Chris’s Summary
With Jim at the T3 conference in New Orleans, I am joined by Jake Turner to cover how to factor a defined benefit pension into retirement planning, using the situation of a 45-year-old law enforcement officer with a non-covered pension as the backdrop. We walk through evaluating his savings rate against the 15–20% rule of thumb, the lump sum equivalent value of his pension income, why the presence or absence of a COLA matters significantly, and how pension income fits into covering essential expenses over a long retirement.

Jim’s “Pithy” Summary
While I’m at the T3 conference in New Orleans, Chris and Jake use a listener’s situation to dig into retirement planning with a defined benefit pension. The listener is a 45-year-old law enforcement officer who has been contributing to his pension since day one but only started building outside accounts five years ago. He wants to know where he actually stands — and the answer is more nuanced than a simple savings rate comparison can capture.

A big part of that nuance is whether the pension is a non-covered one, meaning it replaces Social Security rather than sitting alongside it. That single distinction changes how you benchmark the savings rate entirely, and it’s the kind of thing that gets glossed over when people just throw out rules of thumb without knowing what’s underneath them. Chris and Jake also get into how pension income fits against the Minimum Dignity Floor — and why a pension that looks rock solid at retirement can tell a very different story decades later if there’s no cost-of-living adjustment attached to it.

There’s also a conversation worth hearing about lump sum options — what they’re actually worth, how to think about comparing them to the lifetime income stream, and why the big number isn’t always the better answer. If you have a defined benefit pension and you’ve been wondering how it fits into the bigger retirement picture, or whether you’re ahead or behind where you should be, this episode covers the framework for thinking it through.

The post Retirement Planning With a Defined Benefit Pension: EDU #2610 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.

Jim and Chris discuss listener emails on PSAs regarding IRMAA reimbursements, RMD in-kind transfers, and naming a conduit trust as a retirement account beneficiary.

(8:15) A listener shares a PSA that an IRMAA reimbursement was applied as a credit balance drawn down over several months rather than a lump sum.

(17:00) The guys discuss a listener PSA on SSA-44 filing: when income is underestimated and IRMAA is owed, Medicare reconciles the difference the following November or December with no penalties or interest assessed.

(33:45) George asks whether an RMD can be satisfied through an in-kind transfer of mutual funds to a brokerage account, and whether only a portion needs to be sold to cover the tax bill.

(46:00) Jim and Chris take up a listener question about naming a conduit trust as a contingent beneficiary for retirement accounts, kicking off Part 1 of a broader discussion on see-through and conduit trusts — what each structure is, how they differ, and what happens when an IRA names a trust as its beneficiary. They begin exploring the tax implications and planning considerations involved, noting that these arrangements can create both benefits and unintended complications depending on how they’re set up. The conversation will continue on the next week’s Q&A episode, where they’ll complete this listener’s question and address additional questions received on the topic.

The post IRMAA, RMDs, Conduit Trust: Q&A #2610 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.

Chris’s Summary
Jim and I continue our discussion on 99 Retirement Tips from Fisher Investments, picking up where we left off last week. We cover involving children in financial decisions, the liquidity trade-off of paying off a mortgage early, renting before buying in a new retirement location, lifetime gifts as part of the fun budget, and watching for financial predators including a disputed suggestion that low advisor fees may be a warning sign.

Jim’s “Pithy” Summary
Chris and I are back where we left off, working through Fisher Investments’ 99 Retirement Tips, and there’s still plenty to dig into. Tip 23 makes the case for involving your children in your financial decisions — and the reasons go deeper than most people think about. Tip 26 gets into mortgage payoff, and while we partially agree with what Fisher says about it — paying it down doesn’t change your net worth. But it does change your liquidity, and that distinction is worth considering.

Tip 32 is one I feel personally right now: if you’re relocating in retirement, rent first. Never move anywhere with a vacation mindset. I’m doing it in Ohio as we speak, and I’d tell anyone thinking about a move to do the same. Tip 74 recommends lifetime gifting — and the way we handle it, that spending belongs in your Fun Number budget. There’s no written rule you have to wait until you’re gone to help the people you care about.

And tip 86 covers financial predators, which is largely solid — but there’s one line in there that made my blood boil when I read it. The implication is that an advisor charging lower fees might be a warning sign. I have never seen any consumer advocate say that. The 99 retirement tips review of this particular point raises a question worth sitting with: who exactly benefits from that framing?

The post Fisher’s 99 Retirement Tips, Part 2: EDU #2609 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.