I think you mean non-deductible contributions. In Roth IRA leagalize, "qualified" generally refers to "distributions" (withdrawals). Distributions are said to be qualified if they meet the five year rules and you're over 59.5 or meet some exception.
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p590b/ch02.html#en_US_2016_publink1000231061
"Qualified" is also used to describe employer plans that satisfy section 401(a) of the tax code (e.g. 401(k) plans). A completely different subject.
http://www.360financialliteracy.org/Topics/Retirement-Planning/Retirement-Planning-Basics/What-does-the-term-qualified-plan-mean

The link is a nice try, but is talking about something different - money in employer-sponsored plans (e.g. 401(k)s). With all due respect to LLJB, I think you might be advised to ignore it, at least for now. Especially given your question asking to clarify whether 401(k) assets count in this IRA question.
Short answer - they don't; that's why I'm suggesting you pay no attention to 401(k) rules for now.
The only way your wife's 401(k) plan could mess with the IRA Roth conversion is if your wife rolled over the 401(k) money into an IRA (the existing one or a new one) before doing the conversion. Don't do that, and you're fine.
Dolphin's got it exactly right.
==========
Other details include:
- Since this is wife's first Roth IRA, she'll have to wait five years to get post-conversion earnings out without taxes
- If converted money is withdrawn in less than five years and wife is under 59.5 at the time, then there's an extra penalty. (The reason is that this is viewed as a backdoor for getting money out of the original IRA before age 59.5, which would have that penalty.)
Here's a description of the general 5 year rule for all Roths (explaining the first item above):
http://fairmark.com/retirement/roth-accounts/roth-distributions/tax-free-distributions-from-roth-iras/
Here's a description of the Roth conversion/early withdrawal penalty issue (second item):
http://fairmark.com/retirement/roth-accounts/roth-distributions/distributions-after-a-roth-ira-conversion/

Here's some info from the IRS that doesn't specifically answer the question but would be interesting if you wanted to get all the after-tax contributions out of the IRA and into a Roth while moving whatever gains are there into another pre-tax plan.
https://irs.gov/retirement-plans/rollovers-of-after-tax-contributions-in-retirement-plans
I didn't follow any of the other links on the page but my guess is that you might find specific answers about the tax implications and/or penalties in one of those links.
The tax returns and Form 8606, which is used to report after-tax contributions to the IRS is all you need to prove your basis. I believe, but I'm guessing a little, that brokers or trustees have to report the value of retirement plans to the IRS annually or at least when there's a distribution so the IRS can calculate what portion of the distribution you should be paying tax on.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1023391/000089706917000173/cg891.htm
497 1 cg891.htm
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(k)
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
1933 Act File No. 333-12745
1940 Act File No. 811-07831
FMI Funds, Inc.
FMI International Fund
Investor Class FMIJX / Institutional Class FMIYX
March 17, 2017
Supplement to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus
dated January 31, 2017
FMI International Fund (the “Fund”) to be Closed to New Investors
Effective April 30, 2017, the Fund will be closed to new investors. Except as indicated below, after April 30, 2017, only investors of the Fund on April 30, 2017, whether owning shares of record or through a processing intermediary, are eligible to purchase shares of the Fund. Exceptions include:
§ Participants in an employee retirement plan for which the Fund is an eligible investment alternative and whose records are maintained by a processing intermediary having an agreement with the Fund in effect on April 30, 2017.
§ Clients of a financial adviser or planner who had client assets invested in the Fund on April 30, 2017.
§ Employees, officers and directors of the Fund or Fiduciary Management, Inc., the investment adviser to the Fund (referred to as the “Adviser”), and members of their immediate families (namely, spouses, siblings, parents, children and grandchildren).
§ Firms having an existing business relationship with the Adviser, whose investment the officers of the Fund determine, in their sole discretion, would not adversely affect the Adviser’s ability to manage the Fund effectively.
§ An investment in the Fund that officers of the Fund determine, in their sole discretion, would not adversely affect the Adviser’s ability to manage the Fund effectively.
The Fund reserves the right, at any time, to re-open or modify the extent to which the future sales of shares are limited.
In connection with the closing of the Fund, the discussion on “Exchanging Shares” on page 33 of the Prospectus is deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:
EXCHANGING SHARES
Shares of a Fund may be exchanged for shares of any other Fund or for the First American Retail Prime Obligations Fund, subject to minimum purchase requirements:
·FMI Large Cap Fund
·FMI Common Stock Fund
·FMI International Fund (must be an existing shareholder of the FMI International Fund, as the Fund is closed to new investors)
·First American Retail Prime Obligations Fund
at the relative net asset values. An affiliate of USBFS advises the First American Retail Prime Obligations Fund. This is a money market mutual fund offered to respond to changes in your goals or market conditions. Neither USBFS nor First American Retail Prime Obligations Fund is affiliated with the Funds nor the Adviser. You may have a taxable gain or loss as a result of an exchange because the Internal Revenue Code treats an exchange as a sale of shares. The registration of both the account from which the exchange is being made and the account to which the exchange is being made must be identical. Exchanges may be authorized by telephone unless the option was declined on the account application.
How to Exchange Shares
1.Read this Prospectus (and the current prospectus for the fund for which shares are to be exchanged) carefully. (Please note that the FMI International Fund is currently closed to new investors, subject to certain limited exceptions as set forth above.)
2. Determine the number of shares you want to exchange keeping in mind that exchanges to open a new account are subject to a $1,000 minimum ($2,500 with regard to the FMI International Fund and the First American Retail Prime Obligations Fund) for Investor Class shares and a $100,000 minimum for Institutional Class shares.
3.Write to FMI Funds, Inc., c/o U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC, P.O. Box 701, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-0701.
Once a telephone transaction has been placed, it cannot be canceled or modified.
Call the transfer agent at 1-800-811-5311 to obtain the necessary exchange authorization forms and the First American Retail Prime Obligations Fund Prospectus. This exchange privilege does not constitute an offering or recommendation on the part of the FMI Funds or the Adviser of an investment in any of the foregoing mutual funds.
********
The date of this Supplement is March 17, 2017.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.

Maybe swap PONDX for PDI, and make some other sells to put more into DSEEX
add to FRIFX, start GABCX, consider preferreds also for the non-equity part of the nut.
70 in a few weeks and must start full SS, so will want to see how cashflow from retirement moneys changes.

With no intent on my part to "diss" the new managers, it seems like the current/departing managers are "officer level" at PIMCO, and the new managers hold "manager level" positions. Again, I am certain the new managers are quite as adept at bond-picking as the current managers, but it seems like officer-level current managers, unable stem the outflow of AUM at BOND have decided to pawn off the management of the ETF to (essentially) their subordinates.
I also note, the departing managers of BOND, also run its OEF equivalent PTTRX -- which is nearly-ubiquitous in company retirement plans. It will be interesting to watch..
It might be embarrassing if the new managers of BOND begin to outperform their bosses who will still be running PTTRX..
Or, is the handover of management of BOND, preliminary to the eventual handover of management duties on PTTRX?

Hi Nick de Peyster,
I couldn't agree more! Garbage in, garbage out is always an accurate cautionary summary.
And since future investment returns and inflation rate changes are unknowable unknowns, the sensitivity of retirement success to these unknowns should be explored. Monte Carlo codes that are fast running with simple input features make that exploration easy. Simulations like these alert the potential retiree to the risks of that decision and the survival robustness of his portfolio.
For example, Monte Carlo simulations can be used to guide the construction of a portfolio by demonstrating the survival sensitivity to the portfolio's standard deviation. For any given projected returns, reducing the portfolio's standard deviation increases its survival prospects. Running a what-if case will put odds to that generic truism.
I also fully agree with your statement that Monte Carlo is only a tool that plays a small part in the retirement decision. It provides some odds estimates. When gambling, the player who knows the odds will likely do better than a player who is ignorant of those odds.
A successful retirement is much more dependent on the emotional stability and the flexibility of the retiree over any calculation, Monte Carlo or otherwise.
Monte Carlo does not guarantee happiness in retirement. But it can enhance a retiree's comfort feelings if a bunch of what-if Monte Carlo simulations all produced portfolio survival estimates in excess of 90%. Even more comfort if those simulations yielded estimates above 95%. We can work a portfolio to increase its survival likelihood over an extended timeframe.
Thank you for your contribution. I enjoyed the opportunity it provided.
Best Wishes

Hi Old Joe,
Well time hasn't changed much for us. You're the same Old Joe of FundAlarm days. That's not only good for you, it's good for me.
It's amazing how your earlier submittal mirrored my initial entry. I said: " When I first became interested in the retirement riddle, Monte Carlo calculators were not readily available. So I built my own copy." You later said:"When I first started work on our retirement plan, Monte Carlo calculators were not readily available. So I built my own projection engine....". That's an unexpected similarity in words, but not in methodology.
The question has always been how the year-to year-projected returns were selected in your spreadsheet. I used a random generator command to select my annual returns. That's the heart of all current Monte Carlo codes. Random return selections is not so easy a task. Avoiding bias in the selection process is a real challenge.
But let me end this exchange with a famous humorous story. I'm sure you're familiar with the scientist who was awarded a Nobel prize when he discovered an error in the Random Number tables. Anyway, that's my attempt at humor!
I'm pleased that you recovered from the 2008 market debacle. I retired in the early 1990s and our portfolio has fortunately never been in any dangerous survival zone. I'm sure much of that success is pure luck.
I wish you and your family well and much pure luck too.
Best Regards

Hi Old Joe,
More sophisticated time related portfolio failure rates are not the problem with the codes. All Monte Carlo codes generate that data as a natural output of their calculation procedure. The problem is that many code designers elect not to include that data in their output summaries.
As an example, I like both the MoneyChimp and the Portfolio Visualizer Monte Carlo codes, mostly because of their easy accessibility and easy input formats. The Portfolio Visualizer code includes a summary graph that depicts portfolio survival as a function of study time; the MoneyChimp code does not. You can choose depending on your needs.
Either code can be a useful part of a retirement planning toolkit. Since these are Monte Carlo tools, precise answers are not possible. Given identical inputs, each code will generate a slightly different portfolio survival rate. Hell, running the same code twice will produce slightly differing output survival odds. That"s the nature of uncertain, unknowable future events.
In terms of the sensitivity of portfolio failure times, the problem is not the code being used. The construction details of the portfolio being examined is the culprit. Portfolios that have a high returns standard deviation are likely candidates for a bunch of some early failures. Being flexible in drawdown is also useful to avoid that outcome.
Thanks for the question. I hope this helps.
Best Wishes

The Swedroe article is very informative and interesting, especially with respect to taking a hard look at the retirement plan projected failure rate. While various plans may have an apparently similar rate, the failure may occur at significantly different points along the retirement timeline. Mr Swedroe recommends the use of the more sophisticated Monte Carlo simulators to help deal with this problem.
When I first started work on our retirement plan, Monte Carlo calculators were not readily available. So I built my own projection engine, using a spreadsheet which allowed for multiple variable inputs, especially tailored for worst-case simulation. It also included an option to reduce withdrawal rate percentage if the portfolio suffered negative returns.
I am a firm believer in Murphy's Law: "If anything can go wrong, it will go wrong, and at the worst possible time". True to form, 2008 came along soon after our retirement. Thanks to the planning, we survived very nicely, and have completely recovered.

Hi Guys,
A double hooray is warranted. To complementt the Larry Swedroe endorsement of the Monte Carlo simulator, Professor Snowball has added his informed investment weight. Recently he posted a reply that mentioned a Monte Carlo code that he favored. I'm sure it is a worthy tool. Here is the internal Link to his submittal:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31674/suggested-reading-for-a-teenage-investor-next-step
All this is useful stuff when making retirement decisions in a random investment returns environment.
Individual investors who resist this fairly modern tool, which only became available in the1990s, are missing out on a methodology that is specifically designed to focus on uncertain investment outcomes that's generate uncertain end wealth and portfolio survival odds. These outputs give some insights when exploring the retirement quagmire.
I am no longer the Monte Carlo Lone Ranger on this site with both the Swedroe and Snowball endorsements of this methodology. Persistence pays off! With time, Monte Carlo will become as welcomed and as common as our morning coffee.
My Monte Carlo recommendations are certainly not exhaustive. Other more sophisticated Monte Carlo codes are accessible on the Internet. Typically they require more specific inputs because they assess taxable circumstances and tax implications on end wealth. I have not recommended them because of my self imposed simplicity ground rule.
Best Wishes

As of last night's close 70% cash and 30% bank loan. I have been making adjustments based on personal/retirement issues however. The link below from this site may be prophetic. Let's hope that panic buying day last week is not the reverse of that panic selling day in February of 2016 that marked the bottom. The newsletter writers per Market Vane have been at multi decades levels of bullishness.
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31645/wsj-asks-who-else-is-left-to-buy#latest

@Paul: Wake up and smell the coffee !!! I linked both article on 3/4 & 3/6. Please, in the future, scroll to see if you articles have already been linked.
Regards,
Ted
American Funds:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31702/paul-katzeff-psst-want-to-turbocharge-your-retirement-account-check-out-american-funds-buys-sells#latest
Will Danoff:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31666/paul-katzeff-fidelity-s-will-danoff-talks-about-the-super-bowl-and-super-stocks#latest

@Nick: While I don't know the figures, many states are moving public employees away from defined benefit plans (the traditional pension) towards 403(b)-type plans for which employees need to make greater contributions and for which they must take a more active role in selecting investment options. Employees must be more knowledgeable than ever before, must make greater voluntary contributions, and often face (as described in the Times article) bad or confusing choices. Ideally, a group of employees, similar to those described by David at his college, can exert pressure on the employer (municipality, school board, etc.) to offer low-cost, no-load funds. One of the sad consequences of the "gig economy" or the "right to work" movement is to leave workers with no voice or place at the table, especially with respect to funding retirement. Even those who are represented face reductions in funding and, primarily in the private sector, complete abandonment when an employer is bought out or ceases operations.

My wife was a teacher in the SF Public School System for 35 years (and deserves a hero medal). She was extremely fortunate, in that the SF teachers had a decent pension system (CA Teachers Retirement), were allowed to also contribute to Social Security, and also were allowed a self-funded, self-directed 403B. After she retired we rolled the 403B over to an IRA.
Because of that, we contributed self-funding to the max on her salary, and Social Security and self-funded IRA on my salary. For the twenty years of my final job with San Francisco as a radio tech I also received a city pension.
While we were very fortunate to be in the right spot at the right time for those benefits, we also saved like crazy for forty years, and are now very comfortable.

@Mark.

I'm just trying to figure out what influences those votes or do they just not care.

Let's say you're running one of the biggest fund shops on earth, and you have the opportunity to run General Electric's 401k plan and collect millions of dollars in management fees for running it. Are you going to vote against GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt's $33 million annual compensation plan? There is an inherent conflict of interest at the biggest fund shops regarding these votes. Their answer to questions about these conflicted interests is that they have a Chinese wall up on the votes and their 401k/retirement business doesn't get in the way of their decisions on CEO pay. But here's the thing, there's a simple way around that conflict of interest wall--vote in favor of all or almost all executive compensation plans no matter how egregious. That way they can say, "See no conflict of interest with this specific company we have 401k business with. We vote terribly on everything. "

Hi Guys,
Hooray for Larry Swedroe! In this current article Swedroe identifies Monte Carlo simulators as an important tool when making a retirement decision. He joins many financial advisors who also exploit this useful tool when making that life changing decision. I too have recommended application of Monte Carlo simulators since the early 1990s.
Swedroe emphasizes that a projected failure rate from these Monte Carlo estimates is not sufficient as a standalone output. He argues that the time of potential portfolio exhaustion failure during the retirement lifecycle is also critical. I completely agree.
The code that I frequently recommend, from Portfolio Visualizer, does provide that information in a graphic format. Once again, here is a Link to that excellent website tool:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation
When I first became interested in the retirement riddle, Monte Carlo calculators were not readily available. So I built my own copy. I too recognized that the time of failure was a critical output. So on my version of a Monte Carlo code I included a user option to reduce withdrawal rate percentage by a user input if the portfolio suffered negative returns for 3 consecutive years.
An input of a 10% withdrawal rate reduction after 3 down markets lowered the portfolio failure rate substantially. These Monte Carlo studies encouraged my early retirement. Other approaches to protect against a portfolio failure exist.
I encourage you guys to visit the Portfolio Visualizer website and to consider using their Monte Carlo code. It's a terrific tool; give it a try.
Best Wishes.

FYI: Retiring without sufficient assets to maintain a minimally acceptable lifestyle (which each person defines in their unique way) is an unthinkable outcome. That’s why, when investors are planning for retirement, the most important question is usually something like: How much can I plan on withdrawing from my portfolio without having a significant chance of outliving my savings?
The answer is generally expressed in terms of what is referred to as a safe withdrawal rate—the percentage of the portfolio you can withdraw the first year, with future withdrawals adjusted for inflation.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/index-investor-corner/swedroe-retirements-routes-failure?nopaging=1

Receiving a steady stream of income over the course of your retired life is not a terrible concept, in fact it's necessary. Not all annuities are designed the same. Most 403(b) annuities have high initial costs, poor investment choices, and many ongoing costs. In my case, I looked closely at my retirement systems options, I ran my budget, and I evaluated how to construct my retirement plan. I, too, had a required pension (annuity) in lieu of Social Security. I realized that this pension alone was not going to keep the light on and the beer tap flowing. So I saved additionally to help compliment my pension annuity. These were non-annuity choices such as Roth IRAs, 403(b)(7)s, T.IRAs.
If I had, instead, funded additional annuities I would have had fewer retirement choices. The retirement distribution options for these annuity plans seemed hard and fast. I decide these choices had too many restrictions, too many fees and too few investment options.
An annuity is a contract...understand the fine print before you start investing in one. They often are very difficult to understand and, like quicksand, awful difficult to get out of without paying an ultimate price.

@bee Thanks, yes! "I'm on the case." I was on the phone to them a year or two ago, and I recall being told that when retirement comes, she COULD annuitize it. I just don't like the way they smell.