Draymond Green (5:20)

If there was one thing that I could do over again, the one thing I would tell a young guy to get their first big contract is that next year, after you just get that first big contract, live the same life. Absolutely. On a rookie deal for at least a year. Because if you can save more by living that same life, if you can get ahead on the savings that first year and help build that nest egg, then moving forward, it makes everything else way lighter. But when you adjust your lifestyle the first year, then you start picking up the bigger bills and you don't necessarily get to save as much. Saying so that would be my advice. And getting that first one is like, for one year, the same apartment that you live in. Live in that same apartment. The same car you drive. Drive that same car. Like all of those things, at least for the first year, just keep them all the same. Yeah. I would ask. It'll really help you get ahead. Is basketball is free. Everything you do in the NBA, you get for free. You know what I mean? So what do you need all this money for?

Unknown Host (6:37)

Right?

Draymond Green (6:38)

And so that. That's a. That's a good way to look at it, is like, yo, I live for free. I hoop for free. I go to the gym, I eat for free. Like, my lifestyle is free. So what do you need to go and spend on being extravagant for what? You know what I mean?

Baron Davis (6:53)

And me. And me being from, like, I'm from Little Rock, Arkansas. I ain't never had much growing up. So, like. So, you know, some people ain't never had nothing when they get something they want to wild out, but that ain't really me. Like, I ain't never had nothing. So I'm cool with not much, honestly. So just being able to. Because I heard somebody told me that a while ago, like you don't need to be rich when you 20 years old, you need to be rich when you're 50, when you got kids and grandkids or whatever. That's. Then you need some money for real. So, yeah, I ain't in too much of a rush to change up.

Draymond Green (7:25)

The problem with that is the earlier you get rich, the better because there's this thing called compounding interest that the sooner you get the money, the more money it makes for you. So that must have been a broke person that tells you you ain't need to get. You a need to have money like you need to be. You don't need to exploit or worry about being rich in your 20s, saving money, be rich in your 50s.

Baron Davis (7:52)

Right.

Unknown Host (7:52)

You know what I mean?

Baron Davis (7:53)

You need to get the money, but you don't need to spend it until you older. You need it, you need to get it.

Draymond Green (7:57)

Yeah, okay, that's great advice.

Unknown Host (8:01)

What does that sound like? That sounds an awful lot like live like a resident, doesn't it? Right. Don't increase your lifestyle for the first year after you get the big contract or the big contract extension. And all of a sudden you can use that new income to build wealth. This is the only asset these basketball players have. A lot of them are not coming out of well to do families. A lot of them didn't finish a college education. Their post basketball career may not be anywhere near as lucrative as what they're doing now. They really have to use this income to build wealth or they're not gonna be in a good place. It's frightening to look at the statistics I think I've seen them compiled for NFL players to see how many of them are broke five years after they get out of the NFL. And the average NFL, 10 years, like three years is all it is. And the average income there is something like, or the minimum income, something like $800,000. So you make $800,000 for three years, you pay most of it in taxes, and by the end, if you spent the rest, you've got nothing left. And so it's a real problem. But doctor's careers tend to last a little bit longer than professional athletes. But there are so many parallels here. You can't help but appreciate the advice being given by Draymond Green here. And so I hope you enjoyed that clip. All right, let's take one of your questions off the speak pipe.

Unknown Caller (9:23)

Hey, Dr. Dali, I had a question about investment in retirement account under Roth versus Traditional. You have generally recommended that physicians invest under traditional accounts. However, is there any situation where you would recommend that Roth accounts we used Our specific situation is that we are both physicians and we are 34 years old and we have no debts. Our employer has a 403B and 457B without a match where we are investing under Roth and There's a traditional 401A account with only employer contribution. Last year we were able to max out all these accounts which gives us a 1:1 ratio for Roth versus traditional. My hope was that I could keep investing in the 403B and 457 under Roth. The purpose of this would be that I don't take out any RMD when I retire and I can leave these accounts to my heirs. Is this a good strategy or should we switch and Invest in traditional 403B and 457B? Thank you for what you do and I really appreciate your input on this.

Unknown Host (10:28)

All right. The two most common questions out there and two of the biggest dilemmas and two things that really don't have a right answer is first the payoff debt or invest question. Until you are completely debt free, you're going to have this question of whether you should pay off your debt or invest. Alright, we're not going to talk about that one today. The other one is should you make Roth contributions or tax deferred traditional contributions or do a Roth conversion? Right. Because it's really the same question. If you're making Roth contributions, Roth conversions are probably appropriate. And if doing a Roth conversion isn't the right thing to do, you probably should be making tax deferred contributions. Well, let's spend a few minutes talking about this. I've spent a great deal of time talking about this over the years writing about this. Over the years we've had Chris Davin on the podcast. We've got way out into the weeds on this concept. I published a blog post not long ago. I think it went out March 7th. I called it should you do a Roth contribution or conversion? And it encapsulates my thinking on this subject and how it's evolved over the last 15 or 20 years. Highly recommend it. If you're willing to read blog posts, I highly recommend you go read that one. But I'm going to talk about a lot of what's in that post here on the podcast. There are some financial concepts that are simple and people make them complicated by not following the directions well. Right. This is like the backdoor Roth ira. It's not that complicated. But people can screw it up in dozens of different ways. But other things are just common dilemmas, right? That's the payoff debt versus invest question. That is the Roth contribution versus traditional contribution question. That is the should I do a Roth conversion question. And people ask me these questions. This speak pipe question is a good example. They ask it to me as if I can just say, oh yeah, Ross, the right answer. Even though I know very little, all I know about your financial situation, hopes and dreams is what you could record in a 90 second speak pipe. That simply is not enough information to answer the question. Even if I had all of your numbers, all of your attributes, all of your attitudes, I might not be able to answer this question accurately. That's because the question often doesn't have an answer that's knowable. It relies on things that we won't know for decades. It's also a really complicated question. The classic line from Einstein is don't make, you know, make things as simple as possible, but no simpler. And people do that all the time with this Roth question. Right? Down in California, I was speaking earlier this year, I was talking to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and we get to the Q and A period at the end of the talk, and a financial advisor somehow has come to the talk and pipes up with a comment, not even a question really saying, I don't think you're right. I think everybody should make Ross contributions all the time. Well, that's obviously nonsense, right? That's just making things simpler than they really are. Same problem with calculators out there, right? If your assumptions don't match those of the calculator, its calculations are worthless to you. It's a classic garbage in, garbage out problem. So what I want to do is give you some clarity on this without being too dogmatic about it, okay? I want you to have clarity and realize that it's only truly clear cut in a minority of cases. Most of the time, it's not that clear which thing you should do. That's not a bad thing, though. The good news is that you're not choosing between good and bad. A traditional contribution to your 401 is not a bad thing and a Roth contribution is not a good thing. Right. One of them is a little bit better for you, but the other one is also a very good thing. Right? So you're choosing between good and better, not bad and good, not right and wrong. So even if you make the wrong decision, any money that goes into your retirement accounts is usually a Pretty good thing for most people and their heirs. So this is complicated. You got to recognize that upfront. You also need to recognize that the contribution question is exactly the same as the conversion question. If you should be making contributions, you should be doing conversions and vice versa. Okay. There are some no brainers out there though. It's not always a big dilemma. You know, it can be a no brainer. When I was in the military, all we had were tax deferred contributions. I couldn't make a Roth contribution to the Thrift Savings Plan, so it was a no brainer. Of course I did the tax deferred contributions. Other times include the backdoor Roth IRA process. Right. It's not like you as a high earner can contribute to a traditional IRA and deduct that that's not an option. Your choices are invested in a taxable account, invested in a non deductible traditional IRA or put it in a Roth ira. Well, that's a no brainer. The Roth IRA wins in pretty much every situation when those are your choices. Same thing with the mega backdoor Roth IRA process. Right? You're way better off having that money in the Roth sub account than you are in the after tax sub account where the earnings will be taxable at your ordinary income tax rates. Much better in the Roth account. It's a no brainer. If you're sitting there in med school, you got a bunch of tax deferred accounts from your prior career and you can convert them at 0%. That's a no brainer. Do the Roth conversions during med school. Right. There's probably a few other no brainers out there and sometimes the answer to this question is all obvious, but other times it's not so obvious. So the rule of thumb I've used for years, which has so many holes in it you can about drive a truck through them, is if you're in your peak earnings years, make tax deferred contributions and in anything other than your peak earnings years, make Roth contributions. That's a rule of thumb. It's got lots of exceptions. Maybe there's so many exceptions it's not even useful as a rule of thumb. But I, I still mention it and I think it has some use. Classically, somebody like a resident or a fellow is not in their peak earnings years. Right? And so that rule would say, hey, you know, make Roth contributions because you're going to be in higher tax brackets throughout your career and probably even in retirement. But that's where exceptions start coming in. Right? You might be trying to play Games with your student loans, you might be trying to get lower income driven repayment payments. You might be trying to get a higher subsidy on those payments. If there's a program in place like save, which sounds like it's kind of gone now, you might be trying to get more forgiven via public service loan forgiveness. And making tax deferred contributions during residency might help that. So now you're weighing the additional taxes you'll pay later versus getting more public service loan forgiveness. Okay, so that's a common exception to that rule. Another one is when people are expecting a whole bunch of taxable income during retirement. This is people that have pensions. These are people that have paid off all the rental properties and their properties are now fully depreciated. So all that rental income is now filling up the lower brackets. Those sorts of situations are the folks where maybe it makes sense to use Roth accounts preferentially even during peak earnings years. The classic example is a super saver. Somebody who's just putting so much money away, they're going to be in a higher bracket in retirement than they are during their career. Now that's not most doctors by any means, but there are some of you out there in white coat investor land that are saving so much money, you probably will be in that situation. So be careful with the rules of thumb, be careful with the calculators. They're garbage in, garbage out. You gotta realize there's some exceptions there. Now the thing to concentrate your time on, to concentrate your effort on, is to ask yourself this question. When you're trying to decide whether to make Roth contributions or tax deferred contributions, or whether to do a Roth conversion. This is the question to ask yourself. Who is going to spend this money and what will their tax bracket be when they pull it out of that account? The who part is important, right? Because it might not be you. It might be your spouse after your death, it might be your heir. It might be a charity that you leave the money to. Very important, right? You don't want to do a bunch of Roth conversions and leave the money to charity, right? Because charities don't pay taxes anyway, so you're better off leaving them a tax deferred account. You can leave them way more money instead of giving the government a whole bunch of money and giving the charity less money. So same thing if you're leaving it to an heir in a lower tax bracket, right? Better for them to pay the taxes at their lower rate. There's going to be more money for them overall, if that is what is done on the other hand, if you're going to be spending it yourself and you're a super saver, and you're like, oh, I'm in the 22% bracket now, but I'm probably going to be in the 35% bracket later, well, it would make sense for you to do a Roth contribution or a Roth conversion. So pay attention to what tax brackets are likely to be. And we're talking big rules, not a couple of changes. Not going from 37% to 35%. We're talking about going from 35% to 22%. That's a big change, right? That's what you're trying to figure out. And a lot of times it's a guess, right? You don't know how well your investments are going to do. You don't know how well what the tax laws are going to be then. You don't know how long you and your spouse are going to live. There's a whole bunch of factors that go into this that are totally unknowable, but you don't want to pay attention to stupid things out there. People say, like pay taxes on the seed, not the harvest, right? They're saying, you know, basically do Roth all the time. Put $10,000 into a retirement account. Maybe you pay $3,000 on taxes now, but if you pull that money out in 30 years from a tax deferred account, you might owe $30,000 in taxes, and that's more than $3,000. So you should do the Roth conversion. That's a stupid argument, right? That's not the way it works. It's all about the tax rates, not the amount of money paid in taxes. Right? Because if that $10,000 grows to $100,000, then you pay 30% of it in taxes. It's all the same whether you paid the taxes upfront or whether you paid the taxes later. If your tax rate does not change, it's all the same which account you're in. Okay? So I hope that's helpful to understand that big factor, because it dwarfs everything else that we're going to talk about. Another approach you can take is what one of my partners has done for his whole career. He's like, I could never figure out what I was supposed to do, whether it's supposed to be tax deferred or Roth. So he literally just split every contribution he made. Half of them went into the tax deferred account, half of them went into the Roth account. And he's like, I'm wrong with half of it, but I Don't know which half. And the beautiful thing about that is you avoid a lot of regret because you did the right thing with half your money and you didn't have to spend a whole bunch of time trying to figure out what the right thing was to do. Same thing with Roth conversions, right? You could do a small Roth conversion every year between retirement and when you take Social Security, maybe the amount up to your current or the next tax bracket and just do some conversions rather than doing a big huge seven figure conversion. And I think there's a lot of wisdom there actually, given how unknowable the answer to this question is for so many of us. That's not a crazy thing to do, just split it. The other concept you really need to understand when you're doing this is that you fill the tax brackets in retirement, right? If you have no other taxable income in retirement, no Social Security, no pensions, no real estate income, no taxable account, et cetera, your only source of taxable income is withdrawals from a tax deferred account. Well, the first certain amount of money that comes out of there, about 30 grand if you're married, is the standard deduction. That's taxed at 0%. If you save 35% when you put that money in and you're now getting that $30,000 taxed at 0%, that's a huge win. The 10% bracket is another $24,000. The 12% bracket is another $73,000. Right. And so you can take a whole bunch of money out at pretty low tax brackets. You get to fill those as you go along. So if you're worried about $100,000 RMDs, what percentage tax rate do you think that $100,000 RMD is even going to be taxed at? Not that high at all. And so that's an argument to use tax deferred accounts during your peak earnings years because you get to save money at 32 or 35 or 37% or, you know, you add on your state tax bracket there, it might be 45% and then take it out later at 0, 10, 12, 22%. It's just way better. But if you're filling up those brackets with other taxable income, you got tons of real estate income or pensions or whatever. Well, that would argue that you do more Roth contributions. If you're in the military and you're going to get a pension from the military, well, that might fill up the bottom three or four brackets, in which case, well, that Roth makes a lot bigger Difference. Another factor that people don't think about is you and your spouse are probably not dying at the same time. And if you die within a year of each other, no big deal, financially speaking. But if one of you becomes a widow or a widower for 18 years at the end of their life, they might wish they had a little bit more money in a Roth account. And the reason why is after your spouse goes, you go to the single tax brackets, and they're not nearly as generous as the married filing jointly tax brackets. So you have to be a little bit careful about that. If your spouse is much younger than you or in much worse health than you, you know, these are factors that might make you go a little bit more toward doing Roth contributions. Okay? Changing states is another factor. If you're spending your career working in New York, but you're going to move to Florida for retirement, or you're spending your career in California, but you're moving to Nevada for your retirement, well, there's that state tax difference too, right? State taxes are pretty high in New York and California. There's zero in Florida and Nevada. So that would argue for tax deferred contributions now. Or if you're doing the opposite, Right. If you're working in Nevada, but you're planning to retire in California, well, maybe Roth is a smarter way to go because of that. A lot of people worry about where you're going to pay the taxes from when doing those Roth conversions. And yes, it's better if you can pay the taxes from your taxable account or some other source of income than. And if you got to use the money in the tax deferred account to pay the taxes. But the truth is, if the conversion makes sense when paid for with money outside the account, it probably still makes sense when paid for with money from in the account. Another factor is your behavior as an investor. Right? A lot of us are going to max out our 401, $23,500 this year, whether it goes in the Roth account or whether it goes in the traditional account or. Well, obviously, if you're putting in the Roth account, that's more money you're saving for retirement, at least on an after tax basis. So if you need to fool yourself into saving more, putting it in a Roth account is one way to do that. But if you can continue to save and invest the difference what you saved on taxes by doing that tax deferred account or that tax deferred contribution, well, you can make up for that because you can get more money on an after tax basis when into a retirement account. That also gives you a little more asset protection in most states than if you're just investing in a taxable account. So you get a little more asset protection oftentimes by making Roth contributions. If you're one of those people that's so wealthy you don't even want to spend your required minimum distributions and you're bummed you have to take them and reinvest them in your taxable account, well, that would make you lean a little bit more toward making Roth contributions. Frankly, most people ought to spend their RMDs or give them away, but that's something a lot of people worry about. The solution to an RMD problem, by the way, if you actually do have an RMD problem, is not to skip contributions to your tax deferred accounts or to pull the money out early. The solution is to do Roth contributions and conversions. I mentioned about the student loan games, right? If you're trying to keep your adjusted gross income down to try to get more public service loan forgiveness, then you want to lean toward tax deferred accounts. Healthcare costs are one of those things that can make a big difference. You know, you may have heard of irmaa, or you may have heard of the ACA subsidy before age 65, right? IRMAA is a Medicare thing after age 65. But for both of those things, you get more benefits from the government if you have a lower taxable income. So that would argue for trying to have a little bit more money in Roth accounts so you can spend the Roth money, not have to spend tax deferred money and raise your income there. Now, obviously if you're at that point where you're using an ACA plan, you probably want to be contributing to a tax deferred account to keep your income as low as you can. But later on you'll be glad to have Roth accounts so you can spend without having higher taxable income. Military docs in general are going to want to use Roth accounts and the reason why is they often qualify for a pension which fills up those lower brackets. But they're also generally in a tax free state and they generally get quite a bit of tax free income. Their basic allowance for subsistence or basic allowance for housing. Any money you get paid while you're deployed, right? That all lowers your tax rate. And so it makes a lot more sense for military docs to be making Roth contributions almost all of the time. I mentioned the super saver factor, right? If you're just saving a ton of money so much that you're going to have more taxable income in retirement than you do during your career. You ought to be doing Roth contributions. If tax brackets go up dramatically. This is a big fear you have that the highest tax bracket is going to go from 37% to 70%. Well, you ought to be making Roth contributions. If it only goes up to 40%, that probably doesn't make a big enough change that it would otherwise change what you were going to do. Another thing people worry about if they have an estate tax problem is that you will have less money in the estate if it's Roth money than if it's tax deferred money. So you might be able to stay under that estate tax limit and be able to pass money to your heirs without paying 40% on it in estate taxes. But the truth is there's a tax break known as income with respect to a decedent. And as long as your heirs know about this, it'll equalize for that effect. But if yours don't know about that, that would cause you to make more Roth contributions preferentially. If you have nothing in Roth now, well, maybe you lean a little more toward making Roth contributions. If you have nothing in tax deferred, maybe you lean a little more toward making tax deferred contributions. Your current mix of accounts should come into play a little bit in this calculation. Phase outs are likewise important, right? It's not just about the tax brackets. You might be phased out of some important deduction. And so you really do have to calculate your marginal tax rate using tax software, not just looking at the tax brackets. College aid can be affected by this decision, right? Money that's in retirement accounts doesn't count on the fafsa. But if you got money that, if you can keep your income lower by making tax deferred contributions, well, that might allow your kid to qualify for some student aid. The truth is, most white coat investors, kids are not going to qualify for any student aid. But maybe if you're working part time or on sabbatical or you've retired or something while they're in college, this could be an issue for you. You see how complicated that is? It's super complicated. So quit beating yourself up. If you don't get it exactly right, you might be surprised. I thought I got it wrong by making all those tax deferred contributions in like the 15% bracket when I was in the military. And now I've realized that all that money's probably going to charity. And so it turns out it was the right thing to do, even though I was only in the 15% bracket and I didn't convert it the year I got out of the military. But I don't beat myself up about that anymore because it ended up working out just fine. So don't beat yourself up on this if you're not sure what to do. Splitting the difference is totally reasonable, but realize that this is way more complicated than hey, should I do Roth? You can't just tell me you're your current income and I'm going to know whether you should be making Roth or tax deferred contributions. There's just way more to this question than that. I hope that's helpful to you. Make sure you check out that blog post if you're really concerned about this dilemma. The post is called should you do a Roth contribution or Conversion? Was published March 7, 2025. Okay, let's take another question. Hopefully this one is not quite as complicated.

John (31:24)

Hey Jim, this is John. I'm an orthopedic surgeon in Nashville. I'm calling about the child Roth IRA situation that I know has been addressed a lot on the podcast. When they work for your business, my question is more about setting up something separately for that. I live in one of those HOAs where we have gas lanterns in the yard and they frequently break or people don't have the right parts for them or they gray out and they're not as pretty as when they're black or the mailboxes get faded. And we kind of had this idea of going around and offering to fix those one or two parts or paint them black or paint the mailbox black. And we think at scale we could do that for pretty cheap. We've done it for our own house pretty simply. But the thought is doing that with my two oldest boys at least once they get to 7 or older because they helped me with mine and I think they could legitimately help with that. But would I need to set up a separate LLC to collect money for that? Or could we say, you know, $100 a house and keep a log of all the locations that we worked at and that would be enough to satisfy an audit in the sense that we'd like to, of course, take the money that they earn there and put it in a Roth IRA for them? Anyway, I'd appreciate any help, any advice you have on that perspective, and just wanted to say I went to the Wcicon this year in San Antonio as my first trip, got to talk to you and a lot of other people there, and it was just a phenomenal experience so thank you again for putting that on.

Unknown Host (32:43)

All right, you're welcome. I'll pass that on to the conference team. I was just in Nashville, too. I spoke at the or I didn't speak at the Grand Ole Opry. After I spoke, I went to the Grand Ole Opry or before. I spoke the night before and saw Ringo Starr in concert there. So my first Beatles concert was in Nashville. That was kind of interesting. Thanks for what you do out there. You're asking good questions. A couple of things to think about. First of all, big picture, right? The idea here is if your children earn income, stick it in a Roth ira, right? If it's earned income, they can contribute to a Roth ira. And now they have six decades for that money to compound tax free. It's awesome to get money into a Roth as a kid, but it has to be earned income, legitimately earned income. Even if you hire them by your practice or by your website or whatever, you have to pay them the going rate. You have to do all the regular paperwork, right? W2, W3, W4 and I9 got to have a time card, got to have an employment contract. You got to have all that stuff. You got to treat them like a real employee. And you can't pay them $800 an hour to do a job they can't even do anyway because they're four years old, right? It's got to be legitimate pay. Treated like a regular old employee. So this thing with the gas lanterns is pretty cool, though. I don't know that I've ever been in a neighborhood that had gas lanterns on every house. But maybe it's the thing in Nashville. I have no idea. It sounds like a cool service. It sounds like something they can do at least with a little bit of help. But there are two ways to look at this. The first one is you could do this as a business, right? You can start a business. Then the question is, well, who owns the business? Does the kid own the business? That's probably not a terrible way to structure it. The downside of that is assuming they make more than. I think it's $400. Don't quote me on that. I'd have to look it up. But I think if they make more than $400, they got to start paying payroll taxes and both halves of the payroll tax on that income. Now, you don't have to form an llc. You can do this as a sole proprietorship. It just gets filed on a Schedule C. And you probably want to, you know, if they're going to be the owners, it'd be on their tax return. I mean, that'd be pretty complicated to add them to a parental tax return. So I'd probably do a separate one. But you might be able to do it on a parent one. You know, you can talk to your tax preparer about doing that if. If you want. But the downside is they got to pay the payroll taxes. The other way to do this is to have them be a household employee. Right. If you view them as a household employee of all these other houses, you know, like as if they were babysitting or as if they were mowing lawns, there's an amount under which, if they don't pay, that household doesn't pay them more than this amount, at which the household doesn't have to file a Schedule H. And it's employee income for the child, so they don't have to pay all these payroll taxes on it. And so that's probably what I would do. I would call this a household employee thing. Just like as if the kid were mowing their lawn, just like as if the kid were doing a little bit of babysitting. So I think that's the way I do it. And since it's only gonna be a hundred bucks a house, that's way below the limit. I think the limit's 2,500 bucks or something. $100 a house is way below that. And then they've got this earned income, which they'll want to declare on their taxes. Right. But they're not going to owe any taxes on it because it's going to be less than the standard deduction, whatever that is. Now $15,000 or something for a single person, and it's not unearned income, so the kiddie tax doesn't apply. So they're not going to pay any payroll taxes. They're not going to pay any income taxes. Then it can go in a Roth ira, and you never pay any investment taxes on it. So that's probably the approach I would take. Now, if you got to help them a little bit in the beginning, just donating your labor to their business, that's probably okay. But if you're the one out there doing the work and you're saying they're doing the work, that seems a little fraudulent. So I might wait until they're old enough that they can actually do the work. All right. Hope that's helpful. Okay, the next question is about 401s.

Will (36:45)

Hey, Dr. Dali, this is Will from the Southeast. I own a small dental practice, and we have a 401k that has been set up for the past three to four years. Our plan administrator is retiring and we are being moved to a new plan administrator who is taking over the accounts. Our current plan is a safe harbor plan with three tiers of match and profit sharing with five active participants including myself and my wife. My question is about changing 401k plan administrators. The new company is charging $2,400 a year which is two and a half times higher than what we paid before. Do you have any recommendations on how to evaluate a plan administer or their cost? Also, if this is a good opportunity to change our 401k, what should we be looking for to set up a new plan such as Roth contributions in service distributions, etc. For reference, our current plan is a pooled plan and we have a financial advisor controlling the investments as a pooled fund of money with my recommendations on asset allocation. As always, your advice is much appreciated and hopefully there are other white coat investors who may need help evaluating their 401k plan and plan administrators. Thank you.

Unknown Host (37:55)

First of all, thanks for doing this for your employees. Right. The first question anybody in a small practice should have is should we have a retirement plan at all? And if so, which one? And the best way to figure that out is kind of have a study done of your practice, how much people want to contribute, whether it will have to be safe harbor kind of 401 situation, or whether the employer is okay paying some penalties when it fails testing because the owners put in too much money into their accounts. Those sorts of questions that need to be addressed first. And we have a great resource for this that's frankly probably underutilized. If you go to whitecoatinvestor.com, go to the recommended tab and you scroll down to retirement account and HSAhelp, you will see a list of companies and I see 4, 4 on the list right now that basically specialize in doing this for small practices like yours. And when we needed to put ARISA Employer 401k in place here at White Coat Investor, that's the list we went to and we got quotes from all of them and talked to them about what we could do and we think we put together the world's best 401. So that's what I would do in this situation. Since you're making changes anyway, might as well see if you ought to close this plan and open up a new one or modify it or you know, totally change who's going to be administering it. There are a Lot of people out there charging way too much to do this. You know, you said someone's doing it for 500 bucks a year. Well, I got news for you. Nobody's doing this for $500 a year. I mean, if they are, you just got the win of the year, right? You totally scored. The truth is there's probably some other fees and they're probably being charged to your employees maybe in the form of expense ratios of the mutual funds in the plan. I don't know. But it's pretty hard to provide this service for $500 a year. So I don't think the $2,400 that you're being quoted is crazy by any means. I'm pretty sure we're paying more than that for our 401 fees. But you know, what we do have is rock bottom expenses to the employees. They're not paying anything. They're not paying any fees. All the expense ratios in the plan are super low. You know, it has a brokerage window essentially. They can go invest in anything they can get at Fidelity, including private investments. You know, it's got Roth options. You can do a mega backdoor Roth contribution in it. You can do 401k loans in it. You can put all this stuff in place. It's not that hard when you have an experienced person putting the plan together. And so that's what I would do. I would go to somebody on that list, have them study your practice, see if a 401k is even the right thing for you. It might not be. Might be a SEP IRA or a simple IRA or nothing at all. Might be the right plan for your practice. But I would start talking with them and there's a good chance you may want to make a change. But neither 500 bucks a year nor $2,400 a year. If that's all you paying, all you're paying is a bad deal. That's a pretty good deal, actually. Hope that's helpful. Let's take another question on the Speak pipe about accidentally over contributing to a solo 401.

Jay (41:03)

Hey there, Jim. This is Jay in the Mountain West. Thank you for all you do. My question is about accidentally over contributing to a solo 401k. I have a W2 main job for which I fully fund my 401k. And I have a small side gig doing consulting. And I have a solo 401k for my earnings there. I usually max out my employee contribution through my W2 job and have a little headroom left over to contribute to the employer side of the solo 401k from my business earnings there this year. I did the math a little wrong and over contributed by a couple bucks. It was basically about 50 bucks trying to figure out how to correct that. And from reading the forum, it seems like this is a big deal and it's kind of hard. Would love you to explain that process and give any advice you have. Thank you.

Unknown Host (41:53)

Okay, good question. This is. It isn't that complicated. Typically you go to the solo 401k provider and you say, hey, I over contributed. This much needs to be pulled out. Now bear in mind, they may not realize you've over contributed because you got another 401 they don't know anything about. And they may not realize that this is an over contribution. They don't have access to all of your business records, for instance. And so it's up to you to know how much you can contribute for sure. But they should be able to help you pull that out. It's not a big deal, right? It basically comes out and you need to do it relatively quickly. You don't want to wait years to do this, but you basically have to pull that 50 bucks out plus any earnings that $50 has had. So maybe it's $54 or something you got to pull out and. And basically that $54 will be taxable income to you this year. No big deal at all. Or rather in the prior year, you know, 2024, probably in this case. So. So it's really not that big of a deal. You just got to call them up and have them work you through on the exact method of doing it. Whether they want any paperwork filled out or something is probably up to the individual 401 provider. I have had this happen in the past with my own Ariza 401 in my partnership. And the way they did it is they just changed part of the contribution so that instead of a 20. So instead of being a 2024 contribution, it was a 2025 contribution. And that seemed to be a really easy way to clean it up because I just had made an advance contribution for 2025 and that worked out pretty well. So I'd ask him about that as well when you get them on the phone. But this isn't a do it yourself project. Get on the phone with the person providing this 401 and get it sorted out. Hope that's helpful. Okay, next question is a little bit about the blame game.

Noah (43:41)

Hi, dear to Dolly. Thanks for all that you do at the White Coat Investor helping us get our Financial ducks in a row. This is Noah from the East Coast. I was wondering if you had a chance to see Adam Grossman's article entitled Blame Game that was published on the Humble dollar site on February 9th where he makes the case that as indexing is becoming more popular there are fewer analysts for for stocks and most of the analysts that are left are focused on large cap stocks and that this may actually hurt the potential returns of value stocks because nobody is looking at them and purchasing them to increase their price. He says the solution to this is obviously diversification. But as someone who has previously stated a preference for a slight value or small tilt through Curious to hear your thoughts on this article. Thanks again and appreciate everything you do.

Unknown Host (44:40)

Okay, I had not heard this of this article before you mentioned on the speak pipe so I went and read it. I had to stop the recording for a minute and read the article. This is from Adam Grossman who is one of our advertisers. Mayport wealth management firm is on our list of recommended WCI Recommended Financial advisors. So obviously think highly of Adam. I also think highly of the Humble Dollar website. This was started by Jonathan Clements who spoke at the first WC icon. We've had him on the podcast before. Those of you who've been listening for years have met Jonathan Clements. Jonathan is dealing with terminal cancer right now and still working and making a contribution to society. So our best wishes go out to him and his family as well. And this is a good article written by Adam. It's titled Blame Game. And the concern is this thing that's been brought up for years that, well, the index fund people are just piggybacking off of the active managers. That is true, right? It's the active managers that are setting the prices for stocks in the market, right? Because they're deciding when something maybe is selling for a little more than it should be and they sell it or for a little less than it should be and they buy it, right? It's all these people doing the trades every day that determine the costs or the prices of an individual share. So you do need some active managers in the market or else it's not a market, right? If everyone's just indexing, it doesn't work. So the question is, well, how many active managers do you need in order to have a reasonably efficient market where the right move is to buy all the stocks? The low cost broadly diversified index fund. And it's not just the ownership percentages of the market, which right now are about 50%. About 50% of the shares are owned by index funds in the US stock market today. The other 50% are owned by people owning individual stocks or, you know, some sort of actively managed fund or pension or whatever it is. Right. It's not an index fund. But the truth is it's not about ownership, it's about the trades. Right. Who is doing the trading? Is it these passive folks that are just dumping money into index funds every month? Well, no. Look how many trades are happening every minute while the market is open. Who is making those trades? Well, it's not the index fund people. I make one trade a month, and then next month I go do another trade. Right. But these trades are happening every day, all day long by the active fund managers or by other institutions that are trading actively based on share prices. So even if 50% of the stocks are owned by indexers, what percentage of the actual trades is it? Well, it's probably still 1% of the trades. Right. It's just not that big of a deal. But at some point you've got to ask yourself, well, what happens when all the, you know, 99% of the shares are owned by index funds? Well, maybe that becomes a problem because there's fewer active managers out there analyzing stocks and what their value really ought to be. There's nobody left to piggyback on. But what is that percentage? Well, my guess is we'd have to see index funds owning over 90% of the market before we even really have to start worrying about this. Adam writes a few things in here, though, about it could be an issue if the good stock pickers leave the market and just start indexing. Right. And so the only people left to set the prices of all the shares are crazy people. And the example he uses in the article is if you've seen the recent movie about Gamestop, Roaring Kitty, this guy on Wall street bets that was essentially moving the price of GameStop stock by what he posted, the videos he'd post every day. And if you get, you know, some nutcases out there driving the prices of stocks into crazy places, well, it could really distort the markets. And so that was one thing that people are concerned about. Well, maybe, you know, instead of the top 50 traders being somebody reasonable, the top 50 traders are kind of loco. Well, I suppose that could be an issue, but I don't know. There's a lot of evidence showing that that's going on. Another thing the article brought up was with fewer active managers out there, fewer analysts of various stocks, well, they don't have as much time to look at the small stocks, they're all spending their time. And it doesn't help that large stocks have done so well lately, but they're spending all their time looking at the Teslas and the Amazons of the world rather than looking at some stock you've never heard of. And so maybe those stocks don't have as many analysts looking at them, and maybe the prices, at least in the short run, aren't as accurate as they used to be in the markets when more analysts were looking at them. Well, I think if you're really worried about this, you got to step back for a minute and think about what you're really doing here. And Warren Buffett is quick to explain this, right? You are not swapping chips on a table in Las Vegas. When you are buying stocks, you are buying businesses. Yes, you might only have 1,000,000th of the business, but you're buying businesses. And in the long run, you know, in the short run, the market is a voting machine. In the long run, it's a weighing machine. What you are buying is you are buying a future stream of income for that company. And as that company does well, you are going to make money in the long run. And trust me, even if there's a small cap company that only has one or two analysts looking at it, as time goes on, those one or two analysts are going to sort out about what it's worth. And if it goes crazy and becomes the next Nvidia, we're all going to know about it. So I don't think this is nearly as big a problem as people worry it is. And it's not making me decide I don't want to invest in small cap stocks or I don't want to invest in value stocks because there's fewer analysts looking at those stocks. Now. I do not think that's the reason why large cap growth stocks have outperformed the last few years. I don't think it's because people are using index funds now more than they used to in the past. This is just what markets do, right? The pendulum swings from 2000 to 2010. Guess what? Small in value on international stocks kicked the US Large cap growth stocks butts, right? And since then it's been all U.S. large cap growth stocks, right. For the last 15 years. You know, this year it's maybe starting to reverse a little bit. International's up over us and real estate's up over stocks and bonds are up over stocks. But actually small value is doing worse than the US Market. But I wouldn't necessarily blame it on this, this is just what markets do, right? They fluctuate. So you gotta be used to that as an investor and as a long term investor. What you care about is how those companies do in the long run. Do they make products and provide services that people really want, become more profitable businesses each year and share those earnings with you in the form of dividends, in the form of increases in share price, in the form of stock buyback? That's what you're buying, right? You're buying companies. When you buy a U.S. total stock market index fund, you're buying part of 4,000 companies. As those companies make money, you're going to make money. So the actual price you pay for it today compared to 30 years from now, I'm not terribly worried about, it's going to be worth a lot more in 30 years from now when you actually need to spend this money than it is today. And the fact that 50% of people index now isn't going to change that. Wake me up when it's 90 or 95% and maybe it's something we need to start talking about, that there's more of a role for active management. But you look at the data every year, right? The S and P does this every year. They compare all the different asset classes of stocks to the index return. And over the last 20 years, no matter what asset class it is, 90 to 95% of the actively managed funds underperform the index because it's consistent. They put this out twice a year, it looks the same every time, and over 25, 30, 40, 50 years it's going to be even worse. And if you looked at it on an after tax basis and after calculating the value of your time, it would be even more dramatic. So I suppose when those charts start looking differently, that 50% of the funds beat the index over the last 20 years, well, that might be time to start changing the way we're doing things. But I'm not seeing any evidence now that that is going to change in the future. So don't panic and bail out of index funds because some active manager tried to convince you that indexing has broken the markets and the only way to get a good investment return is to use an active manager. There is no evidence that that is the case. In fact, all of the evidence is very much the opposite. So as I mentioned at the beginning of the podcast, SoFi could help medical residents like you save thousands of dollars with the exclusive rates and flexible terms for refinancing your student loans. Visit sofi.comwhitecodeinvestor to see all the promotions and offers they've got waiting for you one more time. That's SoFi.com WhiteCodeInvestor SoFi student loans are originated by SoFi Bank NA member FDIC. Additional terms and conditions apply. NMLS 696891 don't forget about our annual survey. Whitecoatinvestor.com WCISurvey you can take that until May 6th. Not only does that help us to serve you better, it's a chance to give back to the community. But you also got a chance to win some fun stuff. We're going to give away a bunch of T shirts. Five people are going to win a free online course. We really need your feedback to make sure we're continuing to serve you in the way you want to be served. Thank you so much for what you're doing to spread the word about financial literacy and financial discipline and its benefit among medical and other high income professionals. Leaving five star reviews is one way to do that. We got a recent one and from Sean who said must listen for those in medicine or related fields, White Coat Investors should be mandatory education for early in training. I made a number of financial mistakes before learning these core principles, but luckily I've fixed my trajectory thanks in large part to WCI. 5 stars. Thanks for that review, Sashan. All right, the rest of you keep your head up and shoulders back. You've got this. We're here to help. We'll see you next time on the White Coat Investor Podcast.

Jim Dahle (55:13)

The hosts of the White Coat Investor are not licensed accountants, attorneys or financial advisors. This podcast is for your entertainment and information only. It should not be considered professional or personalized financial advice. You should consult the appropriate professional for specific advice relating to your situation.