Personal Finances

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Why States Are Offering Workers at Private Companies Access to I.R.A.s

      by

      With the plans, workers are automatically enrolled and contribute through payroll deductions. The goal is to help more Americans save for retirement.Traditional pensions are increasingly rare. About half of employees at private companies don’t have access to a retirement plan. And retirees themselves say they haven’t saved enough.That is why states have decided to step in and offer retirement accounts for private-sector employees, helping workers to save more and, new research shows, perhaps even spurring companies to offer their own workplace retirement plans.Automatic individual retirement account programs, known as “auto-I.R.A.s,” typically require private employers that don’t offer workplace retirement plans like 401(k)s to register for state-run plans.Workers are automatically enrolled in I.R.A.s, often with 3 to 5 percent of their income deducted from their paychecks, but can change the amount or opt out if they prefer. The employers — typically small businesses and nonprofits — provide access to payroll deductions to ease worker contributions, but don’t oversee the plan or pay fees.Auto-I.R.A.s are now available in 10 states, including New Jersey and Delaware, which started plans this summer, and soon will be in seven more, according to the Georgetown University Center for Retirement Initiatives. At the end of October, there were more than 930,000 accounts with $1.7 billion in savings for the eight plans for which data was available, according to the Georgetown center.Workers can, of course, open an I.R.A. on their own at a bank or brokerage. But few workers do so, perhaps because of inertia or because they are intimidated about making investment choices.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Older Workers to Get ‘Super’ 401(k) Catch-Up Contributions in 2025

      by

      Workers who are 60 to 63 will be able to put in up to $11,250 in extra contributions, if they can afford it.Will you be age 60 to 63 next year? Lucky you! You have the option to contribute several thousand dollars more to your workplace retirement plan.That’s if you can afford it, and many workers will find it’s a stretch.Federal tax law already allows people 50 and older to make extra contributions, above the annual deferral limit, to a 401(k) or similar employer retirement plan. This year and next, that standard “catch-up” contribution is $7,500.But starting next year, the catch-up contribution limit will be higher for people in their early 60s, as part of the federal Secure 2.0 tax law passed in 2022. They can contribute up to $11,250 next year — an additional $3,750 in catch-up contributions — beyond the general 2025 deferral limit of $23,500, the Internal Revenue Service said. That means they can potentially contribute up to $34,750 in total to a workplace retirement account.This additional contribution — sometimes called an “enhanced” or “super” catch-up option — is available to workers ages 60, 61, 62 and 63. You’re eligible if you reach that age during the calendar year, said Dan Snyder, director of personal financial planning for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (Once savers turn 64, they’re no longer eligible for the extra savings but can contribute the standard catch-up amount.)The idea is to give people who are nearing retirement age, but are behind in savings, the chance to accumulate more money for their post-work lives. “This is an opportunity to make up for mistakes from the past,” said David John, senior strategic policy adviser at the AARP Public Policy Institute, which focuses on issues relevant to older Americans.Getting Americans to save more for retirement is a concern as the population ages, especially as the number of companies offering pensions dwindles. The typical household headed by people ages 55 to 64 has just $10,000 saved in a retirement account, according to an analysis of federal data by the Economic Policy Institute and the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      They Barter and Trade in Rural America. How Will They Vote?

      by

      Many rural Americans engage in cashless barter systems to get food and firewood for heating and cooking. They value self-sufficiency, making them wary of government intervention.When Miki Shiverick needs firewood to heat her home, or help clearing the rusted appliances and vehicles from her property, she doesn’t go to a store or pay for services. Instead, she trades for it.For instance, preparing her land in Bergholz, Ohio for livestock over the last four years required hauling away piles of salvage, old tools and antiques from the rundown property she bought from the family of an old tinker. The place, with its barn house and five outbuildings, resembled a 12-acre junkyard.Ms. Shiverick, 56, found local scrappers willing to keep the profits from selling the rusted cars, campers, tractor parts, buried gas tanks and aluminum ingots at the local scrap yard. She also found woodsmen willing to clear trees for her in exchange for most of the wood.On this newly blank canvas, she dreams of creating a clean, natural retreat for her family with gardens that support wildlife and livestock, which she raises to promote food self-sufficiency and land stewardship.Bergholz is a rural town with a population of fewer than 600. For centuries, rural communities like Bergholz have operated in cashless barter systems built on mutual trust and neighborly relationships — a culture of self-sufficiency that has also shaped political views toward a kind of bootstrap conservatism.“People around here don’t do welfare, it’s not who we are,” Ms. Shiverick said.Ms. Shiverick bartered a bolt of linen with an Amish neighbor for a chicken coop.Rebecca Kiger for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Their Parents Are Giving Money to Scammers. They Can’t Stop Them.

      by

      One son couldn’t prevent his father from giving about $1 million in savings to con artists, including one posing as a female wrestling star. The two became estranged.When Chris Mancinelli walked into his father’s home for the first time after the 79-year-old man died last summer, he stopped to look at family photos displayed on the refrigerator door. Near a crayon drawing spelling out “grandpa” in rainbow colors were photos of his father’s three granddaughters at a swimming pool.But one image jumped out: a photo of Alexa Bliss, a professional wrestling personality.Mr. Mancinelli’s father, Alfred, was completely smitten with the star — or at least with the con artist impersonating her. He was convinced he was in a romantic relationship with Ms. Bliss, leading him to give up about $1 million in retirement savings (and his granddaughter’s college fund) to the impostor and a varied cast of online fraudsters he interacted with over several years.When Mr. Mancinelli tried to intervene, moving his father’s last $100,000 to a safe account, Alfred sued him — his loyalty was to “Lexi.”“There was nothing we could do to convince him,” said Mr. Mancinelli, 47, a chemical engineer in Collegeville, Pa. An elder care specialist deemed Alfred “really sharp,” he said, but lacking purpose.Mr. Mancinelli and others who have tried to awaken their loved ones from this trance often feel powerless, even after they’ve done everything to shatter the fiction and protect their assets. They say it’s as if their parent had been brainwashed into a cult.In some ways, they were: These victims were slowly groomed by con artists posing as love interests, investment advisers or government officials, among others. Once ensconced inside this bubble, they are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that they have become victims. Even when their own children are warning them of the con.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Is It Better to Buy or Lease a Car? It Depends.

      by

      The lowest overall cost is to buy a car and keep it for a long time. But leasing usually has lower monthly costs. And leasing an E.V. may come with a tax break.Most people have two options when they want a new car: buy it with a traditional loan or lease it.Either can make sense, depending on your personal situation.If you’re looking for the lowest overall cost over the longer term, buying a car with a loan, and then driving it for a while debt free after you finish making payments, is usually the best option.But if low monthly payments and a smaller down payment are a priority, a lease may be worth considering. And if you’re willing to try an electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid, tax breaks available for leased models may make deals more affordable. Almost half of new E.V.s were acquired with leases in the second quarter of this year, up from around a fourth a year earlier, according to data from Experian.The Federal Reserve’s decision on Wednesday to cut its benchmark rate by half a point indirectly affects rates on car loans, which are also influenced by factors like the borrower’s credit score and the level of loan delinquencies. The average interest rate for a new-car loan in August was 7.1 percent, and 11.3 percent for a used-car loan, according to the automotive site Edmunds. “It will take a number of additional rate cuts before the cumulative effect becomes material for car buyers,” said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.Paying cash for your car is, of course, interest free. But while car prices have eased somewhat, they remain high. The average transaction price in July was around $48,000 for a new car, and about $25,000 for a used car, according to Kelly Blue Book, part of Cox Automotive. Most people who buy a new automobile and many who buy one used get some kind of financing.With a traditional loan, you make a down payment and then pay off the debt with fixed monthly payments over time. (The average new-car loan term is about six years.) When the loan is repaid, you can keep the car and drive it payment free or trade it in and get credit for its value toward your next car purchase.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Navient Reaches $120 Million Student Loan Settlement With Consumer Watchdog

      by

      The company has been banned from servicing federal student loans and must pay $100 million to harmed borrowers, as well as a $20 million penalty.Navient, formerly one of the nation’s largest student loan servicers, reached a $120 million settlement with federal regulators on Thursday to resolve claims that it misled federal student loan borrowers and mishandled their payments for years.The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said the deal would permanently ban the company from managing federal student loans and require it to pay $100 million in restitution to affected borrowers along with a $20 million penalty.The consumer watchdog’s suit had accused Navient of failing borrowers at every step of repayment: Among other misdeeds, it said the company steered borrowers away from more affordable income-driven repayment plans and into forbearance, which padded its own profits and forced borrowers to pay more than they had to.“For years, Navient’s top executives profited handsomely by exploiting students and taxpayers,” said Rohit Chopra, the director of the consumer agency. “By banning the notorious student loan giant from federal student loan servicing and ensuring the wind down of these operations, the C.F.P.B. will finally put an end to the years of abuse.”During a media call, agency officials said borrowers who were eligible for restitution payments did not need to do anything — the C.F.P.B. would mail checks to “hundreds of thousands” of federal student loan borrowers, after it analyzed which consumers were due payments. It’s unclear how long that will take. (The agency also warned borrowers to beware of scammers who might try to use C.F.P.B. imagery to steal money or private information.)The settlement closes the book on two related legal actions that date back to 2017, when the consumer protection agency and two state attorneys general — later backed by a coalition of attorneys general in 27 other states — sued Navient.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      When the Stock Market Drops, Stay Calm and Do Nothing

      by

      The markets are in turmoil, but you know what you’re supposed to do now, right? Let’s all take a deep breath, tie our hands behind our backs and say it together: We will not sell stocks in a panic. We will, in fact, do nothing at all right now.Many of the people who are trading today are professional investors of various sorts. Here’s a dirty little secret about, say, hedge funds: All of their trading in reaction to world events doesn’t lead most of them to do better than sticking their money in an index fund that tracks the stock market. Mutual fund managers don’t do much better.So there is no reason to think that you can predict what will happen in the markets in the next few hours or in the near future. It’s better not to try.Remember, much of the money you have in the stock market is probably for retirement anyhow. Chances are, you won’t need it for many years or even decades.But rational thinking often eludes us in moments like this. So here are a few things that may make you feel better.First, look at the performance of your investment portfolio over the last year or three or 10. Chances are, you’ve made a lot of money if you’ve invested regularly and then left things alone. Nice going! Try to think about those enormous gains and not any smaller paper losses from today’s drop.Second, consider the early days of the pandemic, when stocks fell by more than a quarter in the space of a month or so. Who would have thought that within a year, market gains would wipe out those losses and then some? But that’s what happened.Finally, and as ever, you are not the market. You are the sum of many large parts, including home equity and future salary, not to mention the immeasurably high returns that come from friends and family and playing outside and taking in art.Go fly a kite or wander among beautiful buildings and check in with the market again tomorrow. More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Why You Should Be Taking a Hard Look at Your Investments Right Now

      by

      After big gains in stocks and mediocre returns for bonds, investors are taking on undue risk if they don’t rebalance their holdings, our columnist says.All eyes were on the Federal Reserve this past week, or so several market analysts solemnly said. This was true even though the Fed essentially did nothing in its latest meeting but hold interest rates high to fight inflation, just as it has done for many months.To be fair, there was a little news: The Fed did appear to affirm the likelihood of rate cuts starting in September, and that’s important. But so are the big performance shifts in the market, away from highflying tech stocks like Nvidia and toward a broad range of less-heralded, smaller-company stocks. In fact, there’s a great deal to think about once you start focusing on the behavior of the markets and the health of the economy in an election year.But what is perhaps the most important issue for investors rarely gets attention.In a word, it is rebalancing.I’m not talking about a yoga pose, but rather about another discipline entirely: the need to periodically tweak your portfolio to make sure you’re maintaining an appropriate mix of stocks and bonds, also known as asset allocation. If you haven’t considered this for a while — and if nobody has been doing it for you — it’s important to pay attention now because without rebalancing, there’s a good chance you are taking on risks that you may not want to bear.The rise in the stock market over the last couple of years, and the mediocre performance of bonds, has twisted many investment plans and left portfolios seriously out of whack. I found, for example, that if you had 60 percent of your investments in a diversified U.S. stock index fund and 40 percent in a broad investment-grade bond fund five years ago, almost 75 percent of your investments would now be in stock. That could make you more vulnerable than you realize the next time the stock market has a big fall.Asset AllocationThe Securities and Exchange Commission defines asset allocation as “dividing an investment portfolio among different asset categories, such as stocks, bonds and cash.” It’s an important subject, but it’s not as straightforward as that description seems.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More