Hi Maurice...the bonus is minimal. I think I was quoted ~few hundreds bucks for one mill of equities stocks if tranfsferred over. Although I found Schwab probably give very good customer services at their firm and their induvidusl bonds/fees/costs provbavbly lowest in the business. I've compared bonds before and the finsl cost ~5 bucks less overall compared to other firms
blockquote class="Quote" rel="Maurice">@msf It has been a long time since I transferred an account from one broker to another. But this summer I explored such a transfer with Schwab. Visiting their brick and mortar store, I was verbally told that I would receive a cash bonus, but not before I inquired about it. I can't remember if there was an advertised deal, or if the account rep was just being accommodating. He also stated that Schwab would cover any charges incurred by me for transferring my accounts from Scottrade. I also had to inquire about the latter, because the account rep did not mention this in our discussion. I did not get these offers in writing, because I haven't yet committed to making the change. The key is that if you don't ask, you probably won't get these deals. This is one of those instances, where doing it all on the internet without talking to a human being, probably won't yield you the best deal.

Here's a page of Fidelity promotions this year. Some (notably cash) have expired, but this page is presenting what were real offers:
http://www.topratedfirms.com/brokers/promotions/fidelity-promotionoffers.aspx
Fidelity Investments Up to $2,500 Cash Bonus Promotional Offer
Promotion Offer: New and existing Fidelity customers can earn from $200 up to $2,500 cash bonus from Fidelity Investments when they open and fund brokerage or IRA accounts within 60-days from the time of registration for the offer.

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

@msf,
>> Wait until Fidelity has another cash promotion
have not seen such; they have had?
All the $50 xfer fees were reimbursed by ML. Our 'benefit' total will be $1150 all told, plus the zero commissions thing for all ML trading, although I seldom do that.
Somewhere I have Fido paperwork from 1971 account, which I kept to show a rep at a center once, not that long ago. (Yawn, another geezer passing through.)
Yeah, I've wondered how the thou will be logged. I am a little more tax-sensitive in semiretirement than I used to be, since I've been following the Optimal Retirement Planner guru's deep looks at withdrawal strategies and taxes. Man, does Welch keep up. He may not be Kitces or Thomas, but what a free service he provides; unbelievable.

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.

@msf - My account closing fees ($75/account) charged by Scottrade were reimbursed to me by Fidelity.

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

I just earned a thou from ML for transferring three retirement accounts from Fido, leaving one. The downside is unavailability of some funds, of course, but they did transfer ones they do not 'carry'.
I asked Fido beforehand about retention / stay incentives, esp as a 50y customer, and got zilch.

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.

FYI: Ask most people about the bitcoin bubble, and they’ll probably have the same reaction: It’s interesting, but it won’t affect me. After all, they’ll figure, they aren’t investing in bitcoin, so if there is a bubble, and it does burst, they’ll be just fine.
Well, maybe they should start worrying.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-bitcoins-bubble-matters-1507515361

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.

AQR Core Plus Bond Fund
AQR High Yield Bond Fund
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1444822/000119312517306006/d368916d485apos.htm

I can confirm that just calling and asking can reap benefits/rewards. My primary account has always been with Fidelity. I also had a smaller account at Scottrade (<$50K) that I didn't want to have merged with TD Ameritrade. I got 100 free trades ($495) for moving the funds to Fidelity after speaking with a Fidelity rep.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month
http://www.nationalbreastcancer.org/breast-cancer-awareness-month
I guess all these millions of people walking and raising money every year are wrong and wasting their time. Kick them to the curb, when they start soliciting money from you. Or maybe, just maybe, it is NIH and HHS that needs to become aware, and stop telling people that preventative testing is excessive and unnecessary.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're getting at in the first part. Of course more women should be aware of the preventive services like mammograms that are already available to them. If the government is going to cut back on things like informing people about what the ACA provides, it's up to others to carry that message. Why would we kick the messengers to the floor?

The results of the survey suggest a need for health literacy, with 68 percent of women being unaware that coverage of mammograms is mandated by the federal Affordable Care Act, which states the screening be given without a co-pay or deductible, Phyllis Greenberger, president and CEO of SWHR, told FoxNews.com.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/30/more-than-half-women-dont-get-mammograms-study-finds.html
As to NIH and HHS telling people that preventive testing is excessive and unnecessary, my guess is that you wouldn't go advising healthy 18 year old women to get mammograms every six months, just in case. We probably agree that at some point preventive testing does become excessive and unnecessary. It's a question of where one draws the line, not whether preventive testing could possibly be excessive.
The ACA generally bases what preventive services be covered at zero cost on USPSTF's guidelines (which say that mammograms offer substantial or moderate benefit starting at age 50, but just small net benefit between 40 and 49). So a specific exception was written into the ACA to include mammograms for women 40 and above.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/10/aca-doesnt-restrict-mammograms/
I believe it's because of the way the law was written that this exception was going to expire. But for whatever reason, the Health Resources and Services Admin (part of HHS) recently updated its guidelines so that the ACA would continue covering mammograms at age 40.
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/preventive-services-for-women-covered-by-private-health-plans-under-the-affordable-care-act/
In addition, USPSTF points out that its "'C' [small net benefit] recommendation ... is often misinterpreted as a recommendation against mammography screening or coverage. In the linkage to coverage established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the USPSTF's role is limited to evaluating the science to determine the net benefit of a clinical preventive service. [USPSTF's] review of the scientific evidence may be only one of the inputs to determining insurance coverage; often it is the floor to determining minimal coverage, not the ceiling."
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/convergence-and-divergence-around-breast-cancer-screening/breast-cancer-screening1
It is in that gray area of small net benefit (over the whole population) where conversations between patient and doctor may be most productive. Different people place different emphasis on possible outcomes, so what might make sense for one person won't make sense for another.
Here's the Susan G. Komen page on Weighing the Benefits and Risks of Mammography including sections on overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
As noted in a lengthy Mother Jones column: "With so much rhetoric flying back and forth, it can be difficult for women to make truly informed decisions." That makes talking with doctors about the real risks and benefits even more important.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/faulty-research-behind-mammograms-breast-cancer/

Mainstay's PR holdings, last I read their commentary, were all insured debt, in contrast to Opp'heimer. The 1m total returns reflect the difference: MMHAX -0.59%, OPTAX -2.65%, ORNAX -2.88%. M* shows the HY muni fund category with a -0.60% return for the same period.

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!

FYI: After watching investors flee to index funds, assets are flowing back to American Funds.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-active-fund-giant-wins-back-some-investors-1507514940?tesla=y

FYI: The latest target-date funds focus on the task of managing a nest egg once retirement has started, including RMDs. Will they catch on?
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-target-date-funds-are-geared-for-withdrawal-time-1507515120?tesla=y

Hello,
There are a lot of spins investors can pull form the Sell In May strategy.
I have found, as a retail investor, that the strategy does not work every year; but, for me, it has worked more times than not. In addition, I have found it to be a good time to rebalance thus maintaing neutral positions within my asset allocation. This past May I rebalanced (calendar based) and reduced equities back to what my barometer and equity weighting matrix was calling for, within my asset allocation, and instead of moving to cash or bonds I moved to hybrid funds thus raising my allocation in hybrids.
Since, I am now retired I plan to keep raising my allocation to hybrid funds until they make up about 50% of my overall portfolio. May seems like a good time for me to do this (calendar based). And, since equities have had a good run through the summer and are now richly priced (from my perspective) I plan to just sit this fall and not increase my equity allocation. If equities continue to have their upward run (as I anticipate) come May I'll do another rebalance (calendar based). However, should there be a decent pullback, within equities (three to five possibly seven percent range), I will be putting a little cash to work and raise my equity allocation (another type of rebalance, market based). I call this throttling my asset allocation based upon market movement.
In comparing my current investment posture to a strategy found in baseball that is designed to advance the runners ... it's time to play some small ball. From my perspective, it is not a time, for me, to be overly aggressive for more reasons than one.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

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