Losses early in retirement can disrupt the journey—even when long-run returns meet expectations.

Large investment losses early in retirement often have a large impact on retirement security, an impact that can be especially pronounced for individuals who stop savings and coast to retirement. Sequence-of-returns risk: the timing of returns matters, not just their long-run average.

Introduction

A recent Wall Street Journal article by Oyin Adedoyin, Young People Are Obsessed With This Simple Retirement-Savings Formula, describes Coast FI, an approach in which people accumulate enough early in life for investment growth to carry them toward retirement without further contributions. Coasting means stopping retirement contributions, while continuing to work to cover current expenses.

Coasting is often presented as a deliberate choice: a worker reaches a savings threshold and decides that further contributions are unnecessary. In practice, life events can produce a similar outcome without any carefully calculated decision to coast. Not everyone who starts at a major law firm makes partner or can sustain the hours and demands of that career. Having children, caring for relatives, illness, or losing a job can lead people to accept lower pay or reduce their working hours. They may continue covering current expenses while contributing little or nothing to retirement savings. For these workers, coasting is less a lifestyle preference than an adjustment to changed circumstances. The question is still whether their existing savings can support retirement—and how vulnerable that plan is to investment losses when withdrawals begin.

The basic calculation discounts a retirement savings target by an assumed compounded return over the years remaining until retirement:

Savings needed today = Retirement target ÷ (1 + annual return)ʸᵉᵃʳˢ

For example, a person seeking $1 million at age 65 and assuming a 7 percent nominal annual return would need $184,249.18 at age 40: $1,000,000 ÷ (1.07)²⁵. The experiment below considers a person with $165,824.26 at age 40 who stops contributing and retires at 62. With a 7 percent annual return, those savings grow to approximately $734,668 at retirement. The question is how long that portfolio can support spending that begins at $50,000 annually—and how losses early in retirement affect the answer.

The formula uses a single assumed compounded return even though annual returns often vary by a lot. This paper does not challenge the common planning assumption that long-run average market returns will be solidly positive.

Instead, I examine one additional risk: the sequence of returns once retirement withdrawals begin. Strong long-run returns do not necessarily prevent losses early in retirement or at an end of a career from exhausting savings sooner than expected.

Previous Research on sequence risk explains why an average return alone is insufficient for retirement planning:

• Wade Pfau’s regression-based analysis of lifetime returns shows that returns late in a career become particularly important when workers are still contributing, while early-retirement returns have disproportionate effects on sustainable spending.

• Michael Kitces examines sequence risk for savers and retirees and the vulnerability surrounding retirement. His research with Pfau also finds that starting retirement with a more conservative portfolio and gradually increasing equity exposure can improve sustainability under unfavorable return sequences.

• My earlier article, The Sequence of Returns Puzzle, illustrates why losses late in a worker’s saving career and early in retirement can be especially damaging. The experiment below applies the withdrawal side of that problem to a person who has stopped contributing at 40.

• My earlier article, When Higher Withdrawal Rates Backfire, examines how higher initial withdrawals amplify the damage from early retirement losses. Flexible withdrawal rules can help preserve savings but may require substantial spending cuts—leaving retirees financially solvent without maintaining an acceptable standard of living.

The Experiment

The experiment compares three investment scenarios: constant returns, losses at the beginning of retirement, and the same losses ten years later. All three have the same compounded investment return over the 52 years from age 40 to age 92.

• Scenario 1 — Constant returns: 7 percent nominal annually during both coasting and retirement.

• Scenario 2 — Early losses: a 10 percent loss in each of the years beginning at ages 62 and 63, with 7.7431 percent annually in every other year, including the coasting years.

• Scenario 3 — Later losses: a 10 percent loss in each of the years beginning at ages 72 and 73, with 7.7431 percent annually in every other year, including the coasting years.

Scenarios 2 and 3 each have two loss years and 50 normal years within the comparison period. Their normal-year return g is calculated from:

(0.90)² × (1 + g)⁵⁰ = (1.07)⁵²

Thus, a portfolio receiving no contributions or withdrawals would have the same ending wealth under every scenario at age 92. The stronger normal-year return compensates for the two loss years. Annual returns are converted into equivalent monthly compound rates, and calculations use the unrounded value of g.

The three scenarios share the following assumptions:

• Savings and coasting. Each person has $165,824.26 at age 40, makes no further retirement contributions, and takes no withdrawals before age 62. Scenario 1 earns 7 percent annually during these 22 years and reaches retirement with $734,668.09. Scenarios 2 and 3 earn 7.7431 percent annually during coasting and each reaches retirement with $855,491.09. Calculations use unrounded balances and returns.

• Consumption. Final-year salary is $150,000. Initial annual retirement consumption is one-third of that salary, or $50,000, regardless of wealth. Consumption rises 3 percent on each retirement anniversary.

• Monthly withdrawals. The first withdrawal occurs at age 62. Spending is $4,166.67 per month in the first year, calculated without rounding, and remains constant within each retirement year. Withdrawals occur at the beginning of each month, before investment returns.

• Other cash flows. The portfolio funds all modeled consumption. There is no additional income, saving, or reduction in spending following losses. Returns are net of fees; taxes are omitted.

• Comparison criterion. Count the full monthly withdrawals the portfolio can finance before the next scheduled withdrawal exceeds remaining assets.

Scenarios 2 and 3 enter retirement with identical wealth, approximately $120,823 more than scenario 1. Their comparison isolates the effect of moving the same two loss years from the beginning of retirement to ten years later.

Comparisons with Scenario 1 reflect the fact that Scenarios 2 and 3 require higher normal-year returns to offset their two loss years. The comparison between Scenarios 2 and 3 isolates the effect of the timing of those losses.

Results with Monthly Withdrawals

Scenario 1 — Constant returns: 263 full monthly withdrawals, or 21 years and 11 months of consumption. The first shortfall occurs at age 83 years and 11 months.

Scenario 2 — Early losses: 217 full monthly withdrawals, or 18 years and 1 month of consumption. The first shortfall occurs at age 80 years and 1 month.

Scenario 3 — Later losses: 289 full monthly withdrawals, or 24 years and 1 month of consumption. The first shortfall occurs at age 86 years and 1 month.

Moving the two loss years from the beginning of retirement to ages 72 and 73 adds 72 full monthly withdrawals, or six years of consumption. Both scenarios start retirement with the same wealth and experience the same investment returns in a different order.

Despite entering retirement with approximately $120,823 more than scenario 1, the early-loss portfolio supports spending for three years and ten months less. Withdrawals during the downturn reduce the capital available to benefit from subsequent growth.

Scenario 3 benefits from ten years of 7.7431 percent annual returns before its losses occur. Its portfolio supports spending for two years and two months longer than the constant-return portfolio.

This result illustrates that delaying losses allows a portfolio to build a larger cushion before withdrawals are affected.

Implications for the Coasting Calculation

Equal compounded returns over the full comparison period do not produce equal retirement spending outcomes. The early-loss portfolio begins retirement with more wealth than the constant-return portfolio but reaches a shortfall sooner. Moving those losses ten years later extends the funding period by six years.

The results illustrate why a coasting calculation cannot rely solely on an assumed long-run return. A worker may accumulate the projected savings balance and still face an insecure retirement if substantial losses occur when withdrawals begin. Under the early-loss path, these savings cannot fully fund the next scheduled monthly withdrawal shortly after age 80, leaving a considerable spending gap for someone who lives into their nineties.

This paper examines one set of savings, retirement age, and spending assumptions. Other combinations could produce substantially different outcomes and deserve further study. Monte Carlo simulations could extend the analysis by generating many possible investment return paths and estimating how often people who stop saving early can sustain their planned retirement spending. That research could help identify how much savings—and what margin for adverse returns—a worker needs before coasting becomes a reasonable retirement strategy.

Authors Note: This article is free to read and share. If you found it useful, consider supporting Economic and Political Insights with a paid subscription. Your support helps me continue researching retirement, health care, economics, and public policy. Use this coupon to subscribe for $30 for one year.

The appendix below explains the model and calculations for readers who want to examine the results.

Subscribe now

Share

Appendix: How the Retirement Simulation Was Calculated

This appendix describes the calculations used in the retirement experiment and verifies the results reported in the paper. The purpose is to make the assumptions transparent and allow readers to reproduce the analysis.

Starting Conditions and Coasting Period

The model begins with a worker age 40 who has saved $165,824.26 and makes no additional retirement contributions. The worker continues working but allows the portfolio to grow until retirement at age 62.

Scenario 1 assumes a 7 percent nominal annual return during the 22-year coasting period:

$165,824.26 × (1.07)^22 = $734,668.09

Thus, the worker reaches retirement with $734,668.09.

Scenarios 2 and 3 are designed so that all three scenarios have the same compounded investment return from age 40 through age 92. These scenarios contain two years with a 10 percent loss and 50 years with a higher normal return.

The normal-year return is calculated so that:

(0.90)^2 × (1 + normal return)^50 = (1.07)^52

Solving this equation produces a normal-year return of approximately 7.7431 percent.

Applying that return during the coasting years gives:

$165,824.26 × (1.077431)^22 = $855,491.09

Therefore:

• Scenario 1 begins retirement with $734,668.09.

• Scenario 2 begins retirement with $855,491.09.

• Scenario 3 begins retirement with $855,491.09.

The higher retirement balances in Scenarios 2 and 3 reflect the fact that those scenarios require higher normal-year returns to offset their two future loss years.

Retirement Withdrawal Assumptions

The first withdrawal occurs at age 62.

Initial retirement spending is based on one-third of final salary:

$150,000 × 1/3 = $50,000 per year

The first monthly withdrawal is therefore:

$50,000 ÷ 12 = $4,166.67

Spending increases by 3 percent on each retirement anniversary. Withdrawals remain constant within each retirement year.

Withdrawals occur at the beginning of each month. The portfolio balance is reduced by the withdrawal before that month’s investment return is applied.

The monthly return is calculated from the annual return:

Monthly return = (1 + annual return)^(1/12) − 1

Investment Scenarios

The retirement return paths are:

Scenario 1: Constant returns

• 7 percent annual return every year.

Scenario 2: Early losses

• 10 percent losses at ages 62 and 63.

• 7.7431 percent annual returns in all other years.

Scenario 3: Later losses

• 7.7431 percent annual returns through age 71.

• 10 percent losses at ages 72 and 73.

• 7.7431 percent annual returns thereafter.

The only difference between Scenarios 2 and 3 is the timing of the two loss years.

Verification of Results

The monthly withdrawal model was recalculated using the assumptions above.

The results are:

Scenario 1: Constant returns

• 263 full monthly withdrawals.

• Spending supported for 21 years and 11 months.

• First insufficient withdrawal occurs at approximately age 83 years and 11 months.

Scenario 2: Early losses

• 217 full monthly withdrawals.

• Spending supported for 18 years and 1 month.

• First insufficient withdrawal occurs at approximately age 80 years and 1 month.

Scenario 3: Later losses

• 289 full monthly withdrawals.

• Spending supported for 24 years and 1 month.

• First insufficient withdrawal occurs at approximately age 86 years and 1 month.

The calculations reproduce the results reported in the paper.

Limitations and Extensions

This experiment is designed to isolate one issue: the effect of the timing of investment losses after retirement begins. It does not estimate the probability of experiencing any particular return sequence.

A more complete analysis would use Monte Carlo simulations to generate many possible investment paths and examine how often different combinations of savings, retirement ages, spending levels, and return sequences lead to successful or unsuccessful outcomes.

The purpose of this exercise is narrower: to demonstrate that even when long-run compounded returns are equal, the timing of losses can materially change how long retirement savings support planned spending.

Additional Readings:

Pfau, Wade D. The Lifetime Sequence of Returns: A Retirement Planning Conundrum (2013).

Kitces, Michael. Valuation-Based Tactical Asset Allocation in Retirement (2014). Discussion of joint research with Pfau on rising equity glidepaths.

Bernstein, David. The Sequence of Returns Puzzle: Why Timing Hurts Workers and Retirees in Opposite Ways (2025). Examines why losses late in a worker’s saving career and early in retirement can be particularly damaging.

Bernstein, David. When Higher Withdrawal Rates Backfire (2026). Examines how higher initial withdrawals amplify exposure to early losses and why flexible withdrawal rules may preserve savings at the cost of substantial spending cuts.

A recent Wall Street Journal article, “The Surprise Social Security Benefit That Goes to Parents Who Have Kids Late,” called attention to a little-known provision of Social Security: when a parent begins receiving retirement benefits, eligible dependent children may also qualify for monthly benefits.

The Journal provides a useful introduction to the benefit and explains why it can complicate the decision about when to claim Social Security. This article builds on that discussion by looking at several additional questions: How many people receive the benefit? How much can children receive? Is there a limit when several children qualify? And what are the rules for stepchildren, adopted children, and children born or adopted outside the United States?

The provision is relatively narrow. In July 2026, about 731,000 children of retired workers were receiving benefits, with an average monthly benefit of about $960. Many of these beneficiaries are disabled adult children rather than young children. At the end of 2025, about 323,000 children under age 18 were receiving benefits on the records of retired workers.

Although the benefit may seem obscure, it is almost as old as Social Security itself. The original Social Security Act of 1935 provided retirement benefits to workers but did not provide benefits to their dependent children. Congress added benefits for spouses and dependent children of retired workers in the 1939 Social Security Amendments, before the first monthly Social Security retirement checks were issued in 1940. The amendments represented an important change in the program: Social Security became not simply retirement insurance for an individual worker but also a form of insurance for the worker’s family. The basic concept that a qualifying child could receive a benefit equal to 50 percent of the worker’s benefit also dates to 1939.

For the relatively small number of older parents who still have dependent children, the benefit can nevertheless be financially significant. An eligible child’s basic benefit can be as much as 50 percent of the worker’s Primary Insurance Amount (PIA)—essentially the benefit the worker would receive at full retirement age. Importantly, the child’s basic benefit is based on the PIA rather than on the reduced retirement benefit the parent may receive after claiming Social Security early. The child’s actual payment can still be lower because of Social Security’s family-maximum rules.

Three features of the benefit are particularly important to the decision about when an older parent should claim Social Security:

• Claiming before full retirement age reduces the parent’s benefit, but not the child’s basic benefit in the same way. The parent’s monthly retirement benefit is permanently reduced for claiming early, while the child’s basic benefit continues to be calculated as a percentage of the parent’s PIA, subject to the family maximum.

• Waiting beyond full retirement age increases the parent’s benefit but does not similarly increase the child’s benefit. For people born in 1943 or later, delayed-retirement credits increase the worker’s benefit by 8 percent for each year of delay up to age 70. Those delayed-retirement credits do not increase the child’s benefit.

• Most importantly, the child generally receives no benefit until the parent claims Social Security retirement benefits. A parent who waits from age 67 to 70 may increase his or her own eventual monthly benefit, but during those three years an otherwise eligible child generally receives nothing on that parent’s retirement record. Those forgone child benefits can be substantial and cannot ordinarily be recovered later.

These rules create an unusual claiming-age tradeoff. For someone without dependent children, waiting from full retirement age until 70 can be attractive because of the 8 percent annual delayed-retirement credits. An older parent must weigh those higher future retirement payments against child benefits that the family could receive by claiming sooner. Depending on the number and ages of the children, claiming at full retirement age—or potentially earlier—can therefore deserve considerably more attention than it would for a similarly situated retiree without dependent children.

There is, however, a limit on how large the family benefit can become. Social Security does not continue paying an additional 50 percent of the worker’s PIA for every additional child without limit. Benefits paid on one worker’s earnings record are subject to a family maximum, which for retirement families is determined by a statutory formula and commonly results in total family benefits of roughly 150 to 180 percent of the worker’s PIA. The retired worker’s own benefit is not reduced; instead, benefits payable to children and other eligible family members are reduced when necessary. Thus, a parent with one or two eligible children may receive substantial additional family benefits, but a very large number of children would not produce correspondingly large benefits. So, no, this is not a reason to go out and have 100 children late in life.

Potentially eligible children include a worker’s biological children, legally adopted children, and qualifying stepchildren. Ordinarily, the child must be unmarried and under age 18; age 18 or 19 and a full-time student in elementary or secondary school; or age 18 or older with a qualifying disability that began before age 22.

A stepchild can qualify, but Social Security generally requires a dependency test—typically that the worker was providing at least one-half of the child’s support at the relevant time.

Legally adopted children can also qualify. Timing, however, matters. A child adopted before the worker becomes entitled to retirement benefits is generally considered dependent on the worker. A child adopted afterward can face additional requirements, particularly if the child was not already the worker’s natural child or stepchild. The distinction can be especially important for foreign adoptions because the rules for certain post-entitlement adoptions require an adoption decree from a court of competent jurisdiction within the United States. A small body of case law has addressed disputes over these post-entitlement adoption and dependency requirements.

Foreign birth or citizenship does not automatically disqualify a child. A foreign-adopted or foreign-resident child may qualify, but the precise parent-child relationship, timing of the adoption, citizenship or immigration status, and rules governing payment while outside the United States can all matter.

The bottom line is Social Security benefits for children of older parents is an old and relatively narrow Social Security provision that has received little attention because most people do not have dependent children when they retire. But for the families to whom it applies, the amounts can be substantial.

An eligible child generally cannot begin collecting on a retired parent’s record until the parent claims retirement benefits. This provision can impact the decision on when to claim benefits.

Sources

The Wall Street Journal, “The Surprise Social Security Benefit That Goes to Parents Who Have Kids Late,” September 27, 2026
https://www.wsj.com/personal-finance/the-surprise-social-security-benefit-that-goes-to-parents-who-have-kids-late-05497d3e

Social Security Administration, Benefits for Children
https://www.ssa.gov/faqs/en/questions/KA-02053.html

Social Security Administration, Family Benefit Amounts and Family Maximum
https://www.ssa.gov/family/amount

Social Security Administration, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2026 — Benefits to Children of Retired Workers
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2026/5a.html

Social Security Administration, Monthly Statistical Snapshot
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/

Social Security Administration, Historical Development of the Social Security Act
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/sspus/histdev.html

Social Security Administration, Delayed Retirement Credits
https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/delayret.html

Social Security Administration, 20 C.F.R. §404.353 — Child’s Benefit Amount
https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-0353.htm

Social Security Administration, 20 C.F.R. §404.362 — Dependency of a Legally Adopted Child
https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-0362.htm

Social Security Administration, Program Operations Manual — Stepchild Dependency
https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200306232

Adoption, stepchild dependency, and international-payment cases can be fact-specific. Eligibility in an individual case should be confirmed with the Social Security Administration.

Subscribe now

Share

Key Points

• When long-term Treasury yields are exceptionally low, investors may be better off foregoing some long-duration exposure and accepting a limited amount of equity risk instead.

• The result holds in both the 2006–2025 and 1996–2025 simulations, but the longer period is a more demanding test because it includes many years when 30-year Treasury yields were high enough to justify buying the long bond.

• Simply requiring a 5% yield before buying the 30-year Treasury produced approximately the same terminal wealth as buying it regardless of yield, while generally reducing risk.

• Risk depends on how it is measured. Strategy 4 produced much higher return-to-volatility ratios, but it also experienced deeper maximum drawdowns. Sharpe ratios therefore tell only part of the risk story.

• The large improvement in returns came not merely from avoiding low-yield long bonds, but from investing the foregone allocation in equities. The next question is whether other equity portfolios, including higher-dividend strategies, can retain much of that return advantage with less downside risk.

A fair criticism of this paper is that it may be six years too late. As I argued in Long-Duration Bond Funds Still Haven’t Recovered From COVID, the greatest danger came when investors were buying very long-duration securities at exceptionally low yields.

Today is different. Current long-term yields make the 30-year Treasury considerably more defensible, although I would still approach the purchase of long duration assets cautiously as discussed in Is the 30-Year Treasury Yield Really That Attractive?.

A 30-year Treasury yielding 6 percent and one yielding 2 percent are both obligations of the United States government. But they are not economically equivalent investments. The question is whether investors should assume the same amount of duration risk regardless of the yield they are being paid.

I test four strategies over two periods: 2006–2025 and 1996–2025. Each portfolio receives $10,000 every six months, at the beginning of January and July.

Strategy 1 — Buy All Maturities. Divide each contribution equally among 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, 2-year, 5-year, 10-year and 30-year Treasuries whenever those maturities are available.

Strategy 2 — Buy the 30-Year Only at 5% or More. If the 30-year yield is below 5%, redistribute its allocation among the six shorter Treasury maturities.

Strategy 3 — Buy at 5%, Sell Below 3%. Follow Strategy 2 but check the 30-year yield at every month-end. If it falls below 3% and the portfolio owns 30-year Treasuries, sell those positions and reinvest the proceeds among the shorter maturities.

Strategy 4 — Use the S&P 500 Instead. When the 30-year yield is at least 5%, invest one-seventh of the contribution in it. Otherwise, invest that $1,428.57 in SPY, the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust, while the other six-sevenths remain in the six shorter Treasury maturities.

I compare the strategies using ending wealth, money-weighted annual return, annualized volatility, maximum drawdown, and the Sharpe ratio. The Sharpe ratio combines return and volatility into a conventional measure of risk-adjusted performance:

Sharpe ratio = annualized return above the 3-month Treasury-bill rate ÷ annualized volatility.

A higher Sharpe ratio is better: it indicates more excess return per unit of volatility.

2006–2025

There are 40 contributions totaling $400,000. The 30-year Treasury met the 5% threshold on only 2 contribution dates, was available but below 5% on 37, and was unavailable on 1. In Strategy 4, the one-seventh allocation that otherwise would have gone to the 30-year Treasury was invested in SPY on the 38 nonqualifying or unavailable dates.

• Return. Strategies 1–3 produced almost identical ending wealth: $497,902, $498,215 and $497,645, respectively. Strategy 4 finished at $670,138, with a money-weighted annual return of 4.79%, compared with about 2.09% for the Treasury-only strategies.

• Risk. The 5% purchase rule substantially reduced conventional volatility: annualized volatility fell from 3.42% in Strategy 1 to 2.37% in Strategy 2. Strategy 4’s volatility was also 3.42%, surprisingly close to Strategy 1. But maximum drawdown tells a different story. Strategy 4 suffered a 7.45% maximum decline, compared with 2.58%for Strategy 2. Both are legitimate measures of risk, but for an investor concerned about how far a portfolio can fall during a bad period, the deeper trough in Strategy 4 may be more revealing than its relatively modest average variability.

• Risk-adjusted return. The Sharpe ratio—excess return per unit of volatility—was 0.24 for Strategy 1, 0.27 for Strategy 2, 0.27 for Strategy 3 and 0.79 for Strategy 4. On the conventional volatility-based measure, Strategy 4 therefore provided much greater compensation for risk, although its larger maximum drawdown is an important qualification.

• Accounting check on Strategy 4. The SPY investments made in place of the 30-year Treasury grew to approximately $237,000 by the end of 2025. The corresponding allocations in Strategy 2, which were instead invested in shorter Treasuries, grew to roughly $65,000. The difference—about $172,000—closely matches the $171,923 difference in terminal wealth between Strategies 4 and 2. That reconciliation provides a useful independent check on the Strategy 4 result.

The Longer Test: 1996–2025

The 2006 sample contains an unusually long period of very low interest rates. Going back to 1996 provides a more demanding test because long-term yields were substantially higher during much of the earlier period.

There are 60 contributions totaling $600,000. The 30-year Treasury met the 5% threshold on 15 contribution dates, was available but below 5% on 37, and was unavailable on 8. Unlike the shorter sample, the rule therefore repeatedly permitted purchases of the 30-year Treasury during the higher-yield years.

• Return. Strategies 1 and 2 again produced virtually identical ending wealth: $889,650 and $889,963, respectively. Strategy 3 finished somewhat lower at $884,806. Strategy 4 reached $1,142,691, with a money-weighted annual return of 3.94%, compared with about 2.47% for Strategies 1 and 2.

• Risk. Strategy 2 again reduced conventional variability: annualized volatility fell from 2.66% in Strategy 1 to 2.47%, while Strategy 4’s volatility was only moderately higher at 2.84%. Maximum drawdown tells a less favorable story for Strategy 4. Its largest peak-to-trough decline was 6.03%, compared with only 2.16% for Strategy 2. Both measures are valid, but the substantially deeper trough may be the more meaningful warning about Strategy 4’s risk for an investor concerned about losses during severe market declines.

• Risk-adjusted return. The Sharpe ratio—excess return per unit of volatility—was 0.28 for Strategy 1, 0.30 for Strategy 2, 0.29 for Strategy 3 and 0.61 for Strategy 4. Thus Strategy 4 provided substantially more return per unit of conventional volatility, although that statistic does not fully capture its larger maximum drawdown.

• Accounting check on Strategy 4. The SPY investments made when the 30-year Treasury either failed the 5% test or was unavailable grew to approximately $333,600 by the end of 2025. The corresponding allocations in Strategy 2, which instead went into shorter Treasuries, grew to approximately $80,900. The difference—about $252,700—almost exactly matches the $252,728 difference in ending wealth between Strategies 4 and 2. As in the shorter sample, this provides a useful independent accounting check on the Strategy 4 result.

The longer period therefore reinforces the basic result. Requiring a 5% yield before buying the 30-year Treasury reduced risk without sacrificing meaningful terminal wealth. The automatic sale rule added little. Redirecting the rejected long-bond allocation into equities produced substantially higher returns. The additional return was substantial relative to the increase in conventional volatility, although maximum drawdown was considerably larger.

Conclusion

These results reinforce the argument in my recent papers, Is the 30-Year Treasury Yield Really That Attractive? and Long-Duration Bond Funds Still Haven’t Recovered From COVID. Long-term interest rates have varied enormously over the past two decades—and even more over longer periods. Buying a high-duration asset when yields are exceptionally low can leave an investor accepting substantial interest-rate risk for very little compensation.

The Treasury results here are consistent with that concern. Requiring a 5% yield before buying the 30-year Treasury produced about the same wealth as buying it mechanically, but generally with less risk. The additional 3% sale rule added little.

If investors are going to assume substantial long-term risk, they should ask whether they are being adequately compensated for that risk rather than buying duration mechanically.

The largest improvement in return and in the conventional return-to-risk ratio came from Strategy 4, which invested the rejected 30-year allocation in equities. That result should not be interpreted as proof that the S&P 500 is always the right alternative. It instead raises the next question: if long-duration bonds are unattractive, what should replace them?

Next week I plan to extend the experiment by comparing the S&P 500 with other equity alternatives, including higher-dividend stock portfolios, to see whether some of the additional return can be retained with less downside risk.

Verification Notes and Limitations

This is a historical simulation, not a record of returns from actual Treasury securities purchased on these dates. Treasury yields are drawn from the U.S. Treasury’s historical daily par-yield-curve data. These constant-maturity rates provide a consistent historical measure of yields across maturities, but they are not transaction prices for particular Treasury CUSIPs. The results should therefore be interpreted as estimates of how the strategies would have performed rather than as precisely replicable real-world investment returns.

For Treasury maturities of one year or longer, each simulated purchase is treated as a par coupon bond whose coupon rate equals the constant-maturity yield at purchase. Coupons are paid semiannually. Coupon payments remain in the portfolio and are reinvested rather than treated as withdrawals. When a Treasury reaches maturity, its principal is reinvested in the same maturity at the then-prevailing yield. Short-term Treasury bills are modeled using their corresponding constant-maturity rates.

Each Treasury position is tracked separately and normally held to maturity. Strategy 3 is the exception: qualifying 30-year positions are sold when its explicit sale rule is triggered. Unsold securities remaining at the end of the experiment are marked to market using the December 31, 2025, Treasury yield curve, rather than simply valued at face value.

SPY is used for the equity alternative because its history begins in 1993 and therefore covers both samples. Adjusted closing prices are used so that dividends and stock splits are incorporated into the equity return series.

Returns exclude the external $10,000 semiannual contributions. Annualized volatility is calculated from six-month portfolio returns, while maximum drawdown is calculated from the time-weighted portfolio path so that contributions are not mistaken for investment gains. The Sharpe ratio uses the 3-month Treasury rate as the risk-free benchmark and is calculated consistently across all four strategies.

The simulation necessarily abstracts from some real-world considerations. It does not model specific Treasury issues, bid-ask spreads, commissions, taxes, execution timing differences, or other transaction costs. Constant-maturity yields are also interpolated measures rather than directly observed prices for a security held by an investor. These limitations make the exercise better suited to comparing the relative behavior of the four strategies than to claiming that an investor would have earned exactly the dollar amounts reported.

Author’s Note

Economic and Political Insights covers a fairly wide range of subjects, from investing and personal finance to economic policy and politics. Recent pieces include my forecast for control of the House in 2026, If I Were Speaker: A Tax Reconciliation Agenda, and the first installment of my new Race of the Day series, beginning with Washington’s 3rd Congressional District.

There will be a lot more election analysis and financial research between now and the end of the year. Most of my work will remain free, although some more detailed research and analysis may be reserved for paid subscribers.

If you enjoy the work, please at least become a free subscriber. And for readers who want access to the paid material while also supporting the research, I am offering 20% off a paid subscription.

Share

Subscribe now

Much of the discussion about AI and investing focuses on whether artificial intelligence can identify the next winning stock. A more practical use may be much less ambitious: helping investors execute portfolio decisions they already have reason to make.

Investors sell securities for many reasons. They may want to reduce their exposure to stocks because their portfolio has become more aggressive than intended or because they believe the market is unusually expensive. They may want to replace an investment they regard as relatively weak with one they believe has better prospects. Or there may be no judgment about the investment at all: an investor may simply need cash for a down payment on a house, tuition, a major purchase, or a larger precautionary reserve.

In each case, the investor has a reason to sell. That investment or financial objective should come first. Tax considerations should help determine how to execute the decision, not determine whether the decision should be made.

Trading in a taxable brokerage account can nevertheless create substantially different tax consequences depending on what is sold. Net short-term gains are generally taxed at ordinary-income rates, while qualifying net long-term gains may receive preferential rates. Capital losses offset capital gains, and only after losses exceed gains can up to $3,000 of the remaining net capital loss generally be deducted against ordinary income, with additional losses carried forward.

The tax value of a loss can therefore depend not merely on its size but also on what it offsets. A short-term loss used against a short-term gain can be particularly valuable because net short-term gains are taxed at ordinary-income rates; the immediate tax value may be lower if that loss instead offsets a preferentially taxed long-term gain.

Losses also require another check. Under the federal wash-sale rule, a loss can be disallowed when substantially identical securities are acquired during the period beginning 30 days before and ending 30 days after the loss sale.

The tax value of a loss should never be confused with the investment value of selling the security. The tax benefit from realizing a loss is limited, while the opportunity cost of abandoning an investment that subsequently recovers can be much larger. A loss should therefore generally be harvested when selling is already consistent with the investor’s objectives, or when the investor can maintain the desired economic exposure with an acceptable alternative.

Once the objective has been established, however, taxes and execution can matter considerably. An investor may have several securities that could be sold, multiple tax lots, some positions with gains and others with losses, and both short- and long-term holdings.

This leads to the practical question examined here:

Regardless of why an investor wants or needs to trade, can artificial intelligence help identify a more economically and tax-efficient way to carry out those transactions?

The answer appears to be yes—but only if AI is given the right information and the investor keeps the priorities straight.

What Information Does AI Need?

The first requirement is the investor’s year-to-date tax position. AI should know realized short-term gains and losses and realized long-term gains and losses from all taxable brokerage accounts reported on the same tax return, including both spouses’ accounts when filing jointly, along with any capital-loss carryforwards from previous years.

The second important input is the portfolio at the tax-lot level. For securities that might be sold, AI should know the number of shares with short- and long-term gains or losses, the amount of each unrealized gain or loss, and the relevant purchase dates.

The capital-gain and capital-loss calculations discussed here concern primarily taxable brokerage accounts, rather than investments held inside tax-advantaged retirement accounts.

If losses are being considered, AI also needs enough recent transaction information to identify possible wash sales. That can require looking beyond the brokerage account in which the security will be sold to other relevant household accounts, including a spouse’s accounts. AI cannot identify transactions it has never been shown.

Wash-sale analysis is another task AI can help automate. Instead of manually checking transaction histories across several accounts, the investor can provide those records and ask AI to flag purchases that fall inside the wash-sale window.

For ETFs, investors can often preserve broadly similar market exposure by buying a close substitute—a “twin” fund—but the tax rule turns on whether the replacement is substantially identical, so similarity alone does not automatically make the trade safe from the wash-sale rule.

Finally, AI needs to know what the investor is trying to accomplish—whether that means reducing stock exposure, replacing weaker investments with stronger ones, or simply raising cash. With that objective defined, AI can compare alternative sales and identify the combination that best preserves the desired portfolio while avoiding unnecessary taxes.

For an investor who simply needs to raise cash, the central question might be:

Which combination raises the required cash, moves the remaining portfolio closest to my desired allocation, and produces an acceptable tax result?

A Hypothetical Investor Example

Consider an investor who had accumulated roughly 50 positions, including several very small holdings in companies he did not know particularly well. His goal was to simplify the portfolio toward perhaps 20 positions and gradually shift away from small individual-company bets toward ETFs and a smaller number of large companies whose businesses and fundamentals he understood better.

Several positions he wanted to eliminate were trading at losses. The investment objective was already clear: simplify the portfolio and reduce exposure to companies about which the investor had relatively little conviction. But he did not want to sell the losing positions indiscriminately. If possible, he wanted to exit them at reasonably favorable prices while taking the tax consequences into account.

This is where AI became useful. Instead of evaluating a single trade, it could help screen roughly 50 holdings simultaneously for portfolio desirability, tax status, and current market performance. Among the positions targeted for elimination, AI could identify securities that remained below their purchase prices but were nevertheless having relatively good trading days, potentially providing better opportunities to exit.

Four unwanted positions were sold as part of the portfolio simplification. The proceeds were then redeployed into Berkshire Hathaway, Visa, and Apple, larger companies the investor was more comfortable owning. Approximately half of the new purchases were executed at market prices and the remainder through limit orders.

AI therefore contributed to more than the tax calculation. It helped sort the existing holdings for possible sales, identify losing positions that were performing relatively well that day, and use current market information to identify reasonable entry prices for the securities being added.

The tax loss considerations did not create the investment strategy. The investor had already decided to simplify the portfolio, reduce holdings in companies he knew less well, and concentrate more heavily on ETFs and larger companies he understood better. Tax information and current market prices helped determine how to execute that strategy more efficiently.

This illustrates the broader role for AI: it can combine an investor’s desired portfolio changes, tax position, and current market conditions to help answer not simply what should be sold, but which of the contemplated transactions make the most sense to execute now and how should the proceeds be redeployed?

This discussion is for educational purposes and is not individualized tax or investment advice. Tax circumstances vary, and complicated transactions or uncertain wash-sale situations may warrant review by a tax professional.

Author’s Note: I write Economic and Political Insights, a multi-topic blog covering investing and personal finance, economic policy, health care and retirement policy, and politics and elections. Readers interested in the investment research may also want to see When Similar Funds Produce Different Results, which examines how supposedly similar growth ETFs can produce materially different portfolio results; The 10% International Diversification Trap, which tests whether a small international allocation actually reduced portfolio risk; and Can Investors Find the Few Stocks That Create Most Market Wealth?, which examines the case for individual-stock selection against Hendrik Bessembinder’s evidence on the extraordinary concentration of long-run stock-market wealth creation.

Subscribe now

Share

The Argument for Cryptocurrency as a Diversifier

A recent CNBC article reports that diversification has become the leading stated reason for owning cryptocurrency. An Urban Institute survey found that 45 percent of crypto investors cite diversification as their primary motivation, suggesting that crypto is increasingly viewed as part of conventional portfolio construction rather than primarily as an ideological, anti-establishment, or purely speculative investment.

The case for diversification is that bitcoin has historically moved somewhat independently of stocks and bonds. The article nevertheless concedes that this relationship changes over time and often weakens during market stress. Crypto may therefore behave differently during ordinary periods without reliably protecting investors during a broad selloff.

• Digital assets had a reported ten-year correlation of approximately 0.20 with the S&P 500.

• Bonds had a much lower correlation of 0.02 with the S&P 500, implying a substantially greater diversification benefit.

• Bitcoin’s correlation with U.S. stocks rose to 0.55 over the three years ending in April 2025, although the article does not identify this specifically as an S&P 500 correlation.

• Crypto correlations often increase during risk-off periods, when investors sell stocks and other volatile assets together.

• Advisers quoted in the article generally recommend limiting crypto to approximately 1 to 3 percent of a portfolio.

• Bitcoin remains highly volatile. Above roughly 5 percent of a portfolio, its price movements may dominate overall risk rather than provide meaningful diversification.

These qualifications raise a more fundamental question: does cryptocurrency actually improve a portfolio, or does it merely add a different and unusually volatile source of risk?

Comment One: An Investment That Divides Smart People

Few asset classes produce such profound disagreement among sophisticated investors, economists, and technology leaders as cryptocurrency. Supporters such as Elon Musk, Jack Dorsey, and Michael Saylor do not merely expect bitcoin to appreciate; they contend that blockchain technology can transform how money and other assets are transferred.

Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger reached the opposite conclusion. Buffett regarded bitcoin as a nonproductive asset whose price depends on finding another buyer willing to pay more, while Munger dismissed it as “artificial gold” and objected to encouraging speculation in it. Nassim Nicholas Taleb has concluded that bitcoin has failed as a currency, inflation hedge, safe haven, and form of protection against catastrophic events.

Money laundering, fraud, sanctions evasion, and ransomware strengthen the skeptical case. In 2025, the Justice Department filed a civil-forfeiture complaint involving more than $225 million in cryptocurrency allegedly connected to a sophisticated money-laundering network and investment fraud. The FBI estimated that reported cryptocurrency investment fraud alone caused more than $5.8 billion in losses during 2024.

Profound disagreement among smart people does not prove that crypto has no value. It does demonstrate that crypto’s usefulness and appropriate valuation remain far less established than those of conventional stocks, bonds, real estate, or commodities. That uncertainty should count against—not in favor of—its inclusion in a portfolio.

Comment Two: Regulatory Risk Is Unusually Large

Regulatory risk is not unique to cryptocurrency. Tobacco, pharmaceuticals, banking, energy, and other industries can be transformed by taxes, prohibitions, safety rules, or changes in political leadership. Crypto is different, however, because governments are still deciding what the asset is, which agencies should regulate it, and whether particular activities should be permitted at all.

Regulation therefore affects not merely industry costs but crypto’s legal status, market access, and potential usefulness.

In the United States, policy has shifted rapidly from restriction toward accommodation. After years of resistance, the SEC approved spot bitcoin exchange-traded products in January 2024. Beginning in February 2025, the agency dismissed seven crypto-related enforcement actions brought under the prior commission, including its case against Coinbase, and announced that it was ending what it described as “regulation by enforcement.”

Congress has moved in the same direction. The Senate Banking Committee advanced the CLARITY Act by a 15–9 vote in May 2026, although disputes over enforcement, illicit finance, consumer protection, and conflicts of interest remain unresolved.

This relaxation cannot be separated from President Trump’s enthusiastic support for crypto and his enormous personal financial interest in the industry. His 2025 financial disclosure reported more than $1.4 billion in income from family crypto ventures, including almost $800 million received by his companies from World Liberty Financial. That creates an obvious concern that federal policy is being shaped by a president who profits directly from the assets being regulated.

The international divide is equally striking. China continues to classify virtual-currency business as illegal financial activity and reaffirmed its crackdown in late 2025 and early 2026. Europe is taking a different route by developing a regulated digital euro that could be issued in 2029 if the necessary legislation is enacted during 2026.

The United States has rejected that alternative. Trump’s January 2025 executive order prohibited federal agencies from establishing, issuing, or promoting a central-bank digital currency, and the House subsequently passed legislation intended to make that prohibition permanent.

The United States is therefore promoting privately issued crypto while Europe explores public digital money and China suppresses private trading and related financial activity. Any of these approaches could change after an election, financial crisis, fraud scandal, or shift in political leadership.

These are not minor rule changes. They determine whether investors can obtain crypto exposure through regulated products, whether exchanges can operate, which agencies have jurisdiction, and whether governments will offer competing forms of digital money. Regulatory events may cause crypto prices to diverge from other assets, but an independent source of political risk is not automatically a useful source of portfolio diversification.

Comment Three: Diversifying Within Crypto Is Not Simple

“Cryptocurrency” is not a single investment. Its major categories have different stated purposes:

• Bitcoin: A decentralized store and transfer of value.

• Smart-contract platforms: Ethereum and similar networks support applications and programmable transactions.

• Stablecoins: Tokens intended to maintain a fixed value, usually against the dollar.

• Utility and governance tokens: Assets tied to particular networks, projects, or voting rights.

• Memecoins: Highly speculative tokens driven largely by publicity and community enthusiasm.

These differences do not necessarily produce meaningful investment diversification. IMF research found that a single common “crypto factor” explained approximately 80 percent of the variation in crypto prices. Bitcoin had an average correlation of 52 percent with other major crypto assets, and the common crypto cycle has become increasingly connected to equity markets as institutional participation has grown.

Smart-contract, decentralized-finance, metaverse, and other tokens therefore remain strongly connected to the broader crypto cycle. An investor can own many different tokens and still be exposed primarily to the same underlying forces: liquidity, monetary policy, investor risk tolerance, publicity, and confidence in the crypto market.

Stablecoins are a partial exception because they are intended to remain near one dollar. That makes them potential cash-management or payment instruments rather than substitutes for bitcoin as a source of capital appreciation. They also introduce reserve, issuer, regulatory, and de-pegging risks.

The practical challenge is daunting. Diversifying across many cryptocurrencies has so far produced only modest benefits because most prices move together, yet any individual token can still suffer a spectacular collapse. Investors also do not know whether bitcoin, Ethereum, another network, or an asset not yet created will ultimately dominate.

Because the recommended total crypto allocation is generally only 1 to 3 percent of a portfolio, dividing it among numerous tokens creates extremely small positions while adding trading costs, custody problems, fraud exposure, thin markets, and technological uncertainty. A bitcoin-only allocation—or one concentrated in bitcoin with a smaller Ethereum position—is easier to implement, but it does not solve the underlying problem. It merely concentrates the allocation in one or two highly volatile assets.

Diversification within crypto therefore offers little answer to the larger objection. Investors receive limited protection from common crypto-market movements while remaining exposed to substantial token-specific risk.

Comment Four: Crypto Must Now Compete With AI for Speculative Capital

Cryptocurrency has always attracted investors who want to bet on the future, but the AI boom, SpaceX’s recent IPO, and prospective public offerings from OpenAI and Anthropic have greatly expanded their choices. AI companies, semiconductors, data centers, energy infrastructure, and space technology now compete with crypto for the same risk-seeking capital. SpaceX went public in June 2026, while OpenAI announced that it had filed confidentially for an IPO and Anthropic had also entered the prospective listing queue.

By early June 2026, bitcoin had lost roughly one-third of its value during the year as investors shifted toward AI stocks and major new offerings. Michael Saylor described the decline as a “capital rotation” into AI, while Bernstein analysts attributed weaker bitcoin demand partly to reduced retail participation. Bitcoin ETFs had recorded approximately $2.6 billion in net outflows when Bernstein published its analysis.

Diversification is not valuable for its own sake. It reduces portfolio risk only when an additional asset offers sufficiently strong returns or dependable protection when other investments decline. Moving money from stronger assets with greater economic potential into a weaker asset merely because its price sometimes behaves differently can reduce returns without materially protecting the portfolio.

AI companies, semiconductors, data centers, energy infrastructure, and space technology offer more direct exposure to productive innovation than crypto. They create products, services, intellectual property, physical infrastructure, or earnings that can provide a foundation for valuation. Bitcoin generates no corresponding stream of profits or productive output for its owner.

Nor does the evidence establish that AI and crypto will consistently move in opposite directions. Both benefit from speculative enthusiasm, abundant liquidity, low risk aversion, and investors’ willingness to bet on technological transformation. Both can decline when liquidity tightens or investors become more cautious.

Bitcoin is therefore not a true alternative to speculative technology. It is a weaker competitor for—and another expression of—the same limited pool of risk-seeking capital. Adding crypto does not provide meaningful diversification when it sacrifices exposure to more promising investments without offering reliable protection during technology-market declines.

Comment Five: Energy and Water May Become Common Constraints

Bitcoin and artificial intelligence compete not only for investment capital but also for physical resources. Bitcoin mining relies on energy-intensive proof-of-work calculations, while AI requires large clusters of advanced processors operating in data centers. Both need electricity, grid connections, land, cooling equipment and, in many locations, substantial water.

This concern applies most directly to bitcoin and other proof-of-work cryptocurrencies. Ethereum’s switch to proof of stake sharply reduced its electricity consumption.

The Department of Energy estimates that data centers consumed approximately 4.4 percent of U.S. electricity in 2023 and could consume between 6.7 and 12 percent by 2028. The International Energy Agency projects that global data-center electricity consumption will more than double to approximately 945 terawatt-hours by 2030, with AI driving much of the increase.

Because facilities are geographically concentrated, their effects on local grids, utility bills, land, and water supplies can be much greater than national averages suggest. Grid connections and water infrastructure may become binding constraints long before a country reaches a national electricity limit.

Political resistance is already growing. In July 2026, New York imposed the country’s first statewide moratorium on new hyperscale data centers, temporarily pausing state environmental permits for up to one year while officials develop rules addressing electricity prices, grid infrastructure, water resources, and effects on surrounding communities.

Other governments and localities are considering restrictions, new permitting standards, and changes to tax incentives. Such measures could affect AI facilities and crypto mines alike when they compete for the same limited power, water, land, and transmission infrastructure.

AI companies may increasingly outbid bitcoin miners for attractive power-connected sites because expected AI revenues can support large, long-term leases. Political authorities may also give AI priority when allocating scarce infrastructure because AI offers clearer potential benefits for productivity, employment, research, and economic growth.

Crypto is therefore vulnerable not only to competition for investors’ money but also to competition for the physical resources needed to sustain it. Where governments, utilities, or communities must choose between uses of scarce electricity and water, bitcoin mining may be difficult to defend.

Conclusion

The evidence reviewed here does not support treating cryptocurrency as a useful portfolio diversifier. Crypto adds extreme volatility, regulatory and technological uncertainty, and exposure to many of the same risk-on forces that drive speculative technology, while providing neither dependable downside protection nor a productive return. It therefore does not belong in a properly diversified portfolio.

Subscribe now

Share

Contractors, caregivers, part-time workers, employees of small businesses, and workers trapped in weak employer plans often receive far less. They may face lower contribution limits, no employer contributions, higher fees, fragmented accounts, and weaker protections.

My new Kindle book, A Third-Party Tax Reconciliation Approach to Retirement Security, proposes a middle path. It preserves employer plans and private investment choice while creating portable accounts, stronger plan standards, better federal matching contributions, and safeguards designed to ensure that more retirement wealth survives until retirement.

Here are ten features of the proposed approach.

1. It creates IRA–401(k) parity.

Workers without an employer plan should have comparable retirement-saving opportunities.

• Eligible workers could use a portable, employee-owned IRA.

• Its contribution limit would equal the 401(k) employee-deferral limit.

• Workers would no longer face a sharply lower saving limit solely because their employer does not offer a plan.

2. It makes retirement saving portable across jobs and income sources.

Workers should be able to continue saving and consolidate their accounts as their employment changes.

• Workers could designate one primary portable account.

• Employers and platforms could contribute directly to that account.

• Contributions from multiple jobs or income sources could flow into the same account.

• Small 401(k) balances would automatically roll into the IRA during job transitions.

• Employers could continue offering their own plans without controlling all of a worker’s retirement saving.

3. It makes Roth saving fairer.

Roth opportunities should not depend on income or the design of an employer’s retirement plan.

• Eligible portable-account savers could contribute directly to Roth accounts without the usual income phaseout.

• Access to large Roth conversions would no longer depend on whether an employer plan permits after-tax contributions and in-service conversions or rollovers.

• Backdoor Roth contributions would not trigger large tax costs because of the IRA pro-rata rule.

• Portable accounts would receive uniform federal creditor and bankruptcy protection.

• Aggregate contribution limits would prevent double benefits across multiple accounts.

4. It establishes minimum standards for retirement plans.

Tax-preferred plans should provide workers with reasonable fees, sound investments, and basic protections.

• Employer contributions would vest more quickly.

• Plans would offer low-cost index funds, target-date funds, and inflation-protected investments, including Series I bonds.

• Fees and expected retirement income would be disclosed clearly.

• High-fee, opaque, or illiquid investments would be restricted in default portfolios.

• Workers in especially poor plans could direct future contributions to a qualified portable account.

5. It automatically consolidates stranded retirement accounts.

Workers should not accumulate forgotten accounts every time they change jobs.

• Small balances could roll automatically into the worker’s designated portable account.

• A national account locator would help workers find lost or forgotten savings.

• Consolidation would reduce fees, paperwork, and abandoned accounts.

• Automatic rollover balances would not interfere with ordinary backdoor Roth contributions.

6. It protects a core retirement balance.

Retirement accounts should provide limited emergency flexibility without allowing workers to empty them before retirement.

• Workers could access no more than half of their cumulative employee and employer contributions.

• Investment earnings and the remaining contributions would stay protected.

• Complete cash-outs, repeated hardship withdrawals, and plan loans would be prohibited.

• Limited exceptions would remain for permanent disability or terminal illness.

7. It directs larger federal matches to households that need them.

Traditional tax deductions provide the largest benefits to households in high tax brackets, while lower-income workers often receive little immediate assistance.

• The federal government could match 100 percent of the first $1,000 contributed.

• It could match 50 percent of the next $1,000.

• Treasury would deposit the match directly into the retirement account.

• A gradual income phaseout would avoid sharp eligibility cliffs.

8. It protects spouses and unpaid caregivers.

A nonworking spouse should not lose the ability to build independently owned retirement savings because a married couple files separate tax returns.

• A nonworking spouse could make a spousal IRA contribution when married filing separately.

• Safeguards would prevent duplicate contributions or excessive household benefits.

• The change would help couples whose filing decision is influenced by student-loan repayment rules.

The proposal would also protect people who leave paid employment to provide unpaid family care.

• Qualifying caregiving would count as earned income for retirement-account eligibility.

• Eligible caregiver deposits could receive a federal match.

• The retirement account would belong to the caregiver rather than the earning spouse.

9. It makes Trump Account contributions permanent and coordinates them with Social Security reform.

Trump Accounts should support both early-adult needs and long-term retirement security.

• Make federal contributions to Trump Accounts permanent.

• Allocates one portion of Trump account to support education, training, or a first home and the other portion for retirement.

• Coordinate expanded Trump Accounts and these retirement reforms with long-term changes to Social Security benefits.

• Require any guaranteed-return feature to be capped, funded, and transparently scored.

10. It finances new assistance by taxing very large Roth inheritances.

Roth accounts should remain valuable retirement tools without becoming unlimited tax-free inheritance vehicles.

• A 7 percent tax would apply only at death.

• It would apply only to aggregate Roth balances exceeding an inflation-indexed $1 million threshold.

• The first $1 million would remain untouched.

• The revenue would help finance Saver’s Matches, caregiver assistance, and permanent Trump Account contributions.

Concluding Remarks: These proposals are not intended to replace 401(k)s, IRAs, or Social Security. They are designed to connect them more effectively and reduce the extent to which retirement outcomes depend on a worker’s employer, marital circumstances, caregiving responsibilities, or access to sophisticated financial advice.

The book translates these broad ideas into 21 legislative provisions that could form part of a tax-reconciliation bill. Many of the changes involve contribution limits, tax qualification, federal matching payments, account administration, and the treatment of large Roth balances at death.

Retirement reform must also be coordinated with long-term Social Security reform. Reductions in future Social Security benefits or increases in the retirement age would be more defensible if workers—especially lower-income workers, caregivers, and those without strong employer plans—were first given a better opportunity to build protected private retirement wealth.

A Third-Party Tax Reconciliation Approach to Retiremetn Security is not Available on Kindle.

Share

Two recent articles at Economic Memos identify a basic inequity in American retirement policy. The tax code does not simply encourage people to save. It gives substantially different saving opportunities to workers depending on whether they have a 401(k), what features their employer has selected, and whether they currently work for an employer that sponsors a suitable plan.

Workers with 401(k) plans generally receive much higher contribution limits than workers dependent on individual retirement accounts. They may also receive employer matching contributions, automatic enrollment, payroll deductions, and institutional investment options. Many workers who lack access to an employer-sponsored plan—particularly employees of small businesses, part-time workers, caregivers, and people moving between jobs—must rely primarily on IRAs with lower contribution limits and generally no employer match.

My earlier retirement-policy proposal therefore advocated universal automatic IRAs, higher IRA limits, and permission for employers to contribute directly to portable employee-owned accounts.

My more recent examination of whether workers should roll old 401(k) balances into IRAs uncovered additional disparities. Keeping money inside a 401(k) can preserve penalty-free access under the rule of 55, keep pretax assets outside the IRA pro-rata calculation used for backdoor Roth conversions, and preserve stronger and more uniform creditor protections. An IRA may offer lower fees and broader investment choices, but it is not a complete substitute for an employer plan.

The discussion that follows identifies three disparities in Roth retirement saving, including unequal access to the mega backdoor Roth.

The first disparity involves direct access and complexity. In 2026, eligibility to contribute directly to a Roth IRA phase out between $153,000 and $168,000 of modified adjusted gross income for single taxpayers and between $242,000 and $252,000 for married couples filing jointly. Above the applicable limit, the taxpayer cannot make a direct Roth IRA contribution.

No comparable income restriction applies to designated Roth 401(k) contributions. A worker earning $300,000, $500,000, or more may still contribute the full employee maximum to a Roth 401(k), provided the employer’s plan offers one. The Roth IRA income restrictions do not apply to designated Roth workplace contributions.

A high-income worker without a workplace plan may often use the ordinary backdoor Roth strategy, but only up to the much smaller IRA contribution limit and subject to the pro-rata rule discussed below.

The second disparity involves contribution limits. In 2026, a worker under age 50 may contribute $24,500 through regular 401(k) salary deferrals, while the total defined-contribution-plan limit—including employee contributions and employer contributions—is generally $72,000. The IRA contribution limit is only $7,500.

The third disparity is the mega backdoor Roth itself. This is not a separate account established by law for everyone. It is a strategy available only when a particular employer plan permits after-tax employee contributions beyond the normal $24,500 salary-deferral limit and permits those contributions to be moved into Roth status through an in-plan Roth conversion or qualifying rollover.

Consider two unmarried, high-income workers under age 50. Each earns $300,000 and has enough disposable income to save substantially more than the ordinary retirement limits.

Worker One: Qualifying Roth 401(k) Plan

The overall limit on annual additions to this worker’s 401(k) is the lesser of 100 percent of compensation or $72,000 in 2026.

The following cases show different ways the same $72,000 can be divided between employee and employer contributions and between Roth and conventional pretax accounts.

The examples assume that the worker is under age 50, earns at least $72,000, and has a particularly flexible 401(k) plan that permits:

1. Designated Roth 401(k) elective deferrals.

2. Voluntary employee after-tax contributions beyond the ordinary elective-deferral limit.

3. Prompt in-plan Roth conversions of those after-tax contributions.

4. In-plan Roth conversions of other eligible plan balances.

Not every plan offers these features. A plan may also restrict contributions by highly compensated employees to satisfy nondiscrimination rules. In 2026, the regular employee elective-deferral limit is $24,500, while total annual additions—including employee after-tax contributions and employer contributions—generally cannot exceed $72,000.

Case One: No Employer Contribution

Begin with the simplest case. Assume that the employer makes no matching, profit-sharing, or other contribution.

The worker contributes the entire $24,500 elective-deferral limit directly to the Roth 401(k). The worker then makes an additional $47,500 voluntary after-tax employee contribution:

Direct Roth 401(k) elective deferral: $24,500
Voluntary after-tax employee contribution: $47,500
Total annual additions: $72,000

The additional $47,500 is not another elective deferral and is not an employer contribution. The employee has already exhausted the $24,500 limit that applies collectively to regular pretax and Roth elective deferrals. The remaining contribution capacity is calculated as follows:

$72,000 overall limit − $24,500 Roth elective deferral = $47,500

The $47,500 initially enters the plan as a non-Roth after-tax employee contribution. If the plan permits a prompt in-plan Roth conversion, the worker can move it into the plan’s Roth account. Because income tax has already been paid on the contribution, generally only investment earnings accumulated before the conversion are taxable.

Under these assumptions, the worker personally contributes the entire $72,000, and the entire amount can enter Roth status.

Case Two: A $10,000 Conventional Employer Match

Now assume that the employer contributes a $10,000 conventional pretax match. The match counts toward the same $72,000 overall limit. It therefore reduces the employee’s remaining voluntary after-tax contribution capacity:

$72,000 − $24,500 Roth elective deferral − $10,000 employer match = $37,500

The annual additions would initially consist of:

Employee’s direct Roth 401(k) contribution: $24,500
Employee’s after-tax contribution converted to Roth: $37,500
Employer’s conventional pretax match: $10,000
Total annual additions: $72,000

The worker contributes $62,000, and the employer contributes $10,000. Of the worker’s contribution, $24,500 enters directly as a Roth elective deferral, while $37,500 initially enters as a non-Roth after-tax contribution.

If the plan permits a prompt in-plan Roth conversion, the worker may convert the $37,500 to Roth status. Because the worker has already paid income tax on that contribution, the conversion generally produces no additional taxable income except for any investment earnings accumulated before the conversion. If the conversion occurs promptly, those earnings—and therefore the resulting tax—may be negligible.

After the conversion, $62,000 is in Roth status, while the $10,000 employer match remains in the conventional pretax portion of the plan.

The worker could leave the employer match pretax. Alternatively, if the match is vested and the plan permits an in-plan Roth rollover, the worker could subsequently convert the $10,000 match to Roth. The previously untaxed $10,000, together with any untaxed earnings included in the conversion, would then be added to the worker’s taxable income for that year.

After that conversion, the entire $72,000 in annual additions would be held in Roth status. The conversion would not create another contribution or increase the $72,000 limit. It would merely change the tax character of the $10,000 already contributed by the employer.

Case Three: The Employer Match Is Roth From the Outset

SECURE 2.0 created another possibility. A plan may allow an employee to designate certain fully vested matching and nonelective employer contributions as designated Roth contributions when they are allocated. This option is not mandatory; the employer’s plan must affirmatively offer it.

If the plan permits the $10,000 employer match to be designated Roth from the outset, the annual additions would be:

Employee’s direct Roth 401(k) contribution: $24,500
Employee’s after-tax contribution converted to Roth: $37,500
Designated Roth employer match: $10,000
Total annual additions entering Roth status: $72,000

The same $72,000 limit applies. The difference from Case Two is the treatment of the employer contribution. Instead of first entering a conventional pretax account and possibly being converted later, the $10,000 match enters Roth status when allocated. The amount is included in the employee’s taxable income for that year.

These three cases are alternative allocations of the same annual limit:

• With no employer contribution, the employee may personally contribute the entire $72,000.

• With a conventional $10,000 match that remains pretax, $62,000 enters Roth status and $10,000 remains pretax.

• If the conventional match is later converted, or is designated Roth when made, the entire $72,000 may ultimately enter Roth status.

Other allocations are possible. The employee could divide the $24,500 elective deferral between pretax and Roth contributions. The employer could make matching, profit-sharing, or nonelective contributions. Those employer contributions would reduce the remaining room for voluntary employee after-tax contributions because they all count toward the same $72,000 limit.

The central comparison remains striking. A high-income worker with the right employer plan may be able to place the full $72,000 in annual additions into Roth status.

Worker Two: No Workplace Retirement Plan

The second worker has no 401(k). Because the worker’s income exceeds the Roth IRA ceiling, no direct Roth IRA contribution is permitted. The worker may instead contribute $7,500 to a nondeductible traditional IRA and convert it to a Roth IRA through the ordinary backdoor Roth strategy.

But the backdoor transaction does not increase the IRA contribution limit. It merely provides an indirect route for putting the same $7,500 into Roth status.

The annual comparison is therefore:

Worker with the qualifying 401(k): $72,000 in new Roth savings
Worker limited to an IRA: $7,500 in new Roth savings
Difference: $64,500

The worker with the qualifying 401(k) can place 9.6 times as much new money into Roth accounts as the worker who relies entirely on an IRA.

Using the 2026 limits as a constant illustration and ignoring investment returns, ten years of contributions would total $720,000 for the worker with the qualifying plan, compared with $75,000 for the IRA-only worker.

The IRA-only worker’s position may be even worse if that person already holds pretax traditional, SEP, or SIMPLE IRA balances. The ordinary backdoor Roth is then subject to the IRA pro-rata rule, which can make most of the conversion taxable.

Pretax money retained in a 401(k), by contrast, is excluded from that IRA calculation—another advantage attached to workplace-plan access. A worker planning regular backdoor Roth conversions should therefore consider the pro-rata consequences before rolling pretax 401(k) assets into an IRA. This was explained in my memo on rollovers from 401(k) plans to IRAs. Probably don’t do the rollover if you are planning to do backdoors through IRAs.

Congress should choose a consistent principle. It could create a portable, workplace-independent supplemental Roth account available to all workers, subject to a uniform combined contribution limit. It could permit employers to make matching contributions directly into employee-owned IRAs. Alternatively, Congress could restrict exceptionally large plan-based Roth contributions while increasing ordinary IRA limits.

Retirement policy should reward comparable saving consistently—not reserve its most valuable Roth opportunities for a select group fortunate enough to work for the right company.

Subscribe now

Share

Workers leaving an employer are often encouraged to roll their former 401(k) balance into an individual retirement account. An IRA can consolidate scattered accounts, reduce administrative and investment expenses, provide a wider range of investment choices, and prevent small former-employer accounts from being gradually depleted or forgotten. Retaining assets in a 401(k), however, can preserve penalty-free access under the rule of 55, protect the ability to make relatively tax-efficient backdoor Roth conversions, and provide stronger and more uniform protection against creditors.

The appropriate decision therefore depends on the worker’s age, account balance, investment costs, anticipated Roth strategy, need for early withdrawals, exposure to creditors, and the specific provisions of the former employer’s plan. A small, high-cost 401(k) left behind at an old employer can evaporate surprisingly quickly. Conversely, automatically moving every 401(k) into an IRA can cause the worker to surrender valuable tax and legal protections.

This comparison begins only after a worker has accumulated money in an employer plan. During the accumulation stage, however, 401(k)s generally receive advantages that ordinary IRAs do not: substantially higher contribution limits, possible employer matching contributions, and workplace systems that can automatically enroll employees and deduct contributions from each paycheck. Individuals without access to an employer-sponsored plan must rely primarily on IRAs, which ordinarily provide less contribution capacity and no employer match. An IRA may therefore be a useful destination for an existing 401(k), but it is not a fully equivalent substitute for the workplace plan that helped produce the balance.

The IRA Advantage in Reducing Fees and Preventing Stranded Accounts

The most immediate argument for transferring assets from a former employer’s 401(k) to an IRA is the opportunity to consolidate retirement savings in a carefully selected, low-cost account. Workers who change jobs repeatedly can accumulate several small 401(k) accounts, each with different investment menus, passwords, administrators, plan rules, and fees. Consolidating those balances can make it easier to monitor investments, maintain current contact and beneficiary information, and implement a coherent retirement strategy.

Small former-employer accounts are particularly vulnerable to fee erosion. A plan may impose both investment expenses calculated as a percentage of assets and fixed administrative charges that fall especially heavily on small balances. For example, a $1,000 account subject to a $100 annual administrative charge loses 10 percent of its value in the first year before considering investment performance. Even less dramatic charges can consume a substantial portion of a modest account when they continue for many years.

The cumulative effect can also be substantial for larger accounts. Research presented in How to Minimize the Impact of 401(k) Fees demonstrates that apparently small differences in annual expenses can produce very large differences in lifetime retirement wealth. A median-wage worker trapped in a high-cost plan could pay more than $100,000 in lifetime fees above the amount paid in a well-managed, low-cost plan.

The danger is not limited to fees. Former employees may move, overlook notices, lose passwords, fail to update their addresses, or simply forget that an account exists. Current law permits plans, when their governing documents allow, to remove certain former employees with small, vested balances and transfer qualifying funds to default IRAs when the participants fail to act. The receiving account is not necessarily inexpensive, and the worker may end up with another fragmented account that is difficult to locate or manage.

Inactive or abandoned retirement-related assets may also eventually become subject to state unclaimed-property procedures. When invested assets are liquidated after entering state custody, an owner who later recovers the money may receive only the value at the time of liquidation and lose the investment appreciation that would otherwise have occurred. Some owners never reclaim the assets at all. These problems are examined in greater detail in Stranded Savings: Inactive Accounts, Missing Rollovers, and the Hidden Cost of Fees.

A rollover into a deliberately chosen, low-cost IRA can address several of these problems at once. It can reduce account fragmentation, make savings easier to monitor, lower the risk that the owner will lose contact with an administrator, and replace an expensive or restrictive former-employer plan with a broader investment platform. IRAs also frequently offer greater flexibility in selecting mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, individual securities, fixed-income investments, and withdrawal arrangements.

This advantage is not universal. Some large employer plans offer institutional investments at costs below those available to individual investors. Some also provide access to stable-value funds or other investments that may not be readily available in an IRA. Conversely, an IRA managed by a high-cost adviser may impose advisory and investment expenses that exceed the cost of the former employer’s plan. The relevant comparison is therefore not between 401(k)s and IRAs in the abstract. It is between the total costs and features of the worker’s actual plan and those of a specific IRA.

The case for consolidation must also be weighed against important protections that can be lost when assets leave an employer plan.

The 401(k) Advantage Under the Rule of 55

Age 59½ is generally the point at which distributions from retirement accounts cease to be subject to the 10 percent additional tax on early distributions, although ordinary income tax and applicable plan restrictions may still apply. One important exception—the separation-from-service exception commonly called the “rule of 55”—applies to qualified employer plans but not to IRAs.

A worker who separates from an employer during or after the calendar year in which the worker turns 55 may generally take distributions from that employer’s 401(k), 403(b), or similar qualified plan without incurring the normal 10 percent additional tax. The withdrawals are penalty-free, not income-tax-free: distributions of pretax contributions and investment earnings remain subject to ordinary income tax.

Crucially, the exception does not apply to traditional IRAs. A worker who rolls the former employer’s 401(k) balance into an IRA may therefore lose access to the rule of 55 and ordinarily must wait until age 59½ to avoid the additional tax, unless another statutory exception applies.

The rule generally applies only to the plan maintained by the employer from which the worker separated during or after the qualifying year. It does not automatically apply to 401(k) accounts left at still earlier employers. A worker anticipating retirement between ages 55 and 59½ may therefore want to consider consolidating earlier employer accounts into the current employer’s plan before separating, provided that the plan accepts incoming rollovers.

The employer plan must also permit the desired form of distribution. Some plans allow former employees to make periodic or partial withdrawals, while others restrict access to a lump-sum distribution or a limited number of withdrawals. A worker contemplating use of the rule should review the plan documents before retiring or completing a rollover.

These rules create a potentially significant advantage for retaining retirement savings in a former employer’s 401(k) rather than immediately moving the balance into an IRA. A recent Wall Street Journal article by Anne Tergesen reports that workers often lose access to the rule simply because they roll their accounts into IRAs without realizing the consequence.

The 401(k) Advantage for Backdoor Roth Conversions

The tax cost of making a backdoor Roth contribution can be much lower for a taxpayer whose existing pretax retirement savings are held in a 401(k) rather than a traditional IRA.

A person with $400,000 in a 401(k) and no money in a traditional, SEP, or SIMPLE IRA can generally make a nondeductible traditional IRA contribution and promptly convert it to a Roth IRA with little or no additional taxable income, assuming the contribution has not generated investment gains. The $400,000 held in the 401(k) is excluded from the IRS pro-rata calculation.

By contrast, suppose the same person has no 401(k) balance but holds $400,000 of pretax money in traditional IRAs. The IRS aggregates the taxpayer’s traditional, SEP, and SIMPLE IRA balances with the new nondeductible contribution. The taxpayer cannot designate only the after-tax contribution as the amount being converted.

As a result, nearly the entire conversion is included in taxable income and taxed at the taxpayer’s applicable federal and state marginal rates.

This creates a significant tax preference for holding existing pretax retirement savings in a 401(k) rather than an IRA. A rollover that initially appears attractive because of lower fees or broader investment choices can make years of future backdoor Roth contributions substantially more expensive.

This disadvantage can sometimes be reversed. A taxpayer whose current employer’s plan accepts incoming rollovers may be able to move pretax IRA assets into that 401(k), removing those assets from the IRA pro-rata calculation. Whether this strategy is available depends on the terms of the employer plan.

The 401(k) Advantage in Creditor Protection

The clearest creditor-protection advantage of a 401(k) over an IRA arises outside bankruptcy. Assets held in most private-sector employer-sponsored 401(k) plans receive broad and relatively uniform federal protection under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. ERISA’s anti-alienation provisions generally prevent ordinary judgment creditors from reaching the account, even when a creditor has successfully sued the plan participant.

Traditional and Roth IRAs do not receive comparable nationwide federal protection from creditors outside bankruptcy. Their protection depends primarily on state law and therefore varies substantially from state to state. An IRA that is fully protected from a judgment creditor in one state may receive only limited protection in another.

Limited exceptions apply to 401(k) protection. Assets may be reached pursuant to a qualified domestic-relations order, certain federal tax claims, and some federal criminal judgments. Governmental and church plans may also be governed by different legal rules because they are generally outside ERISA.

The difference between 401(k)s and IRAs is smaller in bankruptcy. Congress substantially strengthened federal IRA protection through the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Under current federal law, both 401(k) plans and IRAs receive substantial bankruptcy protection.

The protection is not identical, however. Assets remaining in an ERISA-qualified 401(k), and qualifying amounts later rolled from such a plan into an IRA, are generally protected in bankruptcy without a dollar ceiling, although the owner may need records tracing the rollover assets to the former employer plan. By contrast, amounts contributed directly to traditional and Roth IRAs, together with the earnings attributable to those contributions, are protected only up to the inflation-adjusted federal ceiling.

The distinction becomes especially important when retirement assets are inherited. In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Clark v. Rameker that an inherited IRA held by a non-spouse beneficiary does not qualify as the beneficiary’s protected “retirement funds” under the federal bankruptcy exemption. State law may nevertheless provide some protection.

An inherited 401(k) that remains inside an ERISA-covered employer plan may receive stronger protection, and this potential advantage is not limited to surviving spouses. In the 2021 In re Dockins decision, a federal bankruptcy court held that a 401(k) inherited by a non-spouse beneficiary was excluded from the beneficiary’s bankruptcy estate because the assets remained with the ERISA plan administrator and continued to be subject to the plan’s anti-alienation restrictions.

The crucial distinction is therefore not simply whether the beneficiary is a spouse, but whether the inherited assets remain inside the ERISA-qualified employer plan. Once the assets are distributed or transferred to an inherited IRA, ERISA protection no longer applies. A non-spouse beneficiary cannot roll the inheritance into the beneficiary’s own IRA and ordinarily must use an inherited IRA if the money leaves the employer plan.

A surviving spouse has an option unavailable to a non-spouse beneficiary. The spouse may generally roll an inherited 401(k) into an IRA in the spouse’s own name, so the account is treated as the spouse’s own retirement savings rather than as an inherited IRA. A non-spouse beneficiary cannot take this step and, if the assets leave the employer plan, must generally transfer them to an inherited IRA.

The treatment of inherited 401(k)s should nevertheless be described cautiously. In re Dockins is a lower federal bankruptcy-court decision, not a nationwide Supreme Court ruling. Even so, the case indicates that an inherited 401(k) left inside an ERISA plan may be better protected than the same assets transferred to an inherited IRA, including when the beneficiary is not the participant’s spouse.

These differences create another reason for account owners and beneficiaries to consider creditor protection before moving retirement assets out of an employer-sponsored plan.

The Decision May Change Over Time

The choice between retaining an old 401(k) and rolling it into an IRA need not have the same answer throughout a worker’s life. A worker approaching retirement at age 55 may place substantial value on preserving penalty-free access. A high-income worker making annual backdoor Roth contributions may benefit from keeping pretax balances outside the IRA system. A business owner, physician, lawyer, landlord, or other person facing meaningful litigation exposure may place greater value on ERISA creditor protection.

After the worker reaches age 59½, stops making backdoor Roth contributions, or experiences a change in legal or financial circumstances, the advantages of consolidation and lower IRA costs may become more important. Conversely, a very small 401(k) subject to high fixed fees may warrant prompt attention regardless of the worker’s longer-term strategy.

The correct approach is not to assume that an IRA rollover is always prudent or that a 401(k) should always be retained. Workers should compare the actual fees, investment options, distribution provisions, creditor protections, and tax consequences of the two accounts before acting. Automatic advice to roll every former-employer account into an IRA can be as damaging as leaving every account behind indefinitely.

Authors Note: Many aspects of the tax code put workers who must rely on IRAs because they do not have access to a 401(k) plan at a substantial disadvantage. Potential policies designed to address this problem can be found at https://www.economicmemos.com/p/tax-reconciliation-and-retirement

Subscribe now

Share

Some Notes:

Fees: An analysis on this blog finds that retirement-plan fees vary widely and that small annual differences can create lifetime costs exceeding $100,000 for some workers.

Stranded Accounts: An analysis at this blog discusses fee erosion, fragmented accounts, state unclaimed-property procedures, liquidation risk, and the limitations of default rollover arrangements.

Rule of 55: The IRS confirms that the separation-from-service exception applies when separation occurs during or after the calendar year in which the participant reaches 55. The recent Wall Street Journal article emphasizes that rolling the money into an IRA can inadvertently eliminate access to the exception.

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/401k-resource-guide-plan-participants-general-distribution-rules

Backdoor Roth pro-rata rule: Form 8606 aggregates traditional, SEP, and SIMPLE IRA balances when determining the taxable portion of a conversion; employer-plan balances are not included. Kiplinger also identifies the pro-rata complication as a reason not to roll every 401(k) into an IRA.

https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i8606

IRA bankruptcy protection: The 2005 bankruptcy law created stronger federal protection for IRAs. The current inflation-adjusted ceiling of $1,711,975 became effective April 1, 2025.

https://www.ascensus.com/industry-regulatory-news/news-articles/ira-bankruptcy-exemption-increases/

Inherited IRAs” In Clark v. Rameker, the Supreme Court held that a non-spouse inherited IRA was not protected as the beneficiary’s “retirement funds” under the federal bankruptcy exemption.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/122/

Inherited 401(k)s: In In re Dockins, the bankruptcy court concluded that an inherited 401(k) remaining in an ERISA plan was excluded from the bankruptcy estate.

https://www.ncwb.uscourts.gov/sites/ncwb/files/opinions/ncwb_live.1.20.bk_.10119.14549384.0.pdf

Subscribe now

Share

Key Findings

• Expanding retirement options inside retirement plans is a worthy goal.

• Reforms which deserve consideration include removing restrictions on the purchase of Series I bonds inside retirement accounts and the facilitation of increased use of bonds with fixed maturity dates instead of bond ETFs inside 401(k) plans.

• SEC regulated junk bonds are better suited for retirement plans than private credit instruments with their low levels of transparency and gating restrictions.

• There may be a role for redesigned private credit inside a redesigned 529 plan. (This option is succinctly presented to paid subscribers.)

The landscape of retirement savings is undergoing a significant policy shift as federal regulators and the Trump administration aggressively push for the inclusion of private credit within defined-contribution plans. These regulator initiatives follow several years of explosive growth in the private credit market.

The effort to expand the use of private credit began with Executive Order 14330 in August 2025. This order mandated that federal agencies identify and reduce barriers preventing retirement plans from accessing private credit and private equity. This was followed by a Department of Labor proposal in March 2026, which sought to establish a process-based safe harbor. This rule clarifies that plan fiduciaries may include alternative assets if they follow rigorous due diligence, signaling that these complex investments can meet the prudent person standard under ERISA.

The Retirement Investment Choice Act (H.R. 5748) was introduced in Congress to codify these principles into federal law. However, the push for expanded private credit hit a major wall recently as market stresses began to emerge. The narrative of stable, high-yield growth was challenged when several major funds were forced to implement strict limits on withdrawals, commonly known as gating, as they struggled to meet redemption requests.

• Blue Owl Capital took the unprecedented step in February 2026 of permanently closing redemptions on its $1.6 billion OBDC II fund, leaving retail investors trapped in a vehicle with no clear exit.

• BlackRock’s $26 billion HPS Lending Fund and Morgan Stanley’s North Haven Private Income fund also faced massive redemption requests—nearly 10% of their assets—forcing them to fulfill only about half of the requested payouts.

• Blackstone had to intervene with $400 million of its own capital to satisfy $3.8 billion in withdrawal requests for its BCRED fund to avoid an outright gate.

These liquidity issues were compounded by the “software loan problem.” Private credit has a heavy concentration in the technology sector—accounting for nearly 20% of direct loans by end-2025. As AI disruption began to squeeze the Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) sector, these loans faced valuation obscurity. Because these loans are not traded on a public exchange, their “book value” remained high while the underlying companies struggled, creating a “valuation freeze” that hid real losses from 401(k) participants. This led to a surge in payment-in-kind (PIK) interest—where companies pay debt with more debt—which drove nearly 60% of private credit defaults in early 2026.

The deregulatory push did not stop due to adverse events in the market. The focus shifted from legislation in Congress to executive actions by the Administration.

The administration’s concern that retirement portfolios are underperforming due to legal and institutional restrictions affecting investment opportunities inside retirement accounts is valid. However, the lack of investment opportunities in private credit is not the primary problem caused by restricted investment options.

Key Questions:

Why is the Administration and the Republican Congress so fixated on expanding opportunities for private credit while ignoring other more meaningful investment restrictions, including the use of Series I bonds inside of retirement accounts and the use of bonds with specific maturity dates inside 401(k) plans?

Furthermore, why is there so little interest in the expanded use of low-investment grade bonds inside retirement plans, a risky asset for sure, but one that is potentially less risky than private credit?

Series I Savings Bonds offer individual savers the best possible defense against inflation, featuring guaranteed capital protection backed by the U.S. Treasury. Yet, federal rules dictate they can only be purchased directly via Treasury Direct in individual taxable accounts. Savers are legally barred from holding these powerful inflation-fighting assets inside their 401(k)s or IRAs, where they could provide vital portfolio protection during the inflationary spikes of the early 2020s and in the current geopolitical crisis.

I have written extensively about Series I Savings Bonds on this blog including a practical guide for investors, and a study comparing returns on Series I bonds to returns on a conventional bond fund.

Typical 401(k) plans force savers into open-ended bond ETFs or mutual funds, which lack maturity dates and whose prices which fluctuate wildly based on interest rate movements. When rates skyrocketed, the traditional 60/40 portfolio collapsed because the “40% bond cushion” bled value. Had the financial infrastructure instead facilitated simple defined-maturity corporate or Treasury bond ladders within 401(k)s -- allowing securities to be held to maturity for a guaranteed return of principal -- retirement accounts would have fared significantly better.

This article observes that even in liquid brokerage accounts the advisor focus is often on bond mutual funds or ETFs with no maturity date over individual bonds and bond ladder, which can be held to maturity.

I do not understand why the Administration is so focused on the expansion of risky investment options when current rules and institutional practice preclude less risky investments which would improve overall portfolio risk and return in both retirement accounts and regular brokerage accounts.

The aggressive push to expand private credit within defined-contribution plans appears less like a retail-saver renaissance and more like an institutional bailout. This policy shift is heavily driven by a structural need within the private equity ecosystem to sell more private credit instruments to investors because safer alternatives already exist for pursuing higher fixed-income yields, including the expanded use of sub-investment-grade bonds and bond funds.

Data tracked by industry groups like the Investment Company Institute suggests that standalone high-yield corporate bond funds are rarely offered as core menu options, seemingly restricted to a small minority of larger corporate plans due to fiduciary caution. Instead, high-risk public debt appears primarily integrated behind the scenes within multi-asset target-date funds, where institutional managers routinely allocate a small fraction of the fixed-income sleeve to high-yield bonds to boost performance.

The policy irony is stark: the infrastructure already exists to sprinkle diversified high-risk public debt into retirement plans via institutional oversight. The new push seeks to duplicate this structure, but replace transparent, SEC-regulated junk bond funds with opaque, direct-lending private credit vehicles.

If both private credit and public junk bonds are wrapped inside diversified funds, a critical question arises: which vehicle is riskier for a retail investor? The private credit fund with redemption issues carries vastly greater structural risk.

While a junk bond fund and a private credit fund both hold diversified pools of corporate debt rather than single instruments, their regulatory and operational protections are fundamentally mismatched:

• Regulatory Oversight: Public high-yield bond funds are registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and subject to strict SEC disclosure laws. Private credit funds are exempt from standard SEC registration, and their loan covenants are privately negotiated in darkness.

• Valuation and Transparency: Public high-yield bond funds feature daily, market-driven pricing determined by active public trading exchanges. Private credit funds rely on quarterly mark-to-model book values and are highly prone to subjective valuation freezes.

• Sector Allocation Risk: Public high-yield bond funds are broadly diversified across heavy industry, retail, healthcare, and energy. Private credit funds carry severe concentration in tech and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) sectors, which account for roughly 20% of direct loans.

• Current Default Profile: Public high-yield bond funds experience a trailing 12-month default rate of approximately 3.4%, which is transparently reflected in real-time. Private credit funds experience a trailing 12-month default rate of approximately 5.5%, which is heavily masked by payment-in-kind debt structures.

• Liquidity and Exit Risk: Public high-yield bond funds offer continuous daily liquidity, as these funds cannot unilaterally block investor withdrawals. Private credit funds suffer from structural illiquidity and are prone to gating, redemption halts, and capital lockups.

Public junk bonds have largely avoided the worst excesses of the current credit cycle because their pricing is exposed to daily public market scrutiny. If a borrower underperforms, the public fund’s Net Asset Value adjusts instantly and transparently.

In contrast, a private credit fund experiencing redemption issues shifts the burden of structural illiquidity directly onto the investor. Pushing private credit into retail plans hides this systemic distress by burying opaque, un-tradable assets inside target-date funds, resulting in quiet underperformance that investors cannot see or react to.

A critical risk shared by both public junk bond funds and proposed private credit retail funds is the lack of a definitive maturity date, which exposes investors to severe interest rate and price risk.

When an investor builds an individual bond ladder, each security has a fixed maturity date. If interest rates spike and bond prices fall, an investor holding an individual bond to maturity faces zero capital loss; they are legally guaranteed to receive their full principal ($1,000 par value) back at expiration.

Mutual funds and ETFs do not behave this way. To maintain a constant investment mandate (e.g., maintaining a high-yield portfolio with an average duration of 5 years), fund managers must continuously sell bonds approaching maturity and buy new, longer-term debt. Consequently, a bond fund never matures.

Because bond funds never hit a maturity finish line where principal is guaranteed to return, they behave like perpetual directional bets on interest rates. When interest rates climbed rapidly, public bond funds suffered massive, unmitigated capital losses on paper. The traditional 60/40 portfolio can fail miserably at times, as discussed here and in other articles in the financial press.

By inserting private credit funds—which also lack true maturity structures for the end investor—into the 401(k) ecosystem, regulators are expanding an asset class that suffers from this exact same perpetual duration trap, while layering on severe redemption restrictions.

Consider a scenario where a standard, daily-liquid 401(k) mutual fund or target-date fund holds a seemingly conservative 5% allocation to a private credit vehicle managed by an institution like Blue Owl or Blackstone. If that underlying private credit vehicle hits a wall and enforces a strict redemption gate, the broader 401(k) mutual fund cannot liquidate that 5% asset.

Because the 401(k) mutual fund is legally obligated to provide daily liquidity to plan participants, its managers will not attempt to force a redemption from the gated private credit firm. Instead, the mutual fund is forced to internalize the illiquidity. The book value of that 5% private credit holding will either freeze at an artificial price or slowly mark downward based on internal models.

A retiree attempting to shift capital out of the mutual fund into cash will be forced to sell their shares at a loss, permanently locking in the hidden, depressed valuation of the frozen private credit slice.

A younger worker rebalancing their portfolio to buy the dip will unwittingly pump fresh capital into a mutual fund that is forced to use that liquidity to subsidize a structurally frozen, underperforming, and illiquid asset class.

Portfolio Design: Integrating Private Credit for Long-Horizon Goals

While private credit introduces severe liquidity mismatches within daily-liquid retirement frameworks, Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) does validate its inclusion in specialized, long-horizon portfolios.

Literature Synthesis: The Theoretical Case for Illiquidity

• Markowitz (1952): Establishes that expanding the asset menu optimizes the efficient frontier, provided the alternative asset offers a structural “alpha” or risk-adjusted return uncorrelated with the broader portfolio.

• Ang (2014): Demonstrates that institutional and long-horizon investors can harvest a distinct “illiquidity premium”—excess returns earned by holding assets that cannot be readily traded—acting as a compensated factor for capital lock-up.

• Munday et al. (2018): Provides empirical validation, showing that private credit funds historically deliver persistent outperformance relative to liquid public debt (such as high-yield bonds), justifying the underlying structural complexity and fees.

Harry Markowitz’s foundational theory demonstrates that a broader asset base can optimize an investor’s efficient frontier, maximizing returns for a given level of risk—provided that the alternative asset offers an “alpha” (excess return) that is structurally uncorrelated with the rest of the portfolio (Markowitz, 1952).

Most proposed expansions of private credit to relatively unsophisticated retail investors with limited liquidity are structurally flawed. When market volatility strikes and redemption gates slam shut, a seemingly stable asset collapses in value leaving investors a choice between taking a large loss or sitting still on an illiquid asset with uncertain future value.

For our paid subscribers, we have engineered a proprietary structural solution, which would allow for the use of a modified private credit instrument into a newly redesigned 529 account.

Share

Subscribe now

Read more

· Elevated Insurance Costs: As of May 12, 2026, the 5-year breakeven inflation rate has climbed to 2.69%, placing it in the low-90s percentile of historical readings. This indicates that inflation protection is currently “expensive” relative to history.

· Near-Term Anxiety: The rise in the 5-year breakeven (+24 bps since February) has outpaced the 10-year breakeven (+17 bps), suggesting the market is more concerned with immediate geopolitical shocks than a permanent shift in long-term inflation.

· The “Liquidity Trap”: Breakeven rates are not pure forecasts of inflation expectations. During periods of market stress, TIPS often become less liquid, which can artificially depress breakeven rates and mask true inflation expectations.

· Instrument Mismatch: While individual TIPS offer robust protection, many 401(k) investors are forced into TIPS ETFs. These funds lack the fixed-maturity certainty of individual bonds and expose investors to price volatility when real interest rates rise.

· The Tax-Deferral Advantage: For the first $10,000 of annual savings, I Bonds often outperform TIPS in taxable accounts by acting as a “pseudo-IRA,” allowing for up to 30 years of tax deferral.

· Hedging Limits: Recent 2026 research indicates that inflation-linked bonds provide significant, but not absolute, protection; a diversified mix including nominal bonds and equities remains essential for managing real portfolio volatility.

Share

Introduction

A recent Wall Street Journal article observed that market-based inflation expectations and the cost of purchasing inflation insurance have risen since the start of the Middle East war. The article focuses on the relationship between yields on Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) and yields on conventional Treasury securities of the same maturity. The difference between these two yields is known as the breakeven inflation rate.

The article reports that the 5-year breakeven inflation rate recently rose to roughly 2.7 percent and the 10-year breakeven inflation rate to roughly 2.5 percent. In practical terms, this means investors are currently paying more for inflation protection than they were before the recent oil and geopolitical shock.

This memo expands on the article by more fully explaining the measurement of the potential cost and breakeven point associated with the use of TIPS versus conventional bonds inside a portfolio, examining the time trend and factors impacting the cost of inflation insurance, and discussing the cost shift associated with the ongoing war in the Mideast.

Research Note: To support this analysis, I have curated a technical Annotated Bibliography (available below the paywall) that aggregates Federal Reserve research, peer-reviewed performance studies, and structural comparisons of TIPS and Series I Bonds to help investors evaluate the strategic role of these assets in a diversified portfolio.

The goal is to provide a practical framework for deciding when inflation protection appears cheap or expensive relative to history.

Background on TIPS and Breakeven Inflation

A nominal Treasury bond promises fixed coupon and principal payments in ordinary dollars. If inflation turns out to be higher than expected, the purchasing power of those payments declines.

A TIPS bond promises a real return. Its principal is adjusted over time with changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Coupon payments are calculated as a fixed percentage of this inflation-adjusted principal. At maturity, the investor receives the greater of:

• The inflation-adjusted principal, or

• The original principal.

This structure protects against unexpected CPI inflation.

A basic relationship used to compare conventional and TIPS securities, which is used to find a breakeven point is:

Breakeven inflation = nominal Treasury yield − TIPS real yield

For example, if a 10-year nominal Treasury yields 4.47 percent and a 10-year TIPS yields 2.00 percent, the 10-year breakeven inflation rate is approximately 2.47 percent.

If CPI inflation averages more than 2.47 percent over the next ten years, the TIPS should outperform the nominal Treasury when both are held to maturity. If inflation averages less than 2.47 percent, the nominal Treasury should outperform.

The breakeven inflation rate therefore represents the market price of inflation insurance.

Breakeven points are not pure inflation forecasts. The breakeven point can be expressed as:

Breakeven inflation = expected inflation + inflation risk premium − TIPS liquidity premium

• Expected inflation reflects the market’s best estimate of future CPI inflation.

• Inflation risk premium reflects how much investors are willing to pay to hedge inflation uncertainty.

• TIPS liquidity premium reflects the fact that TIPS are often less liquid than nominal Treasuries.

As a result, a rise in the breakeven point can reflect --higher expected inflation, a higher premium for inflation insurance, improved TIPS liquidity or some combination of these factors.

Similarly, sharp declines in a breakeven point during crises may reflect market dislocations rather than a genuine collapse in inflation expectations.

The breakeven inflation rate can be viewed as a market-based measure of the cost of inflation protection, because it reflects expected inflation, the premium investors are willing to pay for inflation insurance, and liquidity differences between TIPS and nominal Treasuries.

Analysis

The principal market-based inflation compensation series published by the Federal Reserve and available through FRED begin in January 2003. This start date reflects the maturation of the Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) market rather than an arbitrary limitation of the data.

The U.S. Treasury first issued Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) in 1997, but the market was initially small and relatively illiquid. Five-year TIPS were not introduced until 1999, and several years of issuance and trading activity were required before the Federal Reserve could construct reliable constant-maturity real yield series.

By 2003, the market had become large and liquid enough for breakeven inflation rates to be interpreted as meaningful market indicators. In principle, approximate breakeven measures can be constructed back to 1997. In practice, most analysts focus on the post-2003 period because earlier data are more heavily affected by thin trading and unstable liquidity premia.

The main FRED breakeven series now provide more than two decades of market history.

5-Year Breakeven Inflation Rate

• Historical low: -2.24% (November 2008)

• Historical high: 3.59% (March 2022)

• Current reading (May 12, 2026): 2.69%

• Approximate percentile: low-90s percentile

10-Year Breakeven Inflation Rate

• Historical low: 0.04% (November 2008)

• Historical high: 3.02% (April 2022)

• Current reading (May 12, 2026): 2.47%

• Approximate percentile: mid-80s percentile

The current breakeven points are both high with the breakeven point highest at the 5-year maturity. Both measures are well above their long-term medians but remain below the peaks reached during the 2021–2022 inflation surge.

Breakeven inflation rates are highly sensitive to changes in growth expectations, commodity prices, and market liquidity.

Great Recession (December 2007 to June 2009)

Before the financial crisis, both 5-year and 10-year breakeven points were generally in the low-2 percent range.

During the crisis:

• 5-year breakeven fell to -2.24% in November 2008.

• 10-year breakeven fell to 0.04% in November 2008.

These extraordinary declines reflected falling growth expectations, collapsing commodity prices, severe liquidity stress, and forced selling of TIPS. The negative 5-year breakeven almost certainly understated true long-term inflation expectations because of temporary market dysfunction.

COVID Recession and Inflation Surge (2020–2022)

Breakeven points dropped sharply during March 2020 as financial markets seized up and investors sought liquidity.

Following aggressive fiscal and monetary stimulus, breakeven rates rebounded rapidly and later rose to record highs during the 2021–2022 inflation surge:

• 5-year breakeven reached 3.59% in March 2022.

• 10-year breakeven reached 3.02% in April 2022.

These peaks coincided with strong demand, supply-chain disruptions, and a sharp increase in global energy prices.

Recent Geopolitical Shock (February to May 2026)

As of May 12, 2026, market-based inflation protection is noticeably more expensive than it was in February 2026, before the recent oil and geopolitical shock.

• The 5-year breakeven rose from 2.45% to 2.69%, an increase of 24 basis points.

• The 10-year breakeven rose from 2.30% to 2.47%, an increase of 17 basis points.

The increase is larger at the 5-year horizon than at the 10-year horizon. This suggests that markets are more concerned about near-term inflation pressures than about a permanent shift in long-term inflation expectations.

Interpretation and Investment Implications

Current market pricing indicates that investors expect somewhat higher inflation over the next several years, but the recent oil and geopolitical shock has not, at least yet altered long-run inflationary expectations as much as previous events.

Inflation compensation is elevated but remains below the extreme levels reached during the post-pandemic inflation episode.

For many small investors, an annual allocation to Series I Savings Bonds provides a reliable, low-volatility inflation hedge with unique tax advantages. However, it is a significant limitation of the current financial landscape that I Bonds cannot be held within retirement accounts—the primary vehicle for investable funds for most households. Furthermore, while individual TIPS can be held in IRAs, many 401(k) plans restrict participants to mutual funds or ETFs. These “perpetual” TIPS funds lack a fixed maturity date, exposing investors to interest rate volatility that can offset inflation gains, unlike the stable principal of an I Bond or the guaranteed outcome of an individual TIPS bond. This creates a strategic dilemma: investors must choose between the direct inflation protection of I Bonds in taxable accounts or the often-imperfect fund-based protection available in employer-sponsored retirement plans.

The central investment implication is that Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) are generally most attractive when inflation protection can be purchased before inflation concerns become widely recognized and incorporated into market prices. Like other forms of insurance, inflation protection tends to be cheapest when perceived risk is low and most expensive after the threat has become obvious.

TIPS therefore serve two distinct roles. Strategically, they help preserve purchasing power by linking principal and interest payments to the Consumer Price Index. Tactically, they may offer particularly attractive value when breakeven inflation rates are low relative to historical norms and real TIPS yields are positive.

At present, breakeven inflation rates are elevated, indicating that inflation insurance has become more expensive since February 2026. This does not eliminate the strategic case for holding TIPS, but it does suggest that the market has already incorporated a meaningful increase in near-term inflation concerns.

Author’s Note: The Inflation Protection Research Series

The following annotated bibliography provides a technical roadmap for investors seeking a more complete understanding of this instrument. The bibliography reviews articles published by government and academic economists covering issues related to the breakeven concept, TIPS and Series I securities, market anomalies, and studies on their use inside portfolios.

Annotated Bibliography: TIPS, I Bonds, and Inflation Dynamics

I. Foundational Mechanics and Data Sources

Sources focused on the technical definition, calculation, and raw data of breakeven inflation.

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis – FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data) The primary repository for the 5-Year [T5YIE] and 10-Year [T10YIE] Breakeven Inflation Rates. These series represent the market’s inflation expectations derived from the difference between nominal and real Treasury yields. They are the industry standard for real-time monitoring of inflation protection costs.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T5YIE

U.S. TreasuryDirect – “TIPS vs. I Bonds: A Comparison” This is the primary regulatory source for distinguishing between the two securities including a discussion of annual purchase limits and yields. There is a $10 k limit with some leeway on Series I and a multi-million dollar limit on TIPs. TIP yields are determined by market auctions and can be negative. Series I bond yields are never negative.

https://treasurydirect.gov/research-center/history-of-savings-bond/comparing-tips-to-i/

Most stuff is free and the price with coupon for the rest is reasonable. Please consider subscribing.

Read more

Introduction: Achieving financial prosperity requires a series of critical structural choices made across the arc of a working life and into retirement.

Decision One: Prioritize Debt Reduction Over Retirement Savings

Mainstream advice mandates maximizing retirement contributions, yet this often ignores the high cost of mandatory debt. Sustaining long-term obligations creates a “liquidity trap” where lifetime interest on a typical $35,000 student loan can exceed $100,000, while the associated credit degradation imposes an annual $5,000 “bad credit tax” through inflated insurance premiums and subprime rates. This risk compounds during financial shocks, often necessitating a 401(k) withdrawal that triggers penalties and taxes, effectively vaporizing 40% of your hard-earned equity. Decision One argues for a strategic pivot toward total ownership, ensuring your future is built on liquidity rather than assets balanced against a mountain of debt.

Decision Two: Balance Roth vs. Conventional Contributions

For modern workers, the choice between Roth and Conventional accounts is a high-stakes balancing act between today’s survival and tomorrow’s liquidity. With health insurance subsidies and student loan payments (RAP) now tied to AGI, the wrong choice can trigger an effective marginal tax rate exceeding 50 percent. Unfortunately, the desperate measures required to survive these current costs often result in a tax-heavy retirement portfolio that cannot support an adequate standard of living. Decision Two explores how to navigate these “AGI traps” to ensure your current savings don’t become a future liability.

Decision Three: Optimize Health Savings through HSAs and FSAs

This decision involves using tax-preferred accounts to fund high out-of-pocket medical expenses. Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are used in conjunction with qualified high-deductible plans and offer generous benefits, but low and middle-income earners often face significant difficulty funding them. Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs), a benefit available only for employer-sponsored plans are limited by the use-or-lose stipulation. Decision Three explores the appropriate use of these accounts to bridge the gap between high-deductible mandates and actual household liquidity needs.

Decision Four: Utilize Series I Savings Bonds for Inflation Protection

Inflation is a major threat to a secure financial environment, and Series I Savings bonds are the most effective hedge against it. These bonds offer a unique composite rate that combines a fixed return with semi-annual inflation adjustments, ensuring your principal maintains its purchasing power regardless of price surges. Unlike traditional bonds, which often see their market value plummet when interest rates rise, I Bonds are non-marketable assets that protect against both valuation losses and the corrosive effects of a high-CPI environment. Decision Four examines how to integrate I Bonds into a tax-resilient portfolio and advocates for rule changes that would allow these “inflation-proof” assets to be held within IRAs and 401(k)s.

Decision Five: Roll Over 401(k) Funds to Low-Cost IRAs When Switching Jobs

Leaving retirement assets in a former employer’s 401(k) is a common mistake that exposes your savings to significant loss of funds due to fees. An annual plan fee of 1.3% can strip over $160,000 in lifetime wealth from a typical account, effectively consuming more than the annual yield of the bond portion of the portfolio. This creates a scenario of negative real returns where your savings are depleted by management costs rather than being grown by the market. Decision Five advocates for rolling these “stranded savings” into a low-cost IRA to regain investment control and eliminate administrative leakage.

Decision Six: Strategically Eliminating Mortgage Debt

The elimination of mortgage debt before retirement is a multi-stage process that often begins with a 30-year term for initial affordability but must evolve as your financial capacity grows. To avoid a permanent debt cycle, homeowners should aggressively pivot to a 15-year mortgage through refinancing when rates drop or income rises, effectively trading short-term liquidity for massive interest savings—potentially over $440,000 on a standard $540,000 loan. In the final decade of a career, the decision becomes a trade-off between maximizing “catch-up” contributions and directing surplus cash toward principal to ensure 100% equity by day one of retirement. Entering retirement debt-free is the ultimate hedge against sequence-of-returns risk; it lowers your necessary withdrawals, protecting your portfolio from market volatility and preventing the AGI spikes that trigger higher taxes on Social Security and Medicare IRMAA surcharges.

Decision Seven: Neutralizing Sequence of Returns Risk

Retirement security is often dictated by the “Retirement Date Lottery”—the simple luck of your exit date relative to market cycles. Because early-retirement crashes can permanently deplete a portfolio, a robust plan must move beyond static withdrawal rules toward dynamic resilience. Building a “floor” for essential expenses with assets that protect principal, such as Series I Savings Bonds, allows you to fund consumption during equity troughs without forcing sales at market bottoms. By replacing rigid withdrawal rules with dynamic spending and utilizing Roth assets to stabilize your AGI, you can avoid the cascading costs of IRMAA surcharges and Social Security taxation. Careful planning can prevent market volatility from determining your standard of living.

Decision Eight: Strategically Delaying Social Security Claims

The decision to claim Social Security involves a high-stakes trade-off between the immediate liquidity of smaller payments at age 62 and the guaranteed, inflation-adjusted growth offered for those who delay claiming benefits. Claiming at 62 results in a 30% reduction compared to claiming at the full retirement age. Claiming at 70 instead of the full retirement age increases benefits by 8 percent per year. These certain returns often will exceed uncertain returns in the market.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the question of when to claim benefits. Individuals with low levels of liquid assets may have to claim as soon as they retire. Individuals with chronic health conditions or shorter life expectancies may find that claiming early remains a more rational choice. Early claims can prevent rapid depletion of retirement assets during a market downturn and mitigate sequence risk.

Decision Nine: Converting Traditional Retirement Assets to Roth Assets

Retirees who delay Social Security while living off brokerage accounts often enter a temporary, low-marginal tax bracket. This “strategic window” allows you to convert traditional retirement assets to Roth status at a lower cost, shifting your wealth toward a tax-free future. Because traditional withdrawals are taxed as ordinary income, while brokerage sales only tax capital gains, this period is ideal for neutralizing the “tax torpedo.” Paying a modest tax toll now prevents future Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) from inflating your income, protecting your Social Security from secondary taxation and keeping Medicare IRMAA surcharges low.

The math of these conversions often yields an internal rate of return between 28% and 30%, frequently outperforming market expectations. For instance, paying a $2,000 tax bill today can eliminate $7,000 in future liabilities within five years. This maneuver requires sufficient non-retirement assets to cover living expenses and the immediate tax liability. But beware of and obey the five-year rule.

Decision Ten: Selecting Traditional Medicare with Medigap

The choice of Medicare coverage is a high-stakes decision between the low upfront costs of Medicare Advantage and the comprehensive security of traditional Medicare.

Medicare Advantage plans often sometimes have low or zero premiums but they utilize prior authorization methods extensively and often have very restrictive provider networks. Traditional Medicare combined with a Medigap supplement is more expensive monthly, but it is accepted by 98 percent of providers throughout the nation and covers virtually all out-of-pocket costs. Crucially, choosing Traditional Medicare during initial enrollment is vital; in most states, switching back from an Advantage plan later triggers medical underwriting, allowing insurers to deny coverage or charge exorbitant rates based on pre-existing conditions.

Conclusion

True security is found in the elimination of mandatory overhead and the neutralization of tax-code penalties that target the unprepared. By prioritizing liquidity and debt-free ownership, you ensure that you control your financial destiny rather than the system controlling you.

For additional analysis on these issues go to: Ten Pivotal Decisions: A Roadmap to Financial Prosperity.

More will follow after my vacation.

Share

Subscribe now

#debt, #inflation, #taxes, #health expenses

Mainstream financial planning often fails because it prioritizes the size of the “pile” while ignoring the structural traps of debt, inflation, and AGI-linked surcharges. This memo presents Ten Decisions -- a comprehensive roadmap for optimizing the household balance sheet. By shifting focus from simple accumulation to structural integrity, these ten steps provide a strategic path to neutralizing systemic risks and securing long-term liquidity.

Introduction: The Logic of Structure

Most financial advice is built on a single, flawed premise: that wealth is measured solely by the total value of your investment accounts. This “accumulation-only” mindset ignores the reality that a large portfolio cannot protect you from a high-overhead lifestyle, fee-heavy accounts, or a tax code that penalizes high Adjusted Gross Income (AGI).

To achieve true financial independence, you must look beyond the market and focus on the structure of your balance sheet. This memo outlines ten decisions which define a prosperous financial life. These steps move the goalposts from “more assets” to “better ownership” by focusing on three core pillars:

· Debt Neutralization: Moving from a life of interest payments to one of total equity.

· Tax Sensitivity: Managing AGI today to avoid “Tax Torpedoes” and premium surcharges tomorrow.

· Inflation Immunization: Protecting purchasing power through non-marketable assets like Series I Bonds.

By executing these 10 Decisions, you stop being a passive accumulator of wealth and start becoming a strategic architect of your own financial resilience.

Decision One: Prioritize Debt Reduction Over Retirement Savings

The conventional wisdom from most financial advisors is to immediately contribute to a 401(k) to at the very least capture company match. An overemphasis on saving for retirement is often a mistake for many young adults with student debt who would be much better off rapidly reducing debt.

Prioritizing debt reduction creates several long-term structural advantages:

· Interest Savings: Accelerating repayment can save tens of thousands in interest; e.g., paying off $100,000 in loans over 5 years instead of 20 could save ~$54,000.

· Credit Protection: Lower debt reduces missed-payment risk and helps preserve a strong credit score, avoiding the long-term “tax” of higher borrowing costs on mortgages, auto loans, and credit cards.

· Liquidity & Resilience: Paying down debt and building an emergency fund reduces reliance on early 401(k) withdrawals, preserving retirement savings.

Share

Essentially, focusing on debt today prevents you from becoming part of the growing demographic of seniors who reach age 65 still carrying mortgages and student loans. If you must save, consider a Roth IRA which allows for the withdrawal of original contributions without penalty, providing a necessary safety valve for liquidity.

Source: Younger workers need to prioritize debt reduction over saving for retirement

Decision Two: Seek a Balance Between Roth and Conventional Retirement Contributions

The traditional rule governing the decision on whether to contribute to a Roth or conventional retirement account was – choose the Roth account when your tax bracket is low and choose conventional deductible accounts when marginal tax rates are high. The logic is incomplete for workers today who may have their health insurance or their student loan linked to their adjusted gross income.

A worker claiming the premium tax credit for state exchange insurance and/or paying off a RAP student loan often has a de-facto marginal tax rate of over 50 percent, which can be substantially reduced by choosing a conventional retirement account over a Roth one. (The contribution to the conventional retirement account reduces AGI; the contribution to the Roth account does not reduce AGI.)

However, a high reliance on conventional retirement accounts, which are fully taxed in retirement can be especially detrimental, for workers who have larger distributions in retirement because they have not eliminated their mortgage. Moreover, the absence of non-taxable Roth distributions often leads to increased tax on Social Security benefits and increased premium payments.

When possible, workers should seek a balance between maintaining liquidity and savings through a Roth account. This balance will not always be achievable. Consider for example a person reliant on state exchange health insurance who would lose all health insurance unless she reduces AGI to a level below 400 percent FPL.

Pro tips:

· If possible, open and fund a Roth account when your marginal tax rate is really low and you are not purchasing health insurance or repaying a RAP student loan.

· If possible, get employer-based health insurance and a conventional student loan, neither of which are linked to AGI.

A prosperous life isn’t just about how much you save, but how much of that savings you actually get to keep when the government starts measuring your AGI in your 70s.

Source: Liquidity Today, Tax Traps Tomorrow

Decision Three: Optimize Health Savings through HSAs and FSAs

To secure a prosperous future, you must view health-related tax advantages as a core component of your investment strategy. Taking full advantage of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) allows you to pay for predictable and unpredictable medical costs with pre-tax dollars, effectively granting yourself a 20% to 30% discount on healthcare depending on your tax bracket.

The “Triple Tax Advantage” of the HSA

If you have a High-Deductible Health Plan (HDHP), the HSA is perhaps the most powerful savings vehicle in the U.S. tax code. It offers a “triple tax advantage”:

1. Tax-deductible contributions (lowering your current AGI).

2. Tax-free growth on invested funds.

3. Tax-free withdrawals for qualified medical expenses.

Unlike other accounts, HSA funds belong to you forever; they do not expire and can eventually function as a secondary retirement account after age 65. However, as noted in recent economic analysis, current HSA structures can be improved. Many users are forced to choose between funding an HSA and a 401(k), and the lack of “pre-deductible” coverage for chronic medications can sometimes lead people to skip necessary care to save money.

The FSA: Use It or Lose It

For those without an HDHP, the Flexible Spending Account (FSA) offers similar pre-tax benefits for medical, dental, and vision costs. However, you must be cautious: FSAs are generally “use-or-lose” platforms. If you do not spend the balance by the end of the plan year (or a short grace period), the money reverts to your employer. Use these for predictable expenses like contact lenses, prescriptions, or planned dental work.

The Path to Improvement

These savings accounts increase liquidity and reduce AGI, which can increase premium subsidies or lower RAP student loan payments. However, there are limitations – the previously mentioned use-or-lose stipulation on FSAs, a tax deductibility feature which favors higher income individuals, and payment burdens caused by linking HSAs to higher deductibles.

Sources:

· Improving High Deductible Health Plans and Health Savings Accounts

· Health Savings Account (HSA) Overview - Healthcare.gov

· FSA vs. HSA: How They Compare - Mayo Clinic

Decision Four: Build a Foundation with Series I Savings Bonds

A key pillar of a prosperous life is protecting your purchasing power from the corrosive effects of inflation. The Series I Savings Bond is the best hedge against inflation and is an essential part of every portfolio.

Series I bonds can only be purchased directly from the U.S. Treasury. Unlike traditional bonds or Treasury Inflation Protection Bonds (TIPS), the Series I Bond never falls in value. Investors cannot redeem an I-Bond for the first 12 months and redemptions prior to five years result in a loss of three months of interest. There is an annual per-individual limit of $10,000 on the value of Series I bonds, which can be purchased. The limit is $20,000 for a married couple and additional purchases are possible through a trust or a business.

Performance: I-Bonds vs. Traditional Bond Funds

Research comparing a steady $500 annual investment in Series I Bonds versus a traditional investment-grade bond fund over 27 years reveals I-Bond strategy often produces competitive—and sometimes superior—outcomes.

Traditional bond funds carry market risk; when interest rates spiked after the COVID-19 pandemic, decades of gains in some bond funds were eroded. In contrast, Series I Bonds provided resilience and steady growth precisely when the market was most volatile.

Series I bonds could be a valuable source of retirement savings if the stock market and traditional bonds fall in value early in retirement.

By incorporating Series I Bonds, you aren’t just saving money; you are buying insurance against the unpredictability of the global economy.

Sources:

· Series I Savings Bonds an Essential Investment

· Series I Bonds vs. Bond Funds: 27 Years of Head-to-Head Results

· Series I Bonds: Practical Guidance, Portfolio Applications, and Policy Pathways

Decision Five: Roll Over 401(k) Funds to Low-Cost IRAs When Switching Jobs

One of the most expensive mistakes a worker can make is leaving retirement assets in a former employer’s 401(k) plan when the plan charges high fees.

An annual fee of 1% or 1.3% can result in paying over $100,000 to $166,000 in lifetime fees—wealth that should be supporting your retirement instead of the plan sponsor.

In low-interest-rate environments, these fees can even exceed the yield on the bonds in your account, leading to a negative real return.

Inactive accounts are not just losing money to fees; they are vulnerable to state “escheatment” laws. If an account is deemed abandoned, states can seize and liquidate the assets, meaning you lose out on all future market gains or in a worst case scenario lose the entire account.

When you leave a job, you should almost always roll your funds into a low-cost IRA at a reputable firm like Vanguard, Fidelity, or Schwab. This allows you to – reduce fees, and administrative burdens, gain investment control, and reduce the likelihood of escheatment.

There is some downside from this rollover strategy in that 401(k) laws are somewhat less protected from creditors.

The Policy Gap

While legislation currently proposed in Congress, the SAFER Act of 2026, attempts to limit state seizure of accounts, it ignores the more pervasive problem of fee erosion. A more effective policy fix would be universal automatic portability -- mandating that funds automatically move from high-fee employer plans to low-fee IRAs whenever a worker changes jobs. Until such a system exists, the responsibility lies with you to execute the rollover and protect your “stranded savings” from being depleted by the system.

Sources:

· How to minimize the impact of 401(k) fees

· Stranded Savings: Inactive accounts, missing rollovers, and the hidden cost of fees

Decision Six: Refinance to a 15-Year Mortgage and Retire Debt-Free

For many homeowners, a 30-year mortgage is a necessity to make the initial purchase affordable. However, staying in a long-term debt cycle into your senior years is a significant threat to financial independence. The goal is to aggressively transition to a 15-year mortgage when rates drop or your income rises, ensuring you enter retirement with 100% equity in your home.

The math is clear. Opting for a 15-year fixed mortgage on a $540,000 loan balance requires a monthly principal and interest commitment of approximately $4,585, which is $1,065 higher than the $3,520 required for a 30-year term. The 30-year mortgage is likely the only affordable option at the time of the initial house purchase.

While the 30-year option offers greater short-term household liquidity and lower mandatory monthly overhead, it results in a total interest expense of $727,200, more than doubling the $285,300 in interest paid over the shorter term. A buyer capable of using the 15-year mortgage would reduce their long-term interest obligation by $441,900 and decreases the total cost of the home from $1,267,200 to $825,300.

Home buyers who cannot initially afford payments on a 15-year mortgage should refinance if an increase in income or a reduction in rates makes the shorter term feasible.

It is essential to enter retirement without mortgage debt. Large taxable withdrawals to cover a mortgage raise your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), which must persist regardless of market conditions. There is nothing more damaging to a secure retirement than high payment obligations occurring in a market downturn early in retirement.

The higher payments can trigger higher taxes on your Social Security benefits and lead to Medicare premium surcharges (IRMAA).

Eliminating that monthly payment before you stop working is the single most effective way to protect your retirement portfolio and maintain control over your tax destiny.

Source:

When Mortgage Debt Meets Retirement: Why Roth Assets Matter More than you think

Decision Seven: Develop a Distribution Plan to Neutralize Sequence Risk

A prosperous life is not just built on average returns; it is built on the sequence of those returns. Understanding the “Sequence of Returns Puzzle” is critical because market crashes, which occur early in retirement or at the end of a career, can have a devastating impact on retirement security.

Financial security in retirement can be determined by the simple luck of your start date.

A retiree who started in January 2000 faced two crashes, the dotcom bust followed by the 2008 crisis. The worker entering retirement in 2007 experienced one severe crash followed by a long bull market.

· The Divergence: Following the same 4% withdrawal rule, a 2007 retiree using a 100% equity portfolio could end up with 3.5x more wealth by 2025 than someone who retired just seven years earlier.

Strategies to Insulate Your Portfolio

Academic models often assume a static 4% withdrawal rate, failing to account for real-world consumption needs. Since no “silver bullet” exists for the Retirement Date Lottery, resilience requires moving beyond accumulation toward dynamic distribution:

· Prioritize deep diversification into assets that cannot lose principal value. While traditional bonds are subject to market pricing, Series I Savings Bonds provide an absolute floor, allowing you to fund life during equity troughs without selling at the bottom.

· Shift away from rigid rules. True resilience means adjusting spending based on performance—reducing withdrawals or skipping inflation bumps when the market demands capital preservation.

· Prioritize “essential” spending (housing, healthcare) from stable sources, reserving market-linked assets for discretionary goals. This protects your basic standard of living from sequence volatility.

· Use Roth assets to manage your AGI. Minimizing “cascading” costs like IRMAA premiums prevents a secondary drain on liquidity during lean market years.

Sources:

· The Sequence of Returns Puzzle: Why Timing Hurts Workers and Retirees in Opposite Ways

· Preliminary Results: The Retirement Date Lottery

· When Higher Withdrawal Rates Backfire: Rethinking Guyton–Klinger

· Limitations of Retirement Plans Based on Solvency Rather Than Consumption

Decision Eight: Delay Claiming Social Security Benefits

Choosing when to claim Social Security is a high-stakes trade-off between a longer period of smaller payments and a shorter period of significantly larger ones. While you can claim as early as age 62, the Social Security Administration (SSA) and most financial planners advocate for waiting as long as possible to maximize your guaranteed, inflation-adjusted lifetime income.

Your Full Retirement Age (FRA) depends on your birth year (currently age 67 for those born in 1960 or later). Claiming at your FRA ensures you receive 100% of your primary insurance amount. Claiming benefits at age 62 results in a 30 percent loss of annual benefits compared to the benefit at the full retirement age.

The largest possible annual retirement benefit occurs for people who retire at age 70. Benefits increase by 8 percent per year for each year of delay between the full retirement age and age 70.

The SSA may temporarily reduce benefits for people claiming before the FRA who continue to work if earnings exceed a certain threshold.

A worker claiming at age 70 can receive a monthly benefit roughly 77% higher than if they had claimed at age 62. For 2026, the maximum possible monthly benefit for a worker retiring at age 70 is $5,181, compared to just $2,969 for someone claiming at 62.

Delaying doesn’t just help you; it maximizes the survivor benefit for your spouse. If you are the higher earner, your spouse will inherit your higher monthly amount for the rest of their life after you pass away.

The “break-even age” is the point at which the total cumulative benefits of waiting longer catch up to and exceed the total benefits of starting early.

• Wait to 67 vs. 62: You typically break even around age 78-79.

• Wait to 70 vs. 62: You typically break even around age 80-81.

• Wait to 70 vs. 67: You typically break even around age 82-83.

While the math favors waiting, personal circumstances and market circumstances often dictate a different path.

People with shorter life expectancies, either because of a terminal condition or a chronic disease might be better off claiming early.

Retirees with low levels of liquid financial assets and retirees with immediate liquid needs may want to claim early.

People entering retirement without mortgage debt are in a better position to delay claiming and obtain the higher retirement benefit than people entering retirement with debt. (See Decision Six.)

Retirees experiencing a sharp decline in the market early in their retirement may have an incentive to claim early to prevent asset sales in a weak market. (See Decision Seven.)

Sources:

• SSA: Delayed Retirement Credits

• AARP: Reasons to Claim Early or Late

• SmartAsset: Calculating Your Break-Even Age (2026 Update)

Decision Nine: Convert Traditional Retirement Assets to Roth Assets Early in Retirement if Possible

Retirees who delay Social Security and live off brokerage accounts typically land in a lower marginal tax bracket.

(The delay in claiming Social Security benefits substantially lowers marginal tax rates because the decision to claim benefits directly increases AGI and marginal tax rates and increases the tax base. The tax rate on non-retirement assets is lower than the tax rate on conventional retirement assets because only the capital gain part of non-retirement funds is subject to tax and the capital gains tax rate is lower than the tax on ordinary gains.)

These circumstances create a strategic window to convert traditional retirement assets into Roth assets at a lower tax cost, effectively increasing your ratio of tax-free wealth.

A shift to Roth assets will prevent forced future withdrawals from pushing you into higher tax brackets, which protects your Social Security from being taxed and keeps your Medicare premiums low.

The Triple Benefit of Converting Traditional Retirement Assets to Roth Assets Early

1. Lowering Future RMDs: By reducing the balance in your Traditional IRA now, you shrink the size of your mandatory withdrawals (RMDs) later, preventing a massive tax spike and increase in premiums in your 70s and 80s.

2. The “Tax Torpedo” Shield: Since Roth distributions don’t count toward your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), they won’t trigger the “Tax Torpedo”—the secondary taxation of Social Security benefits that hits many middle-income retirees.

3. Tax-Free Inheritance: Unlike traditional IRAs, which your heirs will have to pay taxes on, a Roth IRA passes to your beneficiaries completely tax-free.

The Math: Paying a Small “Toll” for a Large Gain

Imagine converting $35,000 early in retirement resulting in an immediate $2,000 tax bill. The additional tax on funds in a conventional account compared to funds in a Roth would in around five years be around $7,000.

By paying the $2,000 “toll” now, you save $5,000 later. That is a 28% to 30% internal rate of return on your tax payment – a return which is unlikely to occur in the market.

The Five-Year Rule: Remember that every conversion has its own five-year “waiting period” before earnings can be withdrawn tax-free. This makes early retirement the “Golden Era” for these moves.

Source: Converting Traditional Retirement Assets to Roth Assets in Retirement

Decision Ten: Select Traditional Medicare with Medigap Over Medicare Advantage

The choice between Traditional Medicare (Parts A & B) with a Medigap (Supplemental) plan and Medicare Advantage (Part C) is a critical late-stage financial decision. While Medicare Advantage often features $0 premiums and peripheral perks, it frequently functions as a liquidity trap for those with chronic or serious health needs.

Provider Access and Network Restrictions

The primary advantage of Traditional Medicare combined with Medigap is the preservation of provider choice and geographic flexibility:

· Traditional Medicare: Access is granted to any physician or hospital in the United States that accepts Medicare (approximately 98% of providers). There are no network restrictions or geographic boundaries.

· Medicare Advantage: These private HMO or PPO plans generally restrict care to a local network. Access to premier national institutions often results in denied coverage or substantial out-of-pocket costs.

The Prior Authorization Barrier

Research from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) and the American Hospital Association (AHA) indicates a rising trend of care denials within Medicare Advantage. Private insurers frequently utilize “prior authorization” for services that Traditional Medicare covers automatically. Federal audits have confirmed that Advantage plans occasionally deny “medically necessary” care that would be standard under the traditional framework. Furthermore, many hospital systems are terminating Advantage contracts due to high denial rates, further narrowing available networks.

The Financial Illusion of Low Premiums

Medicare Advantage plans are marketed on low monthly costs, but this creates significant structural risk:

· Margin Squeezes: Recent federal payment updates to Medicare Advantage have remained nearly flat. In response to tighter margins, private insurers often increase administrative friction or further restrict networks to maintain profitability.

· Cost Predictability: A Medigap plan (such as Plan G) involves a higher monthly premium but covers nearly all out-of-pocket costs. This transforms healthcare into a predictable expense, insulating the retirement portfolio from the sequence risk of a sudden $8,000 out-of-pocket maximum during a medical crisis.

In most states, the decision to opt for Medicare Advantage is difficult to reverse and Switching from Advantage back to Traditional Medicare after the onset of an illness often triggers “medical underwriting.” This allows private Medigap insurers to deny coverage or charge exorbitant rates based on pre-existing conditions. Selecting Traditional Medicare with Medigap during the initial enrollment period is the only guaranteed method to secure comprehensive, unrestricted coverage for life.

Sources:

· Near-Flat Medicare Advantage Updates: The Coming Squeeze

· KFF: Over 35 Million Prior Authorization Requests in Medicare Advantage

· American Hospital Association: Concerns with Medicare Advantage Denials

Conclusion: Ownership Over Accumulation

A prosperous financial life is built on much more than just piling into savings and investments. As these 10 Decisions demonstrate, real security is found in the elimination of mandatory overhead and the neutralization of tax-code traps that penalize the unprepared.

While the industry measures success by the height of your savings, a superior metric is your ability to maintain a consistent standard of living across any market cycle. By following this ten-decision framework, you prioritize liquidity and debt-free ownership, ensuring that you control your tax destiny rather than the system controlling you.

Author’s Note

Economic Memos is a digital publication dedicated to the intersection of economic policy, personal finance, market investment, and political analysis. While the majority of our research and analysis is provided free to the public, we offer premium insights for our dedicated readers.

To explore our full library of technical memos and policy frameworks, please take advantage of the following offers:

· 90-Day Free Trial: Full access to all premium content for three months.

· 20% Annual Discount: A permanent reduction on a yearly subscription for new members.

Visit us at www.economicmemos.com to subscribe or learn more about our “Beyond Accumulation” philosophy.

#debt, #taxes, #IRAs, #Roth, #Risk

Inactive accounts, missing rollovers, and the hidden cost of fees

Introduction:

A bipartisan bill from Representative Mike Lawler (New York’s 17th Congressional District) and Representative Sam Liccardo (California’s 16th Congressional District) targets the state seizure of inactive retirement accounts -- but it sidesteps the larger, more persistent problem: the lack of automatic rollover for high-fee 401(k) accounts into low-fee IRAs.

Legislation
regarding retirement accounts in Congress consistently prioritizes the needs of
investment firms over the needs of workers.

A bipartisan proposal in Congress seeks to address a quiet but consequential flaw in the retirement system. Representatives Mike Lawler and Sam Liccardo have introduced the Safeguarding Americans’ Fairly Earned Retirement (SAFER) Act of 2026, which would limit the ability of states to take custody of inactive investment and retirement accounts.

Under current state “escheatment” laws, financial institutions can be required to transfer accounts deemed abandoned -- often after just a few years of inactivity -- to state control. The proposed legislation would prohibit this practice unless the account holder is confirmed deceased and would require stronger safeguards before any transfer occurs.

The bill is framed as a protection for savers, but it is narrowly targeted at one outcome -- state seizure -- rather than the broader system that produces inactive accounts, often charging high fees, in the first place.

The scale of both issues. -- the escheatment of inactive accounts and the gradual depletion of inactive accounts due to high fees -- are significant.

The First Problem: Escheatment

States collectively hold roughly $70 billion in unclaimed property, including bank accounts, securities, and retirement-related assets. Individual states have built large balances; California alone holds more than $15 billion and returns only a small fraction annually.

When investment accounts are escheated, they are typically liquidated, meaning owners who later reclaim funds receive only the value at the time of seizure rather than the gains that would have accrued had the assets remained invested. In practice, this can translate into very large losses relative to what the account might have become.

More importantly, a meaningful share of these assets are never reclaimed at all. One analysis found roughly $4 returned for every $10 escheated, implying that a majority of value is never reunited with owners.

Across states, return rates vary widely, but many fall well below 50 percent, and in some cases far lower. In practical terms, that means a nontrivial subset of investors effectively lose close to 100 percent of their account value -- not through market risk, but through administrative friction, lack of awareness, or difficulty proving ownership years later.

Readings on the escheatment issue:

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/Unclaimed-Property/unclaimed-property-021015.aspx

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr8338ih/html/BILLS-119hr8338ih.htm

https://www.uppo.org/blogpost/925381/334404/UPPO-Survey-Examines-State-Unclaimed-Property-Return-Rates

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-government-holding-70b-belongs-123000008.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-unclaimed-funds-federal-state-crackdown/

The Second Problem: High Fees on Stranded Accounts

The vast majority of accounts are not escheated, but remain in place, often subject to higher fees leading to a substantial loss of wealth over time.

Even for those who eventually recover funds, the economic loss is not just the temporary deprivation of assets but the permanent loss of compounding during the period of state custody. Over long horizons, that foregone growth can exceed the original balance itself.

Research published in this blog, How to Minimize the Impact of 401(k) Fees shows even an annual fee of 1 percent to 1.3 percent can result in a substantial drain in wealth over the lifetime of the account.

A median-wage worker, being stuck in a high-cost plan can result in paying over $100,000 to $166,000 in lifetime fees -- compared to just $42,000 in a well-managed, low-cost plan. This “leakage” is particularly damaging for older workers with larger balances and in low-interest-rate environments where fees can actually exceed bond yields, resulting in a negative de-facto return. Because these fees are deducted from returns rather than explicitly billed, most workers remain unaware that they are losing significant portions of their retirement security to the sponsor of their plan.

Also consider this educational video on the compounding impact of fees:

The persistence of inactive accounts is not primarily a function of neglect, but of system design. Workers frequently change jobs, leaving behind small balances in employer-sponsored plans. While recent reforms such as the SECURE Act and SECURE 2.0 Act expanded automatic enrollment into retirement plans, they did not create a universal automatic rollover mechanism that moves balances into a new employer plan or a low-cost IRA when workers change jobs.

By mandating automatic enrollment for most new plans, the legislation pulls millions of new savers into the system, many of whom will inevitably leave behind small “micro-balances” when they change jobs.

The Secure Act 2.0 does include a provision allowing but not mandating employers clear out all accounts less than $7,000 without the employee’s permission. But there is no guarantee the replacement IRA has a low fee and there is no automatic movement from a high-fee account for worker with accounts exceeding $7,000.

The most effective way to reduce loss of income from high fees in stranded accounts is a regulation mandating universal automatic portability from the firm-sponsored 401(k) plan to a low-fee IRA for all workers leaving their current employer.

For plan sponsors, this change is an invitation to “clean up” their plan rosters by unilaterally purging a significantly larger pool of former employees into default IRAs without their consent. While this helps employers avoid the costs of audits and recordkeeping for inactive accounts, it leaves workers with a growing trail of fragmented “parking lot” IRAs. Without a universal automatic portability mechanism, this increased threshold doesn’t protect savings; it simply scales the number of accounts vulnerable to high maintenance fees and eventual state escheatment.

The selectivity of the policy response becomes difficult to ignore. Why is Congress addressing the final stage of the problem -- state seizure -- while leaving the earlier, more pervasive sources of value loss largely untouched?

State escheatment is visible and politically tractable. Fee erosion is diffuse, incremental, and embedded in the structure of the system. Addressing it would require confronting industry incentives and redesigning account portability -- steps that would benefit workers more than investment firms.

The SAFER Act addresses an important downstream consequence—premature state seizure—but leaves the upstream problem largely intact. Without automatic portability or rollover into low-cost default accounts, the system will continue to produce dormant balances vulnerable to both fee erosion and eventual escheatment.

Authors Note: Readers interested in deeper analysis on personal debt management, hedges against inflation, the choice between Roth and conventional accounts and different strategies on disbursing funds from retirement account should read and look at the reading list at Beyond Accumulation: Rethinking the Foundations of Financial Security. Most material is free, but some is behind a paywall which can be breached with the 90-day free access option.

Subscribe now

Share

The recent Wall Street Journal report detailing a growing “catch me if you can” attitude toward the IRS reflects a tempting, yet deeply flawed, trend. As audit rates have dipped, some taxpayers are treating tax law as a suggestion rather than a requirement, betting that a depleted agency won’t have the bandwidth to flag their “aggressive” deductions. However, this strategy isn’t just risky -- it’s a ticking financial time bomb built on a misunderstanding of how tax enforcement actually works.

Share

The most critical oversight in this “mantra” is the timeline of liability. Many taxpayers mistakenly believe that if they make it through the initial filing season unscathed, they are in the clear. In reality, the IRS generally has a three-year window to audit, but that expands to six or seven years if there is a “substantial omission” of income. Thinking you’ve “won” because your 2023 return wasn’t flagged by 2025 is a dangerous delusion; the IRS often waits until the tail end of the statute of limitations to strike, allowing interest and penalties to compound into life-altering sums.

Furthermore, if the IRS suspects “possible fraud,” the statute of limitations disappears entirely—the window stays open forever. It is a common misconception that fraud requires a complex criminal conspiracy; in practice, the evidentiary bar for “willful intent” can be surprisingly low. If a taxpayer consistently “errs” in their own favor or fails to maintain basic documentation, the IRS can argue fraud, stripping away your legal shield and leaving every return you’ve ever filed open to microscopic scrutiny.

Finally, the current “resource drought” at the IRS is a temporary political climate, not a permanent law of nature. Betting your financial future on the agency remaining underfunded is a poor gamble. Eventually, the mounting national deficit will create a bipartisan mandate to close the “tax gap.” Whether through a change in administration or a shift in fiscal priorities, the IRS will eventually be helmed by leadership focused on efficiency and “flying the plane in a straight line.”

When that reinvestment happens, the agency won’t just look at new returns—they will use their upgraded technology to look backward at the years you thought they were too distracted to notice. On this April 13, as the filing deadline looms, remember: the IRS doesn’t need to catch you today to ruin your tomorrow. Compliance is expensive, but a decade of back taxes, compounded interest, and fraud penalties is a price no one can afford.

Authors Note: www.economicmemos.com is a blog about policy, personal finance and finance. I greatly appreciated when readers take out either the free subscription or the paid one, the choice is entirely yours and my goal is to keep most material free of charge.

The personal finance section of the blog consistently points to many of the issues impacting household finances which are often not the primary focus of financial advisors. The policy portion of the blog recommends approaches to health care, student debt, and savings incentives which differ from those offered by the two major political parties.

This coupon gives you 20 percent off and the right to renew at $48 as long as you maintain the subscription.

· Subscribe now to lock in 20% off—just $48 per year.

· Early supporters secure a discounted annual rate that continues at renewal.

· This limited-time offer allows founding subscribers to keep the reduced price as long as their subscription remains active.

#TaxDay #IRS #AuditRoulette #FinancialStrategy #TaxCompliance #WSJ #PersonalFinance

Share

Introduction:

A Wall Street Journal article announced the introduction of a new token-backed mortgage program, a joint initiative by Better Home & Finance and Coinbase Global. The program allows homebuyers to secure a Fannie Mae-conforming mortgage by using a second lien backed by substantial crypto currency collateral instead of making a traditional cash downpayment.

In theory, there is no inherent problem with a lender using a financial asset as additional collateral in a real estate transaction or as a different form of collateral than a cash down payment. If structured correctly, financial collateral allows the borrower to maintain a more diversified portfolio and creates critical diversification for the mortgage holder. This “collateral cushion” can protect the lender in a default scenario where housing prices collapse and traditional equity turns negative. In fact, I argued for this exact type of structural diversification in a paper I wrote and presented in the early 1990s.

This note looks at the terms and conditions of the new financial product, provides an example comparing a house purchase with a traditional mortgage to one with the new product and provides some comments.

Summary of Terms and Conditions

The full text of the terms and conditions of the new financial product are at: Better.com - Token-Backed Mortgage Program Terms and Conditions

• The Advance Rate (Defined): In lending, the Advance Rate is the maximum percentage of an asset’s value a lender will provide as a loan. Bitcoin (BTC) has a 40% Advance Rate for this transaction. This means that to get a $100,000 loan for the downpayment, you must pledge $250,000 in BTC—effectively a 250% collateralization ratio.

• Dual-Loan Structure: Qualified customers obtain a “Downpayment Loan” (secondary) to fund the cash required for a “Token-Backed Mortgage Loan” (primary).

• The Second Lien: The Downpayment Loan is secured by both the pledged digital tokens and a second lien on the residential property.

• The “Lock” Period: Pledged tokens are moved to a custodial account and cannot be sold, transferred, or re-pledged without prior written consent.

• Liquidation Rights: If a default occurs, the lender has the immediate right to sell or liquidate the pledged tokens to satisfy the debt.

Financial Comparison: The $500,000 Purchase

The $500,000 home can be purchased with either a traditional loan or the new token-backed program.

The Traditional Approach involves the buyer selling approximately $115,000 in Bitcoin to cover the down payment and the associated capital gains tax. This results in a $400,000 mortgage (80% LTV), with monthly payments based only on that balance and a single lien on the home. The borrower maintains 20% home equity from day one and full control over any remaining Bitcoin.

The Token-Backed Program (Pledging Assets) involves the buyer pledging $250,000 in Bitcoin to secure a $100,000 loan. This results in a $500,000 total debt load (100% LTV), monthly interest payments on the full purchase price, and a high-risk “double lien” on both the home and the crypto. The borrower is legally barred from selling their Bitcoin to lock in gains and is exposed to a $750,000 total collateral risk (house + crypto) in case of default.

Subscribe now

IV. Critical Analysis & Comments

1. Substantial Increase in Monthly Payments

The Downpayment Loan carries the same interest rate as the primary mortgage. In a traditional purchase, a down payment is equity that reduces your debt. In this program, that down payment is debt. You are paying interest on 100% of the home’s value, increasing your monthly obligation by roughly 25%.

2. The Most Alarming Risk: The Second Lien

The Downpayment Loan is secured by a second lien on the residential property. If you fail to pay the crypto-backed portion, the lender has a legal claim to your house. You aren’t just pledging your Bitcoin; you are pledging your home twice.

3. Massive Collateral Exposure

In the $500k example, you have pledged a $500,000 home and $250,000 in Bitcoin. A 60-day delinquency allows the lender to liquidate your tokens and potentially foreclose. For a $100,000 loan benefit, you are exposing $750,000 in total collateral.

4. Circumventing Tax Policy Goals

The rationale behind the policy of maintaining a capital gains tax rate lower than the tax rate on ordinary income is to motivate investors to realize capital gains. This product encourages borrowers to avoid a one-time 20% tax hit by taking on up to 30 years of interest on a new loan. This is probably a bad deal for investors. More importantly, this type of financial gimmickry undermines incentives for people to take gains and ultimately could erode support for the preferential rate on capital gains.

5. The “Locked Upside” Constraint

If Bitcoin’s price surges, the borrower cannot easily “take chips off the table.” The pledged assets remain encumbered and cannot be sold or reallocated without repaying or refinancing the associated loan. While exit is possible—through refinancing, partial repayment, or other sources of liquidity—it requires introducing new capital or leverage. In practice, this structure limits the borrower’s ability to actively manage or diversify their crypto exposure during the life of the loan.

6. Policy does not address broad affordability concerns

The main problem with the housing market right now is a vast number of young buyers cannot afford a new home. A person with $250,000 in crypto assets who does not want to sell the assets because of a potential capital gains is not a person with an affordability constraint.

Why is this program even being considered right now?

Conclusion

A fairer way to diversify collateral and prevent lender losses is to use stable, high-quality financial assets to provide a liquidity buffer that doesn’t rely on a second lien on the home. As I argued in my early 1990s research, the conceptual goal of using financial assets as collateral is sound: it allows for a more diversified portfolio for the borrower and provides the lender with protection against the “negative equity” scenarios that devastated the market in 2008.

However, the 2026 crypto-pledge model fails the test of financial sanity. It insulates the lender from loss at a lopsided and ultimately punitive cost to the homeowner. This product remains a bad deal because it replaces equity with debt, traps liquidity in a volatile “lock,” and circumvents logical tax policy.

Authors note: The eclectic blog www.economicmemos.com has substantial information on policy, personal finance and politics. Most material is free but some material is behind a paywall. You can support this blog by subscribing. The annual fee is $48 with this coupon.

https://www.economicmemos.com/56428713

Share

Subscribe now

This brief synthesizes insights from the academic literature on market microstructure, limit order execution, and exchange-traded funds to examine trading strategies during systematic selloffs. The literature and this review is specifically tailored to help investors navigate the current market environment. It highlights how flow-driven selloffs reshape execution risk, compress the role of firm-specific information, and complicate the tradeoff between early entry and waiting for stabilization. Building on these insights, the brief introduces the concept of contingent exposure through limit orders, in which market exposure increases only as prices decline and orders are executed. This framework helps clarify how staged, price-dependent entry strategies can balance adverse selection, continuation risk, and timing uncertainty across both individual securities and index-based instruments.

Share

Introduction

This brief synthesizes insights from the academic literature on market microstructure, limit order execution, and the growing role of exchange-traded funds in modern equity markets.

The objective is to clarify how these strands of research jointly inform trading decisions in periods of broad market decline, particularly those driven by macroeconomic or supply shocks, the conditions defining the current market environment.

The Q&A format is designed to answer a set of practical questions:

• How do limit orders behave in falling markets?

• How has the rise of ETFs changed the transmission of price movements?

• Why do both high- and low-quality stocks often fall together in stress?

• How should limit orders be deployed in such environments?

• What are the risks of waiting for a market bottom?

The discussion draws on a well-established body of financial economics research but avoids technical exposition in favor of direct application to trading decisions.

1) What does the academic literature say about using limit orders in falling markets?

The literature consistently characterizes limit orders as a tradeoff between price improvement and adverse selection. Limit orders will result in the buyer getting a stock below the current market price but selling pressure is greatest when prices are continuing downward often due to information not available to the buyer.

Research on order book dynamics also shows that liquidity does not immediately recover after a shock. Price pressure tends to persist, meaning that an initial fill is not evidence of stabilization or reversal.

2) How has the rise of ETFs changed market behavior during systematic declines?

The modern literature on ETFs finds that they have fundamentally altered how shocks propagate through equity markets.

ETF trading increases co-movement across stocks by allowing investors to trade entire baskets of securities simultaneously. During periods of stress, flows into or out of ETFs transmit price changes across many stocks at once, regardless of firm-specific fundamentals.

Because ETFs are highly liquid and easy to trade, they often serve as the primary vehicle for expressing macroeconomic views. As a result, they can incorporate new information more quickly than individual securities and effectively lead price adjustments during volatile periods.

3) In an ETF-driven selloff, are both good and bad stocks likely to fall?

Yes, particularly in the early stages of a market-wide supply shock.

When selling is driven by macro factors such as commodity shocks, deleveraging, or portfolio outflows, securities are traded as part of baskets rather than on the basis of firm-specific information. This leads to a temporary compression of dispersion across stocks.

In such environments, high-quality firms can decline alongside weaker firms because prices are being driven by liquidity and flow rather than by fundamentals.

4) Should limit orders be placed on individual stocks, or ETFs?

Each approach carries distinct risks.

Adverse selection issues are more pronounced on Limit orders on individual stocks. Limit orders on ETFs remain exposed to continued selling pressure but are less vulnerable to firm-specific informational disadvantages. Diversification reduces idiosyncratic risk, and arbitrage mechanisms create some tendency toward price alignment with underlying value.

When a broad economic shock is driving declines across both high- and low-quality stocks, and the investor has strong conviction about which firms are fundamentally sound, it may be reasonable to place limit orders on those perceived higher-quality names.

5) What is the risk of waiting for the bottom?

Waiting reduces exposure to adverse selection but introduces timing risk. Markets can rebound quickly, and delayed entry may result in higher purchase prices.

The literature on market timing shows that returns are highly concentrated in a small number of trading days. Missing these periods can significantly reduce realized performance.

Because reversals are often abrupt and difficult to predict, waiting for clear confirmation of a bottom can result in missed opportunities. At the same time, entering too early exposes the trader to continued declines.

6) How do professionals reconcile these tradeoffs?

Rather than making binary decisions, professional investors typically use sequencing strategies.

These include:

• spreading purchases across multiple price levels,

• starting with smaller allocations and increasing exposure over time,

• conditioning additional purchases on signs that selling pressure is subsiding.

In ETF-driven environments, this often involves establishing initial exposure through diversified instruments and shifting toward individual securities once dispersion returns.

7) What does this imply in a supply-shock scenario such as an oil-driven selloff?

In supply-driven market declines, macro forces dominate price formation.

ETF flows transmit selling pressure broadly, correlations increase, and individual fundamentals become less influential in the short run. This environment increases the likelihood that both strong and weak firms will decline together.

Implications for limit orders:

• early-stage limit orders in individual stocks are particularly exposed to adverse selection,

• ETF-based exposure may better align with the macro nature of the shock,

• waiting for stabilization reduces risk but may forgo early entry.

8) Bottom line and practical implications

The combined literature supports three core conclusions:

1. Limit orders in falling markets are inherently exposed to adverse selection and continuation risk.

2. ETFs increase co-movement across stocks, making individual fundamentals temporarily less relevant during broad selloffs.

3. The central tradeoff is between acting early and risking further downside or waiting and risking missed recovery.

There is no single optimal strategy, but the evidence favors structured, staged approaches and caution in interpreting early executions as signals of a bottom.

These conclusions have several practical implications for investors operating in broad market downturns.

First, in market environments dominated by exogenous macro shocks, short-run price movements are often driven more by common flows than by firm-specific information. In such settings, selective limit orders in high-quality companies may be more defensible than in idiosyncratic selloffs, because price dislocations are more likely to reflect liquidity pressure rather than new negative information about individual firms. This does not eliminate adverse selection risk, but it can reduce the relative importance of firm-specific informational disadvantage in the initial stages of a broad decline.

Second, limit orders should be understood as contingent long positions rather than precise entry tools. A standing limit buy order represents a commitment to acquire exposure if prices reach a specified level, while preserving cash otherwise. This framing implies that such orders should generally be placed only in securities that the investor would be willing to hold even if prices continue to decline after execution.

Third, investors should not expect to identify the exact bottom of a market decline. The literature on return concentration and market timing shows that a significant portion of long-run returns is realized in a small number of trading periods, which are difficult to predict in advance. As a result, execution strategies should be evaluated relative to reasonable entry benchmarks rather than ex post trough prices, which are typically unknowable in real time.

Fourth, both theory and experience suggest that staggered or sequenced order placement is more robust than reliance on a single price level. Optimal execution models emphasize trade splitting as a way to manage uncertainty and market impact. In practice, this translates into placing multiple limit orders across a range of prices rather than attempting to concentrate exposure at a single, precisely defined level. Investors may be directionally correct about valuation while being imprecise about timing, and staged execution helps accommodate this reality.

One practical illustration is the case of placing a single large limit order in a high-growth technology stock (e.g., NVIDIA) during a period in which the stock was in a process of a substantial correction during its upward trend. The order was set meaningfully below the prevailing price, reflecting a view that further downside was likely. The stock subsequently declined close to that level—within a narrow margin—but did not reach the specified price before reversing higher. As a result, no position was established despite the general directional view proving correct. In such situations, a ladder of smaller orders across adjacent price levels would likely have resulted in at least partial execution, highlighting the advantage of sequencing over precision.

Finally, maintaining available liquidity is an important component of this approach. The ability to place additional limit orders at lower prices—if declines continue—provides flexibility and reduces the cost of initial timing errors. In this sense, a portfolio of staggered limit orders can be viewed as a structured method of gradually increasing exposure in response to evolving market conditions.

Taken together, the objective is not to eliminate risk, but to choose how risk is taken. A staged, selective approach to limit order placement allows investors to balance adverse selection, flow-driven continuation, and timing uncertainty in a disciplined manner. This approach also creates contingent exposure: initial market exposure remains limited, with risk increasing only if prices decline and orders are executed, allowing investors to take on more exposure precisely as the market moves lower.

Author’s Note

Additional finance articles on this blog rethink financial security by focusing on debt elimination, inflation hedging, and tax-efficient 401(k) disbursement strategies in retirement. Most posts including this one are free, some are behind a paywall.

Special Offer: Get 20% off an annual membership, $48, for a limited time. Claim Your Discount: https://www.economicmemos.com/56428713

These insights are designed to provide practical financial value that far outweighs the cost of the subscription.

Share, Subscribe and Enjoy!

Subscribe now

Share

References:

Limit Order Markets and Adverse Selection

• Goettler, Parlour, Rajan (2009): “Informed Traders and Limit Order Markets,” Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 22(5).

• Lehalle, Mounjid, Rosenbaum (2018): “Limit Order Strategic Placement with Adverse Selection Risk,” arXiv:1610.00261.

• Ranaldo (2004): “Order Aggressiveness in Limit Order Book Markets,” Journal of Financial Markets, Vol. 7(1).

• Degryse, de Jong, van Ravenswaaij, Wuyts (2005): “Aggressive Orders and the Resiliency of a Limit Order Market,” European Finance Association (Working Paper).

• Foucault (1999): “Order Flow Composition and Trading Costs in a Dynamic Limit Order Market,” Journal of Financial Markets, Vol. 2(2).

• Liu (2009): “Dynamics of Limit Order Submission and Cancellation,” Journal of Financial Markets, Vol. 12(1).

ETFs and Market Structure

• Ben-David, Franzoni, Moussawi (2018): “Do ETFs Increase Volatility?” Journal of Finance, Vol. 73(6).

• Madhavan (2012): “Exchange-Traded Funds and the New Dynamics of Investing,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 68(5).

• Da, Shive (2018): “Exchange Traded Funds and Asset Return Correlations,” European Financial Management, Vol. 24(1).

• Israeli, Lee, Sridharan (2017): “Is There a Dark Side to Exchange Traded Funds?” Review of Accounting Studies, Vol. 22(3).

Price Discovery and Cross-Asset Dynamics

• Hasbrouck (1995): “One Security, Many Markets,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 50(4).

Market Timing and Return Concentration

• Bessembinder (2018): “Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 129(3).

• Barber, Odean (2000): “Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 55(2).

Execution Strategy and Trade Sequencing

• Bertsimas, Lo (1998): “Optimal Control of Execution Costs,” Journal of Financial Markets, Vol. 1(1).

• Almgren, Chriss (2000): “Optimal Execution of Portfolio Transactions,” Journal of Risk, Vol. 3(2).

• Obizhaeva, Wang (2013): “Optimal Trading Strategy and Supply/Demand Dynamics,” Journal of Financial Markets, Vol. 16(1).

Key Results:

· Financial advice is systematically biased toward asset accumulation, often neglecting the structural factors—debt, taxes, inflation, and withdrawal design—that determine actual retirement security.

· Prioritizing debt reduction (especially student loans and mortgages) can materially improve lifetime financial outcomes through lower interest costs, better credit conditions, and reduced retirement drawdown pressure.

· Carrying a mortgage into retirement significantly accelerates asset depletion, particularly when withdrawals from conventional retirement accounts increase taxable income and expose Social Security benefits to taxation.

· Series I Savings Bonds provide superior inflation protection and based on long-term evidence, can outperform traditional bond allocations, suggesting they should be a standard component of household portfolios.

· The Roth vs. traditional retirement tradeoff is more complex than commonly presented; while Roth assets are essential in retirement—especially for households carrying debt due to their tax-free withdrawal advantages—AGI-linked programs (e.g., ACA subsidies, student loan repayment plans) can create liquidity constraints and hidden tax penalties during working years that discourage or limit Roth contributions.

· Standard withdrawal frameworks (e.g., 4% rule, Guyton-Klinger) fail to ensure adequate consumption in retirement, highlighting the need to consider both consumption adequacy and portfolio longevity when arranging distributions from retirement plans.

Introduction:

The modern financial advisory industry is largely optimized for the accumulation phase—the decades spent building a portfolio. However, this narrow focus often ignores the structural risks that determine whether that wealth actually translates into a stable, lifelong standard of living. Recent articles at the personal finance section of www.economicmemos.com, have focused on four other pivotal decisions.

1. Strategic Debt Management: Prioritizing the elimination of student and mortgage debt to improve cash flow and credit quality.

2. Inflation Immunization: Utilizing non-marketable assets like Series I Bonds to protect purchasing power without price risk.

3. The Tax-Efficiency Tradeoff: Navigating the complex interplay between Roth and conventional accounts in the context of AGI-linked federal subsidies.

4. Sustainable Disbursement Architecture: Moving beyond simplistic withdrawal “rules” to ensure consumption remains adequate throughout retirement.

By addressing these four levers with empirical rigor rather than industry dogma, investors can build a financial life that is resilient to market volatility and policy shifts alike.

Analysis:

Most financial advisors emphasize the need to save in investment accounts for retirement over debt reduction. The work on this blog consistently prioritizes debt reduction.

Many smart financial advisors including advisors at Northwestern Mutual tell young adults with student debt to prioritize saving for retirement over quick reductions of student debt. The analysis on this blog recommends prioritizing debt reduction over saving for retirement.to obtain massive direct reductions in interest payments, improved credit quality leading to lower interest payments on future loans, mortgages and car insurance, a reduced need to raid retirement accounts prior to retirement, and the increased possibility of eliminating a mortgage prior to retirement.

Financial experts often favor maximizing retirement savings through catch-up contributions to retirement plans over aggressive mortgage elimination for older workers. See this article by Hillary Stalker and this article by Pete Grieve.

The analysis on my blog cautions against taking any mortgage debt into retirement, especially by people with most assets tied up in a conventional retirement plan. People with a mortgage must spend more in retirement than people without a retirement plan and these spending obligations do not fall if the market falls. Furthermore, all disbursements from a conventional retirement plan are included in AGI, subject to federal income tax, and count towards the amount of Social Security subject to income tax. All of these factors substantially increase the depletion rate of financial assets for retirees with mortgage debt, especially in periods where the market does not perform well.

One way to mitigate tax problems in retirement, as correctly noted by Ed Slott, is to maximize use of Roth IRAs over conventional retirement accounts. However, new AGI linked programs and loans, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits and the new Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) for student loans create substantial liquidity problems for people choosing Roth contributions over conventional retirement plan contributions as documented in the blog post the lifecycle inconsistency at the center of U.S. Saving Policy.

A recurring theme at Economic Memos is the systemic failure of the financial advisory community to protect clients from inflation. Most current financial advisors were not active in the 1970s and 1980s.

A memo on Series I Bonds describes this important asset and makes a strong case for its use in every portfolio. The study Series I Bonds vs. Bond Funds: 27 Years of Head-to-Head Results provides evidence indicating that inclusion of Series I bonds in portfolios would lead to outcomes superior to the traditional 60/40 portfolio model.

The bottom line of these memos for households preparing for retirement is that investors should purchase some Series I Savings bonds every year. The bottom line of the memos for economic advisors and policy makers is that household financial positions and the adequacy of savings would be substantially improved by a rule change allowing workers to purchase Savings I Bonds inside retirement accounts.

Most investment advice focuses on the “accumulation phase” and the maximization of investment returns while controlling risk. The issue of how to best maintain wealth while disbursing funds in retirement is often overlooked.

My blog so far has posts on distribution rules in retirement, the four percent rule and the Guyton-Klinger rule and the impact of both rules on both whether the retiree will outlive her financial resources and on the adequacy of retirement wealth to support an adequate level of consumption.

The four percent rule is a process by which the retiree sets his or her initial disbursement at 4 percent of the retirement balance and adjusts future disbursements for inflation. The Guyton-Klinger approach to retirement plan distributions is touted as a way to allow retirees to adopt an initial distribution over 4 percent with the understanding that the retiree will cut disbursements when portfolio returns are low.

These rules and simulations do not provide any real information about whether a person has saved enough for a comfortable or even basic level of consumption in retirement.

Under strict adherence to a 4 percent rule, a person with $1,000,000 in assets would deplete resources after the same number of years as a person with $2,000,000 in assets. Similarly, asset depletion dates would not be affected by the existence of resources in a Roth rather than a conventional retirement account. The person with more assets or more tax-advantaged assets could consume more but the asset depletion date is entirely determined by distribution rates, inflation and stock returns and is unaffected by initial wealth.

Some studies have found that the Guyton-Klinger rule will extend portfolio life compared to the 4 percent rule. However, the studies do not show that whether the Guyton rule allows for an adequate level of consumption when forced reductions occur. Also, the result of longer portfolio life under Guyton-Klinger will often not hold when returns are low in the first few years of retirement.

Several studies in this post have examined the impact of timing on the risk of outliving resources in retirement. The post on the sequence of return puzzle explains why bad returns at the beginning of a career are less harmful than bad returns at the beginning of retirement. The post on the retirement date lottery show that workers who retired in 2000 and lived through two economic shocks early in retirement had quicker retirement wealth depletion than workers who retired in 2007 who experienced only one (admittedly a severe one) early retirement shock.

So, there is an element of luck impacting financial outcomes but as discussed here and throughout my blog making good decisions can drastically improve outcomes.

Conclusion:

The disconnect between traditional financial advice and the strategies outlined in this memo is often a matter of incentives. The advisory industry—and the fee-based models that sustain it—is naturally biased toward marketable assets that stay under management. There is no commission for a client who pays off a student loan, eliminates a mortgage, or moves liquid cash into a zero-fee Series I Savings Bond. Consequently, the critical “distribution phase” of retirement remains under-researched and over-simplified.

This blog provides an alternative framework: one that prioritizes the adequacy of consumption over the mere longevity of a portfolio. By focusing on debt elimination, inflation hedging, and the real-world impact of AGI on taxes and subsidies, readers can move beyond “market-only” thinking. True financial security is found not just in the size of an investment account, but in the structural integrity of the entire household balance sheet.

Further Reading from Economic Memos

To delve deeper into the data and logic behind these strategies, you can access the full technical analyses through the following themed links:

Debt Management & Early Career Strategy

· Younger workers need to prioritize debt reduction over investments: An analysis of how direct interest reduction and credit quality improvements outweigh early-career investing.

· Elimination of mortgage debt prior to retirement: Why carrying a mortgage into your 60s creates a dangerous “liquidity squeeze” when paired with conventional retirement accounts.

The Series I Bond Framework

· Series I Bonds: Practical Guidance A comprehensive look at the mechanics, tax advantages, and strategic “stability reserve” applications of I Bonds.

· Series I Bonds vs Bond ETFs: 27 years of head-to-head Results The empirical 27-year study proving the superior hedging power of I Bonds during inflationary and rising-rate regimes.

Tax Policy & Retirement Allocations

· The Lifecycle Inconsistency at the center of U.S. Saving Policy: A critique of how AGI-linked programs like ACA subsidies and RAP student loans create hidden “tax traps” for Roth contributors.

Advanced Disbursement & Withdrawal Strategies

· Limitations of the four percent rule: Why standard withdrawal models fail to account for consumption adequacy and the real-world impact of AGI.

· When higher withdrawal rates backfire: A technical evaluation of “flexible” withdrawal rules and their risks during early-retirement sequence risk.

· The Sequence of Returns Puzzle: Why bad returns at beginning of career have little financial impact but bad returns at beginning of retirement can be fatal to finances in retirement.

· The Retirement Date Lottery: Why the retiree in year 2000 had worse outcomes than the retiree in year 2007.

Authors Note: The blog www.economicmemos.com is a place for readers with diverse interests. It covers, politics, policy, and personal finance. The personal finance perspective is described in this memo. The political/policy perspectives are described here. For a limited time, use this coupon for 20 percent off. The price of the annual membership is $48. I suspect many readers will make money off the financial advice and will appreciate the policy analysis.

Coupon Here:

https://www.economicmemos.com/56428713

Subscribe now

Share

The Guyton–Klinger Rule and the Problem of Consumption Adequacy

The Guyton–Klinger (GK) withdrawal rule is widely presented as a way to increase retirement withdrawals beyond the traditional 4 percent rule while preserving portfolio longevity. By allowing spending to adjust in response to market performance, the rule appears to offer a solution to sequence-of-returns risk.

However, this characterization is incomplete. The GK framework combines spending flexibility with higher initial withdrawals, and these two features work in opposite directions. While the adjustment mechanism mitigates the impact of adverse returns, higher withdrawals increase exposure to early losses. When severe declines occur at the start of retirement, the adjustment process may not fully offset this risk, and outcomes can be worse than under more conservative fixed withdrawal strategies.

This paper analyzes that interaction and shows that the Guyton–Klinger rule does not eliminate sequence risk but instead reshapes it in ways that are not always favorable to retirees.

The Guyton–Klinger Framework

The GK rule, formalized in Guyton and Klinger (2006), consists of a set of decision rules governing withdrawal adjustments. Retirees begin with an initial withdrawal rate, typically higher than that implied by fixed real withdrawal rules, and adjust spending based on the evolution of the portfolio’s withdrawal rate.

Spending adjustments under the Guyton–Klinger rule are triggered by changes in the withdrawal rate, defined as withdrawals relative to total portfolio value. The withdrawal rate can rise either because the portfolio declines or because withdrawals increase through inflation adjustments. When the rate rises sufficiently above its initial level, the capital preservation rule triggers a reduction in spending. If it falls sufficiently below, the prosperity rule allows an increase. Additional provisions, such as suspending inflation adjustments following negative return years, further limit increases in the withdrawal rate.

This structure creates a feedback mechanism linking spending directly to overall portfolio health. When portfolio values fall, the withdrawal rate rises, prompting spending cuts that reduce pressure on the portfolio. When portfolio values recover, the withdrawal rate declines, allowing spending to stabilize or increase.

All decision rules are defined at the level of the aggregate portfolio rather than individual asset classes. In particular, the suspension of inflation adjustments is triggered by negative total portfolio returns, not by the performance of specific components such as equities. Similarly, guardrail adjustments depend on the overall withdrawal rate relative to total portfolio value. Withdrawals are therefore modeled as coming from a pooled portfolio, and the framework does not differentiate across asset classes in determining either the level or timing of spending changes. As a result, strong performance in one asset class can offset weakness in another for purposes of triggering adjustments, even if individual components experience significant drawdowns.

Literature

Guyton (2004) introduced the decision-rule framework using historical simulations centered on adverse sequences, particularly the 1970s. The study showed that modest flexibility, such as skipping inflation adjustments after poor returns, could materially increase sustainable withdrawal rates relative to fixed real spending.

Guyton and Klinger (2006) extended this analysis using Monte Carlo simulations calibrated to historical return data. The study evaluated portfolios with varying equity allocations and found that initial withdrawal rates of approximately 5.2–5.6 percent could be sustained with high confidence for portfolios with at least 65 percent equities, while lower equity allocations produced materially lower sustainable rates. The analysis was limited to portfolios with at least 50 percent equity exposure, leaving the performance of the rule under more conservative allocations less well established.

Subsequent research extends this analysis by examining a broader range of portfolio allocations and withdrawal frameworks. For example, David Blanchett, Kowara, and Chen (2012) analyze dynamic withdrawal strategies that adjust spending based on remaining life expectancy and portfolio performance. These strategies differ from the Guyton–Klinger rule in that adjustments are continuous and formula-based, rather than discrete responses to threshold breaches in withdrawal rates.

Studies by Wade Pfau and David Blanchett include more conservative portfolios, often in the 30 to 50 percent equity range, and confirm that lower equity exposure reduces sustainable withdrawal rates and limits the ability of portfolios to recover from early losses. These studies do not implement the Guyton–Klinger framework in its original form but are examples of dynamic withdrawal strategies.

Lower equity portfolios reduce the frequency and severity of negative returns, but also reduce expected returns, limiting recovery capacity. As a result, while spending adjustments may be triggered less often, they may be more persistent when they occur.

Objectives, Limitations, and Extensions of the Guyton–Klinger Framework

The Guyton–Klinger rule is best understood as a heuristic for controlling the probability of portfolio depletion. By linking spending adjustments to the withdrawal rate, it maintains sustainability without requiring a fixed spending path. In this sense, the rule treats spending as an adjustment variable whose primary function is to stabilize the portfolio.

In the original Guyton–Klinger studies, “failure” is defined narrowly as portfolio depletion prior to the end of the retirement horizon. A strategy is considered successful if the portfolio remains solvent throughout the period, regardless of the path of consumption. As a result, substantial reductions in real spending are not treated as failures within the framework.

This design implies a fundamental limitation. The rule does not explicitly incorporate preferences over consumption or optimize consumption smoothing, and it does not impose a lower bound on real spending. In contrast to lifecycle models derived from utility maximization under uncertainty (Merton 1969; Yaari 1965), the framework prioritizes financial solvency over consumption stability.

The absence of a consumption constraint creates a clear implication: in adverse return sequences, the rule preserves portfolio viability by allowing consumption to adjust downward as needed. Repeated application of the capital preservation rule can therefore generate large cumulative reductions in real spending. Empirical analyses of guardrail-based strategies applied to historical stress periods show that spending can decline substantially and remain depressed for extended periods (Kitces 2024), and more generally, dynamic withdrawal strategies imply that retirees will experience periods of reduced consumption relative to initial levels (Blanchett et al. 2012).

Practitioner analyses make this tradeoff more explicit. For example, Michael Kitces shows that guardrail-based approaches such as Guyton–Klinger can support higher initial withdrawals than fixed real strategies but may require substantial and sustained reductions in spending in adverse market sequences. This framing highlights the central distinction between the two approaches: greater spending stability under fixed rules versus higher initial consumption coupled with variability under dynamic rules.

The implicit assumption is that retirees can absorb such reductions. However, this assumption is not embedded in the model and may not hold in practice, particularly when a large share of spending is non-discretionary. More broadly, the rule converts the risk of portfolio depletion into the risk of declining consumption.

Subsequent research and practice have increasingly addressed this limitation by introducing explicit consumption constraints. One approach separates spending into essential and discretionary components, funding essential consumption through stable income sources while applying flexible withdrawal rules only to discretionary spending (Pfau 2015). Another approach modifies guardrail systems to include explicit spending floors, trading greater consumption stability for a higher probability of depletion. More recent work shifts toward risk-based or utility-based frameworks that explicitly penalize low consumption states, aligning more closely with economic theory.

Sequence-of-returns risk illustrates this distinction clearly. Under fixed withdrawal strategies, adverse returns early in retirement can irreversibly damage portfolio sustainability, as withdrawals remain constant while asset values decline. Under the Guyton–Klinger framework, similar early losses instead trigger reductions in spending, preserving portfolio viability. While this mitigates the financial consequences of early sequence risk, it does so by shifting the burden onto consumption, particularly at the beginning of retirement when spending needs and preferences may be highest.

The spending flexibility embedded in the Guyton–Klinger rule mitigates the financial impact of adverse return sequences. However, when the framework is used to support higher initial withdrawals, this benefit may be insufficient to offset the increased exposure to early losses. In such cases, both portfolio outcomes and consumption paths can be worse than under a more conservative fixed withdrawal rule.

Conclusion: The Fundamental Tradeoff

The Guyton–Klinger rule demonstrates that flexible spending can materially increase sustainable withdrawal rates relative to fixed rules. The core studies and subsequent literature show that dynamic adjustment improves the tradeoff between initial consumption and portfolio longevity.

However, when higher initial withdrawals coincide with severe early losses, the adjustment mechanism may not fully offset the increased exposure to sequence risk, leading to outcomes that are worse than those produced by more conservative fixed withdrawal strategies.

Three objectives cannot be simultaneously maximized: high initial withdrawal rates, a low probability of portfolio depletion, and a guaranteed minimum level of consumption. Retirement withdrawal strategies must therefore be assessed in terms of both portfolio sustainability and the maintenance of an acceptable standard of living.

Bibliography (with links)

Guyton, Jonathan T. (2004). “Decision Rules and Maximum Initial Withdrawal Rates.” Journal of Financial Planning.
(PDF: https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/OCT04%20JFP%20Guyton%20PDF.pdf)

Guyton, Jonathan T., and William J. Klinger (2006). “Decision Rules and Maximum Initial Withdrawal Rates.” Journal of Financial Planning.
(PDF: https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/2006%20-%20Guyton%20and%20Klinger%20-%20Decision%20Rules%20and%20SWR%20%281%29.PDF)

Blanchett, David, Maciej Kowara, and Peng Chen (2012). “Optimal Withdrawal Strategy for Retirement Income Portfolios.” https://www.morningstar.com/content/dam/marketing/shared/research/methodology/677951-Optimal_Withdrawal_Strategy_for_Retirement_Income_Portfolios.pdf

Pfau, Wade D. (2015). Retirement Researcher’s Guide to Sustainable Withdrawals.

https://retirementresearcher.com

Kitces, Michael (2024). “Reconsidering Guyton-Klinger Guardrails and Spending Volatility.”
https://www.kitces.com/blog/guyton-klinger-guardrails-retirement-income-rules-risk-based/

Merton, Robert C. (1969). “Lifetime Portfolio Selection under Uncertainty.”
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1926560

Yaari, Menahem E. (1965). “Uncertain Lifetime, Life Insurance, and the Theory of the Consumer.”
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2296058

Appendix: Implementation and Conceptual Issues in the Guyton–Klinger Framework

Share

Author’s Note: The appendix (behind the paywall) lists 15 issues related to retirement withdrawal rules and includes examples comparing Guyton–Klinger and the 4 percent rule under poor initial returns and varying withdrawal rates.

Subscribe now

Oher posts on this blog, related to disbursement strategy in retirement include:

The Retirement Date Lottery: Why 2000 and 2007 Retirees Lived Different Financial Realities

The Lifecycle Inconsistency at the Center of U.S. Saving Policy

How Best to Save for College

Issue 1: Portfolio-Level Trigger Definition

Paywall Here:

Read more

At a $120,000 household income, the 2026 “marriage penalty” is no longer just a tax issue—it is a $635 monthly surge in mandatory expenses driven by the intersection of RAP loan brackets and ACA subsidy cliffs.

Introduction:

Historically, the Republican party has been extremely concerned about the possibility that the federal tax code and federal programs discouraging marriage and family formation.

Many years ago, the primary incentive discouraging marriage involved a marriage penalty inherent to the federal tax code. Two recent posts on this blog -- Not your Father’s Marriage Penalty and Student Loans and the Marriage Incentive Problem show that adverse financial incentives discouraging marriage and family formation today stem from AGI linked subsidies and loan payments, not the tax code.

The first case study of these financial incentives involved two recent graduates with similar income and different debt levels.

This post, a second case study, involves two slightly older people Henry and Mary, each with one kid. We consider the impact the financial implications of these two people marrying and forming a single household.

The Scenario:

• Profiles: Two single individuals, age 30, filing as Head of Household (HoH).

• Dependents: Two children total (one per household, age 5).

• Income: Each earns $60,000 AGI (Household Total: $120,000).

• Student Debt: Each holds $25,000 in federal loans (Total: $50,000) on the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP).

• Health Insurance: Both are currently enrolled in Silver-level ACA Marketplace plans.

Analysis:

Financial status when single

As single individuals, Henry and Mary benefit from being measured against a smaller household size. With one adult and one child, the 2026 Federal Poverty Level (FPL) for their household is $21,640. Their $60,000 income places them at 277 percent of the FPL. This positioning keeps them in a favorable subsidy bracket for health insurance and a lower repayment tier for their student loans.

In this individual bracket, each qualifies for the 5 percent RAP repayment rate. The base monthly obligation for each is approximately $250. After applying the $50 dependent discount, each pays a net of $200 per month, resulting in a combined monthly total of $400 for both households.

At 277 percent of the FPL, the 2026 rules require a contribution of approximately 8.5 percent of income toward a benchmark Silver plan. This results in an expected monthly premium of $425 per person. Given a national average market price of $1,112 for one adult and one child, the federal government provides a monthly subsidy of $687 to each. Combined, they pay $850 per month out of pocket.

Because their income exceeds 250 percent of the FPL, they do not qualify for cost-sharing reductions. Each faces the national average silver deductible of $5,304, leading to a combined household risk of $10,608.

Financial status when married

Upon marrying and filing jointly, the household income of $120,000 is measured against a family-of-four poverty line of $33,000, placing them at 364 percent of the FPL. While they remain below the 400 percent subsidy cliff, the compounding effect of the 2026 tax and loan rules creates a significant financial penalty.

The RAP Spike: The joint income level triggers the maximum 10 percent RAP bracket for the entire $120,000. The new base payment is $1,000 per month. Even with two dependent discounts totaling $100, the final payment is $900 per month. This represents a $500 monthly increase over their status as single filers.

Because the $900 RAP payment is now more than double the cost of a standard private loan, the couple is effectively forced out of the federal assistance program to protect their monthly cash flow. By switching to a conventional 15-year fixed loan for the $50,000 balance at the 2026 average interest rate of 6.39%, their monthly obligation drops to $432. This strategic shift results in a monthly savings of $468, allowing the household to reclaim $5,616 per year that would otherwise be lost to the RAP marriage penalty.

The ACA Squeeze: At 364 percent of the FPL, the required contribution rate for health insurance rises to 9.85 percent of household income. Their new expected monthly premium is $985. Although they technically receive a larger total subsidy because the children are now part of a single family plan, their out-of-pocket costs rise by $135 per month compared to their combined single premiums.

The transition from single to married status results in a total increase in mandatory monthly expenses (both ACA subsidy change and RAP loan change) of $635, which amounts to a $7,620 annual loss in disposable income for the household.

To mitigate this penalty, the couple can choose to exit the federal program for a conventional 15-year fixed loan, which reduces their monthly debt obligation from $900 to $432. This conversion allows the family to reclaim $468 per month, resulting in a total annual savings of $5,616 compared to remaining on the married RAP rate.

In 2026, the combined impact of the ACA and RAP shifts makes this conversion a mechanical necessity for maintaining middle-income stability. However, this transition may not occur automatically or smoothly if the borrower is currently delinquent, as loan servicers often require accounts to be in good standing before allowing a move to conventional financing. This administrative hurdle can effectively trap struggling borrowers in the more expensive married RAP rate until their past-due balances are resolved.

Conclusion:

The structural design of federal benefit programs in 2026 creates a profound disincentive for dual-earner households to marry. It is critical to note that while the $7,620 annual penalty identified in this study is severe, it does not represent a worst-case scenario.

If one spouse had a significantly lower income, the couple would likely lose access to valuable ACA cost-sharing reductions available only at lower poverty levels.

If the combined household income exceeded 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, the family would hit the hard subsidy cliff and lose all Premium Tax Credits entirely—a catastrophic outcome documented in previous case studies.

The RAP loan rules allow a married couple to reduce their student loan payments by filing separate returns. In cases, like this one where the spouses have identical income the decision to file separate returns results in a higher tax liability. Moreover, married households must file a joint return if they are to claim the PTC subsidy. (See Q5 in IRS FAQ.)

The way to mitigate the marriage penalty for Mary and Henry is to get employer-based health insurance, something that is not always available, and to convert to a conventional student loan, which is hopefully affordable.

Share

Author’s Note: The marriage penalty identified here is a symptom of the structural dysfunction I analyze in my foundational post, A Third-Party Economic Policy Platform. There, I argue that the two-party system’s focus on reversing the previous administration’s wins makes durable, pro-family economic reform nearly impossible.

Subscribe now

Introduction: The 2025 RAP bill revamped the entire student loan system with the biggest change involving the replacement of all previous Income Driven Repayment loans with the RAP program. A previous post discusses the RAP program and discusses potential implications for couples considering marriage or already married. The post also promised several case studies examining the financial implications of the new student debt programs for several couples.

This post, the first case study in response to the promise, involves two recent college graduate, identical salaries, one with a modest debt, the other with substantial debt.

Case Study One: Identical Incomes, Unequal Undergraduate Debt, and the Cost of Marriage

Alex and Jordan both earn $49,000 a year. They live in the same city, have the same career prospects, and report identical adjusted gross incomes (AGI). The only difference is their “price of entry” to the middle class.

· Alex holds a modest $10,000 in debt.

· Jordan holds a heavier $40,000 balance.

While single, their paths are clear.

Since Alex owes less than $25,000, the Standard Plan mandates a 10-year repayment. At 5% interest, that’s only $115/month. The cost of the RAP loan would actually be $163 per month (0.04 times $49k divided by 12). Alex chooses the 10-year plan. The RAP plan does not offer relief or the additional liquidity needed by recent college graduates.

Jordan’s conventional choice is a 15-year term, costing $316/month. For Jordan, RAP is a lifesaver. It cuts the monthly bill nearly in half to $163 and includes a government “principal subsidy” that guarantees the balance drops by at least $50 every month, regardless of interest.

As single people, they are winning. Together, they pay $278 per month. Then, they get married.

The moment Alex and Jordan marry and file a joint tax return the RAP algorithm stops seeing two individuals and starts seeing a “household unit.”

Their household AGI hits $98,000. This pushes them into a much higher bracket, where they are required to pay 9% of their total income toward student loans.

Let’s look at three options – (1) both spouses on RAP, (2) Alex stays on conventional Jordan stays on RAP, and (3) both Alex and Jordan go to conventional.

· Both spouses on RAP total bill is $735, and Jordan loses his interest subsidies (free money), new payment is $457 higher than when single.

· Alex stays on the Standard Plan ($115) and only Jordan uses RAP, the outcome is Alex (Standard): $115 Jordan (RAP): $588, Total Household Bill: $703.

· Alex stay on the 10-year standard ($115 per month) Jordan opts for the 15-year standard ($316 per month) bringing the household bill to $431, $153 higher than when they were single.

Filing married filing separately would lower the repayment calculation because income-driven repayment formulas count only the borrower’s individual income when spouses file separately, unless of course the married couple lives in a community property states. However, this strategy is rarely advantageous (even in common law states) when spouses earn identical salaries, because the tax code removes or restricts many credits and deductions for married-filing-separately households, typically raising the couple’s total tax liability.

Empirical analyses of tax filing strategies consistently find that married filing separately mainly benefits couples with large income disparities rather than equal-earning households. Alex and Jordan, the subject of case one, earn identical salaries so there is no need to consider married filing separate option.

Conclusion: The marriage of Alex and Jordan effectively forces the couple off the RAP plan and into conventional loans to avoid the program’s steep household income brackets. By choosing the standard plan, they bypass a potential $735 monthly obligation but still face a $155 “marriage penalty” compared to their combined payments as single individuals.

The application of the RAP payment percentage to the entire household AGI often means the RAP program is not useful for married borrowers. Fortunately, for Alex and Jordan the conventional loans are relatively affordable. This will not always prove to be true for other married households and couples considering marriage.

Authors Notes: More case studies on the impact of the new tax law on student borrowers will follow. The next case study will likely look at households with more debt and a larger dispersion of income. However, I need to do my weekend update so the next case study may not be available until mid-week.

Most personal finance advice assumes a world without taxes, subsidy phaseouts, benefit penalties, or healthcare landmines. The personal finance articles published in this blog look at realistic problems and solutions. Go to the post Personal Finance in the Real World for a roadmap to an alternative view.

Share

Subscribe now