The agent becoming a best friend is where the largest problem could exist in my opinion, I have observed that one of/the largest value adds is being objective on decisions and being an accountability partner for clients.
Currently, you can convince an AI model that any nearly idea is feasible/agreeable (I can splurge on this because I’ll spend less later or earn more income later just as an example)
Even if that problem is solved somehow, I’m not confident that people will feel confident with an AI model as their personal CFO — I feel like we are a very long ways away from AI replacing high-trust relationships with good advisors
There were similar concerns/statements about robo-advisors replacing human advisors, but that has not had near the level of impact as perhaps thought
AI likely captures some of the retail consumer marketplace, but also likely enables high-performing teams to service a greater number of households than previously possible due to efficiency increase
@Peeps1908 Not necessarily staying up forever, just averaging 8% over the time frame
The worst 30-year rolling period for the SP500 averaged right at 8%
Nobody knows what will happen in the future, that’s just the math
Then the math assumption is something like this:
Contribute $1k per year for 5 years, market return of 8% ≈ $6300 after 5 years
$6300 growing for 50 years at an 8% average growth rate and no contributions ≈ $295 at the end of 50 years (55 total)
So the assumption is the account is invested and the underlying investments (assumed total stock market) is about 8% per year on average
@Peeps1908 If you save $1000 per year for 55 years can grow to $270k with conservative returns. You’d need to return an average of about 5%. https://t.co/snG8disQp1 hope this helps
Yeah this is one area that seems difficult to pin down uniformly.
On one hand you want to tax optimize from asset location, but also might want to spent NQ assets first (≈$130k of income no taxes in theory with married filing jointly + standard deduction).
But, then you have to hold less tax-efficient assets (cash/bonds) in that account for spending. So you’re in theory being tax-efficient with withdrawals but inefficient from asset-location perspective.
Also that’s more assets not invested that don’t receive the step-up for legacy planning too. Guess you could suggest rebalancing leftovers at RMD time assuming you don’t need them anymore.
Weird area to mix/match sometimes. Guess it falls back to our “it depends” nature.
@RunEricRun@TKopelman Ah I see. I read generation skipping and went right to GST. You’re saying just split up the beneficiaries on the IRA to include the grandkids
@RunEricRun@TKopelman With the Secure changes couldn’t it be an unfavorable tax scenario with the GST being subject to 10 year rule and trusts having very unfavorable tax rates? Assuming we’re discussing pretax here
I think there’s a lot of face-value attraction to the idea of having one brand, one logo, addressing and executing on all financial planning needs, in-house taxes, as well as estate planning attorneys.
But sounds like you’re suggesting the logistics make it near impossible/not worthwhile in current environment
That’s interesting. Maybe it’s more specific to the finance sector. They’re still maxing out a 401k, NQDC is used on top of that, most commonly for bonus deferral. A lot of the big firms have that supplemental option for the high earners, a lot of plans are backed institutional-side with COLI
A very overlooked part of timing the market is that you have to be right TWICE. Getting out at the right time AND getting back in at the right time is a tall order.
(Obviously if you have cash on the sideline different story, but could argue it should have been invested already)