The participation rate in the “401k” Federal Savings Plan ( “401k” Federal Savings Plan ) for federal employees has leveled off in the last several months. That is a normal change for this time of year.

The “401k” Federal Savings Plan notes that participation in the “401k” Federal Savings Plan for federal employees under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) is still up two percentage points above last year.

Implementing the CARES Act

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act) was signed on March 27, 2020. The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) created the CARES Act project to implement key provisions of the law. The project included four key provisions to enable “401k” Federal Savings Plan participants and beneficiaries to respond to their financial management needs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

These four provisions were:

• Changes in 2020 Required Minimum Distributions
• Loan Payment Suspensions
• An increase in the maximum loan amount to $100,000
• CARES Act withdrawal provisions.

CARES Act Loans, Suspensions and Withdrawals

CARES Loans

CARES Loans Over $50,000

Should I Have a Traditional or Roth “401k” Federal Savings Plan ?

If you are a federal employee and planning for retirement, you must carefully consider whether to contribute to a “401k” Federal Savings Plan ( “401k” Federal Savings Plan ) and what type of “401k” Federal Savings Plan you should get. This article will set forth the pros and cons and explain how an effective “401k” Federal Savings Plan strategy can best supplement your other retirement income sources.

What is a “401k” Federal Savings Plan ?

A “401k” Federal Savings Plan ( “401k” Federal Savings Plan ) is a retirement and savings plan available to both civilian federal employees and members of the military. It is similar to the 401(k) plans offered by employers in the private sector.

Federal Agency Contributions

One aspect of “401k” Federal Savings Plan s that cannot be overlooked is that a federal employee may be eligible for matching contributions from their agency. If you are a federal employee you must look into whether matching contributions are available and whether there is a limit.

Once you have that information, plan on contributing at least the amount that will be matched. If you don’t, you are leaving free money on the table.

For many federal employees, their agency will contribute 1% of income to a “401k” Federal Savings Plan even if the employee contributes nothing. If the employee contributes 5% of income, the agency will contribute another 4%.

Traditional “401k” Federal Savings Plan

In a traditional “401k” Federal Savings Plan , your contribution is deducted from your pre-tax wages, and taxes are deferred until you make withdrawals. This reduces your present taxable income, and your contributions are taxed at the rate that applies to your income in retirement, which should be lower.

Roth “401k” Federal Savings Plan

You make contributions to a Roth “401k” Federal Savings Plan with after-tax income. While this does not reduce your present taxable income, it does render your withdrawals in retirement tax-free.

What if I Worked in the Private Sector and have a 401(k) or Roth IRA?

You can roll an IRA from a private employer into your federal “401k” Federal Savings Plan . However, reach out to a Federal Retirement Consultant to ask about some other ways to manage these as well.  Keep in mind also that if you are 50 or older you can make additional catch-up contributions, however, they will not be eligible for matching contributions from your agency.

Can I Convert a Roth “401k” Federal Savings Plan to a Traditional “401k” Federal Savings Plan ?

No, and you can’t convert a Traditional “401k” Federal Savings Plan to a Roth or vice versa.

Which Type of “401k” Federal Savings Plan Should I Get?

Consider having one of each and varying the contributions according to how much money you are making. This allows you to strategically allocate retirement savings throughout your career to save the most in income tax.

For example, if you are just starting your career, you might open both a Roth “401k” Federal Savings Plan and a Traditional “401k” Federal Savings Plan , and contribute most to the Roth and just a bit to the Traditional. As the years pass and you presumably make more money, you can gradually increase contributions to the Traditional and decrease contributions to the Roth.

This way you are taking advantage of both the tax-free withdrawals of a Roth “401k” Federal Savings Plan , and the tax-deferred withdrawals of a Traditional “401k” Federal Savings Plan , and reducing your taxable income when you are making more, later in your career. Don’t forget to always contribute at least the amount that your agency will match.

What About Other Retirement Income?

You will have Social Security benefits when eligible, and if you are a civilian federal employee you will have an annuity from the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). If you are a member of the uniformed services, you will have Social Security benefits and your military retired pay.

The amount of income you have in retirement will vary according to the amount you contribute to your “401k” Federal Savings Plan , the amount that is taxable to you in retirement, and how you allocate your “401k” Federal Savings Plan contributions to the various funds and the return that your choices get. Even considering market variables, strategically contributing to your “401k” Federal Savings Plan is sure to maximize your income in retirement. 

About the Author

Veronica Baxter is a legal assistant and blogger living and working in the great city of Philadelphia. She frequently works with David Offen, Esq., a busy Philadelphia bankruptcy lawyer.

Late last year, new legislation was signed into law that will usher in some of the most sweeping changes to retirement plans in decades. The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement (or SECURE) Act was originally passed by the House of Representatives last spring. It failed to pass the Senate then, but the legislation was included in the year-end spending bill that was passed on December 20, 2019.

The SECURE Act became effective on January 1, 2020, and it will inevitably affect many retirement savers, for better or worse. Here are a few of the most significant provisions that you should be aware of:

No more age restriction on traditional IRA contributions

Before the Secure Act, you could not make contributions to a traditional IRA for the year during which you reached age 70 1/2 or any later year. (There’s no age restriction on Roth IRA contributions, and the Secure Act does not change that.)

New law: For tax years beginning after 2019, the Secure Act repeals the age restriction on contributions to traditional IRAs. So, for tax years beginning in 2020 and beyond, you can make contributions after reaching age 70½. That’s the good news.

Key point: The deadline for making a contribution for your 2019 tax year is April 15, 2020, but you cannot make a contribution for 2019 if you were age 70 1/2 or older as of Dec. 31, 2019. Thanks to the new law, you can make contributions for tax year 2020 and beyond.

Side effect for IRA qualified charitable distributions

After reaching age 70 1/2, you can make qualified charitable contributions of up to $100,000 per year directly from your IRA(s). These contributions are called qualified charitable distributions, or QCDs. Effective for QCDs made in a tax year beginning after 2019, the $100,000 QCD limit for that year is reduced (but not below zero) by the aggregate amount of deductions allowed for prior tax years due to the aforementioned Secure Act change. In other words, deductible IRA contributions made for the year you reach age 70 1/2 and later years can reduce your annual QCD allowance.

You generally must begin taking annual required minimum distributions (RMDs) from tax-favored retirement accounts (traditional IRAs, SEP accounts, 401(k) accounts, and the like) and pay the resulting income tax hit. However, you need not take RMDs from any Roth IRA(s) set up in your name.

Before the Secure Act, the initial RMD was for the year you turned age 70 1/2. You could postpone taking that initial payout until as late as April 1 of the year after you reached the magic age. If you chose that option, however, you must take two RMDs in that year: one by the April 1 deadline (the RMD for the previous year) plus another by Dec. 31 (the RMD for the current year). For each subsequent year, you must take another RMD by Dec. 31. Under an exception, if you’re still working as an employee after reaching the magic age and you don’t own over 5% of the outfit that employs you, you can postpone taking RMDs from your employer’s plan(s) until after you’ve retired.

New law: The Secure Act increases the age after which you must begin taking RMDs from 70 1/2 to 72. But this favorable development only applies to folks who reach 70 1/2 after 2019. So, if you turned 70 1/2 in 2019 or earlier, you’re unaffected. But if you will turn 70 1/2 in 2020 or later, you won’t need to start taking RMDs until after attaining age 72. As under prior law, if you’re still working after reaching the magic age and you don’t own over 5% of the employer, you can postpone taking RMDs from your employer’s plan(s) until after you’ve retired.

Key point: If you turned 70 1/2 in 2019 and have not yet taken your initial RMD for that year, you must take that RMD, which is for the 2019 tax year, by no later than 4/1/20 or face a 50% penalty on the shortfall. You must then take your second RMD, which is for the 2020 tax year, by Dec. 31, 2020.

Now for the bad news

Stricter rules for post-death required minimum distributions curtail ‘Stretch IRAs’: The Secure Act requires most non-spouse IRA and retirement plan beneficiaries to drain inherited accounts within 10 years after the account owner’s death. This is a big anti-taxpayer change for financially comfortable folks who don’t need their IRA balances for their own retirement years but want to use those balances to set up a long-term tax-advantaged deal for their heirs.

Before the Secure Act, the required minimum distribution (RMD) rules allowed you as a non-spouse beneficiary to gradually drain the substantial IRA that you inherited from, say, your grandfather over your IRS-defined life expectancy.

For example, say you inherited Grandpa Dave’s $750,000 Roth IRA when you were 40 years old. The current IRS life expectancy table says you have 43.6 years to live. You must start taking annual RMDs from the inherited account by dividing the account balance as of the end of the previous year by your remaining life expectancy as of the end of the current year.

So, your first RMD would equal the account balance as of the previous year-end divided by 43.6, which would amount to only 2.3% of the balance. Your second RMD would equal the account balance as of the end of the following year divided by 42.6, which translates to only 2.35% of the balance. And so, on until you drain the inherited Roth account.

As you can see, the pre-Secure Act RMD regime allowed you to keep the inherited account open for many years and reap the tax advantages for those many years. With an IRA, this is called the “Stretch IRA” strategy. The Stretch IRA strategy is particularly advantageous for inherited Roth IRAs, because the income those accounts produce can grow and be withdrawn federal-income-tax-free. So, under the pre-Secure Act rules, a Stretch Roth IRA could give you some protection from future federal income tax rate increases for many years. That’s the upside.

Unfortunately, the Secure Act’s 10-year rule puts a damper on the Stretch IRA strategy. It can still work, but only in the limited circumstances when the 10-year rule does not apply (explained below). This development will have some well-off folks and their estate planning advisers scrambling for months (at least) to react. That’s especially true if you’ve set up a “conduit” or “pass-through” trust as the beneficiary of what you intended to be a Stretch IRA for your heirs.

Key point: According to the Congressional Research Service, the lid put on the Stretch IRA strategy by the new law has the potential to generate about $15.7 billion in tax revenue over the next decade.

Effective date: The Secure Act’s anti-taxpayer RMD change is generally effective for RMDs taken from accounts whose owners die after 2019. The RMD rules for accounts inherited from owners who died before 2020 are unchanged.

Who is affected?

The Secure Act’s anti-taxpayer RMD change will not affect account owners who drain their accounts during their retirement years. And account beneficiaries who want to quickly drain inherited accounts will be unaffected. The change will only affect certain non-spouse beneficiaries who want to keep inherited accounts open for as long as possible to reap the tax advantages. In other words, “rich” folks with lots of financial self-discipline.

The Secure Act’s anti-taxpayer RMD change also will not affect accounts inherited by a so-called eligible designated beneficiary. An eligible designated beneficiary is: (1) the surviving spouse of the deceased account owner, (2) a minor child of the deceased account owner, (3) a beneficiary who is no more than 10 years younger than the deceased account owner, or (4) a chronically-ill individual (as defined).

Under the exception for eligible designated beneficiaries, RMDs from the inherited account can generally be taken over the life or life expectancy of the eligible designated beneficiary, beginning with the year following the year of the account owner’s death. Same as before the Secure Act.

So, the Stretch IRA strategy can still work for an eligible designated beneficiary, such as an account owner’s much-younger spouse or recently born tot. Other non-spouse beneficiaries (such as an adult child, grandchild, niece or nephew) will get slammed by the new 10-year account liquidation requirement. So, if your grandfather dies in 2020 or later, you can only keep the big Roth IRA that you inherit from him open for 10 years after his departure. Bummer!

10-year rule specifics: When it applies, the new 10-year rule generally applies regardless of whether the account owner dies before or after his or her RMD required beginning date (RBD). Thanks to another Secure Act change explained earlier, the RMD rules do not kick in until age 72 for account owners who attain age 70 1/2 after 2019. So, the RBD for those folks will be April 1 of the year following the year they attain age 72.

Following the death of an eligible designated beneficiary, the account balance must be distributed within 10 years.

When an account owner’s child reaches the age of majority under applicable state law, the account balance must be distributed within 10 years after that date.

The bottom line: As you can see, the Secure Act includes both good and bad news for folks who don’t enjoy paying taxes. The new law includes more important tax changes that I’ve not covered here.

3 examples of new RMD rules for non-spousal retirement account beneficiaries

Example 1: David dies in 2020 and leaves his IRA to designated beneficiary Diane, his sister, who was born eight years after David. Diane is an eligible designated beneficiary. Therefore, the balance in the inherited IRA can be paid out over her life expectancy. If David dies before the account is exhausted, the remaining balance must be paid out within 10 years after her death.

Example 2: Diane dies in 2020 and leaves her IRA to designated beneficiary David, her brother, who was born 12 years after Diane. David is not an eligible designated beneficiary because he is more than 10 years younger than Diane. The balance in the inherited IRA must be paid out within 10 years after Diane’s death.

Example 3: Michael dies in 2020 at age 85. He lives his $2 million Roth IRA to his 24-year-old spouse Melissa. Since Melissa is an eligible designated beneficiary, the new 10-year rule does not apply to her. As a surviving spouse, she can retitle the inherited Roth account in her own name. Then she will not have to take any RMDs for as long as she lives. So, this is a situation where the Stretch IRA strategy still works well (although not quite as well as before the Secure Act for reasons that are too complicated to explain here).

Example 4: Michael dies on Dec. 15, 2019. He left his IRA to designated beneficiary Melissa, his beloved niece, who is 30 years younger than Michael. Because Michael died before 2020, the balance in the inherited IRA can be paid out over Melissa’s life expectancy under the pre-Secure Act RMD rules. If Melissa dies on or after 1/1/20, the balance in the IRA must be paid out to her designated beneficiary or beneficiaries or the heir(s) who inherit the account within 10 years after Melissa’s death.

If you think this is something you should consider, reach out to us to get your Free Retirement review to see how we can help you maximize your “401k” Federal Savings Plan in regards to using the New Secure Act.  Contact us or give us a call at (877) 733-3877 x 1 to schedule your review today!

WHEN YOU REACH RETIREMENT OR CLOSE TO RETIREMENT, you expect to reap the rewards for decades of hard work and diligent saving so you can live happily ever after.

Well, as many Americans are finding out, it’s not always a fairy-tale ending. Even a big pile of money does not guarantee a secure retirement. In fact, one of the biggest concerns people have about retirement is that they won’t have the income to sustain their current lifestyle or, even worse, that they could run out of money altogether.

These concerns can often lead to a less enjoyable retirement because people are afraid they might spend too much of their savings in the early years and not have enough later when their health is declining and inflation has driven up healthcare costs.

The good news is that there is a way to improve your chances of achieving a more secure and satisfying retirement through retirement income planning. Studies show that people who have a protected lifetime income stream are generally more secure financially than those who don’t. Additionally, people with protected lifetime income have a higher level of satisfaction in retirement, which is a key factor in enjoying your retirement years.

A 2018 GUARANTEED LIFETIME INCOME STUDY conducted by Greenwald & Associates and CANNEX gathered information from 1,003 individuals between the ages of 55 and 75 and whose household assets were at least $100,000. Respondents said the greatest benefits of having a protected lifetime income are protection against longevity risk, peace of mind, and being better able to budget – all of which can make for a less stressful and happier overall retirement.

The study also found that the perceived value of protected lifetime income continues to grow. More respondents now considered protected income “a highly-valuable addition to Social Security” compared to one year earlier. Of these individuals, nearly three-quarters said protected lifetime income is “extremely important” to their financial security.

While both Social Security and pensions can provide this kind of income stream, they don’t always cover your retirement income needs. You may also be one of the many Americans who doesn’t receive a pension. In that case, putting money into an annuity can supplement your protected lifetime income, helping you maintain your lifestyle for life

The study found that concerns about long-term health care, losing money in a market downturn, and fear of outliving retirement savings were among the factors that respondents said increased their interest in protected lifetime income.

Higher satisfaction scores for those with protected lifetime income
Between 1998 and 2010, the University of Michigan conducted the Health and Retirement Study, which gathered data from approximately 26,000 Americans over the age of 50 on an array of retirement issues, such as wealth, income, job security, health, and cognition.

The results revealed that satisfaction scores for all of these retirement issues were significantly higher for people who had more than 30% of their assets invested in protected lifetime income products. For example, when it comes to nursing home expenses, individuals with at least 30% of their retirement portfolio made up of protected lifetime income products were more confident that they’d be able to afford it.

While the study did not indicate a “magic number,” it did find that when people have more protected lifetime income, their overall satisfaction levels rose accordingly. And even though retirement satisfaction has been declining over time, satisfaction rates remain higher for people with a guaranteed monthly income stream, according to the study.

There’s no question that financial uncertainty can impact your happiness in retirement. That is why protected lifetime income products as a portion of your retirement portfolio can help ease a lot of that worry. So you should schedule a retirement review with a our Federal Retirement Consultants, and see how an annuity could help protect your retirement income and pave the road to a less stressful and happier lifestyle. Visit our contact us page today or call us at (877) 733-3877 to schedule your review.

The agency responsible for processing payroll for around 650,000 federal workers last week announced that it had issued incorrect paychecks for some employees across the federal government earlier this month.

The problem stemmed from the final paycheck of the 2019 calendar, which ended Jan. 4 and was issued Jan. 10. A number of federal workers reported receiving both smaller and larger amounts than they were owed.

The National Finance Center, which is a subcomponent of the Agriculture Department but provides payroll services for a variety of federal agencies, first acknowledged the discrepancies on Jan. 10, and said the problem likely resulted from federal payroll tax withholding.

By Jan. 14, the National Finance Center announced that it had identified the root cause: employees who had not submitted a new W-4 form or were not exempt defaulted to a new, often incorrect number of exemptions. Single federal workers had taxes withheld as single, with two exemptions, while married feds had taxes withheld as married, with three exemptions.

NFC said it implemented changes to fix the problem “prior to the second pass” on the relevant pay period’s payroll processing. Although the agency said it expected to have compiled a list of all employees who received the wrong amount in their pay check by the end of last week, it did not announce a timeframe for when employees who are owed money would be made whole, or when employees who were overpaid will see a lighter paycheck.

“Updates will be forthcoming as additional information becomes available and the corrective action is finalized,” NFC wrote.

Meanwhile, the federal agency responsible for administering the federal government’s 401(k)-style retirement savings program proposed new regulations this week to make it easier for older federal employees to make catch-up contributions to their “401k” Federal Savings Plan accounts.

Currently, “401k” Federal Savings Plan participants age 50 and older may exceed the normal 401(k) annual contribution limits in order to make up for time spent in the private sector or when they were otherwise unable to invest in the “401k” Federal Savings Plan . But in order to do so, those federal workers must submit a form authorizing catch-up contributions, in addition to the standard contribution election form that all participants provide to their agency.

In draft regulations set for publication to the Federal Register Thursday, the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, which governs the “401k” Federal Savings Plan , proposed that beginning Jan. 1, 2021, federal workers will no longer be required to submit that second form to enroll in catch-up contributions.

“Instead, the “401k” Federal Savings Plan will simply continue to accept contributions based on the participant’s contribution election that is already on file, until his/her contributions reach the combined limits on catch-up contributions and other types of contributions,” the agency said.

“401k” Federal Savings Plan officials first announced that this change would be coming last year. It is part of an effort to make the process simpler and easier for federal workers to participate, as well as to streamline the process for both the “401k” Federal Savings Plan and federal agencies.

According to the proposed regulations, beginning next year, when federal workers hit the standard annual contribution limit, the “401k” Federal Savings Plan will automatically cross reference their ages to see if they are eligible to make catch-up contributions. If the employees are at least 50 years old, they will be able to continue to make contributions up to the higher catch-up contributions limit.

Want to learn more about how to help Maximize your “401k” Federal Savings Plan Contributions and other Federal Benefits, request your free retirement review today to learn all about your benefits.  Visit our Contact-Us Page to request and Schedule your review today.

Senators from both parties this week called on the agency that administers the federal government’s 401(k)-style retirement savings program to reconsider its decision to shift the “401k” Federal Savings Plan ’s international (I) Fund to an index that invests in Chinese companies.

Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., sent a letter Monday to Michael Kennedy, chairman of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, asking the agency to reverse its 2017 decision to base the I Fund’s investments on a stock index that includes companies from a broader swath of countries, including China. Rubio and Shaheen objected to the change based on the Chinese government’s history of human rights abuses and other national security concerns.

“The FRTIB’s decision to track this [new] index constitutes a decision to invest in China-based companies, including many firms that are involved in the Chinese government’s military, espionage, human rights abuses and ‘Made in China 2025’ industrial policy, and therefore poses fundamental questions about the board’s statutory and fiduciary responsibilities to American public servants who invest in federal retirement plans,” the senators wrote. “This change, which is expected to be implemented next year, will expose nearly $50 billion in retirement assets of federal government employees, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces, to severe and undisclosed material risks associated with many of the Chinese companies listed on this index.”

The lawmakers noted that several companies included in the new index produce weapons systems for the Chinese military, surveillance cameras used to monitor Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province, and that some companies have been barred from operating in the United States or have been targeted by U.S. sanctions.

“Were the members of the board aware at the time of the motion to adopt the new index for the I Fund that constituent firms of this index were previously subject to U.S. government sanctions?” the senators asked. “Since the board’s November 2017 vote, the U.S. government has censured constituent firms of the [index]—or the controlling shareholders of such firms—through such measures as designation to the Entity List and federal procurement prohibitions.”

“401k” Federal Savings Plan spokeswoman Kim Weaver said in an email that the agency has received the letter.

“We are reviewing it and we will respond in a timely manner,” Weaver said.

Elsewhere on Capitol Hill, senators representing Maryland and Virginia on Tuesday joined the growing outcry from lawmakers regarding the recent decision by the Agriculture Department to reduce the buyout and early retirement payments offered to Economic Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture employees who declined orders to relocate to Kansas City by the end of September.

Democratic Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine of Virginia, and Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland blasted the department for failing to inform employees who had applied for Voluntary Early Retirement Authority and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments that maximum buyouts would be $10,000 rather than the originally offered $25,000 until one week before the acceptance deadline.

“USDA has stated that its decision to reduce the amount per VSIP was made in order to accommodate all employees who were eligible to receive the buyout,” they wrote. “However, USDA has failed to explain why employees were not notified earlier that VSIP offers would be significantly less than $25,000, considering the agency already knew that more than half of ERS and NIFA employees had declined to relocate by the time VSIP applications were due. We are troubled that USDA did not relay this information to its employees sooner considering the impacts this decision can have on an individual career.”

The senators asked Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue how much the department budgeted for VSIP and VERA payments, how the department came to the decision to reduce the maximum buyout payment, and why officials waited until a week before the August 26 deadline to inform employees of the change.

The letter was published just one day after Government Executive reported that, in order to cope with the mass exodus of employees who refuse to move to Kansas City, the department is looking to hire retired former employees on a part-time basis to preserve continuity of service. Those hired under the Reemployed Annuitants program would work from the Washington, D.C., area and receive both a salary prorated to what they made before they retired and their full defined-benefit annuity payments.

So what do you think? So should you question “401k” Federal Savings Plan on it’s new Foreign Investment decisions, or should you look at some other alternatives?  We have some great ideas and would offer you to come and explore them with us.

Request your consultation today for more information.