Its a bit ridiculous. I was conversing with a few friends who are advisors and they were talking about how they are spending a lot of time helping their clients try and even begin to understand these products. and not because they want them to buy them but their clients are inquiring.
IMO turn about is fair play. The industry has spent years purposely complicating their clients portfolios to keep the customer in the dark.
but its crazy, these are technically niche products that 30% of all new etfs are them in 2024 is nuts. although it begs the question of how many new etfs are actually being created. 30% of 500 is less than 20% of 1000.

This depends on your specific 401(k) plan.
As YBB mentioned, some plans allow in-service withdrawals while others do not.
You may want to check the 401(k) Summary Plan Description or contact your HR department.
My 401(k) Summary Plan Description states:
If you are age 59½ or older and still actively employed by company or a related company,
you can take a withdrawal from your pre-tax accounts once a year.
There are no early withdrawal penalties for this type of distribution.
You may roll over a pre-tax distribution to another eligible retirement plan or traditional or Roth IRA.
If you are age 59½ or older and still actively employed by company or a related company,
you can also take a withdrawal from your Roth after-tax account once a year.
There are no early withdrawal penalties for this type of distribution.
You will also not be taxed on distributions of your Roth after-tax contributions,
and the earnings on those contributions will not be taxed if the distribution is taken
after you have had a Roth after-tax account in the Plan for at least five years.

Are there AA-AAA rated companies that would do seller financed purchases, with or without life estate (i.e., lease back)? If not, I would think there is a lucrative market for this product.
I'm having trouble making sense of some of this.
"Do seller financed purchases". What does "do" mean? Are you thinking of brokering (arranging) purchases? That is, finding an interested buyer and/or handling the paperwork? For those types of services I don't see what difference a company's credit rating would make.
Or does "do" mean taking the buyer side in the transactions? There, the credit rating of the company (as borrower) would matter. But what's the business model? Would the company build up an inventory of homes that it is buying "on time" and resell them to other buyers?
"lucrative market"
Would the profit come from paying well under market value, as "we buy homes for cash NOW" companies do? But then the seller wouldn't have any motivation to provide financing.
Or would such a company pay a better price for the seller financed homes? It might hope to make a profit from the use of the cash (full price) it receives from the sale of inventory homes.
It would pay the original seller one rate of interest (the seller financing rate) and earn another rate of interest on the proceeds from reselling the home. But where's the spread? The company would be borrowing long term from the original seller. Or would you expect seller-financed sales to be relatively short term (say, five years) with a correspondingly lower rate of interest?
Can you offer an example of a transaction "done" by such a company? I don't get what you have in mind.
"life estate (i.e., lease back)"
These are two different things. A life estate is actual ownership of property. A lease back is a rental where someone else owns the property. If you want more clarification, look up the difference between freehold estate (ownership) and leasehold estate (rental). See, e.g. here (it's not letter perfect, but gets across the general idea).
As far as Selleck is concerned, it's not a bad ad.

Unfortunately, his message to “explore the potential” has been confused as a recommendation older homeowners should get one. This may not always be the case.
Obviously, the time restrictions of TV commercials limit content. To his credit, though, he created national awareness of a less-known and frequently misunderstood resource that has the potential to increase and extend financial security – a hugely common fear among aging Americans.

https://southshoresenior.com/2024/05/what-tom-selleck-did-not-say-about-reverse-mortgages/

These commercials do a good job of introducing the reverse mortgage product. However, the decision to secure the loan can be complicated and confusing.

https://www.boldin.com/retirement/tom-selleck-reverse-mortgages-telling-truth/

When you take out a reverse mortgage, the lender deducts an upfront fee. It also charges interest over the life of your loan. Reverse mortgage interest rates are usually higher than conventional mortgage interest rates, but similar to rates on home equity loans.

Kiplinger, 10 Things You Should Know About Reverse Mortgages

"I suppose that'll work unless and until he tries to remain in office beyond his 4 years."
No, he won't try that... the family presidential dynasty will be passed on to Trump Jr.

"Industry might have to drill a few test wells in the National Parks and Wildlife Refuges just to keep him happy."
I strongly suspect that groups opposed to such a proposition will keep that tied up in lawsuits & the courts until long after his coming term is up. I suppose that'll work unless and until he tries to remain in office beyond his 4 years.

No confusion. My assumption was before I read the thread, and was acknowledging you guys educating me. The only time I had previously heard about reverse mortgages was from the Tom SelecK Ads.
In any case,
Are there AA-AAA rated companies that would do seller financed purchases, with or without life estate (i.e., lease back)? If not, I would think there is a lucrative market for this product.
I would like to defer gain and reduce cap gain tax but have to balance the risks of being a creditor for 10 years or more. The 5% (20 to 15%) lower cap gain tax + 3.8% extra tax on NII + state tax income tax on higher brackets + extra Medicare premiums can all add up.
Let us see if the goodies Trump will dole out to unfreeze the residential RE market include targeted tax brakes.

In 2-3 years, I will get rid of a car due to auto insurance issue (just keep one) - not very much needed since I retired last year.

GLIFX/GLFOX is old-timey infrastructure that I would put in the category with widow and orphan investments. It's pretty much The Electric Company, Waterworks, and the Pennsylvania, Short Line, B&O, and Reading railroads.
I still own a chunk of GLFOX in my taxable that I bought on 3/18/2020. I become attached to such purchases. I sold a more recent position in GLIFX from the IRA in order to simplify it. I don't feel that need with the taxable. The proceeds from that sale went into IYK and FSUTX.
I think any discussion of new opportunistic infrastructure funds is incomplete without mentioning water funds. Start with PHO or FIW if you are H2O curious.
There are global water funds, but they have faced rougher sledding over the past three years. You could start with PIO and TBLU. I'm not smart enough to imagine how they might perform in the tariff regime promised by our new president.

Sold SCHD, JQUA and BIMIX. Decided that we weren’t going to build on them. Used part of the sale for starter positions in ICMUX and CBLDX. Like the horsepower in the former and the smoothness in the latter.
Really conflicted with a long time, large position in VWIAX (Wellesley). The last 3 years have been troubling even with the slight uptick in 2024. Looking for an exit there…

@Sven I looked up "short term bond" & received back, "Short-term bonds are debt securities that mature within one to four years:" Would you agree or more likely stay with one year or shorter ?

There's no sale involved in a reverse mortgage (who would the buyer be?). You may be conflating Yogi's two paragraphs. One is about reverse mortgages where you gradually borrow money against the value of your home. The other is about seller financed transactions where you loan the full sale amount and are gradually repaid.
Since they are different types of transactions, the mechanisms for continuing to live in your home are different. With a mortgage (forward or reverse) you continue to own the property so long as the mortgage isn't foreclosed. With a sale (seller financed or other), the buyer owns the home. You need to make some sort of arrangement (as a renter or as the holder of a life estate or owner for some period of years, or ...) to continue to use the property.

A reverse mortgage loan, like a traditional mortgage, allows homeowners to borrow money using their home as security for the loan.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, What is a Reverse Mortgage?
FHA-approved reverse mortgage lenders
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/housing/sfh/hecm/hecmlenders

@Derf,
I remember the chip was at eye level on the driver side. It was 5-10 years ago. The fix has held up. The kits are sold by all chain auto parts shops (Amazon might have it too). You have to use it before the chip becomes a spreading crack.
@Davidrmoran, So sorry for what you went through. I hope you make full recovery. I will keep the uninsured motorist insurance. I keep both bodily injury liabilities at $300/600k.

If workable, legally sell the house to a relative or trusted friend & live on mortgage payments. Terms could be mutually beneficial.
Except for the mortgage payment part, this sounds like the deal Harlan Crow made to buy Clarance Thomas' mother's house (formerly owned by Clarance, his mother, and his deceased brother's family). Gives a whole new meaning to "trusted friend".
Thomas' mother got to stay in the house rent free by retaining a life estate. That's where she still owned (had exclusive right to use/occupy) the house until she died. Using a life estate as partial payment for the purchase introduces a couple of tricky items:
- The holder of the life estate (being owner of the moment of the house) is still responsible for property taxes. Crow's company paid the taxes.
- Since the buyer paid not only the dollar amount agreed upon but gave the seller(s) a life estate, ISTM the sale price is the dollar amount plus the value of that life estate (based on life expectancy). The Thomas sale was supposedly structured where the life estate was part of the deal. Alternatively, if the life estate is not part of the purchase price, then it is a gift from buyer to seller, triggering gift tax filings.
Instead of using a life estate, the seller could simply pay rent. That often happens short term in real estate sales. The old owner needs a few extra days to move out, so they pay rent to the buyer starting on the closing date.
Regarding capital gains on any seller financed sale, the IRS provides a nice loophole. (I learned about this just a couple of years ago when a relative looked into selling some property and financing the sale.)
You and I might think of a seller financed sale as a completed sale (complete with recognized cap gains) plus a mortgage held by the seller. But the IRS looks at this as no different from an installment sale. As such, the seller recognizes cap gains in parts over the lifetime of the mortgage.
https://www.sellerfinancedream.com/resource-center/seller-financing-tax-benefits-and-seller-financing-tax-implications
This can help tremendously if the seller would have a large taxable gain (in excess of the $250K/$500K home sale exclusion).

Question: How many have turned to annuities or "annuity - like" strategies to increase your income spending?
When I retired 13 years ago, I attempted to project my future spending needs. Over these years I have meet my spending needs with a combination of pension income (with a COLA), an Annuity Income (Savings that I converted to an Annuity), and some part time work. Since retirement, I have continue to contribute to my HSA and my IRA with contributions from part time work income. Recently I began managing one of my properties as a seasonal rental for additional income. I will work part time spending some of that work income and saving some into an IRA until age 73. My RMDs will then become a forced taxable event that may turn into an income source if needed or taxable savings if not needed.
What type of a portfolio would you design as an "Annuity - like" strategy for yourself? Maybe a combinations of Balanced mutual funds/EFTs that distribute periodically? Am I describing the 4% rule?
Shifting from a mindset of saving for retirement to a mindset of confidently spending in retirement is a huge challenge we all face.
Sourced through Ron Berger's Weekly email Newsletter:
https://robberger.com/newsletter/
Working Paper:
Retirre's Spend Lifetime Income, Not Savings

Abstract: The shift to defined contribution savings plans means that more retirees must fund spending
from savings. Prior studies find that there appears to be a behavioral resistance to spending down
savings after retirement in a manner that is consistent with life cycle models. We explore how lifetime
income, wage income, capital income, qualified savings, and nonqualified savings are used to fund
retirement spending. We find that retirees spend far more from lifetime income than other categories of
wealth. Approximately 80% of lifetime income is consumed, on average, versus only approximately half or
other available savings and income sources. Overall, the analysis suggests that converting savings into
lifetime income could increase retirement consumption significantly, especially for married households.

Edit: Re-reading @Old-Joe post, I now realize that I only restated what he succinctly stated.
I would rather the women in this forum rebut / agree with some of the assumptions (assertions?, even through surveys) made about women.
Have you guys noticed that just in our life time alone the difference between men and women behaviors, roles, skills, etc. has progressively become narrower and narrower? Closing the gap is continuing.
(Specific family and social backgrounds / dynamics being contributing factors is a different thing.)
For every skill (or the lack thereof) I was inclined to attribute to women, I could find so many exceptions that I just could not bring myself to posting those.
Women CFOs and CEOs have to continually grapple with allocation of capital and maximizing ROI. I personally do not think wealth management is a distinctly separate aptitude from Finance. If one has the aptitude and interest, skill can be learned / taught and practiced. There are a lot of men and women that have an aptitude but do not show an interest to gain skills related to (or that emanate from) the aptitude because they choose to allocate their time and energy else where. It is a choice they make - does not mean they do not have the aptitude.
In all the investment forums I have been to, I came across only one poster who ran a concentrated portfolio of individual stocks (and no fixed income and no funds), and it was a retired woman and she did not work in Finance. She posted all her portfolio B/S/Ws. Very disciplined. I forgot what her husband did but she posted so little about anything other than her portfolio. You could ask her to elaborate on her Whys and she was happy to oblige.
20 years ago I used to work at a company and an immigrant lady colleague also had a stock portfolio and she did better than any person in the Finance department. Her husband worked as a handyman. In fact, every person in our Finance department was more aggressive with the company finances than with their own portfolio but she was the opposite.

I see mostly men posting about the lack of financial interest from their wives. Individually find out the root cause for yourself and your role in it. As Yogi said, others can guess but can be wrong. If you need help, ask another woman for the cause. There may be a few in this forum.
Great post YBB.

I don't think it is a gender issue. I think is a marital relationship issue, and what is unique in that marital relationship regarding finances and investing.

Per this source, um, it is at least part gender issue, or at least it can be stratified as such:
https://www.newyorklife.com/newsroom/2024/survey-highlights-existing-financial-confidence-and-knowledge-gaps-between-men-and-women
Excerpt (BOLD addded):
NEW YORK - The latest findings from New York Life’s Wealth Watch survey provide insights into the existing financial confidence and knowledge gaps between men and women. Confidence is the top emotion that men report feeling toward managing their household finances (45%) while stress is the leading emotion for women (38%). The survey found that women report feeling the most knowledgeable about paying bills, maintaining good credit, and saving for emergencies. However, they report feeling significantly less knowledgeable than their male counterparts about building wealth, creating investment portfolios, understanding protection products like insurance, and legacy planning.
Plenty of other stratified M/F data included in study for anyone interested in facts over opinions.
That said, the data pretty much ties to what my 40-50 years of work and investing experience has taught me and what I've posted previously here.
Aside: I worked in audit shops my entire career. By chance, the composition was generally skewed more towards women than men. Many were VERY bright people, including plenty of MBAs, CPAs and CAOs, with our reports going to upper mgmt and high level clients.
I always wanted to discuss investments, portfolios and wealth management with anyone else interested, including auditees and those to whom we reported. So did the vast majority of the men I worked under/managed. Conversely, the women, many highly educated and certified in high level finance positions, were largely uninterested, uneducated and inexperienced in wealth mgmt.
Puhleeease don't take these remarks as sexist. They are not and I am not. Take them for what they are: my real-life experiences in the financial world. These experiences are what convinced me the best way to tend to my wife's financial future if I pass first was to educate her as best I could on wealth management.

an advisor friend of mine was talking about how great these buffer products were for their clients. They use innovators but I'm like the outcomes since these became things have been awful. the 2020's have given us +18/+29/-18/+26/+25 market returns. This completely obliterates the return profiles of defined income and buffered ETF's. anything with floor/caps.
These seem reasonable to an investor IMO because they don't realize the market doesn't fall into these buffer zones as much as they think they do. When you see the market returns 9% historically, its easy to assume that most years fall in that range but they don't. its like 33% of all years are in the typical floor/cap returns (-10% to 15%) and like 60% of them are in the above 15%.

I see mostly men posting about the lack of financial interest from their wives. Individually find out the root cause for yourself and your role in it. As Yogi said, others can guess but can be wrong. If you need help, ask another woman for the cause. There may be a few in this forum.
Great post YBB.

Good point BB.
I've (gratuitously) managed ports for at least 10 women over the past 40+ years. The most often cited reason from them for not wanting to manage their ports is FEAR.
Yeah, ALL CAPS! True FEAR! FEAR of all kinds of things related to management of investments or doing anything of material financial consequence.
FEAR related to investment portfolio mgmt is as really tough obstacle to overcome. But as part of managing their ports, I've had as a goal for each of them to one day be confident and capable of managing their own ports. I've only been able to do that with one woman who took over the mgmt of her port and is doing remarkably well. Conversely, with a couple of others, we know that we can only even talk to them about their ports for about five minutes before they nearly pass out or break out in hives.
Both widow's ports who had spousal written plans that we currently manage are the same:
Intense FEAR of everything related to the process, especially their own acumen
Distrust, near hatred, of their dearly departed (sic) hubbies handled their finances
Which is all to say, whatever a spouse has written in their plan for their surviving spouse stands a reasonable chance of not being executed/executed as planned due to FEAR, distrust and/or a lack of acumen.

We have the option to discontinue the medical part of auto insurance in Michigan. Having a good health plan, I opt-out. Unfortunately, for my insurer this involves signing and mailing in a form every 6 months or you default back to the more expensive plan. The opt-out is somewhat hidden inside a 5-6 page document, extremely confusing to read through with several different options one may check off (most of which don’t apply to you). I made a paper copy of one before mailing it and simply pull that out every 6 months as a model rather then wading through it all over and over. Looks like a game to me to keep those w/o the reading skills or interest in the matter continuing to pay higher premium for insurance they don’t need or can’t afford.
I have generally adhered to the advice @msf’s father related to him. 5 years (+ -) would seem a reasonable time to stop collision coverage. Maybe a bit longer with today’s more expensive to repair “computers on wheels.” With comprehensive coverage, however, ISTM you get quite a bit for a small price. Covers storm damage, glass breakage, stone chips from debris and striking a deer or other critter. I carry a $2500 collision deductible. Have considered going even higher for a bit greater savings. At some point it becomes a comfort issue, as most here could probably afford to replace a totaled vehicle.
One element that gives me pause is that my insurer covers collision damage to rented vehicles up to the amount your own car is covered. I had a rental totaled in Florida 15 years ago by a distracted commercial truck driver who took out 3 passenger vehicles that were waiting at a red light. My insurer picked up the entire bill. Did not have the expensive insurance from the rental car company. So, I’d not want to drop collision unless prepared to pay for coverage at the rental counter.
Added - If you finance your vehicle all bets are off. Lenders often mandate full collision / comprehensive coverage. That’s one good reason not to finance a vehicle. I’ve never leased, but would imagine terms are similar when it comes to insurance.

@Crash: kudos to you for helping your niece get an education. My hasty reading the first time through had me wondering if sending money to Australia was a new idiomatic expression for kissing money goodbye. Au contraire! I, too, will fund education, but I become very stingy when relations want dough for something else.
@rforno: way back in the late sixties when my wife and I were building castles in the sky, we heard of an Aussie scheme that would pay us to settle there in return for teaching for two years. Naïve at the time, we had no idea that trying to attract « people like us » was part of a plan to populate the country with whites as opposed to Asians. It’s quite ironic now because Madame and I ended up with 5 Asian adoptees. When we lived in Berkeley, a friend told me we fit right in because no one looks like their parents there. Sadly, I can’t say that level of tolerance can be found just anywhere in the US of A.