 |
|
|
|||||
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
General impressions of 401(a) plans, please? Generally good,
very good, not so good, really depends? I am googling a lot;
reading sections of the Internal Revenue Code and
interpretations; etc. trying to get a handle on these. I
have the proverbial "friend" whose employer (a state)
requires participation. The question is how much more saving
he should do for retirement, in view of the income he will
get from this pension plan.
In particular, I am interested in
--whether cost-of-living adjustments tend to be "generous."
If one can generalize about this...
--whether payments (while in retirment) from the 401(a) tend
to set off the social security taxation trap (whereby having
too much income from sources such as a Traditional IRA can
launch one into an absurdly high tax bracket for SS
benefits).
Elle wrote:
> General impressions of 401(a) plans, please? Generally good,
> very good, not so good, really depends?
I googled as well. If only because you surprised me with a plan I never
heard of, I don't recall this ever mentioned in the CFP section on
retirement. After the google, I don't understand the rest of your
question. It seems to be close to a 403(b) which is close to 401(k).
Investments inside the wrapper can be mutual funds just like the 401(k)
so your reference to COLA confuses me, as well as the question about
avoiding the SS tax trap, the withdrawals from this account are still
taxable. If you find specifics, I'd be curious to see details. I suspect
much of any good reply will be based on how the account is run. What
funds at what expenses are offered? What is the employer match?
JOE
Maybe I'm not following the right set of numbers and letters, but I
thought a 401(a) was simply the part of the revenue code that allowed
for employer profit sharing plans.
Profit sharing plans are sometimes included along with a 401k, 403b,
etc and count towards the maximum annual combined contribution of $45k
(this year). Employers may make contribs to employees accounts on a
non-discriminatory basis and the amount can increase or decrease
annually (hence the "profit sharing").
I could be totally off-base.
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 13:31:14 -0500, joetaxpayer
<j...@n...com> wrote:
>
>
>Elle wrote:
>
>> General impressions of 401(a) plans, please? Generally good,
>> very good, not so good, really depends?
>
>I googled as well. If only because you surprised me with a plan I never
>heard of, I don't recall this ever mentioned in the CFP section on
>retirement. After the google, I don't understand the rest of your
>question. It seems to be close to a 403(b) which is close to 401(k).
Around here (my area of the country) these 401a plans are the State
Retirement Plans - usually a defined benefit pension plan. Usually
very good... employees required to pay in 6% or so of pay, employer
matches, and ultimate benefit is based on years of service, average
compensation (definition varies by plan), etc. And retirees get COLAs
every year. All in all a great retirement plan. But there's a lot
more to it and I grow weary already. <grin>
Here's a helpful web site.
http://benefitsattorney.com/modules.php?name=States
-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC
kastnna <k...@a...org> writes:
> Maybe I'm not following the right set of numbers and letters, but I
> thought a 401(a) was simply the part of the revenue code that allowed
> for employer profit sharing plans.
As far as I know, you're exactly right and they are often
simply not *referred* to as 401(a). It's an odd accident
of history that the 401(k) is referred to by that cryptic
name rather than something like ERAs ("Employer Retirement
Accounts") or whatever.
Look for things like "Money Purchase Plan" for example.
An employer may provide one (as did my previous employer),
without ever referring explicitly to the part of the
code which allowed the existence of the plan.
Google for Money Purchase Plan. The first hit is
the IRS web page about them.
--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
"joetaxpayer" <j...@n...com> wrote
> I googled as well. If only because you surprised me with a
> plan I never heard of, I don't recall this ever mentioned
> in the CFP section on retirement. After the google, I
> don't understand the rest of your question. It seems to be
> close to a 403(b) which is close to 401(k).
Thank you for checking. I am going strictly from what google
turned up. A search offered few sites like those at say
fairmark.com or motleyfool that often provide pros and cons.
This newsgroup's archives also have few references to a
401(a).
I was not sure whether the 401(a) was strictly an annuity or
just "seemed like" an annuity. I think the right answer is
that the 401(a) is the closest thing to a /traditional/
pension plan available for many government employees today.
In fact, one site said the 401(a) is often considered
synonymous with a "fully funded pension plan."
The 401(k) and 403(b) are also said to be "pension plans,"
but are newer options for the employee, options where he/she
has more say over how his/her money is invested and doled
out.
Wikipedia eventually offered some further insight (many here
mention this): The 401(a) is a "defined benefit" retirement
plan. The 401(k) and 403(b) are "defined contribution"
retirement plans.
With the 401(a) and other(?) defined benefit plans, the
employee does not have an individual account but rather
pools his/her money with others such that his/her
"investment" cannot be precisely tracked. Estimates of what
401(a) covered employees will receive in retirement are
generally available, much the same as the Social Security
department blah blah provides estimates to the public these
days of what SS will pay. A board manages the investment
selections of a 401(a).
> Investments inside the wrapper can be mutual funds just
> like the 401(k) so your reference to COLA confuses me,
Evidently increases in retirees' 401(a) pensions are fairly
usual. The "catch" is that the increases are not based on
any conventional COLA formula. Instead, increases are based
on the performance of the 401(a)'s holdings (that is, the
holdings for all the employees covered by the plan). I guess
this method of "adjustment" may be good or bad, in the same
way COLA may be good or bad. Neither necessarily denotes
what is happening in one's personal life as far as increases
in personal cost of living are concerned.
The 401(a) plan on which I finally got some specifics
invests something like 75% in stocks 'and similar' and 25%
in bonds. For a good example, see
http://www.asrs.state.az.us/web/Faq.do#Members02 . Wading
through all the FAQs at this site helped a lot.
Interestingly, if one is an Arizona state employee,
participation in this plan is mandatory. This almost makes
moot the question of running the numbers and seeing if the
amount the state of AZ requires would have paid better if
put elsewhere for retirment.
> as well as the question about avoiding the SS tax trap,
> the withdrawals from this account are still taxable.
I guess a retiree with 401(a) payments has to deal with the
trap you describe at your site just as someone taking
withdrawals from his/her Traditional IRA does.
> If you find specifics, I'd be curious to see details. I
> suspect much of any good reply will be based on how the
> account is run. What funds at what expenses are offered?
> What is the employer match?
My sense is the 401(a) is better than a 403(b) in that, for
one, employees often pay ridiculous fees for the 403(b)
annuity.
I googled with a few states' names and "401(a)" and found it
seems pretty common.
It seems that an employee with a 401(a) plan generally
should not count on it exclusively. At least, in Arizona,
the 401(a) pension does not come close to one's salary.
I would still be interested in general impressions of these
plans and how to incorporate them into one's planning. I
think I am on the way to answering this, but a double
check--general comments on--by any folks having experience
with these is welcome.
My state, Alabama, has the RSA-1 for gov't employees, which is similar
to a the defined bene plan that Skip mentioned above. I can't speak
for all states but for us the COLAs are entirely dependent on state
legislators. If the legislature approves a 5% cost of living increase
for gov't employees, those receiving benefits also get the increase.
Sometimes they go a handful of years before approving an increase, but
then will make a large increase all at once. For instance I think our
last approved COLA was 7%. Disclaimer: we do alot of things
backasswards down here.
"Elle" <h...@n...earthlink.net> writes:
> Wikipedia eventually offered some further insight (many here
> mention this): The 401(a) is a "defined benefit" retirement
> plan. The 401(k) and 403(b) are "defined contribution"
> retirement plans.
Nope. 401(a) is also a form of "defined contribution".
A traditional pension is a defined benefit - the
ongoing accounting while the employee is still
working is one of "when you retire, you'll get
$xxx" where $xxx is usually a function of your
years of service and pay level. A defined contribution
plan is one where along the way, you have an
account which has a value - which grows over
time due to contributions and the growth of
the investment - *not* your pay or years of
service.
When you retire, you may *convert* a defined contribution
plan's accumulated assets into an annuity - effectively
buying yourself a pension. In fact, if you do a rollover
from a Money Purchase plan, you may need to *explicitly*
sign a form saying "no, I understand, I don't want this
as an annuity - roll it out to my IRA".
> With the 401(a) and other(?) defined benefit plans, the
> employee does not have an individual account but rather
> pools his/her money with others such that his/her
> "investment" cannot be precisely tracked. Estimates of what
Again, not true at all.
Google for "money purchase plan". A 401(a) Money Purchase
Plan is almost identical to a 401(k) except for the way
the contributions are funded. (ie. they are usually
just a flat percentage of salary, not a match).
The business about COLAs and such relate to what one
has purchased *within* the 401 (a or k). There's nothing
to stop a provider from putting regular mutual funds
in the plan - or fixed or variable annuities. It sounds
like the 401(a) plan you have access to makes only
annuities, not regular funds available.
Perhaps I missed it in the earlier post - did you
provide the actual name of the plan and/or provider?
--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
> "Elle" <h...@n...earthlink.net> writes:
> > With the 401(a) and other(?) defined benefit plans, the
> > employee does not have an individual account but rather
> > pools his/her money with others such that his/her
> > "investment" cannot be precisely tracked. Estimates of what
What you are referring to is called "balance forward" accounting. It
can also exist in 401k or other defined contribution plan. "Daily
balance" accounting is more common and it is what I believe you are
associating with most 401(k)s. However, either method is acceptable by
the IRS.
"kastnna" <k...@a...org> wrote
>> "Elle" <h...@n...earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> > With the 401(a) and other(?) defined benefit plans, the
>> > employee does not have an individual account but rather
>> > pools his/her money with others such that his/her
>> > "investment" cannot be precisely tracked. Estimates of
>> > what
>
> What you are referring to is called "balance forward"
> accounting. It
> can also exist in 401k or other defined contribution plan.
My point is simply that, with a 401(a) the retirement
benefit is well-defined, but how one's specific
contributions are doing as an individual investment is not.
With something like a 401(k), the retirement benefit is not
as well-defined; one contributes, allocates, and expects
some vague (in comparison) payment in retirement from the
401(k). If you do not understand my point, then it's
probably not worth splitting hairs over.
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
Short-term Fund purchasing advice...
Financial Guru: Buy-and-Hold a Thing of the Past
Another suicide due to financial crisis.
Comingling pre-/post-tax contributions in IRAs?
Looking for brokers with balanced index fund
taxes and corporate bond yields
college fees rising faster than tuitions
Up