By Mark Ford

I consider myself to be an expert of sorts on retirement. Not because I’ve studied the subject, but because I’ve retired three times.

Yes, I’m a three-time failure at retiring. But I’ve learned from my mistakes. Today, I’d like to tell you about the worst mistake retirees make.

It’s a common mistake… Yet, I’ve never heard it mentioned by retirement experts. Nor have I read a word about it in retirement books…

The biggest mistake retired people make is giving up all their active income.

When I say active income, I mean the money you make through your labor or through a business you own. Passive income refers to the income you get from Social Security, a pension, or from a retirement account. You can increase your active income by working more. But the only way you can increase your passive income is by getting higher rates of return on your investment.

When you give up your active income, two bad things happen:

First, your connection to your active income is cut off. With every month that passes, it becomes more difficult to get it back.

Second, your ability to make smart investment decisions drops because of your dependence on passive income.

Retirement is a wonderful idea: put a portion of your income into an investment account for 40 years and then withdraw from it for the rest of your life. Once you retire, you won’t have to work anymore. Instead, you will fill your days with fun activities: traveling, golfing, going to the movies, and visiting the kids and grandkids.

But consider this: A retirement lifestyle for two, like the one I described above, would cost about $75,000 a year, or $100,000 before taxes.

How big of a retirement account do you need to fund that?

Let’s assume that you and your spouse could count on $25,000 a year from Social Security and another $25,000 from a pension plan (two big “ifs”). To earn the $50,000 balance in the safest way possible (from a savings account), you’d need about $5 million, because savings accounts only pay 1% right now.

If you were willing to take a bit more risk and invest in tax-free municipal bonds (this is the safety level I like), you’d need about $1.25 million, assuming you could get 4% interest.

But middle-class American couples my age are trying to retire with an account in the $250,000 to $300,000 range. And that’s where the trouble begins. To achieve an annual return of $50,000 on $300,000, you’d need to make 17% a year.

Getting 17% consistently over, say, 20 years may not be impossible, but it’s very risky – too risky for my tastes.

I retired for the first time when I was 39. I put my money into ultra-safe municipal bonds. I soon realized, however, that to maintain the lifestyle I wanted, I would have to get a greater return on my investments – I would have to take greater risks with my money by investing in stocks. But when I studied the history of yearly stock market performance, I came to the conclusion that I couldn’t confidently expect to get the return I needed, year after year.

So what did I do? I went back to work.

I went back to earning an active income because I didn’t want to spend my days studying the market and my evenings worrying about my investments. And do you know what happened? The moment I started earning money again, I started to feel better.

Retirement isn’t supposed to be filled with money worries. And yet, that is exactly what you will get if you try to get above-par returns on your investments.

As I write this, millions of Americans my age are quitting their jobs and selling their businesses. They are reading financial magazines and subscribing to newsletters. They are hoping to find a stock selection system that will give them the 30% and 40% returns they need. But they will soon find out that such systems don’t exist. They will have good months and bad years, and they will compensate for those bad years by taking on more risk. The situation will go from bad to worse.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Let’s go back to the example of the couple with the $300,000 retirement fund and the $100,000-a-year retirement dream. To generate the $50,000 they need, they would have to earn about 17% a year in stocks. As I said, that is highly improbable. But if they each earned only $15,000 in active income, they would need a return of only about 7% on their retirement account, which is doable.

There are many ways for a retired person to earn a part-time, active income. You could do some consulting, start your own Web business, or earn money doing any sort of purposeful work.

I am not saying that you should give up on the idea of retirement. On the contrary, I’m saying that retirement might be more possible than you think.

But you must replace the old, defective idea that retirement means living off passive income only. Paint a new mental picture of what retirement can be: a life free from financial worry that includes lots of travel, fun, and leisure, funded in part by active income from doing some sort of meaningful work.

The first benefit of including an active income in your retirement planning is that you will be able to generate more money when you need to. But the other benefit – the one that no one talks about – is that it will allow you to make wiser investment decisions because you won’t be a slave to your investments.

BOSTON (AP) — Relief to seniors facing high prescription drug costs is one of the first changes to come under the health care overhaul. But that won’t offset the relentless increase in retirees’ medical expenses. A couple retiring this year will need a quarter of a million dollars, on average, to cover medical expenses in retirement, according to a study to be
released Thursday by Fidelity Investments.

The estimate is up 4.2% from Fidelity’s projection last year. The financial services company has updated its estimate annually since 2002 as part of its business helping employers design workplace benefits programs.  The study is based on projections for a couple of 65-year-olds retiring this year with Medicare coverage. The estimate factors in the federal
program’s premiums, co-payments and deductibles, as well as out-of-pocket prescription costs. The study assumes no employer provided insurance in retirement, and a life expectancy of 85 for women and 82 for men.

The estimate has risen 56% from Fidelity’s initial $160,000 projection in 2002. The average annual increase has been 5.7%, so this year’s 4.2% rise — from $240,000 last year to $250,000 — is modest.  But with broader inflation near zero amid a recession, health care costs continue to rise faster than other expenses, said Sunit Patel, a senior vice president at Fidelity.

The findings illustrate the importance of factoring in health care alongside housing, food and other expenses in retirement planning. “It turns out to be a surprise for many, and one of the largest expenses in retirement,” Patel said. The increase in this year’s estimate was relatively small because a surge in patent expirations for brand-name drugs meant many cheaper generic versions reached the market, Patel said. That helped limit out-of-pocket prescription costs.

Fidelity’s estimate doesn’t factor in most dental services, or long-term care, such as costs from living in a nursing home. A 2008 study by Fidelity estimated a 65-year-old couple would need $85,000 on average to cover insurance costs for
long-term care in retirement. Thursday’s study also didn’t account for the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday. Fidelity was updating its 2010 estimate before legislative details were clear, Patel said.

The law’s focus is expanding access to people under age 65. But it also would benefit many retirees by gradually closing what’s known as the “doughnut hole” coverage gap in the Medicare drug benefit. Seniors fall into that hole once they spend $2,830 per year. The legislation would begin narrowing the gap by providing a $250 rebate this year. The gap would be fully closed by 2020, when seniors would still be responsible for 25% of the cost of their medications until Medicare’s catastrophic coverage kicks in.

Patel said the gap’s closure is likely to yield only a “very modest” reduction to Fidelity’s $250,000 number.

As people move into their 50s and 60s, priorities change. The hours spent on home improvements and the sheer time necessary to maintain a full-sized home seem to be a little more of a burden. As kids move on, there’s all that unneeded space.

Men and women tend to turn on the gas in the last 15-20 years of their working lives to make sure their retirement savings will be adequate to their needs. That’s why the idea of downsizing is a good one to start early. It’s also a good time for a financial check-up as well.

A CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ professional may not be able to help you sort out what dishes and furniture to sell or give away, but he or she would make a good first stop in developing a complete downsizing strategy involving assets, investments, career and overall financial lifestyle planning. With life expectancies lengthening, many people 50-55 years of age could conceivably be at only the midpoint of their lives.

What is the chief advantage to downsizing? Handled correctly, it can save a lot of money. Selling a larger home – possibly one that still has a mortgage – in favor of a smaller house or condo that’s completely paid off can save potentially tens of thousands of dollars in interest payments over time while still building equity. The earlier the process starts, the better.

Here’s a checklist of considerations in downsizing your life:

Get advice first: As mentioned, downsizing should be a holistic process, a chance for a check-up of your overall finances while identifying things, expenses and habits in your life that you can jettison. A CFP^® professional can give you a push by asking important questions that will get you to a better place financially. It’s helpful to set up a plan to extinguish debt in all of its forms and move on to a check-up of savings, investments and estate matters.

Downsize potential health issues: No matter what the final effect of health reform on pocketbook issues, your out-of-pocket and premium-based health costs over time will be cheaper if you take steps to better maintain your health. Make weight and other personal health maintenance issues a new priority as you move into your pre-retirement years.

Plan for a retire-career: You might be working for a company or organization that has a mandatory retirement age or you have a year in mind when it might finally be time to pack up and go. And there’s nothing wrong with a retirement devoted to travel and leisure activities. But if you think you won’t be able to afford to quit working completely or if doing nothing will eventually drive you nuts, consider getting some career counseling, personality testing and do some research now that will help you train for a new full- or part-time career for after you retire from your present job.

Start thinking about real estate and new places to live: Today’s retirees don’t necessarily have to move to predictable retirement destinations. Telecommuting allows many people to continue working lives and education from anywhere. For many people, the magic combination might involve cheaper real estate, desired weather and activities, travel options and access to good doctors and quality health care facilities. Decide what kind of home you could see yourself living comfortably in at age 70 or 80. This combination of factors might happen in a surprisingly large number of places based on individual preference. To get you thinking and hone your expectations, start with resources like U.S. News & World Report’s online “Best Places to Retire” selection tools.

Talk to your family: It’s really important to discuss not only your expectations for later in life with your family members, but it’s important to get their feedback on what they consider good ideas for you. There may come a day when you need to rely on others for help, and it would be a good idea to identify how realistic that is. Also, if you’re talking about downsizing certain assets or property that might have been in your family a long time, it’s important to discuss that with others who might be affected by that decision.

Start weeding: Physical downsizing isn’t something that’s done in a month. Give yourself a year to go through each room in your home and prioritize what you’re really going to need if you move to a smaller place. Make a list of what you hope to give to friends and family members and what you’ll donate or trash. Time will give you more opportunities to put good, usable items in the hands of people who could really use them. Develop a recordkeeping system that fits you so you won’t forget any decisions you’ve made along the way. Also, you might want to set up a separate area for family photos and other keepsakes that have high emotional value and set up a hopefully egalitarian system for who will get what either when you move or when you die.

Don’t start upsizing later: When you do move, chances are you will need to invest in some new household items or possibly furniture to match new surroundings. Try to avoid going overboard with this – that’s why thoughtful downsizing should prevent a lot of spending for stuff you’ve already chucked. Oh, and make a permanent life decision if possible not to start re-using credit cards or mortgage debt if you can possibly avoid it in your later years.

March  2010 — This column is produced by the Financial Planning Association, the membership organization for the financial planning community, and is provided by Martin V. Higgins, CFP, CLU, AEP, a local member of FPA.

By Mark Colgan, CFP

By definition taxes are a fee charged by the government on a product, income, or activity to support public prosperity. This is assuming you are talking about monetary taxes. There is, however, an even heavier burden people often contend with. It is the devastation of personal legacy taxes. By definition personal legacy taxes are the negative consequences survivors face as a result of an individual dying without having properly documented her/her values, life lessons, memories and final wishes. If you have ever experienced the loss of a loved one you would likely agree that the absence of this vital information is emotionally taxing.

Before I expand on my concept of personal legacy planning, let me first let me clarify that I am not talking about common estate planning. As you know, estate planning traditionally addresses your material assets and possessions of financial value, and your wishes for how they will be disbursed in the event you should pass away or cannot communicate for yourself. Estate planning is accomplished with tools such as a legal will, trusts, powers of attorney, health care proxies, etc.

Your true wealth, however, is not measured in just dollars and material assets ― and that is where legacy planning comes in. Personal legacy planning addresses your non-material assets, possessions of emotional value. This includes your values, life lessons, memories, and final wishes ― information that is too valuable to risk being lost. It is a perfect complement to your estate plan.

Let’s get more specific. A couple of years ago Bob, a client of mine, called and told me that he had terminal cancer. He wanted to proactively document everything he could think of (both personal and practical) that would be beneficial to his wife. He had already taken care of his estate plan and made sure she was okay financially ― but he was more concerned about her emotional well-being and her ability to move forward after he died.

When I told him about our legacy planning solution, he was relieved. He was able to document practical information about things such as his funeral arrangements, maintaining the household, his plans for the kids, and the location of important documents. He was also delighted to share important personal messages such as thoughts about how and why he loved his wife, favorite memories about their family vacations to Florida, his views on religion, and other philosophical thoughts that he felt could positively impact future generations. The legacy planning process helped Bob gain clarity and confidence that everything that mattered to him would be passed on to those he loved.

Imagine the peace of mind Bob had, knowing that instead of a tangled web of unanswered questions, his loved ones would have all the information they would need and long for.

The absence of a carefully planned legacy leaves loved ones with an impending tax that will burden their soul. Recently, I had a heartfelt discussion on this topic with a professional acquaintance of mine Russell Friedman. Russell is the Executive Director of The Grief Recovery Institute frequently cited grief expert and author of several books related to grief recovery. According to Russell, “Grief is difficult enough without complications, but having interacted with thousands of grievers, I have learned that the absence of a carefully planned legacy leaves them with financial and emotional distress which compounds their grief

exponentially. The real tragedy here, beyond the loss of a loved one, is that these issues are totally avoidable. All you need to do is take the time and energy to prepare a well thought‐out legacy plan.”

Don’t let your fear stop you from doing what you need to do. Here’s what happens if you don’t plan your legacy.

1) Those you leave behind, when burdened by financial challenges and unanswered questions, will often bury their grief in an attempt to survive.

2) Distracted from their natural need to deal with their grief, the grief stays hidden, and since time can’t heal emotional wounds, it gets worse, not better.

3) The loved ones you leave behind won’t know how you really felt about them – I know, you tell them every day, but it is not the same thing.

4) Your loved ones won’t know where to find the vital documents they need to carry out your wishes – you’ll unintentionally leave behind a mess.

5) It can potentially cause incredible rifts between family members leaving emotional holes that can never be filled.

6) You won’t have the opportunity to have these discussions now, while you are still able to see what a powerful impact they can have on the people you love the most.

7) Your legacy will die with you. Your great-grandchildren and other future descendents will only have empty photographs and presumptions about who you were.

Don’t leave your loved ones with a legacy of pain because you didn’t take the time to put together your legacy plan. And don’t put it off because you are young, in good health or have a crazy schedule. It doesn’t matter how old you are, or how healthy you are. Every day the news is filled with tragic stories of young and healthy people whose lives ended suddenly. And while we would all like to believe “it will never happen to me,” the only way to ensure your loved ones are protected is to act now and plan your legacy.

By Ron Lieber

Annuities: The official retirement vehicle of the Obama administration.

As slogans go, it’s hardly “Keep Hope Alive,” or even “Change We Can Believe In.”

But there were annuities, in a report from the administration’s Middle Class Task Force that came out this week. They are among the tools the administration is promoting as it tries to give Americans a better shot at a more secure retirement.

At its simplest, which is how the White House seems to want to keep it, an annuity is something you buy with a large pile of cash in exchange for a monthly check for the rest of your life.

If the biggest risk in retirement is running out of money, an annuity can help guarantee that you won’t. In effect, it allows you to buy the pension that your employer has probably stopped offering, and it can help pick up where Social Security leaves off.

President Obama did not discuss annuities in his State of the Union address on Wednesday night, probably figuring that viewers had enough problems staying awake. But the mere mention of them by the task force was enough to send executives at the insurance companies that sell the products into paroxysms of glee.

“I never thought I’d have the president as a wholesaler for us,” said Christopher O. Blunt, executive vice president of retirement income security at the New York Life Insurance Company. “This is awesome. I’m trying to see if I can get him to do a big broker meeting for us.”

He’s unlikely to turn up for such an event just yet. After all, the announcement from the White House did make it clear that the administration was looking to promote “annuities and other forms of guaranteed lifetime income.” That suggests the administration is open to other solutions, though there are not many others that are as simple as the basic fixed immediate annuity (also known as a single premium immediate annuity) that delivers a regular check for life.

Still, all of this attention from the president is a stunning turn of events for a rather unloved product. Many consumers reflexively run in fear when salesmen turn up pitching high-cost and complex variable annuities, which evolved from their simpler siblings decades ago. Today, the Securities and Exchange Commission maintains an extensive warning document on its Web site for investors considering the variable variety.

Meanwhile, almost all employees on the precipice of retirement who have access to annuities as a payout option steer clear when their companies offer them. While various surveys show that roughly 15 to 25 percent of corporations offer annuities to workers who are retiring, including big employers like I.B.M., a 2009 Hewitt Associates study reported that just 1 percent of workers actually bought one.

“I joke sometimes that we’re the best ice hockey players in Ecuador,” said Mr. Blunt of New York Life, which sells more fixed annuities than any other company, according to Limra, a research firm that tracks the industry.

So what are these soon-to-be retirees so afraid of? And what makes the White House so sure it can change their minds?

Let’s start with the fears. Early on, the knock on annuities was that once you died, the money was gone. So let’s say a 65-year-old man in Illinois turned over $100,000 in exchange for $632 a month for life, a recent quote from immediateannuities.com. If he died at 67, his heirs would get nothing while he would have collected only about $15,000. (On the other hand, it would take him until age 78 to get $100,000 back, but that doesn’t take inflation into account.)

The industry solved this by coming up with variations on the policy, allowing people to include a spouse in the annuity or guarantee that payouts to beneficiaries would last at least 10 or 20 years. This costs extra, of course, meaning your monthly payment is lower.

Others worried about inflation, so now there are annuities whose payments rise a few percentage points each year or are pegged to the Consumer Price Index. These cost extra, too (often a lot extra).

You see the pattern here. Every time someone had an objection — the need for a bunch of payments at once, a lump sum in an emergency or concern about rising interest rates — the industry created a rider to add to policies to make the concern go away (and make the monthly payment smaller).

Besides, people need to have saved enough to purchase a decent monthly annuity payout in the first place. But plenty of retirees haven’t been saving in a 401(k) or individual retirement account long enough to have a good-size lump sum.

There are also stockbrokers and financial planners standing in the way. Once money goes into an annuity, they can’t earn commissions from trading it anymore and may not be able to charge fees for managing it. Financial advisers have a charming term for this phenomenon — annuicide. You insure, and their revenue dies. So, many of them will try to talk you out of it.

One reasonable point they might make is that insurance companies can die, leaving your annuity worthless. State guaranty agencies exist, but they may cover only $100,000 to $500,000. I’ve linked to a list of the agencies in the Web version of this column so you can see what they insure.

Even if you get over all these mental hurdles, however, the hardest one may be the difficulty of seeing a big number suddenly turn small.

“It’s the wealth illusion, the sense that my 401(k) account balance is the largest wad of dollars I’ll ever see in my lifetime, and I feel pretty good about having that,” said J. Mark Iwry, senior adviser to the secretary and deputy assistant secretary for retirement and health policy for the Treasury Department. “Meanwhile, I feel pretty bad about the seemingly small amount of annuity income that large balance would purchase and about the prospect of handing it over to an entity that will keep it all if I’m hit by the proverbial bus after walking out of their office.” So how might the Obama administration solve this? It could get behind a Senate bill that would require retirement plan administrators to give account holders an annual estimate of what sort of annuity check their savings would buy. That way, people would get used to thinking about their lump sum as a monthly stream.

Tax incentives could help, too. A recent House bill called for waiving 50 percent of the taxes on the first $10,000 in annuity payouts each year. “If this is behavior that the administration is trying to inspire, then it’s not that long of a leap to think that maybe they’ll start to promote some version of these bills,” said Craig Hemke, president of BuyaPension.com, which sells basic annuities (and offers some good educational material for people who are trying to learn about the products).

Mr. Iwry, who is one of the intellectual architects of the administration’s examination of annuities, wouldn’t say much about what might happen next. But one paper he co-wrote two years ago suggests a clue.

As the treatise suggests, the administration could nudge employers into automatically depositing, say, half of new retirees’ lump sums into a basic annuity or other lifetime income product, unless they opt out. Then, they could test the thing out for two years and see how that monthly paycheck felt. If they liked it, they could keep the annuity. If not, they could cancel it without penalty and get the rest of their money back.

Annuities won’t be right for everyone (people in poor health should probably steer clear). And they’re not right for everything because it rarely makes sense to put all of your money in a single product or investment.

You could, for instance, use an annuity to cover the basic expenses that your Social Security check doesn’t cover. You might also use the money to buy long-term care insurance, which would keep nursing home bills from becoming a budget-destroyer.

But the president has one thing right: The basic annuity is almost certainly underused. Sure, you may be able to arrange a better income stream on your own, but not without a lot of help from a financial planner or a lot of time managing it yourself. Then there’s the possibility, however small, that you’ll spend too much in spite of yourself or run into a once-in-a-generation market event that will cause you to run out of money sooner than you expected.

All of that makes basic annuities the ultimate test of risk aversion. If you buy some, you and your heirs may have less money than if you’d kept your retirement savings in investments. Then again, if you guarantee enough of your retirement income, you — and those same heirs — won’t have to worry about how you’re going to meet your basic needs.

Ron Lieber writes the Your Money column, which appears in The Times on Saturdays.
A version of this article appeared in print on January 30, 2010, on page B1 of the New York edition.

“The Number,” a book written by Lee Eisenberg several years ago, generated enough buzz that it became a reference point in financial planning circles. Maybe he should write a sequel called “Life Goals.”

According to the recent Merrill Lynch Affluent Insights Quarterly survey, 51% of retired respondents said if they had the chance to do it again, they’d have focused more on “life goals” and less on “the numbers” associated with reaching a specific nest egg dollar amount in retirement planning.

That said, the other 49% said they’d still focus on the dollar amount, not the life goals.

Among the “life goals” crowd, 38% said they’d have spent more time on how they wanted to live in retirement. In addition, 8% said they’d have created a better plan to support their charitable intentions.

As for “the numbers” group, 23% said they wished they started working with a financial advisor earlier in life and 18% said they would’ve jettisoned more luxuries to help them reach their retirement goals.

The survey, which was conducted in December by Braun Research for Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management division, also indicated lifestyle changes made by respondents as a result of the recent economic downturn.

Among the findings: 48% said they were cutting energy costs; 38% were more aware of daily and short-term cash flow; 30% were vacationing less; 29% were cutting back on golf, skiing and other recreational activities; and 16% were delaying home improvements and other capital expenditures.


Even as the economy begins its slow crawl back, college costs are continuing to rise – that means parents are continuing to fight a tough battle between funding college and funding their own retirements.

In October, the College Board reported that the average published price of tuition and fees for in-state students at four-year U.S. public colleges was $7,020 for the 2009-10 school year, up $429 or 6.5 percent higher than a year ago. After adjusting for inflation, the average net price paid for tuition and fees by public four-year college students overall is lower in 2009-10 than it was five years ago — but higher than it was last year. Private four-year colleges saw a smaller increase of 4.4 percent or $1,096, but for a much higher average annual tuition of $26,273 for the school year.

Also in October, the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) and the Investment Company Institute (ICI) also reported in October that American workers who held 401(k) accounts consistently from 2003 through 2008 suffered a 24.3 percent average drop in their account balance during 2008’s bear market.

Despite these huge challenges, it’s particularly important for parents to make retirement their first priority – kids can always take on loans and search for scholarship and grant funding to tide them over. Parents can offer help in a better economy, but the momentum lost in saving for retirement is much tougher to replace. But not so fast.

There are serious financial consequences to breaking into 401 (k) and other tax- advantaged retirement savings, and parents tempted to do so should look for other alternatives. A July 2007 Country Insurance and Financial Services survey found not only that 25 percent of respondents thought it would cost less than $50,000 to send a child to a four-year college (on average, public schools have surpassed that when you add room and board), but that nearly half believe that saving for college is more important than their retirement, which most qualified experts advise against.

Before you pick between yourself and your child by raiding your retirement accounts, here’s what you should know:

You’ll escape an early distribution penalty, but…

Any withdrawals from an IRA you might take for your child or grandchild’s education (as well as your own or your spouse’s) can be withdrawn without the usual 10 percent penalty on early distributions before age 59 ½. But you really need to talk with a tax advisor or a personal finance expert like a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER ™ professional to determine whether your IRA withdrawals will have to be reported on your Form 1040.

You might hurt your kid’s chances for financial aid:

The entire withdrawal from an IRA — whether taxable or not — must be included as income on the following year’s application for the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA. Family income does more to influence financial aid than the size of the family’s assets, and dipping into your IRA can potentially damage your child’s potential financial aid. Check with a trained financial planner expert in financial aid strategy before you make a move.

Don’t even consider a ‘hardship withdrawal’ from a 401 (k) plan:

Earlier this year, the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies reported an increase in workers taking loans from their 401(k) and other work-based retirement savings. Eighteen percent of those surveyed reported they took loans from their retirement plans in 2007 compared to 11 percent in 2006. Yet keep in mind that while most plans provide an option for hardship withdrawal for emergency medical or funeral expenses, the IRS restricts use of those funds for home purchases or tuition expenses.

So what do you do? Besides talking to a tax professional, it makes sense to find time to speak with a CFP^® professional to take a look at your overall financial situation so you can possibly find alternatives to raiding your retirement. A trained planner can help you look over all the spending, saving and investment decisions you’ve made so far and seal up the leaks – then you can discover whether you have smarter options to pay your child’s tuition. They include:

Starting a search for scholarships and grants with your kid:

See if there are grants and scholarships not only in your community, but also within your industry. Understand what a prospective student’s college choices might offer in terms of aid from its endowment. Also, some employers offer scholarships for their employees’ kids. Start searching online, at the office and by phone for such aid.

Fine-tuning your negotiating skills:

Parents need to become more aggressive about negotiating tuition, room, and board at colleges where either they or their children have been accepted. A financial planner with expertise in college planning can train parents to understand where those savings might be against the student’s qualifications for getting into the program of their choice.

December 2009 — This column is produced by the Financial Planning Association, the membership organization for the financial planning community, and is provided by Martin V Higgins, CFP, CLU, AEP, a local member of FPA.

A May survey by Hewitt Associates noted that despite record losses in their 401(k) savings in 2008, individuals stuck with their 401(k) plans. However, more people dealt with their worry about investment conditions by shifting money into more conservative investments. In addition, a significant number of companies either eliminated or cut back significantly on matching employee 401(k) contributions.

Hewitt’s annual Universe Benchmarks study, which examines the saving and investment behaviors of more than 2.7 million employees eligible for 401(k) plans, showed that the average 401(k) balance dropped from $79,600 in 2007 to $57,200 at the end of 2008. 44 percent of employees lost 30 percent or more of their savings. Only 11 percent of employees were able to break even or see a gain in their 401(k) portfolios. Even still, 74 percent of employees participated in their 401(k) plans in 2008, about the same as in 2007.

However, the Hewitt survey stated that some workers are reacting to the market downfall by moving 401(k) assets into less risky investment funds to try and blunt their losses. In 2008, 19.6 percent of investors made trades in their 401(k) plans versus 18.7 percent in 2007. And the volume of money they transferred in 2008 was much higher. Nine of the 10 most active trading days were the day after a large downturn in the market, or days with an average return of negative 4 percent. Employees’ average equity exposure dropped to just 59 percent in 2008—which is an all-time low since Hewitt began tracking it in 1997. Stable-value funds, which are considered less risky investments, experienced an 11 percent increase in asset allocation in 2008.

That’s why it might be wise for investors to get a fresh start with 401(k) advice as the economy improves. For existing investors or those who have never begun to save or invest for retirement, it might be time to consult both financial and tax experts such as a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ professional to make sure both personal and work-related retirement savings complement each other.

Some recommendations to keep in mind:

Save even if your company fails to match: This is not the easiest thing to do, but even if your company cuts back on matching, it’s important to try and put additional money into personal retirement investments outside of work. You will still realize the benefit of pre-tax contributions made to your traditional 401(k). And, when you have money automatically taken from your paycheck you are “dollar cost averaging”. That means the fixed dollar amount that comes from your paycheck buys more shares when prices are low, and fewer when prices are high. Thus your average cost per share is lower than the average price per share.

Make sure you contribute to a plan: According to 2006 data from the Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America, more than 22 percent of eligible workers don’t participate in available 401(k) plans. For the companies that are still matching, that’s like giving up free money.

Continue to save while you wait to join a plan: A significant number of companies don’t let you join the 401(k) until you’ve been working there a year. If that’s the case, get in the habit of putting money away for retirement anyway. Start an individual IRA with the funds you would put in the company plan, or set aside money in a savings account so you can supplement your cash flow and put the maximum amount into your 401(k) once you’re allowed to join.

Contribute the maximum: Not every employee can afford to contribute the maximum allowed by the plan, but try. In 2009, the maximum 401(k) contribution will be $16,500, and those older than 50 can make an additional catch-up contribution of $5,000.

Don’t let your company do all the work: More companies are automatically enrolling their workers in their 401(k) plans, but some workers fail to take charge afterward. They don’t know how much they’re allowed to contribute and they don’t discuss or review the types of investments they have in relation to their age or retirement plans. It might make sense to bring an outside investment advisor such as a CFP^® professional to review those choices with you.

Avoid poor diversification over time: It’s necessary to do a yearly checkup on all your retirement savings – 401(k) s, individual IRAs and other investments fueling your retirement goals to make sure you’re on track.

Don’t rely on the 401(k) alone: Particularly if matching lags for awhile, 401(k) plans can’t be relied upon as a single source of retirement dollars. You must invest outside your company plans.

Don’t over-invest in company stock: Most financial planners advise that you put no more than 15 to 20 percent of your whole 401(k) portfolio in company stock.

Don’t borrow from the 401(k): The Employee Benefit Research Institute® reports that employees contribute more to plans that let them borrow. Don’t be fooled. A 401(k) shouldn’t be a house fund or a source of emergency cash. You’re taking money out of the account that otherwise would grow tax-deferred, and if you fail to pay back the money, you could face income taxes and penalties. Instead, build an outside emergency fund of three to six months of living expenses you can draw from.

Don’t cash out: Some workers think it’s a great idea to treat a 401(k) as a windfall for when they quit a job. Don’t do it. You’ll pay huge penalties and lose your retirement savings momentum.

Don’t “lose” your old 401(k) accounts: Maybe you’ve changed jobs several times and never got around to moving older, smaller 401(k) accounts from past employers to current ones or into a self-directed retirement account. Always get advice about 401(k) funds when you leave an employer.

September 2009 — This column is produced by the Financial Planning Association, the membership organization for the financial planning community, and is provided by Martin V.Higgins, CFP, CLU, AEP, a local member of FPA.

• The IRS offers a 3-year window in 2010 to pay taxes on a Roth conversion.
• The IRS is letting tax payments on a conversion to be made in 2011 and 2012.
• Figuring out the tax due on a Roth conversion is not that complicated.If you have funds in an individual retirement account, converting them into a Roth IRA in 2010 presents an unprecedented opportunity to sock away tax-free retirement income.

The IRS is even offering taxpayers a three-year window in 2010 to pay taxes due on a conversion and is removing income limits that have kept higher-income taxpayers from setting up Roth IRAs.

Many taxpayers have been able to convert their traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs since Roth IRAs were created in 1998. However, income limits and other restrictions have kept many taxpayers from converting. If their modified gross income is more than $100,000, they haven’t been able to convert. But in 2010, they’ll get their first opportunity.

You don’t have to wait until then if your  modified adjusted gross income — your income minus certain deductions — is less than $100,000 and, if married, you file as “married filing jointly.” You could convert in 2009. However, to take advantage of special tax breaks offered only after Jan. 1, it may make sense to hold off, says Brent Lindell, a certified trust and financial adviser with Savant Capital Management in Rockford, Ill.

Roth IRAs differ from traditional IRAs in several crucial ways. While you don’t get a tax deduction for making a contribution to a Roth IRA, those contributions you may not have to pay any tax upon withdrawal in retirement. In addition, Roth IRAs aren’t subject to the same minimum distribution requirements that traditional IRAs are, so you don’t have to begin withdrawals from your Roth IRA at age 70½.

And because most retirement accounts took a heavy beating in the stock market in 2007 and 2008 and still haven’t recovered, the taxes due on a conversion are less than they would be had the market risen, making the case for conversion even more compelling, says Dave Sadler, a certified public accountant and Certified Financial Planner with Moneta Group, a wealth management firm in St. Louis.

If that’s not enough, the IRS is allowing taxpayers a one-time opportunity to spread out the payment of taxes due on a Roth conversion in 2010 over 2011 and 2012.

Taxes are due on a Roth conversion because you get a tax deduction on your initial contributions to most traditional IRAs, so you must pay the taxes due on those initial contributions and any growth in your IRA. Your tax bill on conversion also depends on a number of other factors, including your income, your federal tax bracket and your state tax rate.

Roth IRA conversions don’t make sense for everyone, but it’s worth investigating to decide whether it makes sense for you.

“The issue comes down to what your tax situation is in the year of conversion versus what it might be in retirement,” Sadler says.

“It’s a hard thing to know for sure, but I would say it makes the most sense for younger taxpayers who will have their income grow over time,” he says.

7 steps to a Roth IRA conversion

1. Evaluate your IRA and 401(k).
2. Seek advice if you’re unsure.
3. Weigh financial and tax factors.
4. Calculate the potential tax due.
5. Decide when to pay the tax bill.
6. Consider when to convert.
7. Fill out conversion paperwork.

Step 1: Evaluate your IRA and 401(k)

First, you need to get a handle on what assets you’ve got that are eligible for conversion into a Roth. Generally, any assets that you hold in a traditional IRA, whether they are deductible or nondeductible, are eligible. Nondeductible IRA contributions are not taxed when you make a conversion, although earnings from those contributions are taxed.

If you have a 401(k) or 403(b) from a former employer, you may want to roll them into an IRA this year so they will be eligible for rollover along with your other IRA assets. It’s a two-step process, first you roll over your old 401(k)s and 403(b)s into a traditional IRA. Then, you convert the traditional IRA to a Roth. That’s where the tax is due.

The higher the balance in your IRA or IRAs, the higher your tax bill will be if you convert. However, if you invested aggressively in the stock market and your account value is still down from two years ago, you won’t owe as much in taxes as you would have if the account total had been higher, Lindell says.

Under IRS rules, you have to consider the entire value of all of your IRAs when converting and figuring taxes on the conversion, if you have nondeductible IRA contributions.

“(In that instance,) even if you don’t want to convert the entire balance of all of your IRA accounts, whatever percentage you want to convert has to include assets from all of your IRA accounts,” Lindell says.

For example, if you have four traditional IRAs worth $100,000 and those accounts included nondeductible contributions, but you only want to convert $50,000 of those assets (all from one IRA), the IRS won’t allow you to convert only the assets that lost money. You have to take assets from all of your IRAs, not just the losing ones.

Step 2: Seek advice if you’re unsure

If you are considering conversion but are too confused to attempt it on your own, there are lots of places to find help, including the financial services firm that is the custodian of your IRA, or your tax professional or financial adviser.

If you don’t work with a tax professional, get a referral to a reputable local firm. Many offer consultations on these issues for free, says Jim Ciocia, a certified public accountant and chairman at Gilman Ciocia Inc., a tax and financial planning firm in Tampa, Fla. Make sure any advice you get is specific to your situation, he adds.

Step 3: Weigh financial and tax factors

For many taxpayers, the decision to convert is highly individual. How old you are and your present tax bracket all factor in.

“An important factor in deciding whether to convert is considering how much time you have before you retire and will potentially need to use the money,” Ciocia says.

The higher your tax bracket, the more tax you will have to pay on conversion. But if you expect taxes to go up in the long term, conversion makes sense because you may have to pay a higher tax rate in retirement than you expect now, Ciocia says. If you convert, you’ll have a tax-free source of retirement income along with any taxable source of income, such as a traditional IRA, 401(k) or 403(b).

As Ciocia puts it, “Would you rather pay taxes when you plant the seeds or harvest the crop?” In other words, you likely would pay less in taxes on a $5,000 Roth IRA contribution than you would if you had left the money in a traditional IRA and it grew to $34,242 after 25 years of tax-free growth at 8 percent.

In that example, even at a low 15 percent tax rate, your taxes would be $5,136.30 if you left the money in a traditional IRA — far higher than what you will pay now on a $5,000 conversion to a Roth.

Step 4: Calculate the potential tax due

Figuring out the tax due on conversion is not that complicated. Basically, you owe federal and state taxes on your contributions and any gains, meaning the entire value of your IRA, unless you made nondeductible contributions. If you made nondeductible contributions, you would subtract those from your current total IRA account balances to come up with the amount that will be taxed.

Here’s an example:

You’ll still get a break in when you pay your taxes. Using the above example, with $12,000 in federal taxes due, you wouldn’t have to pay any of that in 2010; you’ll owe $6,000 in 2011 and another $6,000 in 2012.

Step 5: Decide when to pay the tax bill

There are a few other issues to consider when deciding whether to pay the tax due immediately after conversion — if you can afford to — or defer it.

“Whether you want to pay the taxes in 2010 or spread it out over the next two years depends on how consistent your tax situation is,” Sadler says. “If you’re a W-2 employee and don’t have any capital gains or other types of holdings that might create surprises along the way, … you aren’t likely to see a huge tax increase. So I would think deferring those taxes over a two-year period would make sense.”

Many tax advisers agree that for a Roth conversion to make sense, you should be able to pay taxes from your income or another source, not from funds taken from your IRA.

“If you’re thinking about cashing in part of your IRA to pay the tax bill on it, forget it,” Savant Capital’s Lindell says. “You’re defeated already.”

That’s because you’ll have to pay interest and penalties on any IRA funds you remove from your account to pay taxes. Paying the taxes from your IRA account also will reduce your balance and your ultimate nest egg when you retire, he adds.

Step 6: Consider when to convert

The earliest you can convert if you want to take advantage of the two-year tax deferral is Jan. 1, 2010, if your income is currently over the $100,000 limit and/or you plan to file as “married, filing separately.” If your income isn’t over the limit and you can afford to pay the tax now, there’s no reason to wait, especially if your traditional IRA dropped in value. If it appreciates between now and Jan. 1, your taxes in conversion will be higher, says Ciocia of Gilman Ciocia.

For many taxpayers, it makes sense to convert as early in 2010 as possible to gain as much possible from the tax-free growth that a Roth offers. However, if you’re unsure of what your income will be and what tax bracket you’ll be in, it makes sense to wait until the second half of 2010 to get a better handle on the tax consequences, says Sadler.

And don’t forget, there are no income limits beginning in 2010. So if you wait to convert, you can do it regardless of your income.

Step 7: Fill out conversion paperwork

The conversion paperwork isn’t that complicated. If you have made nondeductible contributions to your IRA, you will need to know how much you contributed in nondeductible contributions, which you can find in your income tax forms on Form 8606, Nondeductible IRAs.

You’ll need to let the custodian of your IRA — the mutual fund, bank or other financial services company that holds your account — know certain information, including:

• How you want your converted assets invested.
• Whether you will pay the taxes due yourself or want the custodian to withhold the amount from the IRA’s assets to pay them.
• Who you want to name as a beneficiary to receive the money upon your death.

By Amy E. Buttell • Bankrate.com

Amy E. Buttell is a frequent contributor to Bankrate.com, Interest.com and Better Investing Magazine. From her home base in Erie, Pa., she is studying accounting and financial planning with the goal of earning the certified public accountant and certified financial planner designations.

A fast-growing generation of elderly people, needing care, is starting to put a great deal of pressure on caregiving family members. More and more we are seeing articles and books about the burden of long term care on families.

According to research By the National Care Planning Council, only about 16% of long-term care services are covered by the government. The other 84% are provided free of charge by family caregivers or provided by services paid out-of-pocket by families or from those receiving care. And the bulk of government care services are provided only after a care recipient has depleted all of his or her savings. The Council also estimates that at any given time approximately 22% of the population over age 65 is receiving some form of long term care support. About 44.4 million adult caregivers provide 21 hours a week of care with 4.3 years average time spent providing care. “National Care Planning Council”

Dilemma of Finding Eldercare Services
The need for care usually occurs without warning, when a stroke, heart failure or other medical condition or illness incident to age suddenly happens to an aging senior. Family members end up in panic mode trying to understand and educate themselves on what needs to be done and what resources are available. If they need to take time from work to handle the crisis then it becomes urgent to find answers and solve caregiving needs. The need to balance work with urgent caregiving responsibilities creates untold stress on employed family caregivers.

Most family caregivers simply don’t know where to turn for help and advice.
Long term care services are complicated and provider contacts are fragmented throughout the community. For the majority of Americans, eldercare becomes a frustrating do-it-yourself process. How do you find out what government services are available and what they will pay for? What legal documents are necessary and how do you protect assets? What type of home care or facility care is needed? Should you quit your job to become the caregiver? Will the government or insurance pay you for caregiving to help replace your lost income?

The question often arises as to whether to use long term care professionals or go it alone in arranging care and services.

“Using care professionals is the most cost effective and efficient way to provide help for a loved one. Hiring professional advisers or providers to help with long term care is no different than using professionals to help with other complex issues such as car repairs, dealing with taxes, dealing with legal problems, or needing trained employees to help run a business. With their education and training, long term care professionals also bring experience that only comes from dealing with countless hands- on caregiving challenges”. “The 4 Steps of Long Term Care Planning”

One Central Source for Locating Help and Advice
The National Care Planning Council recognizes the need for family caregivers to educate themselves and find the needed resources and professional help quickly.

To fill the need for caregivers nationwide, the National Care Planning Council web site “Long Term Care Link”, was developed as a comprehensive resource for long term care planning. There are hundreds of pages containing articles on long term care covering all aspects of caregiving and care services. Books are also available on how to plan for long term care and how to apply for your veterans benefits for long term care. NCPC books

If you are looking for government and community resources, there are lists with applicable website links. Some of those lists include National and State Area Agency on Aging Services, Senior Centers and Veterans Service Offices.

There are over 100 links to websites filled with reference materials. For example; the Gerontological Society of America, National Nursing Home Survey, Elder Law Answers, Senior Corps.

Find Eldercare Professional Service Providers in Your Area
The National Care Planning Council lists eldercare specialists and advisers who help families deal with the crisis and burden of long term care. These specialists can be found under the services category lists like the ones below, on the website. Each professional is listed under the State and area in the State that he or she services. A caregiver can go to the National Care Planning Council website and find someone in the area of need and read about the services of the listed company, individual or facility. Website visitors needing help can then call, email or fill in a request form to receive contact from a listed provider.

Listing categories on the website include the following specific services.

• Care Management, Guardianship, Conservatorship and Dispute Resolution
• Non-Medical Home Care
• Home Health Agency – Medicare-Covered Home Care and Hospice
• Home Maintenance, Deep Cleaning, Remodeling and Yard Work
• Veterans Benefits — Consultant for the Aid and Attendance Pension Benefit
• Geriatric Health Care Practitioner or House Call Doctor
• Reverse Mortgage Specialist
• Elder Law Advice and Medicaid Advice
• Estate Planning, Tax Planning, Trust Management Services and End-Of-Life Planning
• Care Facility or New Home Search, Relocation, Downsizing and Real Estate Services
• Adult Day Care Services
• Insurance Products, Retirement Planning and Financial Advice
• Funeral & Burial Preplanning

THE NATIONAL CARE PLANNING COUNCIL INTRODUCES
ITS STATE CARE PLANNING COUNCIL WEBSITES

A state care planning council is an informal statewide alliance of eldercare specialists and advisers that helps families deal with the crisis and burden of long term care. When you go to your state care planning website, your search for help is right in your neighborhood.

Purpose of the State Care Planning Council

1. Educate the public on the need for care planning before a crisis occurs.
2. Provide, under one source, a list of providers representing most of the available
3. government and private services for eldercare.
4. Offer a trusted team of providers and advisers that the public will recognize in their area and can turn to for expert help in dealing with the challenges of long term care.

One Stop Shopping for Eldercare Services
State Care Planning Council websites offer a closer-to-home option for finding help and services to solve caregiving problems. Many of the local service providers work together as a team to help meet specific eldercare needs of the individual.

For example:
Tim and Debra, both in their late 80’s, were adamant about staying in their home. Both were taking medications and were mobile with walkers. Their daughter, Julie was concerned about their safety in the home, especially with avoiding hazardous falls, bathing and preparing meals. Tim insisted he could drive his car, even though he was a hazard on the road. Julie had taken the car keys and therefore faced an argument every time she went to their home.

Lately, Julie noticed that the required medications were not being taken. Tim was a diabetic and required monitoring with his insulin and diet. Julie ordered “Meals on Wheels” which her mother quickly canceled. Frustrated at having no cooperation from her parents, Julie realized she needed outside help.

Checking the internet for resources in her area, she found the name of a Professional Care Manager in her area listed on her State Care Planning Council website. Jackie — the professional care manager and family dispute professional — had worked many times with families like Julie and her parents.

A meeting was arranged where all parties to the caregiving were involved. Tim expressed that he did not want to give up his freedom driving to the store or other places he liked to go. Jackie suggested selling the car and using the money to pay a taxi or community transit. She arranged for Tim to see a geriatric physician to get his diet under control for his diabetes. Some in-home help with bathing, meal preparation and medication reminders was arranged by having a local non-medical home care company come in daily. Jackie gave Julie explicit instructions on how to organize the house to help prevent falls. To pay for the extra expense, Jackie introduced a reverse mortgage broker who explained how their home equity– on a risk-free basis –could provide the money they needed for their care.

Every service provider or adviser Jackie brought in worked side-by-side with her on the state care planning council. Jackie knew they could provide the needed help with expertise and integrity.

Julie found that using professionals gave her peace of mind and confidence that her parents’ care was in good hands.

The State Care Planning councils are just starting to grow and be populated with professional service providers throughout the Untied States. Like the National, the State websites are filled with resource material and articles for the public use.

Locate a State Care Planning Council at http://www.longtermcarelink.net/a15state_councils.htm