|
Subvisual Haze posted:Isn't that itself an argument in favor of taxable? Both taxable and trad are taxed at zero in the standard deduction range, but in the next $47k of single income, normal income is taxed at 10-12%, but LTCG is taxed at zero. Maybe. Remember that the taxable dollars have already been taxed once, there are fewer of them because you have already paid taxes and have to pay taxes at LTCG on reinvestment. What those tax rates are matters. Both kinds of tax deferral offered by traditional accounts are hard to beat, but technically possible to. This is just noting that there are a few cases where taxable and traditional dollars are directly comparable instead of requiring a discount. And if you go from a high taxable income to a low, you get a lot of savings on traditional accounts. That is true of a lot of retirees. People mostly spend those savings upfront instead of saving them, but that does not mean that the deal itself is not good. Josh Lyman posted:One thing that’s missing from this discussion is that there are income limits in order to deduct contributions to a traditional IRA if you’re eligible for an employer sponsored retirement plan. I've always thought this showed that traditional IRAs are, on average, a good deal. Traditional IRAs would benefit higher earners more, but they are means tested out. And, of course, the 401k offers traditional contributions in whatever random plan that person's employer has.
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 11:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 20:43 |
|
|
What y'all are confirming for me is that investing and tax law are complicated. Predicting the future is impossible. Just keep buying, max out your available tax advantage space (maybe at some trad/Roth split), and then just keep buying. When it comes time to use the money figure out the most tax efficient way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 13:42
|
|
|
pointlesspart posted:And if you go from a high taxable income to a low, you get a lot of savings on traditional accounts. That is true of a lot of retirees. People mostly spend those savings upfront instead of saving them, but that does not mean that the deal itself is not good. I think this is a strong argument for why most people should go with a traditional 401k. Maybe with a Roth IRA on the side, even if only to get the 5 year rule met. Most people don't have large amounts saved for retirement nor do they have a big taxable account sitting on the side screwing up their tax math. (A good problem to have, but its still a problem.) Social Security doesn't pay much and because of all of this most people are in a lower tax bracket in retirement than when they were working. At least until RMDs kick in. But that still leaves plenty of time to Roth convert before that happens. This is the scenario where the social security tax torpedo tends to rear its ugly head but that can also be planned around to an extent. I am not sure how big the overlap on the venn diagram of "most people don't have lots of investments" and "people who post in this thread" is but I think a lot of the recent discussion in this thread really comes down to the fact that tax planning is complex and highly dependent on how much you have invested and in what types of accounts. Never mind that congress can change the rules whenever they feel like it. Personally my breakdown is 61% taxable, 34% Roth, and 5% traditional and the amounts are large enough that the taxable account will have meaningful tax planning implications for the rest of my life. Because of my taxable account I always find myself pushed away from traditional retirement accounts and drawn towards (and occasionally advocating for) the taxable and Roth combo as it can lead to paying little or even no taxes in retirement. But I am fully aware that, as Leperflesh correctly pointed out, this is an unusual situation. I keep having to remind myself that traditional accounts make a ton of sense for an awful lot of people whenever I make a post somewhere about retirement planning. I think its quite interesting that the recent discussion in this thread pretty much mirrors my own internal thought discussion on the topic. In the end all three account types offer some sort of tax advantage over income from a job and that makes all three powerful. I suppose you can think of it like the tank/healer/dps class design combo used in many MMOs. While you could probably do everything with just one class type if your party was over leveled enough (that is, you have a boatload saved) having two class types is going to be better and having all three is probably the optimal choice in most cases. Antillie fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 14:19
|
|
|
spwrozek posted:What y'all are confirming for me is that investing and tax law are complicated. Predicting the future is impossible. Just keep buying, max out your available tax advantage space (maybe at some trad/Roth split), and then just keep buying. When it comes time to use the money figure out the most tax efficient way. Yeah pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 14:19
|
|
|
Antillie posted:I will grant you that most people do not max out these accounts. But either way I feel that most people are contributing the same amount to the account regardless of account type and not investing the tax savings. If for no other reason than the fact that they just don't know what the tax benefits of their account are, what the differences between the two types are, or that the other account type even exists. Anecdotally, a lot of people contribute to a 401k to get an employer match, and then that's all. If they have some more, they might put more into their 401k or they might do an IRA or they might do both. I think people on the lower income range who have access to an employer sponsored retirement plan tend to either not participate at all, or participate at a very low level (like $50 a month) because they are very sensitive to their paycheck, and they can see the difference on the check from that withholding. Lots of people have no idea that they have an IRA option, and invest in their employer-sponsored plan because someone at work presented it to them. Lots of people come into this thread and are confused about what a "roth" is - they think that word is synonymous with "ira" and so they'll say "my 401k and my roth" or similar jumbled things. Generally I think a huge swathe of americans are confused and that affects their behavior mostly into nonparticipation or minimal participation. High earners who have good advice pile everything they can into tax advantaged accounts, and that speaks to how they are almost always advantageous. I've never heard of someone voluntarily not putting money into tax advantaged space that they completely understand, specifically because they have calculated that they'll pay less tax on that money in aggregate at the end. Maybe that's this edge case we're talking about and it turns up, but it's such a novel statement to me that I'm sort of reflexively super skeptical of it. This is anecdotally so I'd love to see hard numbers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 17:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Anecdotally, a lot of people contribute to a 401k to get an employer match, and then that's all. If they have some more, they might put more into their 401k or they might do an IRA or they might do both. It's incredibly hard not to be, after living here for almost 2 years, there's such a staggering amount of bizareness and weird bureaucracy and odd terms and loopholes you go through. Nothing here is made easy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 17:27
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Anecdotally, a lot of people contribute to a 401k to get an employer match, and then that's all. If they have some more, they might put more into their 401k or they might do an IRA or they might do both. That tracks pretty well with what I have seen over the years. People will contribute to the match because someone (typically HR) told them it was free money and they leave it at that. HR can't or won't explain the difference between Roth and traditional 401k accounts beyond saying "one is pre tax and one is post tax". If you ask for more information beyond that they clam up and say they can't give tax advice. While I understand where they are coming from it only makes the problem worse. Then there is the issue of most people not understanding program fees, expense ratios, and the general crappy performance of actively managed funds over longer time horizons. The 401k plan provider is often willing to step in and provide some fund selection advice but its generally from a sales perspective and designed to get people into expensive active funds that make a lot of profit for the plan provider at the expense of the person they are giving the advice to. The actively managed target date fund, itself comprised of actively managed stock and bond funds, is by far the most commonly pushed thing from what I have seen. Sometimes they will explain the mechanics of Roth vs traditional a bit but they always stop short of recommending one or the other. Once again falling back to the "we can't give tax advice" line. I too would love to see hard numbers on this stuff but all I have ever seen is median and average 401k balance statistics and data on how often people are tapping into their 401ks early for one reason or another. I think when personal finance nerds like us debate the finer points of Roth vs traditional vs taxable we are way out in left field arguing over some obscure rule about whether or not a fair ball deflected into the stands by a fielder counts as a home run while most people are trying to figure out how to get from the dugout to home plate and which end of the bat to hold, if they even realize they are playing baseball to begin with. Antillie fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 18:11
|
|
|
of course that's the most important function of this here thread, and it's very cool and good that we can give folks free helpful advice and explanations and also offer a place to have the more detailed conversations too
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I've never heard of someone voluntarily not putting money into tax advantaged space that they completely understand, specifically because they have calculated that they'll pay less tax on that money in aggregate at the end. Maybe that's this edge case we're talking about and it turns up, but it's such a novel statement to me that I'm sort of reflexively super skeptical of it. I think you're excluding the cases you would have heard about. People voluntarily don't take advantage of tax advantaged space they fully understand in spite of the tax advantages offered, not because of those advantages. I can use myself as an example. I have some extra money saved outside of available tax advantaged space (Mega Backdoor Roth, but still). The optionality on the taxable savings to buy a house, car, etc is worth something over the tax advantaged space, especially since I would have to season the contributions for 5 years before I could withdraw it. The timelines just don't match up. For a lot of lower income people, their savings have to function as extended emergency funds. Locking savings up in retirement funds means they can't be used in the event of job loss/car repairs/medical bills/family emergencies (at least without penalty). It isn't an ideal financial strategy, but it is a strategy people use. There are better ways to handle it, ignorance is certainly a problem.* But there aren't no reasons. Just bad or sad reasons. *Also, strategies like the one described here https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Roth_IRA_as_an_emergency_fund, while financially superior, seem behaviorally suspect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 22:08
|
|
|
I guess I can go into my situation a bit as well. While I do max out my wife and I's Roth IRAs each year I don't max out my Roth 401k and instead contribute a bit to my taxable account. (the 401k still gets *much* more than the taxable) I like knowing that if something happens I have a large amount of money readily available in addition to my emergency fund. For example if something were to happen to me my wife would have easy access to enough money to take care of herself and the kids for ~10 years before considering my life insurance payout (she doesn't work and she never fully recovered from aggressive chemo 9 years ago so getting a job would be hard for her). Likewise if I suddenly needed to reduce my monthly expenses by paying off my mortgage I could do that. Or I could slowly sell assets to cover the payment depending on the situation. Or maybe some crazy medical expense comes up that just blows past my emergency fund. My wife and I have both had cancer and that's not something you can ever really consider "cured". I know that selling assets my taxable account would trigger long term capital gains taxes and depending on what the market is doing at the time it might be a very sub optimal thing to do but at least the option is there if I really need it. Antillie fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Apr 24, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 00:52
|
|
|
pointlesspart posted:I think you're excluding the cases you would have heard about. People voluntarily don't take advantage of tax advantaged space they fully understand in spite of the tax advantages offered, not because of those advantages. My comma was probably confusing. What I meant was, I've never heard of people declining to use their tax advantaged space specifically because of having calculated that it would actually save them taxes to not use that space. I know there's countless other reasons to not use your tax advantaged space. Having a an emergency fund is vital, money saved for an intermediate-term thing like a down payment on a house can still be invested in safer less volatile investments, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 01:45
|
|
|
Antillie posted:I guess I can go into my situation a bit as well. While I do max out my wife and I's Roth IRAs each year I don't max out my Roth 401k and instead contribute a bit to my taxable account. (the 401k still gets *much* more than the taxable) I like knowing that if something happens I have a large amount of money readily available in addition to my emergency fund. For example if something were to happen to me my wife would have easy access to enough money to take care of herself and the kids for ~10 years before considering my life insurance payout (she doesn't work and she never fully recovered from aggressive chemo 9 years ago so getting a job would be hard for her). Likewise if I suddenly needed to reduce my monthly expenses by paying off my mortgage I could do that. Or I could slowly sell assets to cover the payment depending on the situation. Or maybe some crazy medical expense comes up that just blows past my emergency fund. My wife and I have both had cancer and that's not something you can ever really consider "cured". That makes sense. You should see how much of projected 10 year expenses your wife could cover in a worse case scenario out of Roth contribution withdrawals and include that in worst case scenario planning. There is also SEPP, just paying the penalties, or hitting a penalty free scenario like a hardship withdrawal (medical expenses are a covered hardship in most plans, check yours) in the worst case scenario. Those could make you more comfortable using more of the Roth 401k space. But a Roth 401k is a kind of awkward fit for a 10 year, pre retirement savings needs, taxable is an easier fit. Leperflesh posted:My comma was probably confusing. What I meant was, I've never heard of people declining to use their tax advantaged space specifically because of having calculated that it would actually save them taxes to not use that space. Thank you, I misunderstood. pointlesspart fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Apr 24, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 03:21
|
|
|
A question about Solo 401k limits, since I'm going to have to open a new one as I'm a Vanguard customer. For my W2 job, for 2024 I have the ability to contribute 23k to my solo 401k, plus my employer contribution, plus my mega backdoor roth, up to 69k (very nice). I do some occasional consulting that brings in a handful of dollars each year (~30k or so). For this, I'm set up as a sole proprietorship, and am able to put in roughly 20% of my income in to the employER contribution, $0 as an employEE, since I max out my employEE contribution at my W2 job. I don't make enough money in my side gig to max out the employER contribution. My question: is it possible to set up my solo 401k for mega backdoor contributions, and fund it with my other income?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 15:19
|
|
|
I need some advice on what I should do regarding some of my accounts. I have two accounts with Acorn, an investment account and their version of a Roth IRA. I'm thinking about closing both and having what I contribute to both go directly to my Vanguard IRA account. I don't contribute to this, it was a rollover from a old 401k from my previous employer. Currently I have about $4800 between the two Acorns accounts. I know I'll take a hit on taxes with the withdrawal but it doesn't look like there is an easy way to get the funds into Vanguard. Don't know if it matters, but I make about $82k a year. What should I do? I figure I have three options. 1. Do nothing, keep contributing to Acorns 2. Keep the Acorns accounts open, stop contributing to it, start contributing to the Vanguard account. 3. Close Acorns, take money from that and put it all into Vanguard So what do you think I should do?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 17:30
|
|
|
4. Do a rollover of the IRA and an in-kind transfer of the taxable account.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
If you can't figure out how to do the rollover from Acorn's site, call up Vanguard and have them initiate the rollover. You want to make sure that you do not take a "distribution" which would incur penalties for early withdrawal in addition to taxes. Note that you should rollover Roth-type accounts into a Roth IRA, and traditional-type accounts (such as a 401k) get rolled into a traditional IRA. I don't know for sure what you mean that one of your Acorn accounts is an "investment account." If it's a non-tax-advantaged, brokerage type account, you can keep it there or move it to another brokerage. You can transfer the assets if you want to preserve your cost basis in those shares, or sell your shares etc. and then buy what you want in another brokerage account with the understanding that you'll pay cap gains taxes, and also if you do this in less than 30 days it's a wash sale that you have to track, especially for any assets that you take a capital loss on. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Apr 24, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 17:50
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies, it looks like Acorns only processes the transfers via liquidation and a wire/check. From looking at other experiences it looks like Acorns doesn't make things easy, they require a medallion signature on it. Their "Later" account looks like it is a Roth IRA so does that makes things more difficult? https://support.acorns.com/hc/en-us/articles/4405619697171-can-i-roll-over-my-acorns-later-account-to-an-outside-firm- Since I don't have a Roth IRA at Vanguard would I need to setup a new one? I'm going to assume that I'll need to speak with someone at Vanguard, just trying to get everything covered now before I talk to them and potentially waste their time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 18:13
|
|
|
Here's Vanguard's rollover page: https://rollover.web.vanguard.com/your-money/rollover-landing-page It is very unlikely you will need to talk to someone at Vanguard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 18:22
|
|
|
That page you linked says they have to liquidate the assets (which is fairly typical) but does describe them sending a wire transfer, e.g. to the new custodian. This will be safer than having them send you a check to yourself. Vanguard, Fidelity, or Schwab can help you initiate that and make sure the transfer goes directly to them. "Acorns Later offers 3 different types of IRAs - Traditional, Roth, and SEP." You need to figure out which type of account this is, for sure. Don't guess. Did you deduct the contributions you made from your taxes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 18:23
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
The app shows that its a Roth IRA. I didn't deduct any contributions on my taxes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 19:02
|
|
|
OK cool in that case yes you can roll it over into a Roth IRA with any other custodian.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 19:20
|
|
|
For those still thinking about buying I Bonds at the current rate, now is the time. The fixed rate will likely remain similar, but the variable inflation rate is going down. TIPS are also currently looking very attractive with all 2025+ maturities having a real yield over 2%.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 03:05
|
|
|
If they really do force you to get a medallion signature guarantee then you are going to have to go into an office someplace to get that done. Its similar to getting something notarized in that they have to check your ID in person. The main difference is that with a medallion signature guarantee the institution issuing the guarantee is literally guaranteeing the money. That is, if something happens during the transfer and the money is lost then they are on the hook to reimburse you. Because of this the only place that is probably going to be willing to give you a medallion signature guarantee is the place you are transferring the money to. So Vanguard. Although some banks will also give you one if you are a customer there, sometimes for a fee. This is a common practice in the investing world, especially with larger accounts, so Vanguard should have no trouble taking care of it for you. Fidelity required that I have two forms of ID when I transferred assets to them using a medallion signature guarantee. Oddly enough they accepted my drivers license and a Fidelity credit card as ID though, not sure how common that is. Antillie fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Apr 25, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 13:57
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:A question about Solo 401k limits, since I'm going to have to open a new one as I'm a Vanguard customer. Am I asking something crazy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 14:31
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:Am I asking something crazy? This article might apply to your situation: https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/multiple-401k-rules/ As for setting up the mega backdoor for your solo 401k, maybe ask the plan custodian?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 15:18
|
|
|
I had to get some medallion signatures when I rolled over some brokerage accounts to Vanguard when Capital One Investing (nee Sharebuilder) shut down years ago. I was able to get them for free at my credit union, even though they weren’t a party to the transfer. My impression was that it was an uncommon request so I needed an appointment with the right person but overall pretty easy as far as in person paperwork goes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 15:29
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:Am I asking something crazy? I may not fully understand what you're asking, but IIRC you can only contribute to a solo 401k as an employER based on your profit from self-employment. If you're making 30k in profit from self-employment you'd be able to make an employER contribution of ~6k to your solo 401k https://obliviousinvestor.com/solo-401k-contribution-calculator Deduction Worksheet for Self-Employed https://www.irs.gov/publications/p560#en_US_2022_publink10009065 quote:Enter your net profit from Schedule C (Form 1040), line 31; Schedule F (Form 1040), line 34;* or Schedule K-1 (Form 1065),* box 14, code A.** For information on other income included in net profit from self-employment, see the Instructions for Schedule SE (Form 1040)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 16:11
|
|
|
Not sure if this is timing the market or not, so feel free to slam me if it is. I bought a few shares of HCP a few years ago. It was with gambling funds, I was prepared to take some more risk than actual retirement money. IBM just announced they're going to acquire HCP at $35/share. Should I do nothing until the acquisition completes? Or should I sell beforehand? I have no clue if there's any reason it'd go above $35/share, and if it does pay out at $35/share, I'd make a grand total of $50 (yeah, it was a gamble, and I was prepared to take the L). If I sell now I'd make a grand total of -$180ish. Not a world ender, I just have no clue if there's any reason to hold it anymore given that it's now more of an object lesson in "don't buy single stocks". (The rest of my portfolio is doing well enough, yay bogleheads)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 16:26
|
|
|
That's more of a short-term q than a long-term thread q but I know the answer so whatever when a company makes an attempt to acquire another company like this, there's some level of risk involved that the deal could fall through. Regulators could block it, or they could try to back out a la elon musk/twitter, or some scandal or issue could arise that leads the purchaser to bail or whatever also it's in the future, not today, and money has a "time value" as a consequence, the market values the future buyout at some discounted rate, and that discount should decline (i.e. the market price of the stock should rise) gradually towards the actual buyout date as you approach that date and nothing untoward happens. On or more likely a day or two after that date, if you are still holding shares your brokerage will convert your shares into whatever is being paid for them. In this case that's cash, but in some cases it could be shares of the buying company or a combination of both. Your brokerage may charge you a fee for doing this. Then you'll have the proceeds. It'd be reasonable to hold out to wait for your profit rather than take a loss today, unless you have some particular reason to doubt the deal will go through. It'd also be fine to take the loss now, especially if you can tax-harvest that loss and apply it against other gains for tax reasons, and then put your capital to work in an investment that you expect to pay out more than ($50 + -$180) = $130 over that time period. e. it'd be very unusual for the stock to rise above the buyout price. That has happened historically when it's a hostile takeover as a defense against it - the purchaser can't purchase the whole company at $X per share if the shares are trading above $X! but that's not really applicable in this case and is extremely rare. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Apr 25, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 16:56
|
|
|
Just an addendum to the post above: a stock may rise above its buyout price if market participants expect a topping bid (i.e. someone comes out of the woodwork offering more for the company, or the potential acquirer raises its bid because target shareholders would likely vote against it). As an example, it happened two weeks ago with a stock I own, Encore Wire (WIRE). Buyout was announced at $290 per share but the stock traded up to $295 shortly thereafter on thoughts that the buyout premium wasn’t enough and might encourage others to bid. So far that hasn’t happened and the shares are now back below the buyout price. Anyway, I don’t follow HCP but whether you want to sell today or not depends on your estimate of how likely the deal is to close and the opportunity cost of the cash invested. For what it’s worth, using a 12/31/24 close date and a current price of $33.00 implies a ~9% annualized return from now until then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 17:30
|
|
|
I really really hope that someone other than IBM wants to buy HCP, because this means they're probably going to charge for what used to be free and make the updates happen even more shittily. But yeah, there's zero point in me selling now - it's either tax harvest a loss of $150ish by selling now or tax harvest a loss of $50ish by waiting. I bought at the wrong time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
It is unlikely that someone else will overbid IBM. As Agronox said, it's possible, but it's very rare. The time to get competing bids tends to be before the big announcement, when the board of directors for a company is shopping itself out to potential buyers. The buyout typically comes with a substantial premium just to prevent the bad situation of having another company come in and put in a higher bid, because it's bad for IBM to announce they want a company and then not get that company. That premium is fairly effective most of the time. Consider if you would buy shares of HCP, today, at the current share price. If the answer is "no," then it's probably time to sell and put your money somewhere you expect to make a better profit on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:14
|
|
|
writings been on the wall for hashicorp. hashicorp has been slowly eroding away things already like changing licenses that have annoyed developers. not sure when you bought it but now that ibm is taking it over i would sell it off as i can. ibm coming in means a worse product at more cost. and a ton of their code is opensourced and people have gone to fork their own versions, including the linux foundation w/ "opentofu" its quite possible there will be a short term spike as ibm raises prices and people decide they can't immediately switch off their products and eat the cost but i wouldn't bet on it as a long term viable company. (do i have to say this isn't financial advice?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:22
|
|
|
it's a cash deal, investors get $35 for each share of HCP and go on their merry way. There is no HCP to invest in after the deal closes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:26
|
|
|
Yeah there's a consumer interest in what happens with their products, but the investor question is now more about how much this affects IBM if you're an investor in IBM or might be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah there's a consumer interest in what happens with their products, but the investor question is now more about how much this affects IBM if you're an investor in IBM or might be. IBM overpaid. HashiCorp, as far as I know, never made a profit and did not appear to be on course for that to change. The fact that IBM's stock is down 8% today (more than the HCP acquisition cost!) suggests the market agrees
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:40
|
|
|
the whole market is down today, on inflation and economic news e. although yeah IBM's down 8%, well ahead of the overall market decline, so I think you may be right
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:it's a cash deal, investors get $35 for each share of HCP and go on their merry way. There is no HCP to invest in after the deal closes. ah well. uhhh. don't use that money to buy ibm stock?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
Antillie posted:If they really do force you to get a medallion signature guarantee then you are going to have to go into an office someplace to get that done. Its similar to getting something notarized in that they have to check your ID in person. The main difference is that with a medallion signature guarantee the institution issuing the guarantee is literally guaranteeing the money. That is, if something happens during the transfer and the money is lost then they are on the hook to reimburse you. Thanks for the info. I ended up calling Vanguard this morning and got everything semi-straightened out I'm doing a different type of rollover since Acorns doesn't do... something. But I know have the correct paperwork and have to go to a bank to get the medallion signature taken care of. Of course, none of the banks that offer that service are a bank I use but I guess that's life. At least I can get things moving.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 20:43 |
|
|
drk posted:For those still thinking about buying I Bonds at the current rate, now is the time. The fixed rate will likely remain similar, but the variable inflation rate is going down. Thanks for the reminder, got my buy in for 2024.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 19:23
|
|
