file a joint return, and you and your spouse have a combined income that is between $32,000 and $44,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50% of your benefits. And if your combined income is more than $44,000, up to 85% of your benefits may be taxable. If you are married and file a separate tax return, you probably will pay taxes on your benefits.

Even though all this might be confusing, there are some ways to increase your after-tax income from all your sources of income — be it earned income, Social Security, dividends, interest income, capital gains, pension income and the like. What’s more, there are some ways to think differently about the interaction between earned income and Social Security benefits.

At a recent MarketWatch roundtable discussion, two of the nations’ top retirement-planning experts offered tactics to consider to when deciding whether and how much to work in retirement, as well as whether and when to start taking Social Security benefits.

Read more: How to Collect Social Security and Keep Working

Where do I go? Where do I look? What do I ask?

Finding qualified, independent financial advice should not be difficult. But it is for many hard-working Americans. With so many people claiming to be  financial planners, financial advisors, financial counselors, wealth managers, how do you know when you’ve found someone who can really help you? The National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (NAPFA), the country’s leading professional association of Fee-Only financial planners, is pleased to provide you with this field guide to assist you in your pursuit for a qualified, independent financial advisor.

The Pursuit of a Financial Advisor Field Guide is set up to help you with every aspect of your quest, including:
• Preparation for the Pursuit
• Equipping Yourself – Knowing What To Ask!
• Selecting Where To Look
• Evaluating Potential Advisors
• Engagement
• Evaluating Your Advisor
• Additional Tools and Resources

Go here to get your copy of Pursuit of a Financial Advisor Field Guide.

Happy hunting for your financial advisor.

Retirement Dollar

The need for retirement planning doesn’t end with the onset of retirement. A new retiree’s focus shifts from building wealth to managing and preserving it. One major challenge is to make the investment portfolio supply cash flow for the duration of life—and through different economic and market conditions.

Experts have studied portfolio longevity or endurance to help retired investors reduce the odds of depleting their wealth too soon. The studies evaluate how a portfolio might endure under the stress of changing markets and spending levels. The resulting models estimate portfolio survival in terms of statistical probabilities.1 While the technical details are beyond the scope of this article, the general conclusions are more intuitive.

Three main factors drive portfolio endurance: asset mix, spending level, and investment time frame. Certain aspects of these factors are within an investor’s control while others are not. Let’s briefly consider them.

Asset Mix for Retirement

Asset mix describes the ratio of stocks to bonds in a portfolio. This determines risk exposure and expected performance, and is one of the most important decisions investors of all ages can make. Historically, stocks have outperformed bonds and outpaced inflation over time. This return premium reflects the higher risk of owning stocks.2 Consequently, the larger the equity allocation, the greater a portfolio’s expected return—and risk.

Keep in mind that risk and return go together. A higher allocation to equities increases the risk of experiencing periods of poor returns during retirement. But if you can handle the risk, having more equity exposure in a portfolio enhances its return potential. Growth can bring higher cash flow, inflation protection, and portfolio endurance over time. This is why most advisors believe that most investors should have an equity component in their portfolios, with actual weighting depending on one’s time frame, risk tolerance, and spending flexibility.

Spending Level During Retirement

Portfolio withdrawal is typically described in terms of a specified dollar amount (e.g., $50,000 per year) or a percent of annual portfolio value (e.g., 5% of assets each year). Neither method is ideal, however—and for different reasons. Briefly consider each one:

•    Specified dollar amount:  withdrawing a fixed amount each year and adjusting it for inflation can provide a stable income stream and preserve your living standard over time. But the portfolio may survive only if future withdrawals represent a small proportion of the portfolio’s value. One academic study quantified this amount. It found that a retiree with at least a 60% stock allocation can withdraw up to 4% of initial portfolio value (adjusted for inflation each year), and enjoy a high probability of never running out of wealth.3 Choosing a higher withdrawal amount is not likely to be sustainable, especially if the portfolio faces an extended period of negative returns.

•    Percent of annual portfolio value: withdrawing a fixed percentage of assets based on annual asset value makes it unlikely that you will deplete retirement assets because a sudden drop in market value would be accompanied by a proportional decline in spending. But this method can produce wide swings in your living standard when investment returns are volatile.

Retirees who need relatively consistent cash flow may want to combine these two methods. One way is to withdraw cash flow according to a rule that combines past spending (e.g., an average of the past thirty-six months of cash flow) with a payout rate applied to current portfolio value. You can weight these factors to favor your preference for either more stable cash flow or a greater chance of portfolio survival. In effect, you are customizing your withdrawals to smooth out consumption while responding to actual investment performance.

Investment Time Frame for Retirement

Investment time horizon may be the hardest to estimate, especially if it is the same as your lifespan. In this case, you can only guess how long your portfolio must support spending. If you plan to bequeath assets, your investment time frame may extend beyond your lifetime. This may influence your risk and spending decisions as well.

Time frame forces a tradeoff between the short and long term. Retirees with a longer investment time horizon might choose a higher exposure to equities. But they may have to offset this risk by being more flexible about spending over time. Elderly retirees and others with a short time horizon may choose a less risky allocation or a higher payout rate, although they can experience rising spending levels, too. In any case, retirees should think carefully about equity exposure and avoid taking more risk than they can afford.

Considerations During Retirement

Planning involves assumptions about the future—assumptions that may not pan out. Although you cannot avoid making assumptions, you can ask whether they are realistic and consider how your lifestyle might change if future economic and financial conditions are much different than projected. For instance, you may assume an average return based on historical performance. But there is no certainty that future portfolio returns will resemble the past, regardless of time frame. Moreover, short-term results may vary drastically, which could force hard financial choices. Investors should think in terms of probability, not history.

Managing asset mix, payout, and time horizon inevitably involves tradeoffs. Exhibit 1 below illustrates the dynamics. For example, a bond-dominated portfolio with a lower expected return may suit investors with a shorter time horizon, or require them to accept a lower payout rate to increase the odds of portfolio survival. A portfolio with a higher allocation to equities may be appropriate for someone with a long time horizon or a strong desire for a high payout rate, but a higher assumption of risk also results in greater uncertainty about future wealth. Retirees who take this route must be able to handle the risk emotionally, and they should be ready to adjust their lifestyle in response to market downturns. In fact, investor flexibility plays a role in all of the tradeoffs.

Basic Trade-offs in Portfolio Survival

Finally, although you cannot fully control these and other factors involved in portfolio endurance in retirement, having more wealth can improve the odds of having a less stressful financial life. A more substantial nest egg might enable you to take fewer risks, enjoy a higher sustainable spending rate, or extend the productive life of your portfolio during retirement.

__________________________________________

Endnotes:
1 Cooley, Philip L., Carl M. Hubbard, and Daniel T. Walz. 1998. “Retirement Savings: Choosing a Withdrawal Rate That Is Sustainable,” AAII Journal 20: 16–21. Also see: Bengen, William P.  1994. “Determining Withdrawal Rates Using Historical Data,” Journal of Financial Planning 7: 171.

2 From 1926 to 2009, the S&P 500 Index returned an average 9.8% per year compared to 5.4% for long-term government bonds and 3.0% inflation. Sources: Standard & Poor’s Index Services Group for S&P 500 Index; long-term government bonds and inflation provided by Stocks, Bonds, Bill, and Inflation Yearbook™, Ibbotson Associates.

3 Cooley, Hubbard, and Walz, Retirement Savings: Choosing a Withdrawal Rate That Is Sustainable,” 16–21.

This article was provided by Dimensional Fund Advisors. Dimensional Fund Advisors is an investment advisor registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This material is provided for informational and educational purposes only. It should not be considered investment advice or an offer to buy or sell securities.

America’s baby boomers—those born between 1946 and 1964—face a problem that could weigh on the economy for years to come: The longer it takes for the economy to recover, the less money they’ll have to spend in retirement.

Policy makers have long worried that Americans aren’t saving enough for old age. And lately, current and prospective retirees have been hit on many fronts at once: They have less money, they earn less on what they have, their houses aren’t rising in value and the prospect of working longer to make up the shortfall has dimmed significantly in a lousy job market.

“We will have to learn to make do with a lot less in material things,” says Gary Snodgrass, a 63-year-old health-care consultant in Placerville, Calif. The financial crisis, he says, slashed his retirement savings 40% and the value of his house by about half.

Banks, home buyers and bond issuers are all benefiting as the U.S. Federal Reserve holds short-term interest rates near zero to support a recovery. But for many of the 36 million Americans who will turn 65 over the next decade—and even for the 45 million who have another decade to go— the resulting low bond yields, combined with a volatile stock market, are making a dire retirement picture look even worse.

Low yields present retirees with a difficult choice: Accept the lower income offered by safer bonds, or take the risk of staying in the stock market. Either way, their predicament could put a long-term damper on the consumer spending that typically drives U.S. growth.

“If these rates stay as low as they are, then a lot more people are going to be hurting,” says Jack Van Derhei, research director at the Employee Benefit Research Institute. The non-partisan outfit estimates that if current conditions persist, nearly three in five baby boomers will be at risk of running short of money in retirement. “There are going to be many luxury items that will simply have to be eliminated,” for retirees to make ends meet.

Despite the market’s rebound from the lows of 2009, nest eggs remain severely impaired. As of the first quarter of 2010, net household assets—homes, 401(k) plans, pension assets and other investments minus debts—stood at $54.6 trillion, down 18% from the end of 2007. That’s an average of about $171,000 per person, much of which is concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest.

At the same time, the return people can hope to earn on their assets has fallen, particularly for those who switch into bonds or annuities to guarantee a fixed income. The average yield on U.S. government, corporate and mortgage bonds stands at about 2.4%, while stock-market valuations suggest a long-term return of about 6%. At those levels of return, some 59% of people aged 56 to 62 will be at risk of not having enough money to cover basic living and health-care costs in retirement, estimates Mr. Van Derhei. If market returns are higher—8.9% for stocks and 6.3% for bonds—the picture isn’t a lot better: The percentage at risk falls to about 47%.

Before the recession hit, many economists assumed people would solve their retirement problems simply by staying in the work force longer. Now, “the recession has blown that idea out of the water,” says Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College and co-author of a 2008 book that advocated working longer.

Older workers, who typically fared better than their younger counterparts in recessions, have been hit just as hard by layoffs this time around. As a result, the fraction of people 65 or older who are working has leveled off after a long period of growth. As of July, it stood at 15.9%, down from 16.3% in mid-2008.

For the rest of this article, go to the Wall Street Journal.

For decades, high fees have quietly but steadily eaten away at the value of 401(k) retirement plans. Now employees are making headway in legal battles to force employers to lower costs.

Employees of Edison International won a big victory this month when a federal judge ruled that the company’s 401(k) fees were excessive and said employees were entitled to recover an as-yet-undetermined amount of overcharges.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson said in an 82-page decision that Rosemead-based Edison did “substantial” harm by failing to negotiate lower prices with the outside firm running the 401(k). A large company such as Edison easily could have gotten a better deal on three of the mutual funds in its plan, but simply didn’t try, the judge said.

The Edison case is one of more than two dozen lawsuits filed against U.S. employers in recent years. The suits allege that companies allowed 401(k) providers to stuff the plans with high-cost investments in exchange for reducing the administrative costs paid by the employers themselves.
Get a daily snapshot of business, financial and technology news delivered to your inbox with our Business Daily newsletter. Sign up »

The most prominent case accuses Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which is famous for squeezing suppliers for lower prices, with failing to negotiate the lowest fees for its 401(k) participants. The plaintiffs got a boost late last year when an appellate court ruled that the closely watched case could proceed.

The Edison ruling could influence the outcome of other suits and turn up the pressure on employers to pay closer attention to 401(k) fees, experts say.

“It’s a big development,” said Fred Reish, a partner at Reish & Reicher in Los Angeles who is not involved in the case. “It will encourage plaintiffs’ attorneys to continue to litigate and will encourage [employers] to look for lower-cost share classes for their plans, which will ultimately benefit the participants.”

Retired Edison employee Fred Suhadolc, a lead plaintiff on the suit, said he and other employees were dismayed at the high fees in their plan because they thought the company would do its best to keep them low. Unfamiliar with the stock market and 401(k)s, Suhadolc said he never understood the fees and still has no idea how much he overpaid.

“It’s frustrating and disappointing that you expect to be treated honestly and fairly, and when you find out that you’re not you almost feel cheated,” said Suhadolc, a former maintenance mechanic at an Edison subsidiary in Illinois.

Edison declined to comment.

It’s difficult to determine the financial toll of excessive 401(k) fees, but some experts say they collectively drain tens of millions of dollars a year from unsuspecting investors.

At Edison, for example, an average employee who invested exclusively in the three funds would have paid more than $300 a year in unnecessary fees, estimated Jerome Schlichter, the St. Louis attorney who represented Edison employees. That does not include foregone investment gains on that money.

For the rest of this story go to Employee allegations of excessive 401(k) fees gain ground.

As you consider different strategies, remember the difference between expected and unexpected inflation. Asset prices already reflect the market’s expectations about future inflation, given all available information. Inflation may turn out to be worse than expected, and this risk of unexpected inflation is what some investors may want to manage.

Hedging vs. Total Return Strategies
Investors can prepare for unexpected inflation by following one of two basic strategies—

1. Hedging the immediate effects of inflation, or;
2. Earning a total return that outpaces inflation over time.

Hedging involves choosing assets whose value tends to rise with inflation. Although holding these assets may reduce the total return of a portfolio, the positive correlation with inflation can help an investor keep up with rising consumer prices, at least over the short term. (Correlation refers to the co-movement of asset returns. When two assets are positively correlated, their returns tend to move together; when negatively correlated, their returns are dissimilar.)

Candidates for hedging include retirees, fixed income investors, and others who would experience a diminished living standard during an inflationary period. These investors are willing to forfeit long-term growth potential for more immediate inflation protection.

In a total return strategy, an  you attempt to outpace inflation by holding assets that are expected to earn higher real (inflation-adjusted) returns. For this strategy to work you have to be willing to give up short-term inflation protection for an opportunity to grow real wealth. Younger investors are typically well suited for this strategy because they have many years until retirement and expect their earnings to advance faster than the inflation rate. As they save and invest for the future, they can accept more risk through greater exposure to higher-return assets, such as stocks.

To insulate a portfolio from unexpected inflation risk, you may employ some combination of stocks, short-term fixed income, and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) with both strategies. Let’s consider each of these:

Stocks
Stocks have provided a positive inflation-adjusted return over the long term. From 1926 through 2008, the total US stock market, as measured by the CRSP 1-10 Index, outpaced inflation by an average of 6.16% per year.1 To achieve this higher expected real return in stocks, however, an investor had to accept more risk, as measured by greater volatility in returns, and endure some periods when stocks did not outpace inflation. As a result, stocks may be less effective for hedging short-term inflation and more suitable for investors who want to beat long-term inflation by earning a higher total return.

Some investors assume that high inflation leads to lower stock market performance, while low inflation fuels higher stock returns. In reality, inflation is just one of many factors driving stock performance. US market history since 1926 shows that nominal annual stock returns are unrelated to inflation.

Fixed Income (Bonds)
Higher inflation can hurt bondholders in two ways—through falling bond market values triggered by rising interest rates, and through erosion in the real value of interest payments and principal at maturity. This inflation exposure tends to impact the prices of long-term bonds more than those of short-term bonds, and investors can mitigate the effects of rising interest rates by holding shorter-term instruments.

Many types of investors may benefit from holding short-term bonds. When interest rates are climbing, a portfolio with shorter-term maturities enables an investor to more frequently roll over principal at a higher interest rate. This can help inflation-sensitive investors keep up with short-term inflation and enable total return investors to reduce portfolio volatility, which can lead to higher compounded returns and growth of real wealth.

Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS)
Issued by the US government, TIPS are fixed income securities whose principal is adjusted to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). When the CPI rises, the principal increases, which results in higher interest payments. At maturity, you receive the greater of the inflation-adjusted or original principal. The inflation provision enables TIPS to preserve real purchasing power and hedge against unexpected inflation.

TIPS are generally a good short-term inflation hedge since principal is adjusted for changes in the CPI. They are also a good portfolio diversifier for some long-term investors due to their negative correlation with equities and relatively low correlation with most types of fixed income assets. TIPS were introduced in 1997, so these correlations are based on a relatively short sample period.

However, keep in mind that TIPS prices also have been affected by changes in real interest rates, so TIPS may not track inflation one-to-one in the short term or over longer periods of time. In fact, TIPS can lose market value if real interest rates increase.

Commodities
Commodity futures, as well as oil and gold (which is now being pitched on every TV channel on the dial), are perceived as effective inflation hedges because their returns are positively correlated with inflation. But commodities are more volatile than stocks, and their returns do not always rise with inflation because of this significant volatility. So adding these assets to a portfolio may increase real return volatility, which could offset the benefits of hedging.

You should also consider the economic argument against holding commodities. Unlike stocks, commodity futures do not generate earnings or create business value. They are essentially a speculative bet in which there is a winner and loser at the end of each trade. Moreover, a broad-based stock portfolio already has significant commodity exposure through ownership of companies involved in energy, mining, agriculture, natural resources, and refined products.

Summary
While the media have featured divergent opinions and theories about the effects of recent government actions on inflation, no one really knows how consumer prices will respond to the complex forces at work in the economy and markets. You should carefully review your financial circumstances and investment goals before making changes to your portfolio.

As you assess your exposure to a high-inflation scenario and form a strategy that reflects your financial goals and risk tolerance, consider that:

• Expected inflation is built into asset prices. In our view, markets efficiently integrate all known information into prices. Thus, current prices already reflect expectations of future inflation. Only unexpected news will affect the inflation outlook.

• Hedging unexpected inflation has a cost. Investments traditionally regarded as effective short-term inflation hedges have lower historical returns than stocks—and some have much higher volatility.

• Volatility matters. Evaluating assets solely on their ability to track inflation disregards the effect of volatility on returns and risk. Some assets that are positively correlated with inflation have large return variances, and adding these to a stock and bond portfolio may increase overall volatility.

Even with the prospect for higher inflation, investors who take a total return approach may be better served than those who choose assets based on correlation with the CPI. By choosing assets with higher expected long-term returns and maintaining broad diversification, investors can seek to grow real wealth and preserve the purchasing power of their dollars.

_____________________________________________
Endnotes
1 Real return calculation:  (1+CRSP 1-10 Index return)/(1 + US CPI)-1. The CRSP 1-10 Index is a market capitalization weighted index of all stocks listed on the NYSE, Amex, NASDAQ, and NYSE Arca stock exchanges. CRSP data provided by the Center for Research in Security Prices, University of Chicago.

Disclosures
Inflation is typically defined as the change in the non-seasonally adjusted, all-items Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban consumers. CPI data are available from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Stock is the capital raised by a corporation through the issue of shares entitling holders to an ownership interest of the corporation. Treasury securities are negotiable debt issued by the United States Department of the Treasury. They are backed by the government’s full faith and credit and are exempt from state and local taxes.

CRSP is a non-profit center that also functions as a vendor of historical data. CRSP end-of-day historical data covers roughly 26,500 stocks, both active and inactive. OTC bulletin board stocks are not included.

The indices are not available for direct investment; therefore, their performance does not reflect the expenses associated with the management of an actual portfolio. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, and there is always the risk that an investor may lose money.

Diversification neither assures a profit nor guarantees against loss in a declining market.

The information presented above was prepared by Dimensional Fund Advisors, a non-affiliated third party.

by Bob Veres

All of a sudden, it seems like everybody in the financial planning world is talking about Roth IRAs and Roth conversions.  In fact, an article in Financial Planning magazine–one of the trade magazines in our world–recently proclaimed 2010 “The Year of the Roth.”

What’s the big deal?  Roth IRAs are interesting to professionals for several reasons.  With traditional IRAs (and qualified plans like 401(k)s), the money goes in untaxed, and you pay ordinary income taxes whenever you take money out of the account–which might be years in the future.  The Roth reverses this; your contribution is made with after-tax dollars, but then there’s no tax whenever the money is distributed.  If you believe, as many financial professionals do, that tax rates are going to go up in the future, then paying taxes now and eliminating future taxes provides a net gain.

It could get better.  Having money in a Roth account gives you a lot more control over your tax bracket in retirement.  For instance, you might take out just enough from your IRA distributions to fill the 15% bracket, and then take the rest of your living expenses out of your taxable accounts and Roth.  Another version of this kind of planning might help higher-income retirees avoid the brackets where Social Security income is taxed.

Another interesting thing about Roths is that, unlike traditional IRAs, they don’t have any minimum distribution requirements once you turn age 70 1/2.  So long as the money remains in the account, both Roths and traditional IRAs give you the benefits of tax deferral, which eliminates a significant drag on the growth of your money.  If you can afford to keep your money in the Roth account, and take retirement income from other sources, then the deferral can go on longer.

Alas, the Roth account will still be subject to estate taxes, and your heirs (not your spouse) will have to take required distributions each year once they inherit your Roth account.  But they won’t have to pay taxes on the distributions they receive–a nice additional gift for your children or grandchildren.

In the past, the only people who could set up a Roth IRA were those with less than $100,000 in taxable income, which eliminated a lot of the taxpayers who would benefit the most from all these features.  But now, as of January 1, anybody can open up a Roth IRA.  Most of the conversation in professional circles is about Roth conversions; that is, converting the money in your IRA to a Roth or taking a rollover distribution from a company retirement plan directly into a new Roth that you set up.

Should you do this?  Unfortunately, that’s a complicated question, since any money moving from a traditional retirement account to a Roth requires you to pay taxes on the money in the traditional account.  Some of that can be deferred; with any conversion that takes place in 2010, the tax obligation can be split between the 2011 and 2012 tax returns, which represents a (very) short-term loan from the IRS.  So professional advisors are looking at individual situations, looking for portfolio losses that can be used to offset the tax burden, projecting tax brackets over the next three years and a host of other issues, including how long each person will have the money in the Roth account, and where the money to pay the taxes will come from.  (If you have to pay the taxes out of the IRA, then you lose the value of future deferral–not good.)

Another issue is: Do we trust Congress to keep its promise not to tax Roth distributions in the future?  Few of us ever expected to pay taxes on Social Security payments.

Fortunately, the law allows for partial Roth conversions–moving some of the money over, rather than all of it–and also lets you reverse the conversion (professionals call it a recharacterization) any time before October 15 of the year after the conversion.  All of this means that the conversion decision, and the amount to convert, will probably be different for you than it is for the person next door, whose decision will be different from the family down the street.

Meanwhile, you have to wonder how alert are the people who write our tax laws.  Under the current rules, single persons earning more than $105,000, and joint filers over $167,000, are sternly prohibited from making a full contribution to their Roth account.  If you earn more than $120,000 (single) or $177,000 (joint), you’re forbidden to make them at all.

But…  People in these income brackets are perfectly free to make a traditional IRA contribution–and the law says they can immediately turn around and convert the money into a Roth account.  Does that make sense to you?

Forbes magazine reports on a collosal failure at Wal-Mart to put their employees first in the administration of their 401(k) plan. Who is the big winner? Merrill Lynch, who else? This is how Wall Street works. I hope this is a wake up call to many Americans who are being fleeced by the likes of Merrill Lynch in their retirement plans. I encourage you to take a good look at your plan, find out how much is being paid from your assets compared to what you could get it for – if employee benefit is on the top of the list rather than broker benefit.

For the whole Forbes story go to Wal-Mart 401(k) Pays Retail

To view this video presentation go to Behavioral Biases