Quite Possibly The Worst 401k Idea Ever

In The News...

After dropping off our daughter at day care this week I stopped by Walgreens to refill a prescription. There was just one problem...

The pharmacy didn't open until 9am.

I was not going to wait an hour so I continued on to the office. As I sat in traffic on Highway-99 I thought: there must be a better way. Six hours later, the solution has arrived.

Dr. Amazon: The Seattle logistics giant reported quarterly earnings on Thursday, which included news that Amazon has acquired pharmaceutical licenses to distribute wholesale prescription drugs in 12 states. This implies being able to order prescriptions and have them delivered right to your doorstep. On the earnings call Amazon was coy about its pharmaceutical intentions, but I assume their plans will disrupt the industry and spell trouble for the likes of Walgreens and CVS. Additionally, the move into health care introduces potentially millions of Baby Boomers to Amazon.

The worst 401k idea ever: In an effort to balance their tax reform package, Republicans have apparently discussed reducing the 401k contribution limit from the current $18,000 per-year to a fraction of that, reportedly $2,400 per-year. Their logic: If workers put less into their 401k plans, which provides tax-deferral, they will be forced to pay more in current income taxes year to year.

This is true. It is also incredibly stupid.

A 401k plan is as much about providing a vehicle that encourages good retirement savings behavior as it is about postponing taxes on contributions. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not save enough for retirement. I know this because I am in the trenches. I routinely see situations where people could save more and should save more, but do not. Most Americans consume what they do not save and it would be naive to think that those lost 401k contributions would seamlessly get funneled elsewhere (though we would do our best to help). Maybe the alternative will be the "MyRA" savings vehicle that President Obama unveiled in a State Of The Union speech a few years back. Remember that? Exactly, because it was a poorly engineered idea and has since been phased out.

If the 401k contribution cap is somehow cut by 86% ($15,600), I would likely advise most of you to scrap your 401k contributions and max-out a Traditional IRA instead. The maximum IRA contribution right now is $5,500 per-year ($6,500 if over age 50). For comparison, your employer would have to match 130% of your 401k contributions just to break-even with the IRA cap!

(max 401k contribution of $2,400) + ($2,400 x 130%) = $5,500

The good news is that this proposal appears to be dead-on-arrival, wisely shot down by President Trump (though it hasn't gone away completely). But the fact it was even muttered outside of a group brainstorm has me worried about whoever is in charge of tax reform.

In The Market...

The S&P 500 climbed +0.2% this past week. Let's look under the hood:

View fullsize

(price data via stockcharts.com)

This was a bumpier week for stocks than we have seen in a couple months, which is what I had said I expected in last week's blog. The S&P 500 was higher by week's end, but not before falling more than -1% midweek. The S&P extended its weekly winning streak to seven, which is rare territory.

While the 10 sectors were largely split between gainers and losers, this was a net-positive week for stocks, in my view. I do still think we'll see some flattening out in the weeks ahead, but it was good to see buyers step in and "buy the dip" (ourselves included) when stocks started to fade.

Earnings season seems to have lured buyers back into the fold too, particularly across the big tech names like Google, Facebook and Microsoft. Technology was the runaway winner, up +2.4% weekly. This was nice to see considering most client accounts owned the tech-sector fund (XLK) or the comparable Nasdaq-100 fund (QQQ) -- the former being tech-exclusive and the latter being tech-heavy. We sold XLK off Friday's gains. I still like the long-term outlook for technology but selling made sense in the near-term based on my analysis. This resulted in a nice gain for accounts that owned it.

In Our Opinion...

Have you ever heard a financial professional say that investing is about removing emotion?

I would hope so, because I have said it before. But that statement needs to be tweaked. Investing is about limiting emotion, not removing it. It is impossible to totally remove emotion when deciding when to invest, what to invest in or if it is time to sell. Here are a few examples:

1. Loving your company too much. As a result, many people own a disproportionately high amount of company shares relative to other investments (primarily through their 401k plan, exercised stock options or restricted stock).
2. Believing the market is "due to correct". Just because you think the market cannot continue at this pace means nothing. If you think we are on the brink of World War III or that the market is rigged, to each their own. But such sentiments are usually rooted in emotion, not rational analysis.
3. Being quick to buy a falling stock or sell a rising one. I often say there is a reason an investment is rising or falling and you typically want to be on that side of the trend.
4. Holding an investment due to special meaning. I see this often when investors hold a certain stock simply because a family member owned it for years. There is implicit confidence because someone you trust owned it. This is poor reasoning, in a vacuum, because the world changes so much generation to generation.

You may work for a great company, especially around Seattle or the Bay Area. But do you truly know both how your company will perform in the future as well as how investors will react to that performance? The answers are maybe and no.

Now, it is ironic in a sense. If you are heavily weighted in company stock it is probably due, in part, to company success. But at some point it makes sense to find some balance and diversify away from that one stock. I'm not saying sell everything or even sell the majority, but put down the kool-aid for a moment and assess the investment risk.

If you believe the market is going to fall or crash, why is that? Fear that we will see a repeat of 2008? Your political views? Anything can happen but it could be a long wait.

Just for fun, let's say it isn't. Let's say the market drops -10% tomorrow. Would you buy then? If not, how much would the market have to fall before you buy? If you are determined to wait until the next recession passes, you have to be right not once but twice. You first have to be right about the market falling in the near future. You then have to identify when the recovery begins, which could take weeks or months. Easier said than done, especially if your rationale stems from emotion rather than a disciplined investment process.

I would be lying if I said emotion never creeps into my decision-making process when choosing investments to buy or sell. But it is a fraction of thought as compared to leaning on our statistics-driven investment process.

In Our Portfolios...

View fullsize

Q&A/Financial Planning...

If you own an IRA or 401k and are approaching age 70, here are three letters to know: RMD.

RMD stands for "Required Minimum Distribution". It is the amount you must withdraw from your tax-deferred retirement accounts each year once you turn age 70 1/2 (don't ask why the half year applies -- the IRS is weird). The RMD rules are the government's way of saying that you have delayed paying taxes for too long and now must start recognizing your savings as taxable income.

How RMDs work: To keep it simple, you look up your age on one of two charts provided by the IRS. Your age will correlate to a "life expectancy factor" that you divide into the cumulative value of your tax-deferred 401k's and IRAs. The resulting figure is what you are required to withdraw and recognize as ordinary income in your tax return. Each year thereafter you look up your age and divide the new factor into your overall account balance. This life expectancy factor declines as you age past 70 because presumably your account balance is falling each year that you withdraw more and more funds.

The first year is unique! Take special notice when you turn 70.5 years old. Whenever that is, your first RMD must be taken by April 1st of the following year. Every year thereafter your RMD must be taken by Dec. 31st.

Why is the first RMD deadline April 1st rather than Dec. 31st? Likely because most people are unaware of the RMD laws so the IRS gives you a break in that first year. However, it gets a bit more complicated. Not only must you take that first RMD by April 1st, you must take the second RMD by Dec. 31 of that same year. Year 1 is the only year subject to taking two, separate RMD amounts.

Let's work through a quick example. Let's assume you turned age 70.5 on July 12, 2017. Here are the deadlines for taking your first few RMDs:

Year 1, taken by April 1, 2018 = (Balance on Dec. 31, 2016) / (Factor for age 70)
Year 2, taken by Dec 31, 2018 = (Balance on Dec. 31, 2017) / (Factor for age 71)
Year 3, taken by Dec 31, 2019 = (Balance on Dec. 31, 2018) / (Factor for age 72)
Year 4, taken by Dec 31, 2020 = (Balance on Dec. 31, 2019) / (Factor for age 73)

Note that this requires you to go back and look at what your account balance was at the previous year-end. If you need help calculating this, let me know.

What if I don't take my full RMD? This is where the IRS cleans up... You are penalized 50% of whatever amount you did not take but were supposed to take. So.... let's say your RMD is $10,000 and for whatever reason you only withdraw $2,000. The $8,000 missed RMD is penalized 50%, which means an additional $4,000 tax penalty! Now you see why the RMD rules are a big deal.

Can I avoid taking RMDs? The best way to avoid taking RMDs is to convert a portion (or all) of your tax-deferred funds into Roth IRA funds prior to age 70. RMD rules do not apply to Roth IRAs. Of course, whatever balance you convert to a Roth IRA must be recognized as income, so you are still paying Uncle Sam one way or another. However, by not being subject to RMDs it is less administrative hassle during retirement and it also means future tax-free growth because that is the biggest perk provided by a Roth IRA.

I often recommend doing Roth IRA conversions in chunks by doing a series of them as you near age 70. This spreads out the tax burden over multiple years. Or even better, if you anticipate a year or two where your household income will be unusually low, that would be a good time to convert to a Roth IRA because your income tax rate would be lower than normal.

Can I apply IRA withdrawals made prior to age 70 toward future RMDs? No.

Say I am 72 years old and I take MORE than my stated RMD for the year. Can I apply the excess amount toward next year's RMD? No.

What's New With Us?

Unfortunately we do not get any trick-or-treaters on our street, which I think is due to being on a steep hill. But we will be dressing up and going to a Halloween party this weekend.

Have a great weekend!

Brian E Betz, CFP®
Principal