Roth conversions: My original purpose in buying Pralana was to explore conversions, and after analysis my conclusion is that they are not worth it for me. That is true even with our tax bracket doubling from 12% to 24% after I die. Part of this is due to our plan to use QRCs charity to offset some of the RMD, but most of it is it just isn't worth it in the 12% bracket even if you go 22% towards the end. I was surprised to see Pralana not recommending conversions even if we didn't use QRCs.
Did you check manually in Pralana to see if conversions to the start of LTCG taxes were worth it during the window after ACA and before SS benefits? Converting to the top of the 12% bracket would include some conversions that are also causing qualified dividends/LTCGs to be taxed, that creates a zone where you would be taxed at 27% (12% regular taxes on the conversion and another 15% since the conversion pushes the MAGI above the threshold for LTCG taxes). Once SS benefits start, it's even harder to justify conversions as the benefits take up low tax space and even small conversions may increase taxes on SS benefits.
I thought I was so smart in placing most of my stocks in taxable. About three quarters of all my stocks are in my Taxable account, and they have a huge unrealized capital gain. The unintended effect is I've not rebalanced at all the last few years (which has given me both too much US stock, and too many stocks in general). Since I am on ACA through 2030 when I go on Medicare, I've not wanted to raise my income even at the 0% ltcg rate.
You probably were smart to put stocks in taxable. With the expiration of the COVID era ACA subsidies, the 4XFPL cliff is a big hurdle.
Pralana models some of this, but doesn't allow me to do tax gain harvest vs conversions vs ACA.
I keep thinking that gain harvesting would be simple to implement in the program, since by definition it is only done to the point where it would impact taxes. Perhaps the issue is that it isn't feasible until they get the current year taxation for unscheduled withdrawals figured out.
Roth conversions:
Roth conversions: My original purpose in buying Pralana was to explore conversions, and after analysis my conclusion is that they are not worth it for me. That is true even with our tax bracket doubling from 12% to 24% after I die. Part of this is due to our plan to use QRCs charity to offset some of the RMD, but most of it is it just isn't worth it in the 12% bracket even if you go 22% towards the end. I was surprised to see Pralana not recommending conversions even if we didn't use QRCs.
Did you check manually in Pralana to see if conversions to the start of LTCG taxes were worth it during the window after ACA and before SS benefits? Converting to the top of the 12% bracket would include some conversions that are also causing qualified dividends/LTCGs to be taxed, that creates a zone where you would be taxed at 27% (12% regular taxes on the conversion and another 15% since the conversion pushes the MAGI above the threshold for LTCG taxes). Once SS benefits start, it's even harder to justify conversions as the benefits take up low tax space and even small conversions may increase taxes on SS benefits.
@Ricke, I didn't check manually; but did run the routine conversions analysis for both "after ACA" (ie, 2030) and "starting now" (ie, 2026). Is something slipping through the cracks? (I am showing the "effective" results at 12%, but the graph looks virtually the same without that checkbox.)
Here's the conversion graph parameters set to start at 2030 (after I'm on Medicare, but wife still on ACA):
Here's starting 2026, no restrictions:
Here's starting 2030 with no QCDs:
For all of these scenarios Pralana is showing much lower taxes but still a slight net loss from any type of conversions.
Is there something slipping through the cracks that would come out if I entered conversions manually?
Asset Location:
I thought I was so smart in placing most of my stocks in taxable. About three quarters of all my stocks are in my Taxable account, and they have a huge unrealized capital gain. The unintended effect is I've not rebalanced at all the last few years (which has given me both too much US stock, and too many stocks in general). Since I am on ACA through 2030 when I go on Medicare, I've not wanted to raise my income even at the 0% ltcg rate.
You probably were smart to put stocks in taxable. With the expiration of the COVID era ACA subsidies, the 4XFPL cliff is a big hurdle.
I think once I get out of the ACA-MAGI-trap, I will be able to do opportunistic gain harvesting at 0%. (I'm low enough income IRMAA isn't a huge factor.) But I'll need to explore that outside of Pralana I think?
I think once I get out of the ACA-MAGI-trap, I will be able to do opportunistic gain harvesting at 0%. (I'm low enough income IRMAA isn't a huge factor.) But I'll need to explore that outside of Pralana I think?
I've discussed the implementation of gain harvesting with Charlie. I'm hopeful that if he and Stuart gets the same year taxation of LTCGs figured out, that gains harvesting would be relatively straightforward. My thinking is that by definition, folks only harvest gains if it does not affect their taxes, so the program could simply reduce the unrealized LTCGs by the gap between the MAGI and a short list of income limits like the start of LTCG taxes or the start of SS benefit taxes. But like a lot of things about taxes, it may not be so simple.
Until then, you could do it manually (with effort). Let's say you have $1M in taxable with $300K in unrealized gains and have an opportunity to gain harvest $30K. You figure out how much you would have to sell to create that much gain (since you have room to harvest 30/300 =10% of the gains, you sell 10% of the account, so $100K). You use the Scheduled Withdrawal table and transfer that much from Taxable to "Out of Plan". Then use the Build-Income-Windfall and enter the same amount coming in, leaving the box unchecked that would make it taxable.
...all of these scenarios Pralana is showing much lower taxes [With Roth Conversions]
The taxes are lower with Conversions simply because Roth Conversions pay them sooner, so the taxes don't have time to grow. But since everything is based on exponential growth, Conversions can only make you money if the tax rates will be higher if paid later or if the conversions reduce various forms of tax drag in taxable enough to overcome future lower rates. Generally the tax drag effects are enough to overcome several percentage points of tax rate and will be more powerful than gain harvesting, so I'm not sure why you are not seeing that if you set the limit on Roth Conversions to be "No LTCG Tax". Perhaps it is the age difference, by the time your wife is done with ACA, you are on Social Security, so maybe Roth Conversions are subjecting more of your benefits to taxation.
Hi @jkandell,
I’ve spent some time reviewing your "Safety First" retirement model. It’s an impressively disciplined plan—especially the way you’ve separated "Essentials" (Liability-Matched Portfolio) from "Discretionary" (Risk Portfolio).
Based on your notes, here are five areas I think are worth a deeper look:
1. Challenging the "Lifetime" TIPS Ladder A 45-year TIPS ladder is a bet that the U.S. stock market will fail to provide a positive real return over nearly half a century. Historically, that has never happened. Since 1950, the market is "underwater" in real terms only about 35-40% of the time.
- Suggestion: Consider a "Rolling 10-Year Ladder." This covers you through almost any historical bear market/recovery cycle. By the time the 10 year bond ladder is used up, equities have historically had a near-100% probability of being higher in real terms. Buying a 45-year ladder has a very high opportunity cost and may be "over-insuring". A 10-year rolling ladder can provide the "bridge" needed to outlast any historical market recovery period without locking up 45 years of cash in low-yield paper. If you want lifetime coverage, keep your eyes open to evaluate purchasing an inflation-adjusted annuity whenever they become available on the US market again. They should be a less expensive alternative to a lifetime TIPS bond ladder because annuities offer longevity insurance and price in discounts for mortality credits.
2. Overly Conservative Discretionary Asset Allocation Since your Essential Expenses + "Dignity Floor" is 100% secured by SS, Pensions, and TIPS, your discretionary bucket has a massive "risk capacity." However, your 60-70% AA and 3.1% discount rate suggests you are invested quite conservatively here in your discretionary bucket too.
- Suggestion: If the "essentials" are truly covered, then your discretionary bucket can afford to be 80–100% equities. This maximizes the legacy for your son or the impact of your charitable giving. If that bucket is 60/40 or 70/30, you are essentially paying for "bear-market insurance" twice. You are being conservative in your "safe" asset bucket AND your"risk" asset bucket, which leads to significant under-performance over a 45-year retirement
3. Bear Market Plan Because you are implementing a conservative liability-matching strategy, you have a unique mathematical advantage: your lifestyle is already "insured" against a market crash.
- Suggestion: Consider explicitly making a "Tranche-Based Equity Glidepath" part of your plan, using the 30-40% "ballast" within your Discretionary Bucket to buy additional equities in tranches if the market drops 20%, 30%, or 40%. If you decide to make Roth conversions part of your basic plan, then also accelerate Roth conversions during bear markets/recoveries.
4. The LTC "Wildcard" and Housing Equity Your $200k PV for Long Term Care is lean but reasonable if you view selling your home as the backstop.
- Suggestion: Since you plan to downsize or rent, that $340k in home equity is actually your most potent LTC insurance policy. Try modeling a "Home Sale at age 80" in Pralana to see how that liquidity spike offsets the 10th percentile LTC risk.
5. Roth Conversion Logic You noted that Pralana isn't recommending conversions, but for a surviving spouse (who will eventually file as "Single" and lose the 12% bracket), the Roth can be a lifeline. Check to confirm that the software is A) unconstrained and free to suggest large up-front conversions, and B) Pralana is modeling your lifetime spending as a fixed value between optimization trials. I like to switch the spending strategy from "actuarial spending" to "specified expenses" when calculating Roth conversions for this reason, with total expenses based on the affordable expenses determined through consumption smoothing.
Best regards,
K
I've discussed the implementation of gain harvesting with Charlie. I'm hopeful that if he and Stuart gets the same year taxation of LTCGs figured out, that gains harvesting would be relatively straightforward. My thinking is that by definition, folks only harvest gains if it does not affect their taxes, so the program could simply reduce the unrealized LTCGs by the gap between the MAGI and a short list of income limits like the start of LTCG taxes or the start of SS benefit taxes. But like a lot of things about taxes, it may not be so simple.
In my mind the harvesting optimizer would look very much like the Roth optimizer. But it would perform gain harvesting by rote up to the next bracket (and then adjust other funds to maintain AA). You'd still have to compare the results to the roth optimizer, and if you wanted to "mix and match" you'd still need to do scheduled withdrawals. But at least you'd get a sense of which strategy was more productive.
Charlie implemented a suggestion of mine for this very purpose some time ago: you can transfer scheduled withdrawal from Taxable to Taxable. Behind the scenes Pralana adjusts the basis. Easier, no? See manual https://pralana.online/static/prc_manual/prc_manual.714b657734b7.html#using-scheduled-withdrawals-for-ltcg-harvesting-taxable-taxable
...all of these scenarios Pralana is showing much lower taxes [With Roth Conversions]The taxes are lower with Conversions simply because Roth Conversions pay them sooner, so the taxes don't have time to grow. But since everything is based on exponential growth, Conversions can only make you money if the tax rates will be higher if paid later or if the conversions reduce various forms of tax drag in taxable enough to overcome future lower rates. Generally the tax drag effects are enough to overcome several percentage points of tax rate and will be more powerful than gain harvesting, so I'm not sure why you are not seeing that if you set the limit on Roth Conversions to be "No LTCG Tax". Perhaps it is the age difference, by the time your wife is done with ACA, you are on Social Security, so maybe Roth Conversions are subjecting more of your benefits to taxation.
The previous conversions analyses I posted above didn't have any restrictions.
Following your suggest, I re-ran the comparison with "No LTCG" parameter:
This time I got:
Conversions with no restrictions, starting 2030 (after ACA):
Conversions, LTCG=0%, starting 2030:
So that does do better, but still only 3.6% better than no conversions at all-- not enough to take that risk in my book.
So that does do better, but still only 3.6% better than no conversions at all-- not enough to take that risk in my book.
Not sure I followed. With your actual unrealized gains, I would think that conversions to No LTCG Tax is the most likely to be profitable. I would not use % of the total portfolio as a way to measure (other than whether it's positive or negative), since the only money that is changing around is the converted funds and the only money "at risk" is the taxes that you are paying early on that, so it is naturally going to be a small percentage of the portfolio.
I prefer to look at the size of the improvement vs. the size of the conversion. My own preference is to have the even the weakest conversion improve the final estate value by 10% of the converted amount (if you are paying taxes at 12%, then as a percent of the pre-paid taxes, that's 0.1/0.12=83%, not too shabby at all). However, since you are thinking of giving much of your money to charity, the best money to donate is money that's never been taxed, and that would mean that conversions may not be aligned with your life goals.
Not sure I followed. With your actual unrealized gains, I would think that conversions to No LTCG Tax is the most likely to be profitable. I would not use % of the total portfolio as a way to measure (other than whether it's positive or negative), since the only money that is changing around is the converted funds and the only money "at risk" is the taxes that you are paying early on that, so it is naturally going to be a small percentage of the portfolio.
I prefer to look at the size of the improvement vs. the size of the conversion. My own preference is to have the even the weakest conversion improve the final estate value by 10% of the converted amount (if you are paying taxes at 12%, then as a percent of the pre-paid taxes, that's 0.1/0.12=83%, not too shabby at all). However, since you are thinking of giving much of your money to charity, the best money to donate is money that's never been taxed, and that would mean that conversions may not be aligned with your life goals.
That was a good tip Rick: by setting my parameters for conversions to "LTCG=0%" I forced the "best case". I am surprised this didn't show up without me forcing the constraint: the default (no constraints) conversions produced a lower benefit-- for reasons unknown. (I naively thought unconstrained was by definition the "best case". Is it not?)
In judging conversions I use a cruder method than you: if I have to strain to see a difference in the before-and-after lines, it ain't worth it. 🙂 After all, conversions are somewhat of a pain, and they involve giving up a known benefit now for an only potential benefit much later. There are a lot of "ifs" that have to occur for the benefit to materialize. The benefits are clear for many (most?) Pralana users; but not necessarily me.
Joking aside, my actual method of comparing (conversions or anything else) is to use consumption smoothing to see how a conversions would affect my yearly discretionary allowance. The deterministic difference (which probably overstates the benefit) is
No QCDs: Conversions give me $856 more a year out of $98,206 base allowance. (0.1%)
With QCDs: Conversions give me $826 more a year out of $91,478 base allowance. (0.1%).
But you understand conversions much better than I, Rick, so I am quite possibly missing something. And your own contrasting threshold for conversions (size of the improvement vs. the size of the conversion) raises an interesting question we don't discuss here much: When is the results of a conversion analysis worth actualizing?
For those using a safety first approach here is something to ponder:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/secret-investing-formula-experts-really-133000025.html
If you’re approaching retirement, you or your financial advisor may be frequently stress-testing your portfolio for a 2008-style drawdown in the stock market. But when Ben Carlson, a portfolio manager at Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC, took a look at the actual data, he found something surprising.
“Bear markets and crashes are rare,” he wrote in a 2022 report for A Wealth of Common Sense (1). In fact, his data suggests that a truly catastrophic crash is so rare that many retirees might not live to see one in their golden years. And even if they do, their losses could be limited.
The first step is to figure out your personal risk tolerance. How much of your net worth can you afford to lose before it has a material impact on your annual withdrawals and retirement lifestyle? Once you have that percentage in mind, divide it by the ratio of equities allocation in your portfolio to figure out how much the stock market will need to crash before hitting your personal threshold of pain.
For example, let’s say you’re 60 years old, retired and have a portfolio that consists of 60% stocks and 40% fixed income securities. You believe your risk tolerance is limited to a maximum of 30% — which means your net worth would have to drop 30% or more for you to cut back on your lifestyle or make other sacrifices.
Here’s the secret formula that you can apply: risk tolerance ÷ equity exposure = implied stock market decline. In terms of the numbers mentioned above, the formula would become 30% ÷ 60% = 50%.
In other words, you would have to experience a massive 50% drawdown in the stock market — a once-in-a-generation event — before you may have to make adjustments to your retirement plans. Stock market corrections of a smaller magnitude may be more frequent, but given your risk tolerance, you can likely sail through these smaller storms.
The beauty of this formula is that it hinges on your personal preference and unique financial circumstances. So, if your appetite for volatility is much lower than what was mentioned above, you could consider slashing your equity exposure for some peace of mind. Alternatively, if your risk tolerance is significantly higher, you may have more room to maneuver with asset allocation.
Unlike the pundits on TV and social media, this approach is grounded in real data, as well as your personal situation. That should give you more peace of mind, which could potentially allow you to stop worrying and start enjoying your golden years.
For those using a safety first approach here is something to ponder:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/secret-investing-formula-experts-really-133000025.html
If you’re approaching retirement, you or your financial advisor may be frequently stress-testing your portfolio for a 2008-style drawdown in the stock market. But when Ben Carlson, a portfolio manager at Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC, took a look at the actual data, he found something surprising.
“Bear markets and crashes are rare,” he wrote in a 2022 report for A Wealth of Common Sense (1). In fact, his data suggests that a truly catastrophic crash is so rare that many retirees might not live to see one in their golden years. And even if they do, their losses could be limited.
The first step is to figure out your personal risk tolerance. How much of your net worth can you afford to lose before it has a material impact on your annual withdrawals and retirement lifestyle? ...
Here’s the secret formula that you can apply: risk tolerance ÷ equity exposure = implied stock market decline. In terms of the numbers mentioned above, the formula would become 30% ÷ 60% = 50%.
... Unlike the pundits on TV and social media, this approach is grounded in real data, as well as your personal situation. That should give you more peace of mind, which could potentially allow you to stop worrying and start enjoying your golden years.
You might find it surprising that I agree with Carlson's analysis-- for many (most?) Pralana users. As I noted above in the first paragraph of my own plan:
Our withdrawal plan isn't necessarily suited to others, but based on our circumstances. In particular, my wife and I are working class without intergenerational family wealth, and have modest retirement savings. The lack of "safety net" if we're wrong has heavily influenced our accumulation and our "safety first" decumulation strategies.
What's called "safety first" in the literature has always been our default methodology, out of necessity. This went for accumulation too. We first made sure we had saved enough to cover the next seven years of ordinary expenses before we dared to think about investing. I don't think the average user of Pralana or any of these forums is the typical American. But I've found that the principles of finance are even more helpful to people like my wife and me, because we have more to lose and gain in terms of marginal utility. I attribute my knowledge of finance and economics to our ability to retire early and live the "american dream"! I remember my amazement in learning in my 40s that capital gains was taxed at 0% for us compared to earning money as "income" : that alone made my whole journey to early retirement possible!
Pralana Plan for 61/59 Married Couple Retired since 2013
I've been a user of Pralana since 2021 and ESPlanner prior to that. Thanks to Stuart and team for this fabulous product as it puts ESP, now MaxiFi, to shame...IMHO.
As far as our specific plan, I have the usual Go-Go (60-70), Slow-Go (71-85), and No-Go (85-EOP) brackets set up as far as spending. All spending is considered essential and inflation adjusted as set in Miscellaneous Expenses. For simplicity I don't break it down and just lump sum everything. I used to break out the mortgage and housing expenses, but I like that it is cleaner without that data on the reports. It's an additive conservative bend in the plan since I'm not applying the spending gain once the mortgage is paid off in 2043.
Our income streams consist of:
- Current Pension
- Future Pension (hers at age 65)
- His/Her Soc Sec (his age 70, hers at age 67)
Our retirement assets are split between joint brokerage (36%) and Roth IRAs (64%). With the help of PRC we've converted our Traditional IRAs to the top of the 24% bracket over the past 3 years so life is simple with regards to future RMDs, i.e. there are none. I did this to simplify our financial life in the event I pass unexpectedly as I am the main financial handler of the household. I debated this extensively, but setting her up was the driving factor in the end. Maybe not the most tax-efficient route, but way cheaper than having a Financial Advisor walk me through this at 1% AUM.
Along the lines of simplicity, since 2010 I've been a standard bogleheads 3-Fund investor (VTSAX, VTIAX, VBTLX) with annual rebalancing to keep 40/20/40. About 3 year ago I went on a journey for "one fund to rule them all" (again to simplify things for DW) and after much research settled on FBALX (Fidelity Balanced Fund with data going back to inception in 11/1986). Now all our investable assets are in FBALX with an automatic monthly transfer set up to our checking account. Again, not the most tax-efficient, but close enough for gov't work as they say. In PRC, I've created the FBALX asset with 8% nominal return and 12% standard deviation and set location to 100% across all accounts. I run MC on "Specified Expenses Only" and get 100% Success Rate. To see what we could spend I use the Consumption Smoother at 80% which is more that we could imagine spending. Overall, very comfortable with the plan, and that we can spend without worrying about market fluctuations.
Hope all this makes sense. One final note. I use scenario 2 to evaluate her spending availability should I pass in the current year as my pension does not have a survivor rider.
No QCDs: Conversions give me $856 more a year out of $98,206 base allowance. (0.1%)
With QCDs: Conversions give me $826 more a year out of $91,478 base allowance. (0.1%).
You are off by a decimal point, the Roth cases are helping you by almost 1%. Getting almost an extra 1% of spendable income isn't such a bad deal.
I am surprised this didn't show up without me forcing the constraint: the default (no constraints) conversions produced a lower benefit-- for reasons unknown. (I naively thought unconstrained was by definition the "best case". Is it not?)
The Optimizer checks ordinary income brackets only, it does not look at anything based on MAGI, so no LTCG taxation checks, no checking of ACA FPLs and no checking of IRMAA tiers. You have to do that yourself.
Fortunately the graphs on Review-Tax Projections help a lot in visualizing and manually tuning the results. Presumably there would be programming difficulties in trying to implement the MAGI checks, I'm guessing the optimizer wants to step through the tax brackets in order of increasing conversions and stop converting when it starts to hurt the results. When you introduce MAGI, the order of, say, an IRMAA tier vs. an ordinary income tax bracket can switch depending on the size of the Qualified Dividends/LTCGs. In same-year LTCG taxation, there could clearly be a loop where paying taxes on the Conversion requires more taxable to be sold, increasing LTCGs, decreasing Roth Conversion space. I'm thinking that in rare cases, it might not even be stable, with just the "wrong" amount of LTCG income switching position back, and forth vs. an ordinary income bracket. In any event, as the program sits right now, the Roth Conversion Optimizer is a good starting point but needs to be verified with manually testing of nearby AGI limits.
@jkandell Obviously, everybody needs to devise a retirement plan that works for them and you have done a lot of work to develop your plan. My only note is that it is possible to be too safe. I think the biggest threat to a 30 year plus retirement in inflation. The best hedge against inflation is investing in equites. What portion of your AA going to equites is the challenge. I think the odds of inflation going up is very real. The reason for this is the national debt.
“We’ve already experienced the inflationary aspects of excessive federal spending and debt,” Couchman, who previously worked in government affairs positions in the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said. “We’re now at the point where if you look at [the Congressional Budget Office], World Bank and [International Monetary Fund] and others, they say that once the debt burden achieves it surpasses a certain threshold of GDP that it starts to slow the economic growth.”
Economists aren’t necessarily worried by the total level of debt (in fact, government debt is a necessary foundation of global markets). Rather it’s the debt-to-GDP ratio, which measures a nation’s borrowing against its growth. If this tips too far out of balance, growth can be hampered by the excessive amount of cash needed for interest payments.
“So that means there’s fewer opportunities,” Couchman added. “The opportunities that are there aren’t paying as well. Productivity is being suppressed.”
The worst-case scenario is a debt crisis. This is the moment at which the U.S. cannot find buyers for its debt and is either forced to rein in spending, agree to higher interest payments to secure loans, or significantly increase its money supply to lower the value of the repayments—which comes with inflationary or hyper-inflationary effects. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/national-debt-already-killing-american-080000874.html
So if this happens, a low AA in equities will exacerbate the effects of inflation and bonds will rise making your bond funds worth less, a double whammy.
@jkandell Obviously, everybody needs to devise a retirement plan that works for them and you have done a lot of work to develop your plan. My only note is that it is possible to be too safe. I think the biggest threat to a 30 year plus retirement in inflation. The best hedge against inflation is investing in equites. What portion of your AA going to equites is the challenge. I think the odds of inflation going up is very real. The reason for this is the national debt.
...
The worst-case scenario is a debt crisis. This is the moment at which the U.S. cannot find buyers for its debt and is either forced to rein in spending, agree to higher interest payments to secure loans, or significantly increase its money supply to lower the value of the repayments—which comes with inflationary or hyper-inflationary effects. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/national-debt-already-killing-american-080000874.html
So if this happens, a low AA in equities will exacerbate the effects of inflation and bonds will rise making your bond funds worth less, a double whammy.
I agree with you that inflation is the biggest threat, and that we are potentially in a debt crisis. But I disagree that in that scenario stocks are the best hedge! Stocks "price in" expected inflation in much the way nominal bonds do. But TIP literally adjust to inflation. There is no "pricing in", they simply directly adjust. We see periods in American history where inflation was very high but real stock returns were quite low (e.g. 80s). Therefore my reaction to inflation and/or debt crisis is to increase my TIPs ladder.
Now it may be true that my plan is still "too safe"--but that is another matter.
Well, TIPs only meet inflation (with a base rate of 0.125%). That may not be enough for a 30 year retirement especially if you will need long term care. How to pay for that if you are only treading financial water? 🙄
Well, TIPs only meet inflation (with a base rate of 0.125%). That may not be enough for a 30 year retirement especially if you will need long term care. How to pay for that if you are only treading financial water? 🙄
Did you mean 2.125% base rate (plus inflation)? That is enough to cover my essentials, including LTC.
