Receive.............Deposit or Transfer
$200 .................$50,000 to $99,999
$300 .................$100,000 to $249,999
$600 .................$250,000 to $499,999
$1,000..............$500,000 to $999,999
$2,500..............$1,000,000+
Personally, those incentives (restated above) wouldn’t be enough to induce me to leave a competent manager who’s taken good care of me over the past 25+ years. I trust him. I understand his policies and procedures. He treats me well. And, I’m intimately familiar with many of his in-house funds.
Just $300 for tor transferring $200,000?
A 1% gain on that $200,000 would be worth $2,000. So you’re looking at the equivalent of something like an 0.15% profit for moving a significant sum of money. I’d think you could easily miss a 1% gain on that money during the time the transfer is in progress. And, if you presently have a manager who allows you to play a little fast & lose (with exchanges), it isn’t hard to grab a quick profit (far in excess of that meager payout) by trading in and out when opportunity arises.
Just MHO

Hi guys!
LA port traffic has seen record imports.....July, August and now September.....with 40% of imports coming through LA. This looks good for Christmas. Also, where or at what price would you start to think about GE? Just pondering a bit....
Also, a Fidelity update:
Quarterly market update: fourth quarter 2017
93% who voted found this helpful
Key takeaways
The global economy is experiencing a relatively steady, synchronized expansion amid low inflation, with low risk of recession.
U.S. fiscal policy is supportive of growth, and hopes for tax-cut legislation represent a potential upside for corporate earnings.
A shift toward tighter global monetary policy may boost market volatility, underscoring the importance of diversification.
Each quarter, Fidelity's Asset Allocation Research Team (AART) compiles a comprehensive quarterly market update. Here is a summary of their outlook, plus key investor takeaways for the third quarter of 2017. For a deep dive into each, read the Quarterly market update: fourth quarter 2017 (PDF) or the interactive PDF.
First, let's look at how the markets did in Q3.
Market summary: Goldilocks backdrop persisted, widespread gains across asset markets
The synchronized expansion in global economic activity—along with low inflation and accommodative monetary policies—continued to provide a steady backdrop for asset markets in the third quarter of 2017. Non-U.S. equities spearheaded a global stock market rally for the third quarter in a row, bolstered by a weaker dollar and a strengthened economic backdrop. Credit spreads tightened further amid the "risk-on" tone, allowing emerging-market and high-yield corporate bonds to add to their solid year-to-date gains. Steady interest rates kept high-quality bonds in the black, and all asset categories posted positive returns.
Since equity markets hit a near-term bottom in early 2016, global assets have posted exceptional returns while experiencing remarkably low levels of volatility. Compared to historical averages, price fluctuations of riskier assets were extremely subdued, even as they registered big gains. More defensive assets such as investment-grade bonds posted smaller gains, but also experienced unusually low volatility.
Economy/macro backdrop: Synchronized global economic upturn, but markets may be tested by monetary policy shift
The global economy is experiencing a relatively steady, synchronized expansion. Broadly speaking, most developed economies are in more mature (mid-to-late) stages of the business cycle, with the eurozone not as far along as the United States. Recession risks remain low globally, although less accommodative policy in several countries, including China, may constrain the upside to growth going forward.
A rebound in global trade continued to bolster the global economy. The global expansion has been underpinned by a turnaround in export-oriented sectors and manufacturing activity. China's rising import demand over the past year has helped push the percentage of major countries with expanding new export orders to more than 90%. China’s economy remains in expansion, however, policymakers' tighter stance is beginning to show an impact, and peaking activity suggests that upside to China's cyclical trajectory is limited.
Elsewhere, the eurozone is on a cyclical upswing, enjoying a reasonably synchronized mid-cycle expansion across both its core and its periphery. The U.K., however, is confronting late-cycle pressures, as consumers’ expectations deteriorate alongside rising inflation and faltering real income growth.
The U.S. economy remains in expansion, between the mid- and late-cycle phases. Tight labor markets are supporting wage growth and the U.S. consumer, keeping recession risk low. So far, low inflation has been the key to a prolonged mid-to-late cycle transition in the United States. U.S. inflation is likely to remain range-bound due to multiple factors: Tight labor markets, rising wages, and increasing food costs have been supportive, while slowing shelter costs and other transitory factors have served to dampen inflation. Historically, rising wages pressure profit margins and cause the Federal Reserve (Fed) to tighten monetary policy; this in turn has caused a flattening of the yield curve and raised debt-servicing costs for businesses. While many of these indicators remain relatively healthy, they have all deteriorated and are indicative of a maturing U.S. business cycle.
U.S. fiscal policy is supportive of growth, and hopes for tax-cut legislation represent a potential upside for corporate earnings. However, tax cuts may do more to boost inflation than growth, as rate cuts tend to have a bigger impact on growth when there is a large amount of economic slack and monetary policy is easing (unlike today). Meanwhile, escalating tensions in the Korean peninsula represent a potential catalyst for meaningful market risk, as the U.S. and China are the world's 2 economies that are most central to global trade.
Firming U.S. inflation and global growth have given the Fed confidence to continue gradually hiking its short-term policy rate; other central banks may also recognize the need to begin moving away from extraordinary easing. The Fed's unwinding of its balance sheet, and the ECB's likely tapering of asset purchases next year, could pose a liquidity challenge to markets. Overall, the global economy is in a synchronized expansion amid low inflation, with low risk of recession. Going forward, a shift toward global monetary policy normalization may boost market volatility.
Asset markets: Non-U.S. valuations still most attractive, higher market volatility may be on the way
The third quarter was another strong quarter for U.S. and global equity markets. Growth stocks and emerging-market categories were the strongest performers, boosted by their exposure to big gains in the information technology sector. Credit categories continued to lead gains in the bond market, and year-to-date returns were almost universally positive across major asset categories and sectors.
Turning to fundamental factors, international corporate earnings growth has accelerated for several quarters and surpassed U.S. corporate profit growth. Earnings revisions have also stabilized for the first time in years, although lofty forward earnings growth expectations may provide a tougher hurdle to clear in the year ahead, particularly in emerging markets.
Generally speaking, stock valuations are mixed using one-year-trailing earnings; U.S. price-to-earnings ratios are above average, developed markets are below average, and emerging markets are roughly average. Forward estimates for all markets look more reasonable. Using 5-year peak inflation-adjusted earnings, P/E ratios for foreign developed and emerging equity markets remain lower than those in the United States. Despite dollar weakness in 2017, the value of most currencies also remains in the lower half of historical ranges versus the U.S. dollar. Meanwhile, yields and credit spreads across bond sectors remained low relative to history.
With the U.S. exhibiting the mid- and late-cycle phase dynamics, it's worth looking at the historical playbook. Historically, the mid-cycle phase of the U.S. business cycle tends to favor riskier asset classes, while late cycles have the most mixed performance of any business-cycle phase. The late-cycle phase has often featured more limited overall upside and less confidence in equity performance, though stocks have typically outperformed bonds. Inflation-resistant assets, such as commodities, energy stocks, short-duration bonds, and TIPS, have performed relatively well, as have non-U.S. equities.
From an asset allocation standpoint, given the maturing U.S. business cycle, the likelihood of less reliable relative asset performance patterns and increased volatility as a result of the risks in the global monetary policy, smaller cyclical tilts may be warranted. The possibility of higher volatility underscores the importance of diversification.
Long-term themes
Slowing labor force growth and aging demographics are expected to tamp down global growth over the next 2 decades. We expect GDP growth of emerging countries to outpace that of developed markets over the long term, providing a relatively favorable secular backdrop for emerging-market equity returns. Over long periods of time, GDP growth has a tight positive relationship with long-term government bond yields (yields generally have averaged the same rate as nominal growth). We expect interest rates will rise over the long term to an average that is closer to our 3.6% nominal GDP forecast, but this implies they would settle at a significantly lower level than their historical averages.
Next steps to consider
Research investments
Get industry-leading investment analysis.
Analyze your portfolio
Find investing ideas to match your goals.
Invest using the cycle
See how the cycle has impacted performance.
God bless
the Pudd

It was certainly legal for your wife to elect to take a lump sum distribution. It's her company forcing that distribution on her (i.e. without obtaining her consent) that does not appear to have been legal.
You're going to take quite a tax hit on a mid six figure conversion if you do it in one year. You might want to spread it out over a few years (recharacterizing part of it to a traditional IRA). Though that could bump Medicare premiums (IRMAA) or make SS checks taxable, or other bad stuff.
Converting quickly, keeping within tax brackets, watching out for other tax impacts - it's not an easy needle to thread.

From the article: Despite nearly nine years of gains in U.S. stock markets, investors are flocking to bonds. ... U.S. based bond funds have brought in more than $2 for every $1 gathered by equity funds this year ... BlackRock alone reported nearly $60 billion in bond fund inflows and another $20 billion in “cash management” products that also invest in debt during the third quarter, compared to $12 billion for equity funds.
That explains Fink’s concerns looking out a year or two. Interesting conundrum. On one hand, investors are seeking shelter from what they perceive as expensive equity markets. On the other hand, they’re avoiding cash and the short end of the curve because they yield next to nothing. As a consequence, longer bonds are pulling in money. If that continues long enough it could drive down long term rates to levels below what shorter paper yields. That’s rate inversion. Yes, it is often a precursor of recession.
What I think is different here is that usually the inversion is brought about by central banks raising rates at the short end to choke off an overheating expansion. But in the case Fink outlines, it would be a result of investors piling into the longer end of the curve in search of yield. But investors aren’t that dumb - are they?

After 20 years, I'm guessing that your wife had at least $5K in the 401(k).
"Generally, if your account balance exceeds $5,000, the plan administrator must obtain your consent before making a distribution." IRS 401k guide.
While what's done is done, forcing your wife to take the money was likely illegal.
You have the option of recharacterizing the Roth conversion into a traditional IRA and not owe any taxes. You could then move the money back into the 401k (pre-tax) if that's where you really want it. However, you can't try to undo everything in one step by having the 401(k) take back the money (pre-tax) straight from the Roth IRA.

How can I recharacterize an amount rolled over to a Roth IRA from an employer-sponsored retirement plan?
You can only recharacterize amounts rolled into a Roth IRA from an employer-sponsored retirement plan by transferring them to a new or existing traditional IRA, and not back into the plan from which they were distributed.

IRS: IRA FAQs.
If you want the money back in the 401(k) as a Roth 401(k) (and if the plan offers this and allows the transfer), then you could move the money back via a trustee-to-trustee transfer.
Note: After having converted to a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the amount converted (but not subsequent earnings) without owning tax on that money (since you just paid that tax). But so long as your wife under 59.5, there will be an early distribtution penalty of 10% for the first five years after conversion.
Fairmark: Distributions After a Roth IRA Conversion

I'm not a tax guy so please double check my understanding. It sounded like the transfer has already happened from the 401K at your wife's employer to her Roth IRA at a mutual fund company. If that's true I'm not sure how easy it is to undo it because I think it would be considered a withdrawal from a Roth without waiting what I believe is the required 5 years and that would probably incur a penalty. If the transfer isn't done yet and you still have the option to change your mind, one advantage of transferring to a rollover IRA rather than the Roth IRA is that you don't pay any tax. Depending on your situation and what you believe/want to bet on about Trump's tax plans, you might potentially pay lower tax on a Roth conversion if you waited until a new tax code is in place.
As an addition to Bill's comments, I believe once you wait the required 5 years after converting to a Roth IRA, you're able to withdraw what you "contributed", or in other words what you've paid tax on, at any time without penalty. It's only the gains on what you contributed that you're not allowed to withdraw until retirement age without penalty.

I'd keep it as an IRA, not 401k. There are more investment choices available to you.
The only reasons to put it back in 401k are:
1) if you want early retirement, you can get at the funds without penalty a couple of years earlier.
2) if the 401k plan has access to some particular funds that you otherwise can't invest in.
Bill

Wife worked for a large box store till May 1, 2017 and was involved in a layoff. They would not hold her 20 years of 401k investments and were required to make a distribution - so we directed the funds to in her ROTH IRA at another MF investment company with plans of paying the required taxes end of this year. Does anyone see any problems with doing this! Also the first of September she has went back to work at the same company but at a different location. Was wondering about the possibility of having the 401K funds in her ROTH IRA - plus gains transferred back to the same 401K fund administrator for the company.
Any response or ideas would be appreciated.
Thanks
Gary

The good news, if you can call it that, it that they're not ignoring a 50 year customer. As far as they know, you've only been with them 25 years - their records only go back to the 90s.
This came up in a conversation I had with Fidelity today - the rep explained that she says "thank you for being a customer since at least 199x", because they can't tell if you've been with them longer than that.
Wait until Fidelity has another cash promotion and then do a partial transfer back from ML. They charge $50 for a full transfer, but nothing for a partial.
https://www.merrilledge.com/pricing

Great find @Ted.
I’m always interested in what T Rowe Price is doing. Interesting that they had a Retirement Income Fund for many years, but decided about 5 years ago to rename it Retirement Balanced.
Now a new Retirement Income fund? Modeling its performance expectations on their current 2020 Target date fund would make it somewhat more aggressive than their previous Retirement income fund (TRRIX). In hindsight, rebranding the old fund must have been Price’s way of “clearing the deck” for this new one. Brings to mind, “What’s in a name ...”. When a company reaches the point where there are no longer enough names to go around due to their offering so many funds, what does that say? :)
Still reading this story. Not entirely clear whether there’s a glide slope with this one - but probably not.
(Actually, their website says there is a glide slope). I don’t understand where the firm is going with the launch of so many new funds in recent years. This one is a real puzzle (unless their goal is just to attract more and more assets). Dodge & Cox seems to do just fine with only 5 or 6 funds.
One thing that would steer me clear of this one - In order for it to work as intended, an investor would seem to have to entrust his/her entire retirement nest egg to this fund. Diversifying into several other funds would appear to thwart the fund’s intended goal.

I've had the same experience with E*TRADE. I've rolled over or transferred 401Ks and IRAs several times over the last 5 or 6 years and every time I've asked they've offered me cash that matches the scale Maurice mentioned. IIRC there was one time they were advertising a promotion but the other cases I've just asked.

The SIM philosophy was very popular on the board several years ago. I never practiced it. But I think it was to some extent a self-fulfilling prophecy. For a few years, anyway, the market appeared to sell off around that time of year.
What I observed happening over several years, however, was that those who practiced the belief began to sell a bit earlier every year to get “out in front of the crowd”. Instead of waiting for the market to tank on May 1, why not play it safe and sell on April 15? Than, some thought they could gain an even better edge by selling on April 1, etc. etc.
Is there seasonality to markets? Probably yes. Tax deadlines may play a part. How to profit from the seasonality? That’s where it gets dicey.
We all have different approaches. To each his own. If doing something a certain way has worked for you over time (per Ol’Skeet) I’d be the last to say change it. Whatever floats your boat!

Yes.
Didn't Mr. Gross talk about the new normal several years ago?
Memory is such a magnificent sense to loose.

Kind of remarkable that this is still considered news. It was news maybe thirty years and trillions of dollars in index funds/ETFs ago.

Hi Guys,
Winning in the investment universe can be a daunting task. Yesterday's superior active fund managers often fail to repeat their successes in today's marketplace. The data is overwhelming in the negative direction. Only a little over 10% of these super-pickers retain their outstanding performance in the next measurement period. Persistent outperformance is a challenge and identifying that small, elite group in advance is an even more formidable challenge.
These are not new findings. Vanguard has been making that point for a long time now. Here is a Link to yet another Vanguard study that demonstrates the futility of various candidate signal parameters to reliably project future performance:
https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/s338.pdf
This report is relatively recent and is well documented. Please give it a read. Here is a nice summary paragraph that I lifted from the reference:
"The current level of a blend of valuation metrics contributes to Vanguard’s generally positive outlook for the stock market over the next ten years (2012–2022). But the fact that even P/Es—the strongest of the indicators we examined—leave a large portion of returns unexplained underscores our belief that expected stock returns are best stated in a probabilistic framework, not as a “point forecast,” and should not be forecast over short horizons."
In an uncertain world, probability based analyses are useful when projecting the range of likely investment outcomes. Keeping an accessible reserve that permits you to survive a two or three year equity market downturn is a prudent strategy. Note that Vanguard trusts long term projections more than short horizon guesstimates. So do I.
Best Wishes

Clearly some institutional investors such as state pension plans are better in their support of these governance issues than others such as mutual funds:
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=sustainability%20ratings%20tell%20half%20the%20story&src=typd
One reason I've found in my research is that institutional investors like pension plans are by design expected to think long-term. Long-term risks like climate change and poorly designed executive compensation plans which encourage short-term thinking are risks they can't afford to ignore. Meanwhile, many but not all of the retail investors who buy mutual funds too often think short term and are less inclined to care about what could damage a company's prospects five or ten years down the road.

Hi Guys,
Being an "aimer" is very common. We all have goals. The challenge is how realistic those goals are. What are the odds of achieving those goals? Given market uncertainties, a 100% success goal is very bushy-tailed. But it is achievable if an investor is flexible to changing circumstances.
An early step in that process is to identify the likely odds of success. Monte Carlo simulators provide one useful tool to make those estimates. That tool not only yields the odds for success, but also makes estimates of end wealth, and a timeline for the portfolio failures. If those failure times are well beyond likely life expectancy, the failures are far less significant for planning purposes.
I well understand why only a 95% portfolio survival projection would be troublesome for some folks. It was for me. However, once that estimate is known, an investor could think about adjusting his withdrawal plan to alleviate that possibility.
When planning my retirement, I programmed my own version of a Monte Carlo code. I frequently calculated portfolio survival likelihoods in the mid-90% ranges. What to do? To improve that survival rate, I modified the code to reduce drawdowns by an input value (like 10%) if annual market returns were negative for some specified years. Withdrawals were increased once the markets turned positive in the simulations.
I explored many such portfolio survival issues by using my easily modified Monte Carlo code. Portfolio survival rates of very near 100% could be projected when very modest withdrawal rate flexibility was allowed. Like in so many other life situations, flexibility is a winning strategy.
My Monte Carlo calculations identified the frequency of shortfalls, the magnitudes of any shortfalls, and the timeframe of those shortfalls. These were all useful inputs for my retirement decision. The very modest adjustments needed to alleviate that unacceptable outcome gave great comfort. These additional Monte Carlo simulations cemented my retirement decision.
I believe (alternately, IMHO if you dislike "I believe") that Monte Carlo simulations would help many MFOers when considering their retirement decision.
Thanks for the Kitces reference. Be aware that he has a vested interest in the subject matter of that referenced article. He closes his piece with the following declaration:
"Michael Kitces has a financial interest in the US distribution of the Timeline app."
I have no such vested interest in Monte Carlo codes. I merely advocate that they be included as one tool to support investment decisions. They permit easy multiple sensitivity analyses. Of course, they depend on good input data ranges. They do not stand alone.
Best Wishes

I always wonder what the practical effect of such fine distinction-making is.
'For the particular kind of [prostate, breast] cancer you have, the new data show that watchful waiting outcomes are as good in terms of mortality and life quality as treatment, often better, and the number needed to treat is yada yada. Discuss with your doctor whether treatment or monitoring is right for you.'
'Return-sequence risk is always significant and badly down years at the start of your retirement can be deleterious to all of your planning. Discuss with your adviser the consequences of not planning yada yada ...'
And then what? What is the discussion? What can it change besides (dis)comfort level and moves toward drastic preventive actions? How wise is it to have 'just get rid of it' surgery or go to all laddered CDs? In the worst case, plenty wise. So is the discussion necessarily education in likelihood of worst cases?

Some of it certainly is education about worst case probabilities. There's a general belief that outcomes are better if treatment is more aggressive. Sometimes that's true, often it's not, especially given possibilities of false positives (not ill when tests say otherwise).
For example, mammograms are not too reliable with dense breast tissue. Here's a page from the American Cancer Society suggesting in that case you talk with your doctor, because on the one hand you might want to also have an MRI. But it also says that MRIs produce false positives leading to more tests and biopsies (which have their own risks).
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/screening-tests-and-early-detection/mammograms/breast-density-and-your-mammogram-report.html
Similarly, PSA tests are not especially reliable and can lead to biopsies with risks.
A good part of the conversation can simply be an exploration of what's really important to you. In some other thread was a link to an article on how the usual financial planning questions are not helpful, e.g. "would you risk a 20% loss if 2/3 of the time you'd gain 15%?" People don't know what they want or how they'd react if actually (not hypothetically) faced with a 20% loss.
So IMHO talking with a planner at length about what really concerns you and discussing the cost/benefits of different risk mitigators (e.g. immediate annuities, long term care insurance, greater cash allocations, etc.) is a good use of time.
Different people place different values on a given outcome. Worse, most people don't even have a clear idea of how they value each possible outcome.
At one end of the spectrum you have women who will have radical mastectomies because they have a genetic risk of cancer. They choose life, regardless of its quality, over all else. At the other end of the spectrum, you have men who will decline prostate cancer treatment even when faced with certain death, rather than assume any risk of impotence due to treatment.
There are real people like that. I think I can appreciate their perspectives even if I don't agree with them.
Personally, I don't want to go broke, period. In that financial sense, I take an extreme position. A magic number of, say 95% chance of success tells me nothing. I need to know what the 5% of paths look like. Then I can explore possible followup actions that would increase success to 100%.
Likewise with that doctor talk. It's difficult to follow radiation therapy with surgery if the radiation is unsuccessful, while the reverse is much easier. That's a consideration in selecting choice of treatment, if one is willing to live with the much higher likelihood of a degraded quality of life due to multiple therapies.
Knowing not only the odds but the paths of outcomes enables you to plan for dealing with possible failures. And for not doing something just because the expert, whether physician or advisor, felt it was best in his not so humble opinion.

There are now nine equity funds at least 10 years old through September that have never incurred a negative return over any 3-year rolling period. There were only five last month. The four new funds just turned 10! They are Boston Trust Midcap Fund (BTMFX), Delaware Healthcare Fund Inst (DLHIX), Prospector Capital Appreciation Fund (PCAFX), and Prospector Opportunity Fund (POPFX).
Four of the nine are MFO Great Owls, and David profiled PCAFX in 2011. He gave it a thumbs-up.
Here's an update of the complete list published in this month's commentary (click image to enlarge):

I always wonder what the practical effect of such fine distinction-making is.
'For the particular kind of [prostate, breast] cancer you have, the new data show that watchful waiting outcomes are as good in terms of mortality and life quality as treatment, often better, and the number needed to treat is yada yada. Discuss with your doctor whether treatment or monitoring is right for you.'
'Return-sequence risk is always significant and badly down years at the start of your retirement can be deleterious to all of your planning. Discuss with your adviser the consequences of not planning yada yada ...'
And then what? What is the discussion? What can it change besides (dis)comfort level and moves toward drastic preventive actions? How wise is it to have 'just get rid of it' surgery or go to all laddered CDs? In the worst case, plenty wise. So is the discussion necessarily education in likelihood of worst cases?