[ucodegen]

[quote=plm]No credit check, there was some issue where it couldn’t be done. But did verify employment.[/quote]

Umm. something screwy with “it couldn’t be done”. I know with me that the apartment complex had a problem with my credit background because I rarely use it so there was no credit history, but I was able to prove cash assets in excess of half a years of rent which cleared everything up. I think potential renter(s) situation is different..

I also second ‘flu’s statement above. Don’t get lost in being compassionate, particularly in California or any state that has strong renters rights laws.

[quote=flu]They pay for it, they keep the record, and they can’t complain about giving you their SSN because the way it works, [/quote]I was wondering if the potential tenants were committing ID theft as part of a ‘lifestyle’.

[ucodegen]

[quote=flu]
Also, some states have reduced creditor protection for IRA versus ERISA style plans (like the 401k)…In CA, rollover IRAs have the same protection as ERISA plans, at least as ruled by an appellate court in McMullen v. Haycock. I don’t know if that’s one other reason to keep rolled over funds separate…..you know, planning for the worst case scenarios ….

http://www.latimes.com/la-ira-story3-story.html
https://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/how-safe-creditors-your-401k-money-if-you-roll-it-ira
https://sdirahandbook.com/california-rollover-iras-can-receive-erisa-style-creditor-protection/%5B/quote%5D
The loss of protection is one thing that has always concerned me, but more than one company I was at had poor choices on their 401Ks.. so I had to bite that bullet. As I am nearing retirement age, I am looking more towards the mentioned states. It would be nice if the fed would step in and make it all consistent – protected if in company 401k or self directed – protected from lawsuits/creditors – since 401ks are now replacing pensions at most companies.

[ucodegen]

[quote=flu]Sure. The managing firm I don’t think really matters. I think it has to do with what the employer and managing firm’s agreement.[/quote]

True, but I have seen situations where the employer places someone with no investment knowledge in charge of negotiating the agreed upon plans with the manager of the company’s 401k plan. The result is a bunch of high fee crap. In one company I was with, a group of employees had to get together and strong arm the company to negotiate better offerings with the manager of the 401k plan.

I have also seen managers of a company’s 401k plan advocate constant re-balancing – not telling the employees that every time the account gets ‘touched’ by a transaction(ie re-balancing), there is actually a transaction fee – it ain’t free. Re-balancing can help returns – but not at the frequency the 401k managers propose.

[quote=flu]Broadcom Limited’s 401k is managed by Fidelity. There are a total of 28 different investment options, and there’s an option to do a self directed brokerage account (which I would never do, since I don’t want to screw up what’s suppose to be a “safer” retirement account.

Within the plan, there are the typical Fidelity funds (such as Contrafund, etc)… And there are also Vanguard funds. There’s a vanguard index fund for S&P500, small cap, mid cap, international, reit, and world index. And there’s the N different “target blend funds”…
[/quote]
Considerably better than several of the companies I was with. They only had from 6 to 8 funds to choose from… and the company stock. A lot of the funds you listed are good funds, I think I have 2 of them in my Roth and direct taxed investment accounts (vanguard small and mid cap index)

[quote=flu]
My current employer’s 401k is through Schwab, and a small administrator. Fund selection is roughly the same. I kinda want to roll that out because I don’t trust that plan administrator, for some reason. YTD on that account so far is 9.84%.. Slightly lower, because I left a bigger portion in money market… The former 401k, so far is 11.2%, with about 1/3 left in cash.[/quote]
Trust is important. To what account/brokerage are you going to roll it over to? I don’t know if you can roll it into a previous employers 401k. It may depend upon that plan. Note that when you roll it out to a brokerage held 401k, you loose the option of the institutional funds (note that there may be exceptions on this). Vanguard had non-institutional versions of many of its funds, though the load is a little bit higher due to handling more (in count not dollars) transactions. I see the Vanguard small cap index institutional(VSCIX) listed above, that would not be available on a roll-over to a standard brokerage roll-over account. The rough equivalent to VSCIX is NAESX (and yes it is a Vanguard fund).

[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen]Oh yes, a nit to pick –
[quote=SK in CV]Those cumulative non-deductible contributions are supposed to be reported on tax returns every year (on form 8606), even if no new non-deductible contributions have been made for the tax year.[/quote]
[/quote]

Pick away. You’re wrong, irrespective of your limited reading of the instructions. Basis of non-deductible IRA’s, net of prior year cost recovery, is reported on line 2 of form 8606. It is practically the only proof that the IRS will accept that you’ve maintained the records. They (The form 8606) can, in fact, be filed as a stand alone form. You can file them late all the way back to 1995, though it’s conceivably possible for failure to file penalties to be assessed. I’ve never seen that penalty assessed for a late filed 8606. I have prepared dozens for clients, in order to fix their improperly prepared returns.[/quote]
Then you are saying that the form wording disagrees or is in dispute with the actual laws governing the reporting? Are you saying that the form instructions are in disagreement with the actual laws governing reporting? The reason why they only want changes is because it (the amounts you report) is being tracked by the IRS. I don’t see how it proves that you have maintained the records – though maybe I am a weird case since I have all my tax records back to at least 1987. If the forms and instructions effectively state file ‘only’ on change, the IRS is on a weak foot legally should they expect more. Are most of the people you are filing for in a position where they are drawing down IRAs? Maybe you are just being more thorough, but I don’t see any ‘requirement’ for the every year filing unless changes – conversely I see support for the argument for filing only on change:

See “who must file” on the following;
https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i8606/ch01.html
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i8606.pdf

[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV]
IRA distributions aren’t reported on Sched D. Ever.[/quote]
Never said they did, I was giving example of the additional reporting required of brokers – beyond what some people believe.

[quote=SK in CV] IRS requirements for brokerages recently (maybe 4 years ago) increased to require reporting of basis of securities which are sold in non-retirement accounts.[/quote] As of 2011. See the link provided in previous.

[quote=SK in CV]The IRS does not keep the info of your purchases every year. Brokers report the basis (if available) of what you sold every year. This has nothing to do with IRA distributions.[/quote]
Didn’t say the IRS keeps the info on your purchases every year. Again, see the link provided on increased reporting – it mentions reporting basis on sale. Again, prev link search for ‘adjusted’. I didn’t say it did have anything to do with IRA distributions.

[quote=SK in CV]The IRS runs matching programs on all returns, irrespective of income. If income that was reported on 1099’s or W-2’s or other income/deduction reporting isn’t consistent with what was reported on returns, correction letters are issued if the amount is sufficient. They’ve been doing this for decades. This also has nothing to do with recovering non-deductible IRA contributions.[/quote]I think it is a little more than matching .. there is also a ‘plausibility test’ vs changes in deposits etc. They have not been doing this for decades because before about 2010, they did not have the ability to do electronic forms, OCR on paper forms(reliably) etc. Instead they had to do the hand check on specific returns, often chosen on income (higher income, more likely significant amount involved in the error (intentional or otherwise)). The coverage, check has moved down to lower incomes as the years go by because of the available compute power. I came across the boundary in income by watching when the IRS started picking up ‘nits’ on my returns. When my income started approaching $100,000/yr, the IRS started identifying small nits. I don’t know what the IRS would be considering significant enough.

What it has to do with recovering non-deductable IRA contributions has to do with year to year record keeping. You seem to be assuming that the IRS is working with a snapshot of one year only. I am saying that they are not and that they have a multi-year record and records of carrying balances/amounts ie. loss carryover and non-deductable IRA contributions to date. I don’t think the records go back before 2011 for the most part.

[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV]The only brokerage numbers that are important are the FMV of the accounts as of 12/31 of the year prior to distribution. The brokerages do not report cumulative deductible or non-deductible contributions. That’s taxpayers’ responsibility. Those cumulative non-deductible contributions are supposed to be reported on tax returns every year (on form 8606), even if no new non-deductible contributions have been made for the tax year.[/quote]

The cumulative deductible and non deductible contribs are also reported to IRS by brokerage.

http://montereyprivatewealth.com/blog/2014/6/13/how-your-ira-contribution-is-reported-to-the-ira

When the brokerages record goes wrong, you need to get it fixed. The brokerages now have additional tracking requirements – ie. they now track and report your basis to the IRS, while previously (several years back) they didn’t.

search on ‘adjusted’:
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/cost-basis-reporting-faqs

While your have to do your schedule-D with your calc’d basis, and manage carry-over losses, records of types of IRA contribs(post vs pre tax) etc, the IRS now runs a shadow record on incomes near $100,000/yr and up to ensure tax compliance on higher income individuals. I had the IRS correct me on a stock basis, the only way the IRS could have known was to have the record of stock transaction when I bought it a few years earlier (it was minor and in my favor). NOTE: Never been audited – so far

If you don’t think such tracking is possible:

[ucodegen]

[quote=flu]Agreed, but in my case, the fund choices are all vanguard index and select fidelity funds, the same I put my own money into elsewhere.

Also since my average job expectancy is 2-3 years per employer, they’ll get rolled over anyway.[/quote]
Your employer’s choices were much better than average. Do you mind telling me who was the managing firm for the 401k (curiousity).

[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=flu]
The only reason why I wanted I keep money rolled from a traditional 401k into a separate rollover IRA account different from an IRA account that I contributed to with after tax dollars is because for me i thought it would be easier when I start taking distributions for it. I can assume account X is entirely pretax contributions while account B is with after tax contributions…in case I get more senile in my old age.[/quote]

Only 2 numbers are important to figure out how much is taxable when you begin taking distributions. The FMV of ALL your IRA’s as of 12/31 of the prior year and dollar amount of non-deductible contributions. Earnings in one account v another is immaterial.

If you put $5000 in non-deductible contributions 10 times into 1 account and it never earned a dime for 10 years and is still exactly $50,000, and also have a $400,000 rollover IRA, distributions will be 50,000/450,000 non taxable for the 1st distribution, no matter which account it comes from.[/quote]
The problem is that you have to take the brokerages record as gospel, and I have had a problem on a Rollover that I had to correct. Not all brokerages may create the problem that I had (was the source not destination acct) and it probably depends which source has the post-tax(for likelihood for it to occur). The IRS takes the brokerage’s numbers over yours. Fore-burned, forewarned. It is not guaranteed that you will have the same problem as I.

Using your numbers, what happened was that the post tax contrib of $50,000 became 0/500,000 non taxable, instead of 50,000/450,000. I caught it fairly quickly though.

[ucodegen]

[quote=flu]Why would a Roth 401k be odd? Aside from a matching contribution, some of us are disqualified from contributing to a a Roth IRA and have preconditions that prevent us from doing a backdoor Roth IRA. Also With a Roth 401k, one can contribute up to 18k/year if one choices not to contribute to a traditional 401k. I think that’s a lot more than most people can can contribute to a Roth IRA.[/quote]
Ok, understand it is an income limit and contribution limit issue wrt selection.

Roth 401ks would tend to limit your selection of investments/mutual funds to the ones that your plan provid(es/ed).

And yes, 18k is a lot more than upper limit on Roth IRA.

[ucodegen]

[quote=spdrun](1) Electrify the railroads.
(2) Build new lines in the medians of interstates when possible. Grade separation already exists.
[/quote]
While potentially a good idea, one problem here is the center support for bridges. The medians also provide run-offs for errant cars. Other problems include standard bridges/overpasses are not rated for the higher loads imposed by trains.
[quote=spdrun]
(3) I think 80mph is legally possible for passenger trains with level crossings. In this situation, design the trains to accelerate as fast as possible to 80mph and the signaling system to keep them at max speed.
[/quote]
They are currently capable of much more than 80mph. Higher accel would require much more horsepower – cause traction problems. There are signalling mechanisms that are better than current, but most rail is fighting requirements for them to be installed/standardized. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab_signalling
Continous cab signalling on coded track circuits might be the best option. If ‘internet’ gets added to trains, could augment with second signal path of Transponder/Wireless.
[quote=spdrun]
(4) Or design “lethal” level crossing systems. Go around the gates, you’ll find a spike strip like the “severe tire damage” device in parking lots waiting once you’ve gone through the crossing. If going around level crossing gates costs people a set of tires and a tow, fewer people would do it.[/quote]
Need to make sure it is after last rail. Problem is two idiots going around, first idiot gets tires blown and stops in middle of road, causing second idiot to be trapped on track. (I can’t count the number of times I have come across idiots on the highways/transfer ramps who stop right in the middle of the road/lane when there is a problem instead of nursing the vehicle to the side – using momentum if need be). Maybe traffic cams that photog cars that go around the rail – tickets start at $1000 per offense and go up on repeat offenders.

[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV]
No, in the middle of f’ing nowhere. Which is pretty much the entire distance between Winslow, AZ and Oklahoma City.[/quote]
You mean Interstate 40 vs old US-40? US-40 is north of I-40 – both run east/west.

Any town – even a little pip-squeak, ghost of a town can cause the rail to have to drop speed. Realize that if the train is going 80 in the same direction as you, you will probably not pass it and it will not pass you (if you are near 80 too). If in the opposite direction, it will be more of a blur, and passing a 2.6 mile long train would take less than 1 minute. Here is the info on passenger trains, note they try to run near max and the higher speeds to bias the results of the average.

https://www.amtrak.com/national-facts
see 4th bullet:

More than half of Amtrak trains operate at top speeds of 100 mph (160 kph) or greater.

https://www.quora.com/How-fast-does-a-passenger-train-travel-in-the-US

[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen]Train:

TMPG: over 400 tmpg – note, most rail runs around 80mph outside of cities.

[/quote]

I don’t think this affects the efficiency one way or another, but I just drove close to half way across the country and back, mostly on US 40. Probably saw 30 freight trains. Didn’t see a single one much over 60 MPH. None were close to 80.[/quote]
And you probably saw them near towns where the rail goes through..?? They do slow down on grades or when they have to pass. Most rail is single track, with sections that are dual to allow passing. They have to slow/wait on the passing sections. You can see that behavior down at the Sorrento Valley crossing. There are multiple tracks at the crossing, but outside of the crossing – the track drops to single track. Some of the recent work at the Sorrento Valley crossing was to add an additional track (in the event that two trains need to pass and there is a Coaster at the station loading) as well as making the paired track section longer (easier for freight passing).

There is also a requirement to drop speed on tracks that don’t have certain types of crossing and collision avoidance systems. See “Track classes” under this section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_speed_limits_in_the_United_States

[ucodegen]

Here are some interesting numbers:
TMPG – mpg to move 1 ton, or how many miles can you move 1 ton using 1 gallon of fuel.

Hybrid car:

Weight: approx 3000lbs (1.5 ton)

MPG: approx 50mpg @ 65 (less at 80 – engine running closer to limit of performance to gain mpg) less than 45mpg at 80.

TMPG: 75 tmpg

Corvette: (its quirk is that it gets better mpg at 80 than 65.)

Weight: approx 3000lbs

MPG: 29mpg @ 80

TMPG: 43.5 tmpg

Semi – loaded:

Weight: 60,000lbs (30t)

MPG: 7 – 10mpg – dealing with the newer ones.

TMPG: 210 tmpg using 7mpg.

Train:

TMPG: over 400 tmpg – note, most rail runs around 80mph outside of cities.

https://www.aar.org/newsandevents/Press-Releases/Pages/The-Nations-Freight-Railroads-Average-476-Ton-Miles-Per-Gallon.aspx

It will be hard for cars, autonomous or not, to beat efficiencies of trains(provided that they are loaded). This included EVs and their claimed 100mpge.

[ucodegen]

I second those saying that the lease is invalid. Transaction is pending the completion of the security deposit – which did not occur in a timely manner.

Did you run a credit check on these people? I would just move on to the next potential tenant. Bouncing on the first transaction is not a good idea, shows a potentially poor tenant – who you will have to be continually chasing down for rent. If this is in California – avoid this person. They can play the declare bankruptcy/non-appearance game to make eviction for non-payment nearly impossible.

Not safe to give bank account number (add routing number and guess at most recent check number – and forge away your account). Besides, if they already had the cash – the security deposit would not have bounced. That means that mentioning ‘direct deposit’ is a red herring.

[ucodegen]

[quote=flu]I’m planning on leaving my current employer for a better opportunity with a lot better comp package.

With my current employer, part of my retirement account is a traditional 401k and part of it is a Roth 401k.[/quote]
Odd to do a Roth through an employer – it kind of limits your selection. Was there some sort of match?

[quote=flu]Question: I understand that generally you do not want to rollover your traditional 401k into an IRA account that you had made after tax contributions to… Otherwise, it will be a major PITA to deal with sorting out what money is pre-tax versus what money was after-tax contributions when you start withdrawing…[/quote]
You can create a rollover IRA specifically for the task. (Create an empty rollover IRA account and then roll the traditional 401K into it)

[quote=flu]
But my question is for Roth 401k’s, there’s no harm in rolling that over into a Roth IRA that you already opened, right? I mean, Roth 401k and Roth IRAs are both with after tax contributions, and there’s no need from keep those sources separate, right?[/quote]
It should be ok.. check with the financial institution you are rolling over into.

[Author]

Posts