That calibration disappears the day a retiree starts drawing from a traditional individual retirement account (IRA) at Charles Schwab, because the custodian’s default withholding drops to 10% of every distribution regardless of the account holder’s actual bracket.

For a retiree already in the 24% federal bracket, a $50,000 withdrawal sends only $5,000 to the IRS when the actual liability on that distribution is $12,000. The $7,000 difference, plus any underpayment penalty, arrives as a single bill at filing.

The shortfall comes down to a single line on IRS Form W-4R that most account holders never adjust before requesting an IRA distribution.

The form ships with a flat 10% election, and that rate stays locked in for every future withdrawal until the account holder files a replacement.

Also Read: Schwab spotlights bold IRA move years before RMDs kick in

Schwab applies the IRS default, and the default favors the lowest bracket

Nonperiodic distributions include all payments other than periodic payments, such as lump-sum withdrawals and cash distributions taken outside a regular annuity stream, IRS Publication 575 explained.

Each income source in retirement follows a different default withholding rate, and the IRA’s 10% sits at the lowest end of qualified plan defaults.

Hayden Adams, Director of Tax Planning and Wealth Management Research at Charles Schwab, warned that the default withholding on each retirement income source does not guarantee full coverage of the tax bill.

<strong>Taxes are automatically withheld from some income sources but not from others, and the amounts withheld may not satisfy your actual tax liability,</strong>

The gap hits hardest when pension, Social Security, and investment income place the retiree above the 10% bracket before any IRA withdrawal.

The 24% bracket turns a $50,000 IRA distribution into a $7,000 shortfall

Under the 2026 brackets from IRS Revenue Procedure 2025-32, single filers pay 24% on taxable income between $105,700 and $201,775. A retiree whose combined income from other sources already totals $110,000 starts the IRA withdrawal inside that 24% band.

Adding a $50,000 distribution pushes total taxable income to $160,000, and every dollar of the withdrawal falls within the 24% range.

More Charles Schwab:

• Charles Schwab, Fidelity sound alarm on Roth IRA rule
• Morgan Stanley doubles down on Schwab after earnings
• Schwab plots S&P 500 prediction markets push with Cboe

A retiree carrying that $7,000 gap into filing season with no estimated payments on record crosses the safe harbor threshold by a wide margin, triggering underpayment interest from the first missed quarterly deadline.

Married couples filing jointly face the same gap at a higher threshold, with the 24% bracket starting at $211,400 under the same revenue procedure.

By contrast, eligible rollover distributions from a 401(k) are subject to a 20% default withholding rate, double the IRA default, under Internal Revenue Code Section 3405(c).

Underpayment penalties can compound the April balance

A $7,000 shortfall has consequences beyond the tax bill because the IRS requires prepayment through withholding or estimated payments each year. 

The safe harbor threshold equals the lesser of 90% of current-year tax or 100% of prior-year liability. Taxpayers whose prior-year adjusted gross income exceeded $150,000 must cover 110% of that year’s liability instead, the IRS noted in Publication 505.

No penalty applies when the balance due after withholding and credits stays below $1,000, the IRS confirmed in Tax Topic 306.

That shortfall exceeds the threshold by a wide margin, so the underpayment penalty interest begins accruing on the full amount.

The underpayment interest rate resets each quarter at the federal short-term rate plus three percentage points, the IRS explained on its rate page.

For retirees carrying that shortfall with no estimated payments on file, the accumulated penalty can add hundreds of dollars by the filing deadline.

3 IRS-sanctioned options exist for closing the withholding gap before year-end

The first option is to match the withholding rate to the actual bracket before the next withdrawal.

The 2026 Form W-4R lists a marginal rate table that account holders can reference before submitting a distribution request, and the form accepts any whole-number rate from 0% to 100%, so a retiree in the 24% bracket can elect a matching rate and eliminate the gap on every future distribution.

The second option is to send an estimated payment to cover the shortfall on distributions already taken at the default rate. The IRS Form 1040-ES instructions allow retirees to submit a payment before January 15, 2027 that can satisfy the safe harbor requirement and reduce exposure to underpayment penalties, Publication 505 confirmed.

The third option applies to retirees who have not yet taken a 2026 required minimum distribution. Waiting until December 2026 and requesting a higher withholding rate on that single transaction lets the custodian route enough to the IRS in one withdrawal, Kiplinger noted.

The IRS treats withholding from any distribution as paid across all four quarters regardless of when the withdrawal occurs, so a December distribution with elevated withholding can cover the entire year’s liability, Publication 505 confirmed.

Catherine Valega, a Certified Financial Planner and Founder of Green Bee Advisory, told Yahoo Finance that retirees should track their tax bracket throughout the year rather than discovering the gap at filing.

Related: Vanguard spotlights Roth IRA trap hiding in your income

The Federal Reserve’s 2025 Survey of Consumer Finances, released October 9, 2026, alongside its companion report “Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2022 to 2025,” put the monthly mortgage cost on a median-priced home at about 33% of median family income. 

The prior survey covered conditions through 2022, when that share stood at 26%, and the seven-point jump sets a record.

The squeeze extends beyond first-time buyers and hits hardest retirees who still have a mortgage balance or need to relocate on a fixed income.

Also Read: Fannie Mae updates its mortgage rate predictions for 2027

The rate surge behind the record mortgage burden

Rising interest rates drove the bulk of the deterioration in affordability between the two survey periods. The average 30-year fixed rate climbed from 4.2% to 6.7%, and on a standard loan that shift raises the cost of every dollar borrowed over the full repayment term, the Fed’s report found.

Real median family income grew 7% over the same stretch to $82,200, a new high in the survey’s history going back to 1989. That gain, while historically significant, fell short of offsetting the combined weight of higher borrowing costs and elevated home values.

The median home was valued at more than 4.5 times median family income in 2025, roughly matching the record ratio from the prior survey. 

When rates hold near 7%, and prices stay at that multiple, the monthly payment exceeds what most middle-income families can manage alongside their other obligations.

Families who need to buy or move face the biggest cost increases

Roughly 66% of American families already own their homes, a share that has remained unchanged since 2022, according to the Federal Reserve. 

The record affordability strain affects families who still need to finance a purchase or relocate, as well as retirees considering a downsize.

More on Housing:

• Skyrocketing housing costs put huge strain on homeowners and renters
• Homebuyers lose ground as housing affordability slams shut
• Landlords sound alarm as rental fraud costs renters big

The barrier is steepest for renters, whose median net worth stood at just $10,600, below the cash required for a standard 20% down payment on the median home. The share of families whose debt payments exceeded 40% of their income rose from 6.5% to 8.6%, the highest level since 2010.

For retirees considering a downsize, selling a home with a low-rate mortgage and financing a new purchase at current rates can push monthly payments above the original amount, even on a smaller property.

Housing costs consume a growing share of retiree budgets

The burden on older Americans extends beyond the mortgage and has been compounding for more than three decades. 

Households aged 75 and older devoted about 39% of total spending to housing in 2024, compared with 34% for households aged 65 to 74, with the comparison also summarized by International Business Times.

Older retirees spent roughly $21,999 on housing, slightly below the $22,329 for households aged 65 to 74. Housing commands a larger budget share because spending on transportation, apparel and other categories drops sharply in later retirement, leaving fewer line items to dilute the proportion.

Laura Adams, a Nationally-Recognized Finance author and Member of the Board of Advisors at Forbes Advisor, told GOBankingRates that this pattern leaves baby boomers on retirement income especially exposed. 

<strong>Housing is likely your largest expense if you're a retired boomer on a fixed income,</strong>

She noted that elevated mortgage interest rates make purchasing a smaller home unrealistic for many retirees who assumed downsizing would reduce their monthly costs.

Inflation-adjusted housing spending among households 75 and older rose 68% between 1990 and 2024, from about $13,130 to $21,999. Over the same span, housing spending across the broader U.S. population rose 26%, making the retiree increase roughly 2.6 times the national pace, IBTimes reported.

How retirees can gauge whether housing is overtaking their budget

Older homeowners now account for the fastest-growing share of households squeezed by their homes, which puts a line-by-line review of monthly housing costs ahead of any downsizing move for anyone running the math.

Daniel McCue, a Senior Research Associate at Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, said that owners 65 and older accounted for 1.7 million of the 3.6 million rise in cost-burdened homeowners between 2019 and 2023.

Insurance, property taxes, utilities and maintenance costs have risen sharply, putting pressure on retirees’ budgets even when their mortgages are fixed or fully paid off.

Federal housing policy classifies families paying over 30% of income on housing as cost-burdened and over 50% as severely burdened, with elderly households disproportionately represented, according to the Congressional Research Service. 

The Federal Reserve’s Survey adds a leading indicator: the share of families behind on any loan payment jumped from 12% in 2022 to roughly 20% in 2025, the highest since 2010.

Fidelity Investments’ analysis notes many retirees overestimate housing costs. Steve Feinschreiber, senior vice president of financial solutions at the firm said retirees may be able to reduce housing costs by downsizing, moving to a more affordable area, or staying in their current homes, especially if they plan ahead.

Related: Goldman Sachs has a new warning for the housing market for 2027

On Oct. 22, the British bank said it will cut about 5,000 jobs by the end of this year. That’s roughly 5% of its global workforce of around 92,000 to 93,000 employees. Most affected staff are involved in back-office tasks that AI tools can now handle faster and more cheaply.

Barclays announced the news along with its third-quarter earnings, and its profits before tax rose 12% to £2.3 billion during the quarter, according to CNBC. Yet, despite the strong result, the bank still decided it could run with fewer people.

Barclays confirms 5,000 cuts as AI takes over routine work

Barclays had already let go of about 1,000 staff before the announcement. Then the bank said the remaining 4,000 cuts are set for the end of the fourth quarter, Reuters reported.

Barclays is targeting more than £2 billion in total gross efficiency savings between 2026 and 2028, with group total costs expected to fall to around £18.4 billion in 2027 from about £18.5 billion in 2026, according to the bank’s Q3 2026 results announcement.

Also read: Morgan Stanley flags Amgen’s edge after heart-drug rival stumbles

Barclays Group Finance Director Anna Cross told analysts that the third- and fourth-quarter changes are “sizable” and reflect both a simplification of the organization and the early impacts of AI, Banking Dive reported.

About 60% of the roles being cut are support roles that handle tasks like paperwork and routine reports. Software developers are included among them.

Barclays Group CEO C.S. Venkatakrishnan, known as Venkat inside the bank, has been pushing a plan to cut costs by using more AI across the company for over a year.

Earlier this year, he told investors the goal was “to secure sustainably higher returns,” RTE reported, adding that he planned to return more than £15 billion to shareholders between 2026 and 2028.

On the Oct. 22 earnings call, Venkat reinforced that message while tempering expectations around the technology itself. “AI is the icing on the cake, not the cake,” he said, according to Banking Dive.

What the restructuring means for BCS shareholders

To complete the layoff, the bank will need to spend on severance and the automation setup it will use to replace those staff. Roughly £300 million will be spent in the fourth quarter alone for that purpose. As a result, Barclays doubled its restructuring budget for 2026 to about £600 million. 

Even with those costs, shareholders are still set to get more cash. The bank announced plans to release another £500 million to investors through buybacks and dividends, which will bring its total capital returned since January to £2.8 billion, The Guardian reported.

More Bank Coverage:

• JPMorgan reveals stocks worth buying in October 2026
• BofA thinks Wall Street is underestimating one J&J drug
• Why Goldman Sachs still backs Netflix despite falling viewership

For long-term BCS shareholders, the plan could help the bank earn more profit from each dollar it invests, and raise the value of each share from 2027 onward. I expect the bank’s next few earnings reports to look a bit weaker because of the one-time costs, but shareholders who are willing to wait through that period may see the bank’s profits grow once the AI plan starts to pay off.

The AI shift is reshaping banking jobs everywhere

Barclays is not the only bank laying off part of its staff due to AI efficiency. Standard Chartered also plans to cut more than 15% of its back-office roles by 2030, the BBC reported.

A Citigroup research note once said the banking sector faces the highest risk of AI displacement, and it estimated that 54% of banking jobs could eventually be automated, Bloomberg reported.

What I understand from this is that the AI shift is bigger than one bank or country. Given how fast firms are moving, I think learning new skills that AI tools can’t easily replicate is a reasonable step for anyone worried about job security in a shifting labor market.

More Stocks News

• Broadcom stock gets massive $600 call even as AI fears grow
• SpaceX stock gets jaw-dropping reset from biggest skeptic
• Micron stock gets stunning $3,000 call despite 6% plunge
• Jim Cramer’s 5% to 8% rule puts Nvidia stock in focus

The flagship Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market Index Fund (available as ETF VTI or mutual fund VTSAX, plus other mutual fund share classes) is often hailed as the gold standard of set-it-and-forget-it investing.

Holding more than 3,500 individual U.S. equities ranging from multi-trillion-dollar tech titans to micro-cap startups, it offers broad exposure across all corners of the U.S. stock market.

However, a quick look under the hood reveals a stark reality: Just seven mega-cap tech companies account for more than 25% of the entire fund’s value.

If a handful of mega-caps control a quarter of a “total market” fund, are investors getting true diversification, or are they taking on hidden concentration risk?

Tech giants’ footprint in broad market index funds hits historic high

Because VTI and VTSAX are market-capitalization-weighted, a company’s influence on the fund is tied directly to its market valuation. As corporate giants have ballooned, their footprint inside broad market index funds has reached historic highs.

The top seven holdings collectively accounted for 29.48% of the fund’s total assets as of Sept. 30, 2026, according to Morningstar. This includes six of the so-called “Magnificent 7” big tech stocks, plus Broadcom.

While approximately 3,500 remaining stocks make up the rest, their collective movements are frequently overshadowed by the heavyweights at the top.

When Big Tech rallies, total market funds surge. But when the tech sector stumbles, even thousands of smaller holdings cannot prevent the broader index from taking a hit.

It’s important that investors understand what their ETFs and mutual funds invest in to help them build a properly diversified portfolio.

Is concentration risk really a threat?

Market concentration isn’t inherently bad. In fact, the top-heavy weightings of mega-cap tech companies have been the primary growth engine powering benchmark index returns over the past several years.

However, heavy concentration creates two main challenges for investors:

1. Sector overlap across your portfolio

If you hold a total stock market fund alongside an S&P 500 ETF, a Nasdaq 100 ETF, or a growth-focused fund, you may have less exposure to a diverse group of companies than you realize. The top holdings across all four funds are virtually identical.

2. The illusion of mid- and small-cap exposure

While VTI technically holds mid- and small-cap stocks, their combined weight is small compared to large caps. Large caps account for approximately 70% of the entire fund’s weight, meaning mid- and small-cap price swings have a minimal impact on overall fund performance.

How Vanguard views the “Mag 7”

Interestingly, Vanguard’s own research suggests that the concentration argument may be slightly oversimplified.

Vanguard analysis notes that while the Magnificent 7 are often lumped together under the “Big Tech” label, their underlying revenue streams are vastly different. For instance:

• Microsoft derives revenue from enterprise cloud infrastructure, software, and personal computing.
• Amazon generates revenue from e-commerce, cloud computing (AWS), and digital advertising.
• Tesla operates primarily in consumer electric vehicles and energy storage.
• Meta and Alphabet depend heavily on digital advertising.

Because their business models, customer bases, and risk factors vary, these companies do not always move in unison.

From Vanguard’s perspective, owning these giants still offers operational diversification across the global economy.

3 ways to rebalance your exposure

If you are concerned about market concentration in your core equity holdings, you don’t need to ditch index funds entirely.

Consider these three adjustments to manage your risk:

1. Incorporate equal-weight index funds: Unlike cap-weighted funds, equal-weight ETFs (like the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF, RSP) give every stock in the index the same allocation. This eliminates mega-cap dominance and tilts your portfolio toward value and mid-cap stocks.
2. Add targeted small-cap and international allocations: To give smaller companies a real voice in your portfolio, consider pairing VTI with a dedicated small-cap ETF (like the Vanguard Small-Cap ETF, VB) or expanding your international equity footprint (via funds like VXUS).
3. Re-evaluate your total tech exposure: Take stock of all the funds in your workplace 401(k) and taxable brokerage accounts. If you hold sector-specific tech funds alongside total market funds, you may be taking on more concentration risk than intended.

Understand what’s in your portfolio

Vanguard’s Total Stock Market Index Fund remains one of the most efficient, low-cost vehicles for building wealth. However, holding thousands of stocks does not make a fund immune to top-heavy concentration.

Understanding what you own — and how much of it rests on a few mega-cap shoulders — is key to building a resilient portfolio.

Related: Vanguard’s S&P 500 fund outruns its own rising dividend

The national average of a typical direct-to-consumer transaction is equivalent to a 232% annual interest rate, similar to what traditional payday lenders have long charged. These services allow workers to access part of their pay before payday and have grown rapidly in the consumer lending market.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) found that roughly 10 million workers used earned wage access products as of 2022. Transaction volume for employer-partnered versions of these tools grew by 90% between 2021 and 2022, driven largely by payroll integrations. 

For retirees on Social Security checks averaging $2,071 monthly in 2026, those costs directly threaten income that cannot grow, the Social Security Administration reported.

Also read: Fidelity puts a price on a Social Security benefit cut

Hidden fees cost paycheck advance borrowers more than $200 a year

The Julian Bond Institute analyzed bank transactions from nearly 347,000 borrowers and found that 96% of direct-to-consumer payday app loans included fees. Users took out an average of 33 loans each year, paying about $208 in fees and tips annually.

Consumers who borrowed 25 or more times annually generated 82% of all fees collected by app providers. These apps charge no stated interest but collect revenue through expedited-transfer fees, subscriptions, and optional tips that inflate total borrowing costs. 

Tom Feltner, associate director of consumer policy at the Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, told Fortune that these products add debt that mainstream lenders cannot detect.

<strong>It is adding new debt that's invisible to other creditors and is driving the total amount of debt people carry</strong>.

Because these apps sit outside traditional credit-reporting systems, lenders evaluating the same consumer for a mortgage cannot see the existing paycheck drain, Feltner noted.

Borrowers stack loans from multiple apps as federal protections stall

Consumers borrow from several short-term lending apps at once, and each additional account compounds the total fee burden across providers, according to the CRL’s new research report, “A Loan Shark in Your Pocket: The Perils of Earned Wage Advance.”

No provider runs a credit check before issuing an advance, so borrowers can hold accounts with multiple apps and accumulate fees no lender tracks.

A parallel pattern exists in buy-now, pay-later lending, where the CFPB found that more than 60% of users held simultaneous loans, and most had lower or subprime credit scores, suggesting financially stretched households are using multiple short-term credit tools at once.

More Personal Finance:

• Pay raises trail inflation so Ramit Sethi says, “Ask for $5,000”
• Your home insurance deductible could be $20,000. Would you be ready?
• Why your next car purchase will be an affordability nightmare

The Bureau also found that Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) borrowers had tendency to carry higher balances across other unsecured credit products, including personal loans and retail loans, suggesting the same financially stretched households are using multiple short-term credit tools.

Federal efforts to impose new disclosure requirements on these products have stalled under shifting regulatory priorities at the consumer bureau. 

The CFPB withdrew a proposed rule in December 2025 that would have classified tips and expedited-delivery fees as finance charges under federal lending law.

That reversal left direct-to-consumer apps, which the CRL analysis found have the highest fees and are not covered by the CFPB’s new guidance, without any additional federal consumer protections, according to the Federal Register notice.

Social Security recipients make up over a quarter of payday borrowers

Retirees on fixed incomes face heightened exposure to payday-style lending, and federal data confirm they already use these products at significant rates. 

CRL research found that Social Security recipients accounted for more than a quarter of all bank deposit-advance borrowers. 

That borrower profile tracks closely with the vulnerability now surfacing in fintech advance apps, which pull repayment directly from the same benefit-funded checking accounts without the prudential oversight that applied to the bank-run version.

Annette Smith, a 69-year-old Social Security beneficiary from Rocklin, California, testified at the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging 2013 hearing that she repeatedly took $500 deposit advances from her Wells Fargo account, ultimately paying about $3,000 in fees over several years. 

The case illustrated how quickly a small advance can spiral when repayment is collected automatically before the borrower can cover basic monthly expenses, a dynamic consumer advocates say now applies to fintech advance apps that debit bank accounts directly.

The Employee Benefit Research Institute‘s 2026 Retirement Confidence Survey found that three in 10 retirees said debt negatively affected their ability to live comfortably. 

Overall retiree confidence fell to 73%, a 5-percentage-point decline from the prior year, as rising debt eroded purchasing power. Those trends make older borrowers especially vulnerable to fee-heavy products that compound costs over time on fixed incomes.

How retirees on fixed incomes can sidestep advance-app debt traps

CRL recommended that states enforce or adopt a 36% APR cap as the strongest shield against the harms of payday lending. 

For individual retirees, the most accessible alternative is a Payday Alternative Loan offered through a federal credit union, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) noted.

The NCUA allows federal credit unions to offer these loans in amounts ranging from $200 to $1,000, with repayment terms of one to six months. The maximum interest rate is 28% APR, and application fees are capped at $20, making these loans far cheaper than app-based alternatives. 

Rollovers are prohibited, and borrowers must hold credit union membership for at least one month before they qualify for the program.

Before downloading any advance app, retirees should verify whether a local credit union offers payday alternative loans.

Related: America’s spending average floats above most families

While planning and being transition-ready can be time-consuming, they’re crucial to estate planning and building generational wealth. But new Fidelity Investments research found that this process isn’t just about preparing documents.

Read: Here’s how to invest in the New York Knicks and other pro sports teams

Fidelity’s 2026 Transition Ready Family findings challenge the common assumption that accumulating wealth and completing necessary forms alone is enough to prepare families for the future.

In fact, the study found that while many senior Americans have taken planning measures, only 37% say “they have strong peace of mind about their future plans, and more than half of those who have completed plans still lack confidence.”

There is a missing piece to lessen anxiety for this cohort of older Americans, which is often overlooked: having conversations and being honest and open with their family. Ryan Viktorin, vice president and financial consultant at Fidelity Investments, said the findings show that completing a plan and feeling prepared aren’t always the same thing.

“Many people are doing the right planning activities, but our research suggests that confidence comes from making sure family members understand those plans and know what to do when the time comes,” Viktorin said.

More than half of Americans who have completed planning activities still lack peace of mind

The study found that a whopping 51% of seniors who took the necessary steps still feel anxious about their planning. And while parents who talk about their plans with their family are more than three times as likely to be highly confident in their planning, a third have never had these conversations with their adult children, according to the research.

Viktorin said that many people approach planning as a series of tasks, such as creating an estate plan or updating beneficiaries.

While those steps are important, she said, confidence often comes from knowing your family understands your wishes, knows where key information is located, and is prepared to act when necessary.

On the other hand, families who combine planning with ongoing communication report significantly better outcomes.

“Talking about a plan may be just as important as creating one. When parents share their plans with family members, they help ensure everyone understands important decisions and reduce the likelihood of confusion during a future transition,” she added.

Necessary planning documents include, at a minimum, a last will and testament, Daniel Tirle, partner at CMLaw, said. For many, a revocable living trust can be a good option, he said, as it can make things much smoother after that person passes away, provided it is properly funded.

“A few other very important documents are a durable financial power of attorney, an advance medical directive, and an appropriate HIPAA authorization. Beneficiary designations and asset ownership also must be reviewed,” he added.

Why do families avoid these conversations?

Conducting these conversations can feel overwhelming or uncomfortable, emotions underscored in an Empathy survey, which found that 57% of families share these feelings. Another culprit: damaged family dynamics “that prevent legacy conversations from happening or progressing.”

In addition, the Empathy study found that 4 in 10 Americans cite uncertainty around family members’ roles and timing. CMLaw’s Tirle said that other reasons include parent and child who may each believe the other is “not ready,” due to fear of death, emotional discomfort, and cultural taboos.

“This type of planning forces people to contemplate incapacity, death, dependence on family, and loss of control,” Tirle said.

The issue is not primarily financial. It is psychological. In addition to these conversations combining three uncomfortable subjects, money, mortality, and family, some experts said there is also a deeper issue.

“Estate planning forces us to define what we actually believe about money and legacy,” said Feroz Ansari, CFP, author of The Wisdom and Wealth Solution: Unlocking The Secrets Of Happiness, Purpose, And Financial Security, and adjunct professor at the University of California, Irvine. And some families may hesitate to seek professional help because the costs, including fees, paperwork, decisions, and awkward discussions, are immediate, while the benefits seem distant and uncertain.

Fidelity’s Viktorin echoed the sentiment, noting that many parents don’t want to burden their children, while adult children sometimes worry they’re being intrusive. And the Fidelity study also found that some families think they’ve already talked enough, while others simply don’t know how to begin.

“That’s why we often encourage families to start small. The goal isn’t to solve everything in one conversation, but to begin building a shared understanding over time,” she said.

Pitfalls of not having these conversations, no matter how uncomfortable they may be, are numerous. For instance, they can lead to tension between family members, missed tax-saving opportunities, and prolonged litigation, Tirle said.

“Some years ago, I worked on a case in which the father passed away without an estate plan, leaving 154 real estate properties and multiple children,” he said.  “Each child hired lawyers, and they fought for close to five years over how to divide the estate. Other times, the surviving spouse or heirs have no idea where the assets are or how to manage them.”

Another surprising finding in the Fidelity study is that even a major health event does not trigger such conversations. Ansari said that a health crisis may actually make communication harder because emotions are already elevated and stress levels are high.

“Unknown choices confront families, which causes tension and makes the entire situation even more difficult. The worst time to have the first family planning conversation is during the crisis itself,” Ansari said. 

Beyond financial risks, the bigger drawback of not having these conversations may be emotional. When parents do not explain their intentions, children are left to interpret them, Ansari said.

“Why did my sister receive more? Why was my brother chosen as trustee? Did Mom want the house sold? Why did Dad structure the trust this way? Unanswered questions can become resentment. Silence during life can become conflict after death,” he added.

What should seniors talk about with their adult children?

Viktorin said the goal is not necessarily to disclose every financial detail, but to ensure family members understand enough to carry out important plans when needed.

Some useful topics include long-term financial goals and priorities, estate planning intentions, health care preferences, and future care wishes.

In addition, she said, it’s crucial to discuss who would make decisions if assistance were needed, the roles and responsibilities family members may assume, where important documents are kept, expectations related to caregiving, finances, and wealth transfer, and desired outcomes during major life transitions.

How can children help?

Adult children can help by bringing up the subject gently and taking it one question at a time, Tirle said.

“Asking, ‘If you ever needed help with your finances, whom should I call?’ can be a simple way to begin. As the conversation develops, they can ask whether the people named in the planning documents know about their roles and are willing to serve,” he added.

He also recommended that children listen, give their parents time to think, and respect their decisions.

In addition, practical help, such as organizing records or arranging a meeting with their parents’ tax or financial adviser, can also make the process feel more manageable.

“If sibling relationships are strained, having an attorney or financial adviser guide the discussion can help keep everyone focused and prevent old disagreements from taking over,” he added.

Finally, experts said that adult children don’t need to have all the answers.

And as Viktorin noted, one of the most valuable things they can do is create space for open dialogue. In other words, ask questions, listen carefully, and help parents think through important decisions before a crisis occurs.

“These conversations can help families move from assumptions to clarity, which is often where confidence and peace of mind come from,” she said.

This story written for TheStreet by Nifty 50+

You can begin taking penalty-free withdrawals from either a traditional or Roth 401(k) once you reach age 59½. However, to access your Roth earnings tax-free, your account must also meet the five-year aging requirement, according to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

“Now, if you’re still decades away from retirement, that five years is nothing to worry about,” Ramsey wrote. “But if you’re approaching 59 1/2 and thinking about opening a Roth 401(k), be aware that if you make withdrawals within those first five years, you’ll pay a penalty.”

On another important note, when it comes to accessing your money, a main distinction between these two plans is the Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) rule.

Required minimum distributions are the minimum amounts you must withdraw from your retirement accounts each year, explains the IRS.

“If you have a traditional 401(k), the IRS requires you to start making withdrawals from your account beginning at age 73 (they want that tax money, baby),” Ramsey wrote.

“Thanks to the SECURE 2.0 Act, Roth 401(k)s no longer have RMDs,” he continued. “If you’re the original account owner, you can leave your Roth 401(k) untouched for as long as you want.”

Read more: Fidelity warns of 5 blind spots draining retirement savings

Charles Schwab explains ways to avoid 5-year rule penalties on Roth IRAs

Withdrawing earnings from a Roth IRA before age 59½ and before your account hits the five-year mark, generally incurs income taxes and early-withdrawal penalties. However, you can bypass the penalties, according to financial services firm Charles Schwab.

There are several situations that avoid the penalties.

Eligible penalty exemptions fall into three primary categories: qualifying life events, physical or financial hardships, and specific legal or administrative circumstances, Schwab explains.

You can bypass the early withdrawal penalty if the funds support major milestones — such as purchasing a first home (up to a $10,000 lifetime maximum), paying higher education tuition, covering birth or adoption costs, or handling urgent emergency needs.

More Personal Finance:

• Charles Schwab, Fidelity alert workers to forced 401(k) rule
• Dave Ramsey warns Americans on 401(k)s, IRAs (he’s not wrong)
• Congress research arm sounds alarm on 401(k), IRA penalty

Relief is also available during significant health or economic setbacks, including paying unreimbursed medical bills, maintaining health insurance while unemployed, suffering a total disability, or disbursing funds following the account holder’s death.

Finally, the IRS waives the penalty for special circumstances, such as distributions for domestic abuse survivors, federally declared disaster relief, forced IRS levies, or structured schedules taken as substantially equal periodic payments.

“If you’ve met the five-year holding requirement, you can withdraw money from a Roth IRA with no taxes or penalties,” Schwab clarified.

“Remember that, unlike a Traditional IRA, with a Roth IRA there are no required minimum distributions.”

Dave Ramsey recommends Roth 401(k) plans

“If you’re investing consistently every month, whether it’s in a traditional or Roth 401(k) (or even a Roth IRA), you’re already on the right track,” Ramsey wrote. “But if you’re looking for the best retirement savings option, there are two big reasons the Roth 401(k) comes out on top.”

The first is that there are no taxes on growth or withdrawals.

“The tax-free growth and tax-free withdrawals that come with a Roth 401(k) are simply too good to pass up,” Ramsey wrote. “Anytime you can legally minimize your tax burden, that decision makes itself.”

“It may be tempting to take the tax break now so you can take home a little more in your paycheck today,” he added. “But you’ve got to think about these things with a long-term mindset. You’re already working hard to save for retirement. Why wouldn’t you do all you can to make sure that money goes even further when you need it most?”

The second reason to invest in a Roth 401(k), Ramsey explains, is peace of mind.

“Like it or not, it’s hard to separate emotions from investing,” Ramsey wrote. “Imagine finally stepping into retirement, then watching your $1 million nest egg get whittled down by hundreds of thousands of dollars because of taxes. We bet you’d miss $100,000 in retirement a lot more than $100 in a paycheck today.”

“Besides, once you’re in the habit of investing 15% of every paycheck for retirement, you probably won’t even miss the money you’re paying in taxes,” he said. “Plus, you’ll have peace of mind from knowing the tax bill has already been handled.”

Related: Jean Chatzky has strong new warning on 401(k), IRA danger

Cost Plus Drugs co-founder Mark Cuban wants to know why. In a Jan. 10 post on X, the billionaire entrepreneur challenged the logic behind a reported $2,500 insurance payment for an MRI when a nearby imaging center offered the scan for $350.

“Explain to me why the insurance company will pay $2,500 for an MRI when there is a center down the street that will do it for $350?” Cuban wrote.

The question taps into a long-running frustration with American healthcare, where patients can struggle to find out what a procedure costs before showing up for an appointment. 

Cuban has spent years criticizing opaque pricing and the middlemen he believes drive up healthcare costs, including pharmacy benefit managers. His online pharmacy, Cost Plus Drugs, was built around making medication prices easier to see.

Read more: Mark Cuban says let’s take healthcare back to 1955 — see a doctor, get a bill, pay what you can

Two MRIs, two very different prices

The gap between hospital pricing and lower-cost alternatives has shown up in medical research, too.

A study published in JAMA Network Open on March 21, 2023, examined negotiated commercial prices for brain MRIs at 2,630 U.S. hospitals. Among hospitals reporting the relevant pricing data, the median negotiated price was $1,900, while the average was $2,268.

The study focused on brain MRIs performed before and after contrast, so its figures don’t represent every type of scan.

But the findings show how much hospitals can charge insurers for a single imaging procedure. Independent imaging centers may advertise substantially lower cash prices, creating a sharp contrast with hospital-based care.

The hospital bill has extra baggage

Where the scan takes place can make a difference. Hospitals may charge facility fees to cover their buildings, equipment, and staff, while independent imaging centers can operate with lower overhead, CanAmerica Plus noted. Prices also depend on the scan itself, whether contrast dye is required, and whether the radiologist’s interpretation is billed separately.

Cash pricing adds another layer of comparison, GoodRx reported. An imaging center may offer a discounted rate to patients who pay directly rather than submit a claim through insurance. That doesn’t automatically mean the cash price covers exactly the same services as the insurance payment, however.

Still, a $350 offer next to a $2,500 payment raises an obvious question. If the scans are comparable, why isn’t the lower-cost option getting more attention?

More Healthcare/Health:

• Health insurance is about to cost you a lot more in 2027
• Medicare shoppers face a hidden AI problem this open enrollment
• Pepsi, Nestle could save 150,000 lives a year with one simple change

Insurers have some leverage, too

Insurers don’t simply have to accept every price a provider initially lists. They negotiate rates with hospitals and other healthcare providers, and those agreements can vary widely by location, network and contract, according to the 2025 report Technical Challenges with Private Health Insurance Price Transparency Data.

Insurers can also encourage patients to use lower-cost facilities when appropriate. But steering patients toward cheaper providers isn’t always straightforward. Network restrictions, medical needs, and negotiated contracts can all affect the options available, The Commonwealth Fund confirmed.

Patients can end up paying more than expected even when they have insurance, particularly when deductibles are high, a study in the journal Neurology indicated. Meanwhile, someone paying cash at an independent center may find a lower price by shopping around, provided the quoted amount includes the scan, interpretation, and any additional fees.

That leaves patients comparing prices that aren’t always easy to compare, while insurers and providers operate under different contracts.

The $350 scan may not be identical in every billing detail to the $2,500 one. But when a routine medical procedure carries such a wide price gap, patients deserve a clear explanation of what they’re paying for — before the bill arrives.

Related: Mark Cuban says one skill is key to making $1 million ‘every single time’

That coverage disappears the moment a worker retires, and the IRS expects retirees to replace it on their own. Underpaying can also be costly, particularly with IRS interest rates remaining elevated in recent years.

Also read: IRS has hidden fix for retirees who missed Sept. 15 deadline

With the final estimated tax payment deadline for the 2026 tax year approaching, retirees have less than 90 days to review their payments and address any potential shortfall.

Why retirement income creates a withholding gap the IRS penalizes

The federal tax system operates on a pay-as-you-go basis, and the IRS expects tax payments to arrive throughout the year alongside income. For the 2026 tax year, four quarterly deadlines apply: April 15, June 15, and September 15, followed by January 15, 2027, the IRS confirmed.

When a retiree collects from Social Security, a pension, and a traditional IRA, each source has its default withholding that rarely covers the full liability. Social Security benefits are not subject to automatic federal withholding, and IRA distributions cover only a fraction of the taxable portion unless adjusted, Kiplinger reported.

Mary Kay Foss, a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and Instructor at the California Society of CPAs/CalCPA Education Foundation, told Financial Advisor Magazine that the shift from a steady paycheck to a mix of retirement income disrupts the tax habits workers have spent decades building.

<strong>For taxpayers who have always relied on withholding during their working life, paying taxes after retirement can be a struggle,</strong>

The IRS underpayment rate for the fourth quarter of 2026 is 7% per year, compounded daily under Revenue Ruling 2026-15. Applied to a $5,000 quarterly shortfall over 90 days, that rate produces about $87 in charges.

A retiree who owes $10,000 for 2026 with no withholding in place would face roughly $465 in combined charges across all four quarterly installments.

Safe harbor thresholds that waive the underpayment penalty

The IRS provides two tests that eliminate the underpayment penalty, and meeting either one protects a retiree from the charge. The penalty is assessed separately for each quarter, so missing one deadline does not void safe harbor protection for the others, according to the IRS Topic No. 306.

The first safe harbor applies when the total balance due at filing comes in under $1,000 after subtracting all withholding and refundable credits. If withholding nearly covers the full liability, the IRS does not assess the penalty, even when a small balance remains due in April 2026.

More Retirement:

• 20 million Medicare beneficiaries may get a one-time $90 payment
• Vanguard spotlights Roth IRA trap hiding in your income
• Dave Ramsey raises a $185K risk Fidelity pegs for retirees 

The second and more widely used safe harbor protects retirees whose combined withholding and estimated payments equal at least 90% of the current year’s tax liability. 

Paying 100% of the prior year’s total tax also qualifies, and the threshold rises to 110% when the prior year’s adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeded $150,000 for joint filers, the IRS Publication 505 confirmed.

The prior-year method is the more practical choice for most retirees because it removes the guesswork of projecting a precise current-year liability when investment income and required minimum distributions (RMDs) fluctuate.

The calculation is straightforward: divide last year’s total tax by four and use each result as a quarterly payment target, the IRS Form 1040 showed.

Three withholding forms that replace quarterly estimated checks

Increasing withholding from existing income sources satisfies the same IRS year-round payment requirement as mailing quarterly estimated tax vouchers, and many retirees prefer this approach. 

The IRS treats all withholding as paid evenly throughout the year, even when the full amount comes from a single late-year distribution, under IRC §6654(g)(1).

The three withholding forms that cover each retirement income source are: Form W-4V for voluntary federal withholding from Social Security benefits, Form W-4P for pension and annuity payments, and Form W-4R for IRA distributions and other nonperiodic payments.

The IRS also offers a free online Tax Withholding Estimator that walks retirees through their income, deductions, and credits to project whether current withholding will cover the full federal liability.

What retirees drawing from multiple accounts should verify before January 2027

Pulling the year-to-date withholding figure from each 1099-R, SSA-1099, and pension statement and matching the sum against the 100% or 110% prior-year safe harbor reveals any shortfall that still has to be closed before December 31, 2026, IRS Publication 505 states.

A fresh W-4P, W-4V, or W-4R filed with each payer resets the withholding percentage on remaining distributions. Pension payers process new elections within one or two cycles, IRA custodians apply the change on the next distribution, and SSA restricts the choice to four fixed rates.

The withholding adjustments above address the federal obligation, but retirees in income-tax states have a parallel exposure that federal coverage cannot reach. 

The SSA withholds only federal income tax from benefits, which leaves residents of the 41 states that tax some form of retirement income without automatic coverage at the state level. 

The Federation of Tax Administrators directory lists each state revenue agency separately, each one running its quarterly calendar, forms, and penalty rates, and registration status can be checked online in most jurisdictions before year-end.

Related: Social Security hides a double tax break inside one loss

The Federal Reserve’s 2025 Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) puts the national average for nonhousing spending at $48,700 a year.

The typical family spends thousands less than that benchmark, because a thin slice of high earners inflates the figure above the midpoint. The Federal Reserve’s note highlighted the median as the more representative benchmark for households whose incomes are well below the top 10%.

Also Read: Schwab exposes a fatal flaw in retirement spending

The top 10% of earners account for 28.5% of all nonhousing outlays

The median family spent $33,700 a year on nonhousing costs, $15,000 below the average of $48,700. The gap exists because families in the top 10% of earners spent an average of $138,800 per year on nonhousing costs, the Federal Reserve’s SCF found. 

That group alone accounted for 28.5% of all nonhousing spending nationwide, nearly double the share of the bracket just below it, the Federal Reserve’s analysis indicated.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, told Fortune that top-20% household spending grew 6.5% while bottom-80% spending showed no real inflation-adjusted growth.

<strong>This gap has persisted since the pandemic, which helps explain why most Americans are upset about their financial situations and the broader economy's performance</strong>.

Families in the bottom fifth of the income distribution accounted for just 7.2% of all nonhousing spending. Their average annual outlay was $17,600, which means the highest-earning tenth spent roughly eight times as much as the lowest-earning fifth.

How the new SCF spending question closed a decades-old data gap

Before 2025, the Fed’s wealth survey tracked food costs, housing, and vehicle purchases, but it lacked a question about total spending. Researchers who needed comprehensive spending data relied on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Consumer Expenditure Survey or the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, the Federal Reserve’s researchers noted. 

Both of those surveys routinely miss the wealthiest households, leaving a blind spot at the top of the income distribution.

More Personal Finance:

• Pay raises trail inflation so Ramit Sethi says, “Ask for $5,000”
• Your home insurance deductible could be $20,000. Would you be ready?
• Why your next car purchase will be an affordability nightmare

The new question asked families to report all purchases over the prior 12 months, excluding rent, mortgage payments, and retirement contributions. Aggregated nationally, those responses totaled $6.58 trillion in nonhousing spending.

For validation, the Fed compared its totals with the BLS survey, which recorded average household spending of $78,535 for 2024, including housing. After subtracting housing costs from both datasets, the nonhousing totals from the two surveys aligned closely.

The new spending measure also showed that roughly one-quarter of surveyed families had saving rates at zero or below. For those households, total outlays consumed every dollar of after-tax income, leaving no financial cushion against rising prices or unexpected costs.

Food holds steady while vacations expose the sharpest income divide

Groceries showed the smallest gap between median and average spending in the survey, because every family has to eat, regardless of income. The average family spent $7,700 on food at home, while the median spent $6,000, the narrowest category gap in the survey, the survey reported.

The widest gap appeared in vacations and entertainment, where the average was $4,200 and the median just $1,000. Part of that gulf reflects that 39% of all families reported zero vacation spending. 

Families in the top income decile accounted for 40% of all vacation and entertainment outlays nationwide, the Federal Reserve’s researchers documented.

Food away from home fell between the two, with the average at $3,500 and the median at $2,400. Dining out is more discretionary than groceries, so higher-income families do it more frequently, pushing the average above the midpoint. 

The Federal Reserve’s data showed that discretionary categories such as vacations and dining out had the widest income-driven gaps, while essentials such as groceries varied the least between median and average households.

Median gives fixed-income retirees a more accurate spending benchmark

Retirees drawing on Social Security and savings face a compounding pressure between rising essential costs and flat incomes that the national average obscures. Essential spending for lower-income households rose 14.5% between 2004 and 2024, while incomes grew just 5.5%, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) found.

The mismatch is why the median offers a more grounded reference point for budgets without a paycheck behind them, the NWLC analysis indicated.

Food at home consumes roughly 30% of total nonhousing spending for families in the lowest income brackets, the Federal Reserve’s analysis revealed. 

Courtney Alev, senior director of Product Management at Credit Karma, told AARP that retirees should map every essential cost before building a budget. Americans order food delivery 3.7 times a month on average, spending roughly $1,566 a year.

The median marks the exact center of the spending distribution, where half of households spend more and half spend less, according to the Federal Reserve’s SCF. Retirees who land near that center are tracking with the country’s midpoint.

Related: 5 money moves to make in October before it’s too late

His first move wouldn’t be chasing the next hot investment. He would pay off debt, stock up on everyday essentials, and keep whatever remained in the bank, waiting for a better opportunity.

“First I pay off all my credit card debt and evaluate paying off any other debt I have. What I have left I put in the bank,” Cuban said in a November 2010 Forbes interview.

Then came the unexpected part. Cuban argued that buying everyday products in bulk could deliver a better guaranteed return than almost any conventional investment.

“Saving 30% to 50% buying in bulk — replenishable items from toothpaste to soup, or whatever I use a lot of — is the best guaranteed return on investment you can get anywhere,” he said.

Read more: Kevin O’ Leary calls this ‘the best side hustle there is’ for turning $0 into $10,000 in 30 days

Cuban says the savings come before the speculation

Cuban’s approach starts with reducing financial obligations before looking for ways to grow wealth. Paying off credit card debt can eliminate interest costs that eat into a person’s finances, while reviewing household spending can reveal opportunities to save without taking on investment risk.

The bulk-buying strategy works best for products that won’t go to waste and would have been purchased anyway. A 30% discount on regularly used essentials can reduce future expenses, though the savings depend on the actual price, storage costs, and whether the products get used before they expire.

The potential savings can add up quickly. A household spending $2,000 a year on everyday essentials would save $600 to $1,000 if bulk purchases reduced those costs by the 30% to 50% range Cuban described. That money could stay in the bank rather than go toward future household bills.

Check the price per ounce before buying

Bulk packaging doesn’t automatically mean a better deal. Comparing the unit price, which shows how much a product costs per ounce or another standard measure, can help shoppers figure out whether a larger package actually saves money.

Walmart displays unit prices on many product listings online, making it easier to compare different package sizes. For example, Walmart lists a three-pack of Crest Premium Plus Scope Outlast toothpaste, with 5.2 ounces per tube, for $8.97, or 57.5 cents per ounce.

A 48-pack of Campbell’s Condensed Chicken Noodle Soup is listed at $69.77, or 13.5 cents per ounce. Prices and availability can change. 

The important part is to buy products that will actually get used. Toothpaste is a practical bulk purchase for someone who uses it every day, provided the price per ounce beats the alternatives. Soup makes sense for someone who regularly eats it, but buying dozens of cans that end up sitting untouched in a pantry defeats the purpose.

The same principle applies to other household staples. Buying more only creates value when the lower unit price translates into real savings, rather than extra spending on things that weren’t needed in the first place.

Why Cuban wanted the rest sitting in the bank

After paying off debt and finding savings in his budget, Cuban said he would keep the remaining money accessible rather than rush to invest it.

“Why? Because then it’s available for when I get a good opportunity,” he explained in the Forbes interview.

More Walmart:

• BofA points to crucial Walmart numbers most investors ignore
• Walmart, Costco, and CVS have a new way to bring you back
• Kroger makes a pricing move Costco and Walmart will love

Cuban pointed to the opportunities that can emerge when the economy changes or asset prices fall.

“Every five years or so there is a bubble bursting or amazing deals available because of a change in the economy,” he said.

Holding cash can give investors the flexibility to act when stocks, real estate, or businesses become available at lower prices. It also avoids the need to sell other investments to raise money at an inconvenient time.

But keeping cash on the sidelines has tradeoffs. Money that earns little or no interest can lose purchasing power to inflation, and market declines don’t guarantee that every asset will become a bargain.

Cuban’s comments reflect his own approach to liquidity and opportunity, rather than a strategy that guarantees the same outcome for everyone.

Cash offers Cuban something beyond returns

Cuban also emphasized the peace of mind that comes with having money readily available.

“Cash is king — and works far better than Ambien when you want a good night’s sleep every night,” he said.

His message wasn’t simply to buy toothpaste and soup instead of stocks. It was to get rid of costly debt, cut expenses wherever possible, and preserve enough cash to take advantage of opportunities when they arise.

The advice appeared in Forbes in November 2010, when Cuban was discussing what he would do with $100,000. It offers a snapshot of his thinking at the time, not a current forecast for the stock market or a guarantee that holding cash will outperform investing.

Related: More Cuban:

The annual open enrollment period gives Medicare beneficiaries an opportunity to switch between original Medicare and Medicare Advantage, change Medicare Advantage plans, or join, drop, or switch Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage. In other words, there are lots of options coming up. Here are some things to know about Medicare open enrollment, especially if you’re new to it.

Read: What doctors want you to know before changing Medicare plans during open enrollment

1. Sticking with your current plan isn’t automatically the best choice

You may be inclined to stick to your current Medicare plan if it seems to be serving your needs. But before making that call, do a couple of things. First, review your plan’s annual notice of change. And if you don’t have it or you threw it out accidentally, contact your plan administrator for a copy.

That notice might contain a few surprises — and not the good kind. You may find out your go-to specialists are no longer in your plan’s network, or that your premiums or deductibles may be increasing. Understand what changes you’re looking at for 2027. Next, review your plan choices. Even if your current plan isn’t changing so much for the worse, there may be a better option available for you. It’s worth taking the time to look.

2. Reviewing your prescription list is a must-do

The prescriptions you take will have a huge impact on your overall healthcare costs. And remember, plan formularies can change from year to year, so a medication that came with a minimal copay in 2026 could have a much higher one in 2027.

Make a list of every prescription you take along with your dosages. You can plug that information into Medicare’s plan finder to review different options.

3. Comparing total costs is key

When you look for new Medicare plans, you may be drawn to those with the lowest premiums. And yes, there are some $0 premium Part D and Advantage plans out there.

But a $0 premium doesn’t mean no-cost coverage. You’ll need to compare deductibles, copays, coinsurance, and annual out-of-pocket limits, especially if you expect to use your plan frequently. You may find that a $0 premium plan isn’t the cheapest option when you add up the total out-of-pocket costs.

4. Moving off of Medicare Advantage may be more complicated than you’d think

Medicare Advantage plans commonly offer $0 premiums and added benefits beyond what original Medicare covers. In spite of that, these plans can be a hassle.

It’s common for Medicare Advantage plans to require prior authorization for procedures or diagnostic tests that aren’t routine. That often results in delays in care, time spent chasing down approvals, and in some cases, rejected requests.

If you’re tired of that routine, dumping Medicare Advantage for original Medicare might seem appealing. But before you do, remember that you’ll need to buy a separate Part D drug plan to have prescription coverage under original Medicare. You might also need a Medigap plan, or supplemental insurance, to reduce your total out-of-pocket costs. And that’s where another layer of complication comes in.

While you’re certainly allowed to buy a Medigap plan after switching to original Medicare, you could be denied coverage under certain circumstances. You might also be looking at higher costs than expected. Also know that if you’re switching to original Medicare during open enrollment, you may only have a 63-day window to apply for Medigap after dumping your Medicare Advantage plan. Make sure to get your timing right.

5. Waiting until the last minute won’t serve you well

If you’re a bit of a procrastinator by nature, especially when it comes to financial decisions, you’re not alone. How many of us routinely wait until April 12th or 13th to gather tax documents instead of starting earlier?

But when it comes to Medicare open enrollment, you really don’t want to wait until late November or early December to start reviewing your plan choices. Navigating those options can be complex. And as mentioned above, there could be a lot of number-crunching involved.

Starting the process early gives you a chance to review your coverage options calmly without having to rush. And given that it’s your health and money on the line, that’s an important thing.

This story written for TheStreet by Nifty 50+

The idea is to sell customer acquisition through social media, and it works like a commission deal. Local businesses pay only when a video brings in a real buyer.

“If you know how to shoot and edit video on your phone, you can drive customers to businesses and charge per sale. Most business owners have no clue how to do this. You do,” multimillionaire investor Kevin O’Leary said in a post on X in December 2025.

A short video attached to the post laid out his pitch. “I would offer my services to any business to acquire more customers using social media,” he said.

“Just with your phone, if you know how to edit video, and you know how to post it on social media, you can acquire customers. And I simply say to them, ‘For every customer I acquire for you, pay me $100.’ And that means a buying customer, someone that actually bought product or service.”

He called it “the best side hustle available right now.”

Read more: Warren Buffett explained how he’d turn $10,000 into $30 billion if he were starting over

The $100 math behind the hustle

The model is performance-based rather than a traditional marketing retainer. A creator approaches local businesses, offers to make and post short videos on TikTok, Instagram, or Facebook, and gets paid only when those videos produce paying customers.

At $100 per buying customer, hitting $10,000 takes 100 conversions, or roughly three to four a day for a month. There is no need to build a personal brand or a big following first. The business already has the product, the service, and the reputation. The creator’s job is turning short clips into measurable sales.

O’Leary pointed to a skill gap on the other side of the counter. “You’d be amazed at how many business owners have no idea how to use social media. And if you’ve grown up with a phone in your hand, you do. This is the number one source of income when you’re really looking for something to do to make money. It’s the best side hustle there is, understanding how to make content for social media.”

Why local owners might bite

Plenty of small service businesses still struggle with short-form video, even though their customers spend hours on those platforms. Customer acquisition costs for local services often run past $100. Home service trades such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, plumbing, and roofing frequently see costs in the $150 to $350 range through paid channels.

A pure performance deal at $100 per verified sale can look like a bargain to an owner who pays more for new customers, or pays for ads that do nothing. The owner risks nothing up front and only pays when money comes in the door.

More Personal Finance:

• The tax rules that can quietly ruin your Roth IRA conversion strategy
• Choosing an annuity for retirement rests on hidden features, risks
• One index exposes your bigest retirement fears

Putting it into practice starts with picking the right targets. Businesses with higher ticket sizes, such as home services, specialty retail, local clinics, or tutoring, make $100 a reasonable slice of the first sale. Leading with the pay-per-customer structure takes most of the risk off the owner’s plate.

Tracking keeps both sides honest. Unique promo codes, dedicated booking links, or “mention this video” offers let everyone verify what the videos delivered.

The videos themselves should be short and direct, showing the product or service in action, spotlighting a clear offer and ending with a strong call to action. Consistency matters more than perfect production, and starting with one or two businesses allows time to learn what converts before scaling up.

The fine print on easy money

Results depend heavily on the business, the offer, and how well conversions get tracked. Low-margin products may not support a $100 fee. Some owners will prefer flat retainers, and others will hesitate without proven results.

The skill is common, but turning videos into reliable daily sales still takes testing, iteration, and follow-through.

It is not automatic money. It is, however, one of the lower-overhead routes from phone skills to paid outcomes.

O’Leary’s core point is simple: Skip building an audience for its own sake and solve a clear problem for businesses that already have customers to serve.

For anyone staring at a zero balance and a 30-day clock, the same phone already in their pocket is the only startup cost.

Related: Also read:

Housing prices soared in 2021 and 2022, according to Redfin data. Mortgage rates dropped during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the rush to buy before rates crept back up led to heavy competition among buyers. This competition meant sellers could list their homes for more.

Even after mortgage rates rose and demand settled, many sellers continued to list high asking prices.

Sellers are slowly realizing that it isn’t 2022 anymore. Demand isn’t nearly as strong, so they can’t ask as much for their properties.

Slower home-price growth and declining asking prices could offer some relief to prospective homebuyers. And a Redfin report found that home asking prices have decreased for the first time in seven months. The national median asking price is down 0.3% year over year.

“A 0.3% dip in asking prices isn’t a crash, but it’s a sign sellers are coming to terms with the reality of the market right now,” Redfin Chief Economist Daryl Fairweather told TheStreet.

That 0.3% decrease is one piece in a larger story of what’s happening in the housing market.

Redfin data shows home prices starting to cool

A 0.3% decrease means the seasonally adjusted median asking price was $396,881 for the four-week period ending Oct. 11. This was the first decline since March 2026.

Obviously, homebuyers hope that lower asking prices will lead to lower final sales prices. Home sales prices weren’t down on Oct. 11, but they still hit a crucial point. They increased by just 0.5% year over year to $391,116. This is the slowest home sale price growth since March.

Read more: Redfin predicts major housing market change over the next 5 years as debt-income ratios shift

With asking prices declining and sale-price growth slowing, the housing market is showing some signs of relief for homebuyers.

Price cuts are becoming more common. Redfin found that 22% of sellers with active listings had reduced their asking prices, up from 20.9% a year earlier. It’s also the highest rate of price cuts in Redfin’s records.

Although the average 30-year mortgage rate is currently 7.4%, according to Freddie Mac data, slower price growth and more frequent price cuts could give prospective buyers some relief.

Housing supply reaches 4.2 months as demand weakens

Falling asking prices are one sign that the housing market is cooling. Another is the amount of time it would take to sell the homes currently on the market.

The national housing supply shortage is a major driver of current high home prices. When too few homes are for sale to meet demand, buyers become more competitive, pushing up prices.

Redfin’s methodology explains that a low number of months of supply typically means higher buyer demand or fewer sellers listing their homes. A higher number of months indicates that demand is low relative to the number of homes for sale. The national housing market is considered balanced when supply is 4 to 5 months.

For the period ending Oct. 11, housing supply was at 4.2 months.

More Housing Market:

• Fannie Mae updates its mortgage rate predictions for 2027
• Jeff Bezos has a blunt answer for why housing is so expensive
• Americans are souring on the economy as housing gets harder again

“Months of supply tells you how long it would take to sell every home currently on the market at the current pace of sales,” Fairweather told TheStreet. “At 4.2 months, it would take a little over four months to sell every home. What’s notable is that it’s up from 3.8, and that’s less about a flood of new listings and more about weak demand, since pending sales are down nearly 13% from a year ago.”

Nationally, the housing market is balancing, potentially giving buyers more room to negotiate.

“For buyers, that means more time to make a decision and a better shot at negotiating than when supply was tighter, though conditions still vary a lot from market to market,” Fairweather said.

What Redfin’s data means for homebuyers

• Certain cities are experiencing bigger median sale price decreases than others. Median home sale prices may only be up 0.5% year over year, but that’s on a national level. Trends depend on your specific area. The largest annual sale price decreases are in Seattle (-6.3%), San Jose, Calif. (-4.8%), and Orlando (-3.4%).
• Median sale prices are still spiking in some metro areas. Cities with the highest year-over-year median sale price spikes are San Francisco (18.1%), Detroit (9.4%), and West Palm Beach, Fla. (7.8%).
• If you can comfortably afford a home now, you may have room to negotiate. “With mortgage rates near 7.4% and other homeownership costs on the rise, monthly payments are simply higher than many buyers can afford right now,” Fairweather said. “That gives buyers who can comfortably afford to buy more leverage heading into the end of the year, whether that means negotiating on price, asking for help with closing costs or getting other concessions.”
• But keep your expectations realistic. Fairweather told TheStreet that buyers shouldn’t necessarily expect “dramatic discounts.” If a house is priced fairly, it will still drum up home-buyer competition.
  • Source: Redfin Housing Market Update

Related: Zillow finds 34% of buyers cry during home-buying process

That gap between wealth and liquidity is easy to overlook when investments are performing well. It becomes harder to ignore when an investor faces a major financial decision, whether that means funding a new venture, meeting a tax bill or dividing assets during a divorce.

For executives and private equity professionals, the challenge is not simply how much they own. It is how much of that wealth they can access, when they can access it and what obligations might come with it.

Also read: Maximize Social Security survivor benefits by avoiding common traps

The value on paper is only part of the story

Unlike publicly traded stocks, private equity interests do not come with a market price that changes throughout the trading day. Their valuations can depend on the performance of the underlying business, the assumptions used by the fund, or the timing of a potential sale.

Even when a valuation is credible, it does not necessarily mean an investor could sell the interest for that amount today. Private investments are often designed to be held for years, and investors may have limited opportunities to exit before a fund or company completes a sale.

Compensation can add another layer of uncertainty. Private equity professionals may receive carried interest, which gives them a share of investment profits when specified conditions are met. The potential payout can be significant, but it depends on the fund’s performance and the terms of the arrangement.

This is why a person’s net worth can tell an incomplete story. Someone may have substantial wealth tied up in investments but relatively little cash available to cover immediate expenses or unexpected obligations.

When dividing a fortune gets complicated

The distinction becomes particularly important when a relationship ends and a couple has to account for investments that cannot easily be sold or transferred. A private equity stake cannot always be divided in the same way as a cash account, and the fund’s governing documents may restrict who can own an interest.

Eric J. Broder, a Connecticut-based family law attorney who works with high-net-worth clients, said in an interview with TheStreet that private equity investments can make divorce proceedings more complicated and complex due to the difficulty in valuing a party’s interest.

“Resolving divorce cases involving private equity often requires the parties being more creative and willing to consider a variety of outcomes due to the lack of liquidity, predictability and future commitments such as capital calls,” Broder said.

The challenge extends beyond establishing a valuation. A fund or private company may not permit an investor to transfer part of an ownership stake to a former spouse, even when a settlement requires the investment’s economic value to be shared. Broder said, “In those circumstances, an agreement usually requires a party to hold the investment in a constructive trust with annual reporting requirements to ensure that the recipient is paid the appropriate amount. That arrangement necessitates clear terms covering how the payments are calculated, what documentation must be shared, and how taxes and expenses are deducted. Unfortunately, the parties are still linked together in the future in a manner more complex than alimony or child support.”

Without adequate disclosure, the recipient may struggle to verify whether the payments accurately reflect the investment’s performance.

The timing of those payments matters, too. An investment may take years to generate meaningful proceeds, leaving someone with an agreed financial entitlement but no immediate cash. That is a very different proposition from receiving a fixed sum at the time a settlement is reached.

The fine print can carry a financial burden

Future obligations can complicate matters further. Private equity investors sometimes commit a total amount to a fund but contribute the money over time when the fund requests it through capital calls.

Consider an investor who commits $1 million but has contributed only $800,000. A later capital call could require the remaining $200,000. Any agreement that accounts only for the amount already invested risks overlooking a substantial future obligation.

Distributions can also come with strings attached. Under certain fund arrangements, investors may be required to return money that was previously paid out if the fund later determines that a distribution exceeded what was ultimately due.

More Personal finance:

• Pay raises trail inflation so Ramit Sethi says, “Ask for $5,000”
• Your home insurance deductible could be $20,000. Would you be ready?
• Why your next car purchase will be an affordability nightmare

These provisions can make an investment’s true value harder to assess. A large distribution may look like a windfall until the investor considers the possibility of a repayment obligation. Similarly, an asset’s estimated value may look attractive until outstanding commitments are factored in.

For anyone assessing a private equity portfolio, the headline valuation is only one part of the calculation. Outstanding commitments, possible repayments, taxes and the timing of distributions can all affect how much economic value an investor ultimately retains.

A fortune needs a plan, not just a valuation

The same issues matter beyond divorce. An executive preparing to leave a company, an investor planning for retirement or a founder considering a new venture may discover that valuable private holdings are less flexible than cash or publicly traded shares.

Understanding the terms before a major decision becomes urgent can help investors avoid unpleasant surprises. They need to know whether their interests can be transferred, when they can expect distributions and whether they could be asked to contribute more money. They also need to consider how private investments fit into their wider financial position, particularly if they have substantial wealth concentrated in a small number of assets.

Some investors assume that illiquid private equity holdings can be kept out of a divorce settlement. That assumption does not always hold. A post-nuptial agreement can offer some protection, but negotiating and enforcing one introduces a separate set of legal and financial considerations.

The point is that one agreement cannot solve every problem. Rather, ownership arrangements and legal agreements need to be considered alongside the financial realities of an investment. An attorney can help assess contractual and ownership restrictions, while an accountant or financial adviser can examine tax consequences, cash flow and future funding obligations.

Private equity can create considerable wealth, but it does not eliminate the practical limits of owning assets that are difficult to sell. For investors, understanding a fortune means looking beyond its estimated value to the conditions attached to it, the cash it can generate and the obligations that may follow.

Related: Social Security spousal benefits could be headed for overdue increase

Read: 2027 Social Security COLA is out; it’s big but is it big enough?

Halloween Edges Out Thanksgiving for Fall Festivities

Nearly three-quarters (74%) of Americans will be celebrating the holiday this year, according to NRF data. A separate poll from CIT Bank in conjunction with Researchscape International revealed that 54% of Americans plan to spend $200 or more on Halloween, versus 39% who said they expect to spend that much on Thanksgiving. 

The CIT Bank survey revealed similar findings: 

• 38% plan to spend $300+ on Halloween
• 19% plan to spend $300+ on Thanksgiving

Gen Z and millennials lead the charge, with the younger demographics spending $270 and $308, respectively, compared to an average spend of $210 across all adult age groups. 

Americans Embrace Their Penchant for Sweets and Showing Off on Social Media

The most popular spending category, once again this year, is candy, according to NRF data. A whopping 96% of consumers said they plan to buy candy, for a total spend of $4.1 billion. Consumers plan to sink even more money into decorations, with just 78% of respondents forecasted to spend a total of $4.3 billion.

Costumes are also a big investment this year, with 71% of shoppers expected to spend $4.4 billion, according to NRF data.

The CIT Bank survey supports these findings. In spite of persistent inflation, high gas prices, and economic pressure, 23% of those polled said they plan to spend $200 or more on costumes for their families, while only 4% said they’d spend that much on themselves. Gen Z, the youngest of those surveyed, were more likely to say they’d spend money on a costume for themselves (71% compared to 53% across all generations). 

Social media is driving the younger generations’ desire to stand out. More than half (52%) of Gen Z and millennials said they’d pay more for a costume to drive social media engagement, compared to 38% of respondents overall. 

People also aren’t leaving their pets out of the holiday fun. More than one quarter (26%) said they’d spend $40 or more on pet costumes. 

‘Summer-ween’ Is Real

To deal with budget pressures, people are planning ahead for the holiday. Forty-two percent of Americans started shopping for Halloween in September, with 19% starting even earlier, according to CIT Bank. 

If you haven’t already started saving, shopping, or decorating for Halloween, it’s not too late to do it on a budget. Don’t worry: With these frugal tips, you won’t have to resort to handing out raisins to trick-or-treaters.

Buy candy in bulk

A majority (71%) of shoppers said they’ll purchase candy in bulk this year to save money, according to CIT Bank. Saving money means you can share the good stuff. If you see full-size chocolate bars for just over $1 per bar, grab them. If you want to splurge on other sweet treats, wholesale club BJ’s has 40-count buckets of Ring Pops (a nostalgic favorite) for less than $16. Walmart offers giant bags of fun-size chocolates for just $10, but you can save even more per pound buying the $25 bag.

Shop at a dollar store

If you decide to forego the warehouse club and buy your candy from a dollar store or other discount retailer, you’re not alone. According to CIT Bank, 62% of consumers plan to shop at a dollar store for their Halloween needs this year. That’s up from 49% in 2025. 

Spend less on costumes

Even if you’re like the younger generations and looking for a click-worthy costume this year, you can save money. Re-use a costume from your pre-Insta era or swap with friends. Or consider getting crafty; 30% of CIT Bank poll respondents said they’re making their costume this year.

Also check your local buy/sell/trade groups on Facebook for people giving away costumes or selling them cheap. If you’re tasked with finding a costume for a child or grandchild, these groups are also a great resource. 

Make your own decorations

If you’re like many of the over-50 crowd, you already have a basement, attic, garage or shed stuffed with decorations for every season. But if you want a few fresh pieces, consider making them yourself to save money.

Wreaths, jack-o-lanterns, and tiny floating ghosts made from white napkins and fishing line or ribbon all make cute and classy decorations. You can also fill mason jars with inexpensive, battery-operated LED fairy lights and wrap gauze around the jars to light a path for trick-or-treaters.

If you have access to a 3D printer, you can design and print your own plastic decorations to use year-after-year, potentially for less than you can purchase Halloween decor in stores. 

Look for Items You Can Reuse

Value and versatility seem to be the keywords going into this holiday season, which kicks off with Halloween. More than one-third (34%) of shoppers said they plan to look for items they can reuse in the future or even reuse for other holidays or keep out all year long, according to NRF data. 

Harvest decorations, ceramic pumpkins, and fall flowers can easily make the transition from Halloween to Thanksgiving. 

You can also turn to AI for suggestions on how to plan, design, and repurpose your decor. Roughly one-third of consumers are using AI to brainstorm ideas (34%) or get recommendations while they’re researching Halloween products (32%), according to the NRF survey. 

This story written for TheStreet by Nifty 50+

Jim Guarino, a managing director with Baker Newman Noyes in Woburn, Massachusetts, and a member of the American Institute of CPAs’ PFP Champions Task Force, said retirees should weigh savings on income, sales and estate taxes against property taxes, winter expenses and transportation needs.

Guarino also discussed the state’s elimination of its interest and dividends tax in 2025 and why access to medical care belongs in the same conversation as taxes. Below is a transcript of the interview with Jim Guarino, edited for brevity and clarity.

What makes New Hampshire attractive for retirement taxes?

Bob Powell, CFP, RMA: Let’s begin with income. What should retirees know?

Jim Guarino: There are some very compelling tax reasons to consider New Hampshire for retirement. People think of New Hampshire as being a no-tax state in terms of income taxes, sales taxes and estate taxes.

For a retiree, that’s going to include IRA distributions, required minimum distributions, pensions and, if you happen to be working part time, your earned income as well. There’s no income tax on those forms of retirement income. Social Security falls into that category as well.

Also read: Heating oil prices will break the bank in the Northeast this winter

The other attractive feature that folks may not pay as much attention to is that there’s no sales tax on retail goods, food and clothing. When you think about your daily outlay of expenses, there’s not that additional sales tax added to your cost of living for consumables.

For folks who have a considerable estate, New Hampshire does not have an estate or inheritance tax at the state level.

I was joking with one of my colleagues that New Hampshire’s state motto is “Live Free or Die.” You could almost say, “Live almost tax free and retire.”

How can property taxes offset those savings?

Powell: Somewhere along the line, there has to be a gotcha.

Guarino: Absolutely. Here’s the offset to all the good news: New Hampshire has to generate revenue, and the way New Hampshire does it is in the form of real estate taxes.

It varies by community. It’s important for individuals to research the specific town they’re looking to move to. They need to know the tax rate that community assesses and how the valuation of the home is computed.

Those two factors could add to the cost of real estate taxes. All of those great tax savings we talked about can be somewhat offset by a higher-than-average real estate tax bill. If you’re looking at it from a pure tax perspective, you have to crunch those numbers and see where things fall out.

What should retirees with businesses consider?

Powell: We often tell people in this series to look at the total tax burden, not just one particular tax as a reason to move or stay. What about people who retire with a business in New Hampshire?

Guarino: That was one other tax that could potentially come into play. New Hampshire has two types of business taxes, depending upon filing thresholds: a business profits tax, which we call BPT, and a business enterprise tax.

There are thresholds that will require a tax filing if you’re running a business in New Hampshire. You need to be aware of what those thresholds are. Even in retirement, if you’re doing something generating that level of income, you have to be aware that there could be an additional tax.

What everyday costs belong in the retirement budget?

Powell: Walk us through what daily life in New Hampshire might cost someone. There are factors outside property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes that we need to consider, right?

Guarino: This is where the financial planner comes into play alongside the tax adviser. We can crunch the numbers and weigh the pros and cons, but the reality, especially for retirees, is: What’s my day-to-day going to look like?

Think about the climate and the additional heating costs that may be incurred for a colder or longer winter than in other states. Snow removal, roof raking, all of those things factor into additional out-of-pocket costs.

You look at the positive and say, “I’m saving this much money in terms of taxes.” But you also have to look at how much additional expense you’re incurring by living here.

In Massachusetts, where we’re located, public transportation is pretty abundant. Outside the metropolitan areas of New Hampshire, you may have less accessibility and additional costs. Those factors need to be contemplated before making a move.

On one side, you’ve got tremendous tax savings. On the other side, you’ve got perhaps higher day-to-day costs that you’re going to incur.

How did investment income taxation change in 2025?

Guarino: One other thought from an investment standpoint ties into tax reporting. New Hampshire no longer has an interest and dividends tax.

Prior to 2025, even retirees with significant interest and dividend income from their portfolios had a tax assessed on that income. As of 2025, that no longer exists.

For a retiree who may have a portion of their portfolio invested in bonds, those of us in a state that taxes income look at our own state’s municipal bonds. The majority of that interest income is going to be tax-free not only at the federal level, but at the state level.

For us in Massachusetts, we’d be looking at Massachusetts municipal bonds because that interest income would be tax-free at both levels. Municipal bond income from other states, even though it’s tax-free at the federal level, would be subject to tax in Massachusetts.

If you’re a New Hampshire resident, that’s a nonfactor. It opens up the window for you and your investment manager to evaluate municipal bonds throughout the country. You don’t care if they’re from New Hampshire or another state, because you don’t have that state-level tax to worry about.

Why might personal priorities outweigh tax savings?

Powell: I know plenty of people in Massachusetts who have moved to New Hampshire for the reasons you’ve outlined, despite the property taxes and other costs. You’re a Massachusetts resident. Do you have designs on moving to New Hampshire when you retire?

Guarino: Despite the income tax consequences of being in Massachusetts, there are so many other factors that keep me grounded here, and I think many others as well.

We didn’t get into the details on the nontax reasons to select a retirement state. New Hampshire offers so much to its residents, especially if they’re looking for a slower, quieter pace of life. If they’re in tune with Mother Nature, there are abundant mountains, lakes and ponds. The fall foliage this time of year is fantastic.

As retirees, and as we age, we need to think about transportation, access to hospitals and medical care, and conveniences we may need more now than when we were more agile.

There are so many factors that go into deciding where to retire. That’s where having advisers provide a pro-and-con list helps you weigh what’s most important to you. It’s not always going to be just about the income taxes.

Related: Medicare Advantage pullout: 193 counties left with zero drug plans for 2027

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) warned that these impersonation schemes intensify every year during the enrollment window, which runs through December 7, 2026. Once scammers obtain a Medicare number, they can bill the program for services the beneficiary never received and commit identity theft.

This comes amid a growing wave of impersonation fraud, which has cost Americans billions of dollars in recent years.

Older adults on fixed-income retirement plans are especially vulnerable because they often cannot recover the savings they lose to these schemes, according to the FTC June 2026 release.

Also read: Retirees have just 24 hours between two big 2027 dates

Three scripts Medicare scam callers use to steal your number

Fraudulent Medicare calls follow predictable scripts built around urgency, confusion, or free benefit offers, the FTC explained.

Common Medicare scam tactics to recognize

• The card replacement pitch: Callers claim Medicare is issuing updated cards and ask beneficiaries to confirm their number or banking details to receive one. Real Medicare cards are free and automatically arrive by mail, with no action required from the beneficiary, the FTC confirmed.
• The free genetic test offer: Scammers promise free genetic testing or equipment for a Medicare number, then bill the program for unrequested items. The beneficiary could owe the full cost if Medicare denies the claim, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General warned.
• The benefits cancellation threat: Callers will warn that coverage will be suspended unless the beneficiary immediately verifies their Social Security number over the phone. Medicare will only request that beneficiaries verify their personal details when they initiate contact themselves, Medicare.gov stated.

Spoofed caller ID amplifies these scams by displaying Medicare’s name on the beneficiary’s phone before the call connects.

Rose Morales, a Senior Medicare Patrol Investigative Case Manager at California Health Advocates, told AARP that any caller requesting personal information raises a red flag.

Why enrollment season is the peak window for Medicare fraud calls

The annual Open Enrollment period creates favorable conditions for fraud because legitimate insurers and Medicare Advantage plans also contact beneficiaries during these weeks.

The overlap between real outreach and fraudulent calls makes it harder for retirees to distinguish one from the other, the FTC warned.

Scammers exploit the December 7 enrollment deadline to pressure beneficiaries into making hasty decisions about their coverage. Legitimate plan notices about coverage changes arrive around the same time, so an unexpected message about benefits does not immediately feel suspicious.

More Medicare/Medicaid:

• 20 million Medicare beneficiaries may get a one-time $90 payment
• Retirees may be ignoring a Medicare blind spot before 2027
• Medicare shoppers face a hidden Al problem this open enrollment

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) regulations under 42 CFR §422.2263(a) and §423.2263(a) bar Medicare Advantage and Part D drug plans from marketing 2027 coverage before October 1.

Plans generally cannot cold-call beneficiaries unless the person has given prior consent or is already enrolled in their program.

Nomorobo estimated that Medicare impersonation scam calls reached 7.6 million Americans in May 2026 alone, months before enrollment officially began. The scale of that early activity means enrollment season arrives with an already massive wave of fraudulent calls targeting the program’s beneficiaries.

FTC imposter fraud data reveals a $3.5 billion problem

The financial toll from impersonation fraud has reached levels that federal regulators now consider a direct threat to public benefit programs, including Medicare. Americans reported losing $3.5 billion to imposter scams in 2025, nearly tripling losses since 2020, the FTC reported.

Nearly one in three fraud reports the agency received that year involved some form of impersonation, the most common type of fraud. Losses to government impersonators, the fraud category that includes Medicare scams, climbed to roughly $920 million from $789 million the prior year.

Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the FTC, emphasized that the agency views impersonation fraud as a fundamental threat to consumer welfare and to the functioning of competitive markets.

<strong>The FTC will use every tool available to combat one of the most pernicious forms of fraud, government and business impersonation, and to protect the integrity of the digital economy,</strong>

The agency has brought a dozen enforcement actions under its 2024 Impersonation Rule and obtained over $70 million in consumer restitution.

Those enforcement cases have targeted operators running health insurance impersonation schemes alongside fake tax-relief services and phantom debt-collection operations.

How to verify a suspicious Medicare call during Open Enrollment

The FTC has outlined specific steps for beneficiaries who receive an unexpected call claiming to represent Medicare or a health plan. Each step is designed to break the scammer’s script before personal information or Medicare numbers is shared.

Beneficiaries who receive a call requesting their Medicare or Social Security number should hang up and dial 1-800-MEDICARE directly, according to Medicare.gov. Those who have already shared personal details on a suspicious call should use that same hotline to report the exposure.

Those comparing plan options should contact their State Health Insurance Assistance Program for free and unbiased counseling. 

The Senior Medicare Patrol also offers free local help detecting Medicare fraud, and suspected scams can be reported at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Filing a report at that site helps investigators trace the callers even when no money was lost in the exchange, the FTC added.

Schwab recommends reviewing Medicare summary notices in the weeks after a suspicious call as the fastest way to spot fraudulent billing.

Related: House fires back $2.4 billion senior fraud wave

Apparently, I am nowhere near the only homebuyer to get emotional.

Thirty-four percent of homebuyers cried when buying a home, according to the Zillow 2026 Consumer Housing Trends Report.

Of the 144,000 Americans surveyed between March and July 2026, 25% of repeat buyers and 44% of first-time buyers cried at some point during the home-buying process.

The financial uncertainty surrounding a home purchase can make an already emotional experience even more stressful. From gathering mortgage documents to facing unexpected closing costs, buyers often have to navigate expenses and decisions they may not fully understand.

Read more: Americans are souring on the economy as housing gets harder again

Financial pressures add to the stress of buying a home

Zillow reported that three in four homebuyers used a mortgage loan to buy a house.

Getting a mortgage can be just as stressful as finding a home and making an offer, if not more so, because it can stretch across the entire buying process. Many people get pre-approved for a mortgage before even choosing a property, and you don’t receive the keys to your new place until you close on the mortgage.

“Buyers tell me the most stressful part about the mortgage loan application process is finding all the necessary financial information to share with the lender,” Corey Burr, senior vice president at TTR Sotheby’s International Realty, told TheStreet. “Once a buyer thinks all information has been provided, the lender often asks for even more information.”

“Additionally, waiting for the final approval seems to take a long time, and that one decision can change the trajectory of a borrower’s life, in many cases, so it’s no wonder applicants stress about it,” Burr continued.

There’s also the worry that something could go wrong with the appraisal or inspection. If so, the buyer could end up spending even more money.

“A borrower believes firmly that a fair price was paid for the property, and the thought that an appraiser has the power to blow up a deal because a seemingly arbitrary and inexact process might result in a low appraisal is not comforting,” Burr said.

Why buying a home can be more emotional for first-time buyers

The Zillow report found that more first-time homebuyers (44%) cried during the home-buying process than repeat buyers (25%).

It makes sense. Buying a house can be stressful for anyone, but if you’ve never gone through the process and don’t fully know what to expect, it can be even more overwhelming.

First-time buyers are navigating an unfamiliar process while making one of the biggest financial decisions of their lives. The Zillow report suggests they may also face more moving parts along the way.

Zillow found that first-time homebuyers were more likely to submit offers on two homes than repeat buyers (32% versus 28%). Going through this process once, let alone twice, can be draining.

More Housing Market:

• Fannie Mae updates its mortgage rate predictions for 2027
• Jeff Bezos has a blunt answer for why housing is so expensive
• Jean Chatzky has fresh perspective on 5-year rule for homebuyers

The report also revealed that first-time buyers were more likely to contact two or more real estate agents than repeat buyers (54% versus 40%). Repeat buyers may have a pre-established relationship with a Realtor, but first-timers are starting from scratch.

“Buying a house is a very intricate process that requires a Dream Team of experts to execute on behalf of a buyer,” Burr told TheStreet. “A real estate agent, lender, inspectors, insurance agent and settlement company typically make up the team, and it’s difficult for a first-time buyer to ascertain the responsibilities of the parties and the process of the transaction.”

Knowing what to expect can reduce home-buying stress

Whether you’re a repeat or first-time buyer, the key to a less stressful home-buying experience is knowing what to expect.

“Almost all buyers (91%) said that they did not fully expect to pay at least one cost or fee, out of the five we asked about,” Zillow wrote in the report. “The most common unexpected fee was a loan origination fee (66%).”

Zillow asked participants about the loan origination fee, appraisal costs, title transfer taxes, title insurance/title search fee, and closing costs. First-time homebuyers were drastically less likely to expect any of these five fees.

About two in five homebuyers also reported that their closing costs were higher than anticipated. Again, first-time buyers were much more likely to be surprised by closing fees than repeat buyers (51% versus 37%).

Communicating with your real estate agent and mortgage lender is crucial. By discussing the commission with your real estate agent and fees with your lender up front, you can better prepare for the costs ahead.

Buying a home will still be stressful. But when you know what to expect — especially financially — the element of surprise is stripped away. And that gives you more emotional space to enjoy shopping for your new home.

Related: Redfin predicts major housing market change over the next five years as debt-income ratios shift

That’s why the idea of an AI assistant handling my financial chores sounds appealing. It could spot forgotten subscriptions, catch unusual expenses, and remind me before a bill is due. Maybe it could even move spare cash into an account earning stronger returns.

However, there’s also the uncomfortable part. To do all that, how much control would I have to give it?

What happens if the software misunderstands an instruction, gets fooled by a scammer, or transfers money without checking first?

JPMorgan Chase CEO (JPM) Jamie Dimon recently raised those concerns, warning that autonomous AI agents with access to banking credentials might not act as customers expect.

Banks are already grappling with how to permit useful AI tools while blocking unauthorized ones. And for anyone with money in the bank, that’s a big dilemma.

Jamie Dimon warns AI payment agents could put bank accounts at risk

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon sees an uncomfortable problem with letting AI handle your money, as reported by Business Insider.

An assistant can’t make payments on your behalf without some level of access to your accounts. Speaking at the Economic Club of Chicago on Oct. 14, Dimon warned about agents that operate independently and could misuse that access.

“That means they are in your bank and you’re assuming they’re going to act properly on your behalf and they may not.”

More JPMorgan:

• JPMorgan just put a different spin on the stock market selloff
• JPMorgan reveals stocks worth buying in October 2026
• JPMorgan sends a strong message to Mag-7 stock investors

It’s easy to see the attraction. 

An AI agent could track subscriptions, remind you about bills or compare savings-account rates, as I mentioned earlier. Unlike a chatbot that just answers questions, an agent can use software tools to complete tasks.

Give it permission to move money, though, and a helpful shortcut becomes a serious responsibility. Bank-approved connections can offer narrower permissions without requiring customers to surrender passwords.

Dimon had raised the issue a day earlier on JPMorgan’s Q3 earnings call, warning that banks don’t want “rogue agents” operating in customers’ accounts. He also flagged the possibility of shifting liability when customers hand control to third-party software.

That said, it doesn’t mean the bank is banning AI. In fact, Dimon said the bank uses agents internally and is developing tools for customers. However, unrestricted access by unauthorized outside agents using customers’ credentials is big no-no.

And this isn’t just JPMorgan’s concern.

On Charles Schwab’s Oct. 15 earnings call, CEO Rick Wurster said the brokerage is blocking unauthorized agents attempting to log in for customers.

At the same time, Schwab is developing its own assistant, Charley, and exploring secure connections that limit sensitive actions, including moving money.

However, that begs the question: What happens when an agent misunderstands your instructions, encounters a fraudulent request, or acts before you approve a payment?

Hugging Face breach reveals why AI agents need financial guardrails

Perhaps the biggest tech story of late has been the “Hugging Face incident.”

The July cybersecurity incident showed what could happened when powerful agents stop following the boundaries of their assigned tasks.

During OpenAI’s internal security evaluations, experimental agents were supposed to work inside restricted environments. Instead, they found ways to reach the internet, exchange messages, and share techniques for exploiting other systems. That cooperation led them into Hugging Face’s infrastructure.

According to OpenAI’s August investigation, agents executed code on dozens of servers, obtained credentials and limited private data, and gained full administrator access to one server.

That’s a massive error, and that’s exactly why Dimon’s concern deserves attention. An assistant might have more permissions than it needs. It might follow instructions planted in a fraudulent email. Or it might execute a payment differently from what its owner intended.

Imagine authorizing an agent to transfer $500, only to discover that it sent $5,000. In such cases, sorting out responsibility could become complicated.

Federal Regulation E generally protects consumers against qualifying unauthorized electronic transfers. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau says stolen credentials used by a hacker can still trigger those protections.

Deliberately authorizing a third-party agent to make payments, however, raises harder questions about which actions fall within that authorization.

Consumers seem wary of handing over the keys. Ping Identity’s 2026 global survey found that 42% would limit an AI agent to spending $100 or less, while 22% wouldn’t authorize any spending.

For banks, there’s another caveat: An assistant that safely compares savings rates could also make it much easier for customers to move their money elsewhere.

JPMorgan and Schwab face an AI dilemma that could reshape bank profits

Consider $25,000 in savings. At 0.38% annual percentage yield, that earns about $95 a year. At 4.02%, it earns roughly $1,005. My calculation puts the difference near $910, assuming rates don’t change.

That’s helpful for households, but for banks including JPMorgan Chase, Charles Schwab, BofA, and Citigroup, the same behavior could mean more deposits leaving or higher interest payments to keep customers.

Small rate changes add up.

On a hypothetical $1 trillion deposit base, paying an extra 0.25 percentage point would increase annual interest expense by $2.5 billion, before any offsetting benefits. 

Still, Wells Fargo CEO Charlie Scharf has questioned whether AI will trigger widespread deposit switching, according to Barron’s.

People already have rate-comparison tools, and I feel the likely answer isn’t banning AI from banking. It’s giving authorized agents read-only access where appropriate, spending limits, extra authentication, and human approval for transfers.

For investors, I’d watch which banks allow approved connections, whether deposit rates become more competitive, cybersecurity spending, and how regulators handle disputed AI-initiated payments.

AI may get good at managing our money. The harder question is how much control we’re willing to hand over.

Related: Bank of America sees another interest-rate surprise

He responded to a father whose college-age son placed bets on sportsbooks while building an investment portfolio.

Ramsey identified Flutter Entertainment, the parent company of FanDuel, and DraftKings as the two biggest online sportsbook operators in America. He called FanDuel “a portal to hell” and said online sports gambling was destroying young men faster than anything he had witnessed.

The father also suggested redirecting his son’s appetite for risk toward short-term stock trading, but Ramsey rejected that alternative as well.

Households that bet online had 41% less money in their bank accounts than those that did not, according to data from the Bank of America Institute.

Also Read: Sports betting reality bites for Gen Z, Millennials

Gen Z leads the surge into online sportsbook apps

A Betterment Retail Investor Survey of 1,000 investors showed that more than half of Gen Z investors (52%) redirected money set aside for investing into sports betting in the past year. Of that survey group, 14% said they made the switch from investment accounts to sportsbook deposits more than once per month.

Gen Z and Millennials accounted for 88% of all online betting activity during July 2026. First-time users in June and July 2026 surged to triple the January 2026 level, and Gen Z alone accounted for 48% of all bettors, the Bank of America Institute found.

Bettors across every generation recovered less than 75 cents for every dollar sent to online betting platforms each month during 2026. Two in five Gen Z adults view sports betting as a legitimate form of investment, double the rate among the general population.

Even Gen Z, which performed best among all age groups, recovered just over 80 cents on the dollar, still well short of breaking even. Overall credit delinquencies among sports bettors under 40 jumped roughly 10 percentage points following legalization, according to a Federal Reserve Bank of New York study.

FanDuel and DraftKings pour bettors’ losses into marketing

Ramsey offered a blunt summary of how sportsbook operators fund their advertising budgets during the segment with the concerned father who called in.

He told the caller that bettors simply do not win, which is why these companies can afford to purchase so many television and digital ads.

More Dave Ramsey:

• Dave Ramsey warns American workers on 401(k)s, IRAs, Social Security
• Dave Ramsey warns Americans on 401(k) plans
• Dave Ramsey says this insurance product is horrendous for families

DraftKings posted a 4.6% decline in second-quarter revenue to $1.44 billion and a $67.6 million net loss, its Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 10-Q filing showed. The sport’s net revenue margin shrank from 8.7% to 6.8% as sales and marketing spending climbed to $322.5 million from $233.2 million that quarter.

Flutter Entertainment, FanDuel’s parent company, posted a 15% decline in United States sportsbook revenue and a 70% drop in U.S. adjusted EBITDA to $119 million, its Q2 2026 Form 8-K showed. 

FanDuel plans an additional second-half investment to strengthen its proposition and accelerate sportsbook momentum, reducing adjusted EBITDA by approximately $270 million.

DraftKings shares sat near $19.85, down 42.4% on the year, while Flutter traded at $77.80, off 63.82% since January 2026.

Every dollar lost to a sportsbook forfeits decades of compound growth

Money that flows into a sportsbook can never earn dividends, grow through compound interest, or accumulate in a tax-advantaged retirement account. Gambling winnings do not count toward the earnings history that the Social Security Administration uses to calculate retirement benefits, Newsweek reported.

A worker earning $100,000 in traditional salary could increase monthly Social Security benefits by roughly $36 to $76, depending on the earnings record. That same amount won through sports betting would add nothing to the benefit calculation, leaving a retirement gap that widens annually.

Michael Ryan, founder of MichaelRyanMoney.com, in an interview with Newsweek described the compounding cost of those redirected dollars.

<strong>What worries me is what the betting money replaced. If it was money that would have gone into a Roth IRA, 401(k), brokerage account, or even an emergency fund, the loss isn’t just today’s bet. It’s potentially 30 or 40 years of compounding that never happens</strong>.

Ryan’s concern falls most squarely on Gen Z, the generation with the longest compounding horizon and the highest share of online betting activity.

Related: Dave Ramsey’s net worth: The retirement expert’s wealth in 2026

Warn young sportsbook bettors now

Among Millennials in the Betterment survey, 31% shifted money into sportsbook accounts, compared with 10% of Generation X and 4% of baby boomers. 

Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor at the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek that academic research is already connecting expanded online betting with lower investment and greater debt among younger adults.

Ramsey made the same connection on his show in more direct terms. He said an unprecedented number of people are coming into Ramsey Solutions’ financial counseling offices after their lives have been destroyed by sportsbook apps.

He described clients who have lost their marriages and gone bankrupt, while the broader culture continues to treat sports betting as harmless entertainment.

He compared online sports gambling’s pull to cocaine and fentanyl, warning the caller that a college student placing bets is creating habit patterns and neural pathways in his brain that could take a decade to undo.

His message to the father and every parent listening was unequivocal: “It’s not conducive to building wealth. It’s not conducive to building a high-quality life.”

Related: Edward Jones warns that Gen Z faces a serious savings gap

The 72 million Americans receiving Social Security will see the higher amount starting January 2027. Several million Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries get their increase a few days earlier. Their payments go up Dec. 31, 2026.

The 2027 COLA is larger than last year’s. It remains well below the 8.7% adjustment issued in 2023, when inflation hit its highest level in more than 40 years and drove the biggest Social Security increase since 1981.

Also read: New Social Security bill seeks to lower retirement age

What the Social Security increase means for monthly payments

The 3.6% COLA applies to both Social Security and SSI benefits. Commissioner Frank Bisignano said the adjustment will give greater financial stability to 76 million Americans. The SSI-only beneficiary population accounts for the gap between that figure and the 72 million Social Security recipients.

The 3.6% increase translates to roughly $72 more per month for a beneficiary currently collecting $2,000. The net check amount will depend on Medicare premium adjustments.

Medicare Part B premiums are projected at $209.50 per month in 2027, up from the current $202.90. Most enrollees have premiums deducted directly from their Social Security payments, leaving a net deposit smaller than the gross COLA percentage implies. Beneficiaries paying IRMAA surcharges carry Part B deductions and income-based surcharges simultaneously, leaving a deposit that can fall well below what the 3.6% headline suggests.

Why the 2027 COLA is higher than last year

The COLA is calculated using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, known as the CPI-W. The Social Security Administration compares the average CPI-W from the third quarter of the prior year with the average from the third quarter of the current year.

Bureau of Labor Statistics data show the CPI-W climbed 3.9% over the 12 months through September, with gasoline prices among the main contributors to that gain.

The 3.6% COLA lands slightly below the 3.9% CPI-W figure. Comparing quarterly averages rather than a single month’s reading produces a final number that does not precisely match the most recent annual inflation figure.

How Medicare premiums reduce the net increase

What the SSA announces as the COLA and what beneficiaries see in their monthly checks are two different numbers. Medicare Part B premiums are deducted directly from Social Security payments. Part D prescription drug premiums can also reduce the monthly deposit.

Higher-income beneficiaries face additional charges through the income-related monthly adjustment amount, known as IRMAA. Those surcharges are based on income reported two years prior. For beneficiaries subject to IRMAA, the net gain from a 3.6% COLA can shrink considerably.

Beneficiaries who plan around the headline percentage may get a surprise in January. The Social Security Administration will send personalized COLA notices in December. Those enrolled in paperless delivery can access their notice through a My Social Security account starting in late November.

Why many retirees say 3.6% COLA is not enough

AARP data show that about 40% of Social Security beneficiaries age 65 and older rely on the program for at least half of their income.

Much of that population has little room to absorb shortfalls when the COLA does not keep up with actual spending. Healthcare costs in particular have outpaced the CPI-W measure the adjustment is based on.

More Social Security:

• Social Security’s next COLA could erode on arrival
• Social Security’s estimator makes one costly assumption
• Social Security’s biggest check locks out most retirees

An AARP survey found that 76% of respondents said a 3.5% COLA would not be enough to cover rising expenses. AARP CEO Myechia Minter-Jordan said the adjustment is critically important for older Americans dealing with higher costs for groceries, routine bills, and healthcare.

The CPI-W tracks the spending patterns of urban wage earners, a group whose healthcare and housing costs run lower than those of most retirees. Older households put more of their budgets toward those two categories than the index captures.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks the CPI-E as an alternative, weighting healthcare and housing more heavily. Several bills in recent Congresses have proposed switching the COLA calculation to it, but none have become law.

What Social Security beneficiaries should do before January

The Social Security Administration will load personalized COLA details into My Social Security accounts starting in late November. Nov. 18 is the deadline to sign up for paperless notices.

After that date, the SSA mails notices in December to anyone not enrolled in the online system, making it important for beneficiaries with outdated mailing addresses to update them beforehand.

Medicare Part B and Part D premiums should be reviewed alongside the COLA before making any budget changes. The two figures together give a clearer picture of the actual net monthly increase. Mailing addresses on file with the Social Security Administration should also be confirmed before the December notice cycle.

Retirees whose spending plans are built around Social Security income need the actual net change to budget accurately. Medicare premiums and IRMAA surcharges each factor into the deposit in ways the announced percentage does not capture.

A tax professional or fee-only financial adviser can provide a more accurate net figure before the December notices arrive.

Related: 2027 Social Security COLA could see a larger increase

Effort.

Cuban has built a career spotting opportunities and evaluating people who want to turn big ideas into successful businesses. His advice for anyone hoping to get ahead is surprisingly simple. Stop worrying about everything that cannot be controlled and focus on the one thing that can.

“The one thing in life you can control is your effort,” Cuban said on the “In Search of Excellence” podcast with Randall Kaplan. “And being willing to do so is a huge competitive advantage, because most people don’t.”

Also read: Mark Cuban says one skill is key to making $1 million ‘every single time’

That might sound like familiar motivational advice. But Cuban’s definition of effort goes beyond clocking extra hours or staying late at the office. It means taking ownership of problems, paying attention to details, and continuing to look for answers when everyone else has moved on.

Effort is key to career success, says Mark Cuban

Cuban has a straightforward way of explaining the difference between employees who stand out and those who simply check the boxes.

Some employees are given three tasks and complete those three tasks without noticing the other problems sitting right in front of them. Others want to discuss every big-picture possibility but struggle to get the basics right.

The most valuable employees, in Cuban’s view, can handle both. They complete the assigned work while looking for what else needs attention. They investigate problems, explore possible solutions, and take initiative without waiting for someone to spell out every next step.

During the podcast, Cuban explained that an entrepreneur needs to be willing to search for an answer, even when the solution isn’t immediately obvious. If there is no answer, the work should at least establish why.

His message to people who aren’t prepared to put in that effort is blunt.

“Don’t apply for a job with me,” Cuban said on the podcast.

It is a tough standard, but it reveals how he evaluates potential. Completing an assignment is the starting point, not necessarily the finish line. The ability to spot what others miss and keep working toward a solution can make an employee far more valuable.

Why effort gives employees a competitive advantage

Cuban’s argument rests on a basic reality of work and business. Plenty of factors that influence success are beyond anyone’s control. Market conditions change, customers behave unpredictably, and even strong ideas can fail.

Effort offers more room for action.

That doesn’t mean working the longest hours automatically makes someone the best employee. Nor does it mean that hard work guarantees a promotion, a successful company, or a fortune. Effort is most useful when it is directed toward meaningful goals, sound decisions, and better results.

More Personal Finance:

• The tax rules that can quietly ruin your Roth IRA conversion strategy
• Choosing an annuity for retirement rests on hidden features, risks
• One index exposes your bigest retirement fears

The difference is between being busy and making progress.

An employee who spends hours on a task without questioning whether it solves the actual problem may accomplish less than someone who identifies the right issue, tests a solution, and learns from the outcome. Cuban’s approach puts the emphasis on persistence and problem-solving, rather than simply looking occupied.

For entrepreneurs, that mindset can be especially useful. Building a business often means facing questions that don’t come with an instruction manual. The willingness to keep researching, testing, and adjusting can help a founder uncover opportunities that a less persistent competitor overlooks.

Research shows a link between work effort and job performance

Research offers some support for Cuban’s view, although it does not establish effort as the only ingredient in success.

A meta-analysis published in the Journal of Management in 2023 examined the relationship between work effort and job performance across 62 studies involving 12,219 participants. The researchers found an overall corrected correlation of approximately 0.31 between effort and job performance.

The relationship was stronger when researchers measured multiple aspects of effort, including intensity and persistence. Those measures had a corrected correlation of approximately 0.37 with job performance.

The findings suggest that sustained effort is associated with better performance, particularly when it involves more than simply trying hard in a single moment. Persistence and the way effort is applied also matter.

Still, correlation does not prove that effort alone causes success. Skills, resources, working conditions and opportunities can all affect the outcome. The study supports a connection between effort and performance, not a guarantee that the hardest-working person will always win.

Cuban’s advice focuses on what people can control

Cuban’s message is ultimately less about hustle for hustle’s sake and more about personal responsibility.

No employee can control every decision made by a boss. No entrepreneur can dictate how customers will respond to a product. And no amount of preparation can eliminate every risk.

But people can control how thoroughly they approach a task, how persistently they work through a problem and whether they make an honest attempt to find a solution.

That approach won’t guarantee success. It can, however, improve the odds of producing better work and recognizing opportunities others overlook.

In Cuban’s view, the advantage comes from doing what many people aren’t willing to do. Not just starting the work, but seeing it through.

Related: Mark Cuban says let’s take healthcare back to 1955 — see a doctor, get a bill, pay what you can

A Vanguard report published in September 2026, based on a June 2026 survey of 6,686 investors, delivers the clearest picture yet of what happens when consumers trust chatbots with their personal finances. 

Among those who used chatbots, 37% reported receiving incorrect or misleading information, and 44% said they could not judge its accuracy.

That leaves only 19% of chatbot users expressing confidence in the quality of the information they received. This aligns with research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which found structural flaws in how large language models (LLMs) handle personal financial decisions.

Also read: ChatGPT just became the cheapest financial advisor in America 

Vanguard’s survey reveals who uses chatbots and who trusts them

About 32% of Vanguard investors reported using chatbots for financial guidance, including personal finance, investing, and retirement planning. Younger investors are more likely to use chatbots for financial advice. 

About 43% of Gen Z and Millennial investors have tried them, compared with just 15% of baby boomers and older investors.

More Vanguard:

• Vanguard spotlights Roth IRA trap hiding in your income
• Vanguard’s global ETF flags a stark shift for investors
• Vanguard uncovers the real cost of early Social Security

Confidence in chatbot guidance remains weak even among users who have tried it, and the trust gap between chatbot and human advice is stark.

Vanguard found that across Gen Z, Millennial, and Gen X investors, 63% reported low or no trust in chatbot-generated financial guidance, while fewer than 6% reported high trust. Among boomers and older generations, the share with low or no trust rose to 78%.

Roughly half or more of chatbot users reported using the technology to learn about a topic, explore ideas, or pressure-test a concept, while fewer than 4% used chatbots to make financial decisions on their behalf, the survey showed.

MIT research identifies deeper structural flaw in chatbot financial guidance

Andrew Lo, director of the Laboratory for Financial Engineering at MIT, and Jillian Ross, research affiliate at MIT, tested GPT-4o alongside three GPT-5.4 variants on 1,000 synthetically generated client profiles in an April 2026 paper.

They identified what they called “heuristic collapse,” a systematic pattern in which chatbots base investment recommendations almost entirely on self-reported risk tolerance while functionally ignoring income, debts, time horizon, and other variables.

The distinction matters because the suitability standard governing registered investment advisors requires individualized reasoning based on a client’s full financial circumstances. When Ross and Lo equipped the chatbot with web search access to partially offset this tendency, the heuristic collapse was reduced.

The accuracy problem extends beyond reasoning. Major chatbots hallucinated between 20% and roughly 77% of the finance citations they generated, a 2024 study “Evaluating the Accuracy of Chatbots in Financial Literature,” found, a finding the Vanguard report highlighted.

Chatbots have also been shown to produce biased portfolio recommendations based on a user’s gender, race, and ethnicity, inducing simulated wealth gaps across demographic groups.

Why chatbot adoption is boosting demand for human financial advisors

A regulatory blind spot helps explain why investors are turning back to human advisors, despite growing adoption of chatbots.

Vanguard’s survey found that about 38% of older investors and 16% of Gen Z and Millennial investors either didn’t know whether chatbots have a legal obligation to act in their best financial interests or mistakenly believed that obligation already exists.

The Vanguard survey found results that challenge the idea that chatbots will eventually replace human financial advisors. AI is 11 times more likely to increase the perceived value of human advice than to decrease it, with 32% of investors saying they value human advisors more because of AI, and only 2.9% saying the opposite.

Among clients already working with a human advisor, 41% said AI made them value that relationship more, while only 2% said the reverse.

Lo told CNBC that chatbots lack the legal obligations and personal accountability that make human financial advisors trustworthy.

<strong>What they don’t have is that fiduciary duty. They don’t have the ability to suffer consequences if they make a mistake to the same degree that a human advisor does</strong>.

The accountability gap Lo described helps explain why four in five investors across all age groups said they are uncomfortable with chatbots taking financial actions on their behalf, including 80% of Gen Z and Millennials.

How to use chatbot research without putting your financial plan at risk

Lo has recommended that investors use chatbots for orientation, leveraging them to frame questions, map out available options, and prepare for conversations with a human advisor rather than treating the output as a finished plan.

Among investors surveyed, 46% would be more comfortable with chatbot guidance if a human advisor reviewed the output first, and 74% want some form of financial help from human professionals over the next two to three years.

Lo told CNBC that the greatest risk emerges when investors act on highly specific calculations a chatbot generates about their individual situation without verifying those numbers against a professional who is legally required to account for their full financial profile.

Related: Microsoft CEO wants AI treated like a risky insider at work

Read: 2027 Social Security COLA is announced; it’s big but is it enough?

Medicare Coverage Options

Just 24% of survey respondents ages 55 to 64 expressed confidence in their understanding of Medicare coverage options. In a nutshell, you have two choices: Original Medicare and Medicare Advantage. Original Medicare has Part A (hospital insurance), which is free for most people, and Part B (medical insurance), for which you’ll pay a monthly premium. You may add Part D (prescription drug coverage) to Original Medicare. Part D plans come from private insurers, so you’ll pay monthly premiums.

Medicare Advantage, also referred to as Part C, is an alternative to Original Medicare. In addition to providing hospitalization and medical insurance, it often includes extras like vision, dental and prescription drug (Part D) coverage. You pay the Plan B premium while enrolled in Medicare Advantage and might have additional Part C premiums as well.

Out-of-Pocket Costs

More than half (51%) of the pre-Medicare respondents to the eHealth survey didn’t know what out-of-pocket costs to expect or thought there were none. In fact, Original Medicare Part A beneficiaries pay a $1,736 deductible each coverage period for hospital stays (a coverage period starts the day you’re hospitalized and ends after 60 consecutive days with no in-patient care). Part B has a $283 deductible and 20% coinsurance for covered care. Original Medicare has no out-of-pocket maximum, but Medicare Supplement Insurance, or Medigap, can reduce the costs for an additional fee. Part D plans also have deductibles.

Medicare C plans might have deductibles, coinsurance and/or copayments, but annual out-of-pocket-costs are usually capped.

Medicare Enrollment-Period Deadlines

Medicare requires you to sign up during an Initial Enrollment Period that begins three months before your 65th birthday and ends three months after your birthday month. Medicare imposes a 10% penalty for each 12-month period you could have enrolled in Part B but didn’t, and an additional penalty for late Part D enrollment — fees 80% of pre-Medicare adults, respectively, weren’t aware of.

Preparing To Enroll in Medicare for the First Time

Nifty 50+ spoke with Dr. Heather Swanson, regional medical officer at CareMore Health, a cooperative care network with clinics in Arizona, California, Nevada and Tennessee, to get her advice for people approaching their Initial Enrollment Period.

Start Early

Dr. Swanson advises patients to start planning six months before they want to enroll so they have time to talk to their primary care doctor about their healthcare needs, review their medications and specialists and understand anticipated tests and treatments.

 “The goal isn’t just to choose a plan, it’s to choose a plan that will support the care they are actually likely to need over the next year,” she said.

Confirm That Your Doctor Accepts Medicare

Not all physicians accept Medicare, and those that do accept it don’t all participate in the same way. Verify not only that your providers accept Medicare, but also that they’re accepting new Medicare patients and participating in the plan you’re considering.

If you need to switch providers, Swanson advised looking for one that understands your medical conditions, communicates well and can help coordinate your care across the healthcare system, noting that “the best physician relationship is one built on trust, accessibility and a shared commitment to achieving the patient’s health goals.”

This article written for TheStreet by Nifty 50+

Mortgage rate predictions are never set in stone. If any of the factors that impact rates — inflation, jobs, the 10-year Treasury yield — change unexpectedly, then organizations need to update their projections.

A few organizations stand out for their mortgage rate forecasts. One of my go-to sources is Fannie Mae, a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE).

The organization published the October 2026 Fannie Mae Housing Forecast, and the projections probably aren’t what you want to hear. Fannie Mae expects the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate to stay in the mid-7.5% range throughout 2027.

Read more: Americans are souring on the economy as housing gets harder again

Fannie Mae mortgage rate predictions have spiked since September

In its October Housing Forecast, Fannie Mae predicted the national average 30-year fixed mortgage rate would be 7.4% in Q4 2026 and 7.5% throughout all of 2027.

These differ significantly from the GSE’s September predictions.

In the September 2026 Fannie Mae Housing Forecast, the organization projected the 30-year mortgage rate at 6.8% in Q4 2026, then inching down to 6.7% for all of 2027.

So, what changed?

Fannie Mae’s monthly mortgage rate predictions are based on Freddie Mac mortgage rate data. More specifically, Fannie Mae focuses on Freddie Mac rates on the last day of the previous month.

For its September forecast, Fannie Mae used the Freddie Mac average 30-year rate from Aug. 31, which was 6.66%.

For its October forecast, the GSE used Freddie Mac data from Sept. 30, which was 7.03%.

Although Fannie Mae’s forecast relies on data from the previous month, the subsequent increase in mortgage rates appears consistent with its higher projection. Freddie Mac’s average 30-year rate reached 7.4% the weeks of Oct. 8. and Oct. 15.

Fannie Mae vs. MBA: Comparing mortgage rate predictions

The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) is a trade association representing the mortgage industry. Along with Fannie Mae, I consider it to be one of the most reliable sources for rate predictions.

So, Fannie Mae predicts the average 30-year mortgage rate will end 2026 at 7.4% and hold at 7.5% through 2027. How do these numbers compare to the MBA’s predictions?

The MBA foresees slightly lower rates. The October MBA Mortgage Financial Forecast put the 30-year fixed rate at 7.3% for the end of 2026. Then, the MBA expects the rate to drop to 7.2% for the first three quarters of 2027 and 7.1% in Q4 2027.

More Mortgage Rates:

• Zillow predicts major mortgage rate, housing market change
• Bessent doubles down on bond fix as mortgage rates near 7.5%
• Chase now offers up to 1% off mortgage rates to more customers

Although Fannie Mae and the MBA both use Freddie Mac mortgage rate data as a reference, their forecasts differ partly because they have different outlooks for the 10-year Treasury yield, a key influence on mortgage rates.

In the October 2026 Fannie Mae Economic Forecast, the GSE predicts the 10-year Treasury yield will hold steady at 5.3% throughout 2026 and 2027.

However, the MBA projects a 5.1% yield through the end of 2026, a 5% yield for most of 2027, and a 4.9% yield in Q4 2027. So, it makes sense that its mortgage rate predictions are lower than Fannie Mae’s.

Each organization uses its own assumptions and formulas to predict 10-year Treasury yields and mortgage rates. Their forecasts may differ, but the overall message is the same: Both expect 30-year mortgage rates to stay above 7% throughout 2027.

When can Americans expect mortgage rates to decrease?

Mortgage rates typically decrease when inflation cools and increase when inflation growth is aggressive.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics published the September Consumer Price Index (CPI) on Wednesday, Oct. 14. The CPI is a key measure of inflation. The hotter-than-expected inflation reading could put upward pressure on mortgage rates, although the impact will also depend on Treasury yields and how markets interpret the data.

The September inflation rate was 3.7%. This exceeded economists’ predictions of 3.6%.

“Core” inflation, which removes the volatile categories of food and energy, was also more aggressive than projected. It rose by 2.6%, while economists had expected 2.5%.

The 10-year Treasury yield spiked immediately after the CPI release but calmed down throughout the day. Time will tell how inflation numbers affect the yield in the coming days and weeks.

A sustained decline in inflation could help ease pressure on mortgage rates, particularly if the 10-year Treasury yield also falls. Until those conditions improve, mortgage rates could remain above 7%, as both Fannie Mae and the MBA currently project.

Related: Redfin predicts major housing market change over the next five years as debt-income ratios shift

The late Charlie Munger, Berkshire Hathaway’s longtime vice chairman who died in November 2023 at age 99, had a blunt explanation for why the early grind matters so much.

“The first $100,000 is a b****, but you gotta do it. I don’t care what you have to do — if it means walking everywhere and not eating anything that wasn’t purchased with a coupon, find a way to get your hands on $100,000. After that, you can ease off the gas a little bit.”

Munger made the remark at a Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meeting in the late 1990s, according to published accounts of his comments.

He returned to the same idea at the 1999 meeting, arguing that people who build wealth relatively quickly tend to think rationally, seize opportunities, and spend substantially less than they earn.

Also read: Warren Buffett explained how he’d turn $10,000 into $30 billion if he were starting over

The first $100,000 is worth nearly $200,000 today

Munger’s target carries a different price tag today. Using the U.S. Consumer Price Index as a guide, $100,000 in 1995 had purchasing power equivalent to roughly $210,000 in 2025 dollars. The comparable figure for 1998 was about $197,000. The exact 2026 equivalent depends on the latest inflation data.

The milestone remains significant. U.S. median household income reached $87,460 in 2025, according to the Census Bureau.

More Personal Finance:

• The tax rules that can quietly ruin your Roth IRA conversion strategy
• Choosing an annuity for retirement rests on hidden features, risks
• One index exposes your bigest retirement fears

That means an inflation-adjusted $200,000 savings target represents more than two years of median household income before taxes and living expenses.

For households covering rent or mortgage payments, food, transportation, and debt, setting aside that much money can take years. Munger’s point was not that everyone should live on coupons forever. It was that building an initial pool of capital creates a foundation for future growth.

Related: Charlie Munger’s net worth: The late Berkshire Hathaway vice chair’s wealth at the time of his death

The math behind the wealth-building snowball

Consider someone who saves and invests $10,000 annually, contributing at the end of each year. Without investment returns, reaching $100,000 takes 10 years.

With a hypothetical 4% annual return, the target arrives in about nine years. At 7%, it takes roughly eight years. These estimates assume consistent contributions and steady returns, with no taxes or fees. Actual investment results fluctuate, and losses are possible.

The more powerful effect becomes clear after the money is invested. A $100,000 portfolio earning 7% annually would grow to about $197,000 after 10 years, $387,000 after 20 years, and $761,000 after 30 years, assuming no additional contributions or withdrawals.

Those figures illustrate compound growth, not a guaranteed market outcome.

The same principle applies to a larger starting balance. At a hypothetical 7% return, $200,000 would generate $14,000 in gains during the first year. That is twice the $7,000 gain on $100,000 at the same rate.

Also read: What is Howard Buffett’s net worth in 2026? The new Berkshire chair’s wealth & shares

Why Munger’s advice still matters

The first $100,000 does not make someone rich overnight. Its value lies in what comes next. Early on, progress depends heavily on saving, earning more, and controlling expenses. As the balance grows, investment returns can account for a larger share of the gains.

Munger’s advice also leaves room for reality. Extreme frugality is not practical for everyone, and investment returns are never guaranteed. Income, housing costs, debt, and unexpected expenses all affect how quickly someone can build savings.

Still, the central lesson holds. The first major pool of capital is often the hardest to accumulate because the money has little time to compound and every dollar saved matters. Once that foundation is in place, time and consistent investing can do more of the work.

“Ease off the gas” was never a promise that the hard work ends at $100,000. It was a reminder that building wealth becomes a different game when investment gains start adding meaningful dollars of their own.

Related: Broadcom CEO echoes Warren Buffett with warning for investors

Miss that date and the IRS imposes an excise tax on any amount that should have been withdrawn but was not, a penalty that the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 reduced from 50% to 25%.

A single missed distribution from a six-figure retirement account can still trigger a four-figure tax bill on top of the ordinary income taxes owed once the distribution is eventually taken.

Also Read: Fidelity flags the RMD trap that quietly raises your taxes

The Dec. 31 deadline has a steep penalty for late withdrawals

The IRS requires anyone who has reached age 73 to take an RMD from their traditional individual retirement account (IRA), Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees (SIMPLE) IRA, 401(k), or 403(b) plan by Dec. 31 of each year. 

The only exception applies to retirees taking their first RMD, who may delay that initial withdrawal until April 1 of the following year.

Delaying that first distribution creates a trap that catches many first-time filers off guard. 

A retiree who turns 73 in 2026 and waits until April 1, 2027, must still complete a second RMD by Dec. 31, 2027, stacking two taxable withdrawals into a single calendar year, the IRS noted.

Missing the deadline means the IRS applies the 25% excise tax to the portion of the RMD that was not withdrawn. 

Account holders who discover the error and correct it within two years can reduce that penalty to 10% by filing Form 5329 with their federal tax return for the year in which the full RMD was required, the IRS stated.

SECURE 2.0 raised the starting age and eliminated RMDs on Roth employer accounts

The age at which RMDs begin has shifted several times over the past several years as Congress expanded the window in which retirees can let tax-deferred savings compound. 

The original SECURE Act of 2019 raised the starting age from 70½ to 72 for people born on or after July 1, 1949, and the SECURE 2.0 Act pushed it further to 73 for anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 1951, the IRS outlined.

More Retirement:

• 20 million Medicare beneficiaries may get a one-time $90 payment
• Vanguard spotlights Roth IRA trap hiding in your income
• Dave Ramsey raises a $185K risk Fidelity pegs for retirees

Account holders born after Dec. 31, 1959, will not face their first RMD until they reach age 75 under the same law, giving younger retirees an even longer runway. 

The 2022 law also eliminated required minimum distributions on Roth 401(k) plans and Roth 403(b) plans while the original account holder is alive, removing a discrepancy that had long frustrated savers who already paid taxes on those contributions, the IRS FAQ page confirmed. 

Roth IRAs have never required distributions during the owner’s lifetime, and that rule remains unchanged.

Retirees holding both traditional and Roth employer accounts only need to calculate RMDs on the traditional balances, since Roth employer plan balances can remain invested without generating a required withdrawal.

How to calculate the correct withdrawal and avoid common mistakes

Each year’s RMD is calculated by dividing the account balance as of Dec. 31 of the prior year by a life expectancy factor published in one of three tables in IRS Publication 590-B.

Most account holders use Table III, known as the Uniform Lifetime Table, while beneficiaries typically use Table I for single life expectancy, the IRS stated.

At age 73, the Uniform Lifetime Table assigns a divisor of 26.5, meaning a retiree with a $500,000 traditional IRA balance as of December 31, 2025, would owe a 2026 required minimum distribution of roughly $18,868, Publication 590-B shows. 

That divisor shrinks each year as the account holder ages, pushing the required withdrawal percentage steadily higher over time.

Aaron Gaines, President and Founder of Gaines Capital Management, urged retirees to treat the RMD calculation as one component of a full-year income strategy instead of handling it as a standalone tax chore.

<strong>Tax preparation tells you what already happened. Tax planning asks what we can still do before it happens</strong>.

For people with multiple traditional IRAs, the IRS allows them to calculate the RMD for each account separately, then withdraw the combined total from just one IRA, the IRS FAQ noted. 

That flexibility does not extend to 401(k) plans from different employers, which must each produce their withdrawal.

How to complete your 2026 withdrawal without triggering the excise tax

Gaines recommended that retirees evaluate their full income picture, including Social Security, pensions, and investment gains, before deciding when and how to take the distribution. 

Retirees who are charitably inclined can direct up to $111,000 per person through a qualified charitable distribution (QCD) starting at age 70½, which satisfies the RMD and does not count toward adjusted gross income, Fidelity noted.

Retirees who have not yet started the withdrawal process should avoid waiting until the final weeks of December, since the process may take several weeks to complete, The Motley Fool noted.

Every account holder bears sole responsibility for ensuring the full required amount leaves each qualifying plan by the end of the calendar year, even when a custodian offers to calculate the figure or send reminders on the account holder’s behalf, the IRS FAQ stated.

Related: Retirees with $500K IRAs face a tax trap at age 73

Fidelity’s analysis estimates how a 22% Social Security benefit cut could affect a typical retirement portfolio, potentially reducing its value by six figures over a decade and forcing retirees to reconsider how much they can safely withdraw each year.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) maps the damage across all 50 states, with no region escaping the projected shortfall.

The 2026 Social Security Trustees Report moved the trust fund depletion date forward by three months, to late 2032. For anyone within six years of that deadline, the numbers below are a reality check to run before any claims decisions.

Also Read: Fidelity uncovers the hidden threat to generational wealth

Fidelity estimates a $161,000 portfolio drag over one decade

The 2026 Trustees Report projected that continuing revenue would cover only about 78% of scheduled retirement payments once the fund is exhausted. Under current law, that gap would force an automatic 22% benefit reduction affecting every recipient if Congress does not intervene. 

Social Security replaces between 35% and 40% of an average worker’s annual pre-retirement earnings, making it a critical source of income, Fidelity noted. 

Applied to the current $2,071 average monthly benefit, a 22% cut would reduce a two-beneficiary couple’s annual Social Security income by roughly $10,935.

Fidelity modeled the impact of that annual shortfall on a $500,000 investment portfolio that served as the couple’s only other source of retirement income. Fidelity determined that compensating for lost benefits would require withdrawing an additional 2% per year from the portfolio, in addition to planned spending.

After accounting for inflation-adjusted withdrawal increases and an assumed 7% annual return, Fidelity calculated the combined drag at about $161,000. Without the benefit cut, that same portfolio would have grown to roughly $984,000 compared with only about $822,000 under the reduced scenario. 

Social Security’s funding crisis reaches every corner of the country

The financial damage extends beyond individual portfolios into the broader national economy, according to the CRFB’s “No State Spared” report. 

Applying a 24% across-the-board reduction to current benefits, the CRFB’s illustrative cut would pull an estimated $345 billion from retirees’ hands in a single year, the nonpartisan budget watchdog projected.

More Fidelity: 

• Dave Ramsey raises a $185K risk Fidelity pegs for retirees
• Fidelity’s data makes Suze Orman’s 401(k) warning hard to ignore
• Fidelity puts a stark number on healthcare in retirement

Average monthly cuts would surpass $500 in 29 states, with Connecticut, New Jersey, and New Hampshire facing the steepest reductions. The CRFB found that Connecticut would absorb the steepest per-person reduction at $556 each month, followed by New Jersey at $554 and New Hampshire at $553.

Several factors accelerated the depletion timeline, including a lower assumed fertility rate, reduced immigration projections, and the revenue impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, according to the Social Security Administration. 

More than 63 million Americans receive benefits through the retirement program, including retirees, surviving spouses, and their dependents. 

In 47 states, more than 15% of the population would be directly affected, with Maine at 22.9%, the largest share. Aggregate benefit cuts would exceed 1% of gross domestic product in 40 states, compounding the pressure on local economies, the CRFB warned.

Retirement expert stresses that preparation remains strongest strategy

Congress has reached a deal to keep Social Security funded every time the program has approached a solvency deadline. The most significant precedent came in 1983, when a bipartisan compromise gradually raised the full retirement age from 65 to 67, Fidelity recounted.

Chris Orestis, president of Retirement Genius, told GOBanking Rates that pre-retirees must take the projected shortfall seriously without making hasty decisions, noting its potential impact on household budgets.

<strong>The program will not disappear within 10 years, and planning for retirement as if it could be gone is an unnecessary exercise</strong>.

The House and Senate introduced two bipartisan bills in 2026 to restructure the process for debating Social Security reform: the Bipartisan Social Security Commission Act in June and the PROMISE Act in July. 

Other proposals target specific policy levers, from removing the $184,500 payroll tax wage cap to enrolling newly hired government workers, Fidelity outlined.

3 steps pre-retirees can take before the 2032 deadline

The six-year window before projected depletion still leaves time to prepare, and Fidelity stressed that making claiming decisions with incomplete information could end up costing retirees significantly. 

Each of the following steps should be considered with the advice of a qualified financial professional who can develop a Social Security claiming strategy tailored to the household’s overall retirement income plan.

1. Delay claiming: Wait to claim Social Security benefits until age 70 rather than age 67. This can increase monthly benefits by approximately 24%, assuming the standard 8% annual delayed retirement credit applies, the SSA confirmed. The increase could help offset some or all of a potential benefit reduction, although the actual outcome would depend on the size and timing of any cuts.
2. Make catch-up contributions: In 2026, eligible workers aged 60 through 63 can contribute up to $11,250 in catch-up contributions to a qualifying workplace retirement plan, in addition to the standard $24,500 contribution limit. Taking advantage of these higher limits can help strengthen retirement savings before Social Security benefits begin.
3. Access guaranteed-income products: Fidelity also recommends considering deferred-income or fixed immediate annuities to help establish a predictable income floor. A stronger income floor could reduce reliance on Social Security and help households cover essential expenses, including housing and healthcare, if benefits are reduced.

Fidelity’s analysis highlights that households relying heavily on Social Security may face the greatest financial strain from benefit cuts.

Reviewing retirement spending assumptions and stress-testing withdrawal strategies now can help pre-retirees identify potential shortfalls and adjust their plans before retirement.

Related: Fidelity names the move that saves family wealth

Gina, a 56-year-old retiree, wrote to Suze Orman’s Women & Money podcast after her former employer’s benefits department recommended rolling her $1.6 million pretax 401(k) into a Roth 401(k) and then into a Roth IRA. The recommendation came from a benefits professional at her old workplace.

Orman had a response. The personal finance commentator has built a reputation for blunt, direct advice, and her answer to Gina was no exception.

Also read: Suze Orman flashes a 401(k) warning on saving for retirement

The tax trap inside a $1.6 million Roth conversion

The problem Orman identified is that moving money from a pretax retirement account into a Roth account is a conversion, not a simple rollover. Pretax 401(k) contributions have not yet been taxed. Roth accounts are funded with after-tax dollars. Converting a large balance makes the full amount taxable as ordinary income in the year it moves.

“With the utmost of respect to your benefits person at the place that you used to work, are you crazy? Really? I don’t know how else to say it,” Orman said. She called the plan “absolutely crazy.”

Converting $1.6 million in a single tax year would generally push a retiree into a significantly higher bracket. Higher reported income in that year could also trigger increased taxes on Social Security benefits and raise Medicare premiums through the income-related monthly adjustment amount, or IRMAA.

The exact impact depends on filing status, other income, deductions and the timing of the conversion. Orman said the caller would “owe income taxes at that point in time for that year’s income tax.” For a retiree no longer drawing a salary, that bill could be difficult to absorb.

The $100,000 move Orman says makes far more sense

Rather than converting the entire balance at once, Orman suggested moving $100,000 from the pretax 401(k) into a Roth IRA and paying the taxes on that amount alone.

Spreading conversions across multiple years gives the retiree more control over which bracket she lands in each year. It also helps manage taxable income in retirement, particularly before required minimum distributions begin, which currently start at age 73 for most retirement account holders.

The staged approach also preserves options. If tax law changes or income shifts in a given year, converting less that year costs nothing. Converting too much in a single year cannot be undone.

There is also a Roth IRA five-year rule to keep in mind. Tax-free qualified withdrawals generally require that the account has been open for at least five years from the first contribution. A retiree who opens a Roth IRA at 56 would need to wait until at least 61 before those five years are up.

The costly mix-up between a rollover and a conversion

What a benefits administrator calls a rollover may not be one. The two transactions share enough surface-level similarity that the distinction gets lost in casual conversation, and both involve moving retirement money from one account to another. But when a pretax 401(k) balance moves into a traditional IRA, the money stays inside the same tax-deferred system, and no income is recognized in that year. The IRS does not send a bill.

Moving that same money into a Roth IRA or Roth 401(k) is a Roth conversion. The converted amount is generally taxable as income in that year. Moving a Roth 401(k) into a Roth IRA is a rollover between two Roth accounts and generally carries no immediate tax, either, provided it is handled correctly.

More Retirement:

• 20 million Medicare beneficiaries may get a one-time $90 payment
• Vanguard spotlights Roth IRA trap hiding in your income
• Dave Ramsey raises a $185K risk Fidelity pegs for retirees

The confusion between the two is common enough that it can cost retirees significantly before anyone realizes the mistake. Benefits departments and plan administrators sometimes use the terms without distinguishing between them, which is part of what Orman was flagging.

Moving money between two tax-deferred accounts carries the least risk of an unintended tax bill. A Roth conversion is a different calculation. Done in pieces across several years, the tax cost stays manageable. Done all at once with a seven-figure balance, the math rarely works in the retiree’s favor.

What to confirm before any retirement money moves

Before any money moves, a retiree needs to know exactly what they agreed to. The paperwork for a rollover and the paperwork for a conversion can look similar at the start. One results in no immediate tax owed; the other adds the full converted amount to that year’s taxable income. Benefits administrators do not always flag that difference clearly, which is part of what Orman was pointing to.

A tax projection showing the estimated bill for the conversion amount should come before any money moves. Converting in stages across several tax years can help retirees stay within a manageable bracket and plan around the income thresholds that affect Medicare premiums and Social Security taxation.

The tax bill on a conversion should come from cash held outside the retirement account, not from the converted amount itself. When money is withheld from the transfer to cover taxes, the balance entering the Roth shrinks. That smaller balance is the one that grows tax-free, and a smaller starting point means less to show for the conversion over time.

Employer benefits departments can be a useful starting point, but they are not always positioned to give personalized tax advice. A seven-figure retirement account deserves input from a qualified tax professional or fee-only financial planner who can look at the full income picture before a large balance moves.

Why a benefits department is not a tax adviser

Orman’s response to Gina is a reminder that not all retirement advice carries the same weight. A benefits administrator can point to plan options. Assessing the tax consequences of those options for a specific retiree’s situation is a different kind of work.

A Roth IRA can be a powerful tool in retirement, particularly for retirees who expect to be in a higher bracket later or who want to leave tax-free assets to heirs. But the benefits of the account depend entirely on when and how the conversion happens, and what it costs in the year it does.

The retirees who come out ahead on a Roth conversion are usually the ones who treated it as a multi-year project. Converting what fits inside a given bracket each year keeps the annual tax cost predictable. A bad year, whether from a property sale, a larger Social Security benefit, or a required distribution that overlaps, can be absorbed without wrecking the whole plan. Moving a seven-figure balance into a Roth in a single year rarely survives contact with the actual tax math.`

Related: Suze Orman flags the Medicare gap retirees are missing

That protection is a central point in his conversation with me about disappearing plans and the decisions members face.

Oh explains why he recommends supplementing original Medicare, how Extra Help may assist with prescription coverage, and why members should read their plan notices carefully.

Below is a transcript of the interview with Oh, edited for brevity and clarity.

Medicare Advantage Plans disappearing: the Medigap question

Robert Powell: Medicare Advantage choices are shrinking sharply in some rural counties, according to a recent KFF analysis of CMS plan filings, and it’s not good news.

According to KFF, residents of 193 counties will have no Medicare Advantage plan with drug coverage open to general enrollment in 2027, up from 123 counties this year. The affected counties contain roughly 638,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

Oh: Very tough, especially depending on where you live. KFF has reported that the number of counties with no Medicare Advantage plans at all has increased sharply: 70 additional counties, almost a 40% increase in the number of counties.

I feel terrible for those affected because that’s very unsettling. The number of actual beneficiaries affected by that particular issue is relatively contained. Nevertheless, we have well over a million Medicare Advantage members who will be ejected from their plan because it is no longer available where they live.

Powell: Some folks who apply for Medigap will have to undergo medical underwriting. They may get denied. In other cases, medical underwriting may not affect them.

Oh: No, actually, when this happens, you have automatic acceptance into Medigap.

If you’ve been a member of Medicare Advantage and that plan is canceled, you will be accepted by a Medigap carrier. That is undeniable, unrestricted.

That is a federal rule that protects the consumer. The issue then is locating which plan.

There are also financial resources where there can be additional assistance, especially when it comes to Part D, the stand-alone prescription plan.

Original Medicare and prescription coverage

Powell: For them, is the likely route to go back to original Medicare with a Part D plan?

Oh: It is, and it is a central finding. There are relatively few actual must-dos in “Maximize Your Medicare.” But there is a reason I suggest people do not have just original Medicare alone: Part A and Part B alone have no out-of-pocket maximum.

With uncapped medical expenses, if you have Part A and Part B alone, some type of Medigap plan, a Medicare supplement, plus a standalone Part D plan is very much in order. That will take some extra work.

More Retirement

• The year-end RMD trap: Why waiting until late December could cost retirees 25% 
• The “Gap Year” Roth: Early retirees slash lifetime taxes before RMDs hit
• Tax-loss harvesting guide: $3,000 limit & wash-sale rules

Powell: Tell us more about that assistance.

Oh: It’s called Extra Help. In past years, it was called LIS, Limited Income Subsidy. I want to make a couple of things clear. The first, most important one: This is not Medicaid itself.

Too often, we think about the Extra Help program with the implication that the person is on Medicaid. That is not true. You can have people who qualify for Extra Help but are not anywhere close to the Medicaid eligibility line.

This program is probably the most underutilized one. A couple of years ago, more than 10 million people did not take advantage of this.

Perhaps they didn’t because they had a $0 Medicare Advantage plan. But if they were ejected and have to purchase a stand-alone prescription plan, now is a very good time to revisit that.

Notices and enrollment timing

Powell: For folks in Medicare Advantage plans where the insurer is pulling out of the county, I assume many were notified in their annual notice of change. Is that fair to say?

Oh: Yes, to the degree that people have read them. Every year, people have been used to the idea that the annual notice of change has come, and straight into the garbage bin it went.

You and I have spent a considerable amount of time saying, “Please don’t do that. Please never do that.” But the practical reality is that many people have. This is yet another wake-up call.

One thing I’ve not mentioned: Normally, the annual election period runs through Dec. 7, when you can change your Part D plan or your Medicare Advantage plan without restriction.

In this instance, because your Part D plan is coming to an end, meaning it’s no longer being offered in this specific combination, you actually have through Dec. 31, not only Dec. 7. I don’t suggest people wait until New Year’s Eve, but the deadline is extended for those people. For the rest, Dec. 7 still applies.

Powell: For the person who goes onto Medicare’s Plan Finder starting Oct. 15, when they search for a new plan, they may not be told they can purchase a Medigap policy. Is that fair to say? There’s no flashing light saying, “You may be eligible to do this”?

Oh: No, because Plan Finder, especially if you’re not signed in under your own account, would not know. Whether Medicare.gov is actually sending out notices, I do not know. We don’t know that yet.

A consumer can now survey 2027. They cannot actually enroll or file an application until Oct. 15.

Related: The 2027 Medicare rate shock: Why Part D and Medigap premiums are soaring by up to 50%

In a January 2025 post on his Blog Maverick website, Cuban proposed a return to a simpler payment model, using 1955 as his reference point.

“Hypothetically, It should look like 1955 (I picked this year because of Back to the Future :),” Cuban wrote. “Patients go to providers for care. Providers provide that care. Patients get a bill and if they can afford it, they pay that bill. That’s it.”

Also read: Mark Cuban says one skill is key to making $1 million ‘every single time’

Cuban’s central argument is that healthcare reform should begin with one question. How should care be paid for when patients cannot afford it? He believes the answer should be addressed directly, rather than buried beneath the financial arrangements surrounding medical treatment.

Cutting the cost of healthcare administration

Cuban wants providers to disclose their costs and profit margins and make healthcare contracts public. Greater transparency, he argues, would help employers and other payers compare prices and identify unnecessary expenses.

He also wants to reduce the role insurance companies play in routine healthcare transactions. Claims processing, payment disputes and complex contracts add administrative work, while the costs of that work ultimately become part of the healthcare system’s overall spending.

His proposal favors more direct payments between patients and providers, with insurance playing a smaller role in routine care. That would represent a major shift in how Americans pay for medical services, particularly for people accustomed to employer-sponsored health plans.

Cuban has pursued a similar emphasis on transparent pricing through Cost Plus Drugs, the online pharmacy he co-founded. The company discloses its drug costs and applies a defined markup, offering an alternative to less transparent pricing arrangements.

In his healthcare post, Cuban also estimated the potential savings from reducing administrative expenses, fraud, overbilling and upcoding. His calculations suggested substantial reductions in overall spending, although the figures were estimates rather than independently established savings.

What healthcare looked like in 1955

Cuban’s reference point offers some historical context, but healthcare in 1955 wasn’t a cash-only system.

Private health insurance was already expanding, particularly employer-sponsored coverage for hospital stays. Patients also commonly paid doctors directly, and coverage for physician services was less comprehensive than many modern insurance plans.

Medicare and Medicaid did not exist until 1965. Some doctors reduced fees or waived bills for patients who could not afford treatment, but there was no universal guarantee of care regardless of ability to pay. Medical options were also far more limited, and serious illness could still leave families facing substantial expenses.

The 1955 comparison is therefore about how healthcare payments were handled, not a proposal to recreate midcentury medicine. Cuban wants to simplify the financial side of healthcare while allowing medical treatments and technology to continue advancing.

Related: Also read:

Who pays when patients cannot afford care?

Cuban’s proposal leaves a difficult question at its center. If patients pay providers directly when they can afford treatment, how should care be funded for everyone else?

His post considers potential roles for employers and government programs in covering those costs. Any move toward a less insurance-dependent system would also need to address expensive illnesses, financial risk and the need for providers to receive reliable payment.

The proposal is an argument for changing how healthcare is financed, not a complete policy blueprint. Cuban’s focus is on making prices transparent, reducing administrative costs and separating the question of paying for routine care from the question of financing treatment for people who cannot afford it.

The year 1955 may have been inspired by “Back to the Future,” but the challenge Cuban raised is about the present. Simplifying healthcare payments could reduce some of the system’s costs. Figuring out how to ensure that people who cannot pay still receive care remains the harder part.

More Healthcare:

• One IRA withdrawal can triple your Medicare premium
• UnitedHealth’s earnings comeback hides a risk Wall Street can’t price
• Medicare’s new $50 GLP-1 deal has a catch

Related: Warren Buffett explained how he’d turn $10,000 into $30 billion if he were starting over

At Berkshire Hathaway’s annual shareholders meeting in May 1999, an attendee named Grant Morgan asked Buffett what he would do if he were starting over in his early 30s. Morgan wanted to know how Buffett would replicate his success and, ultimately, make $30 billion.

“My question is, if you are starting out again today in your early 30s, what would you do differently or the same in today’s environment to replicate your success? In short, Mr. Buffett, how can I make $30 billion?” Morgan asked.

“Start young,” Buffett replied, drawing laughter from the audience.

Also read: Warren Buffett warns of a reality check coming for stock investors

At the time, Buffett’s fortune was roughly $30 billion. More than 27 years later, his wealth has grown to well over $100 billion, even after decades of charitable giving. But his answer wasn’t a promise that $10,000 could turn into billions. It was a look at the principles he would use to build wealth again, starting with the advantage that money has when it gets enough time to grow.

Buffett explained the power of compounding

Buffett credited time as one of the biggest advantages he and his longtime business partner, Charlie Munger, had when building their wealth.

“Charlie’s always said that the big thing about it is we started building this little snowball on top of a very long hill,” Buffett said at the meeting. “So we started at a very early age in rolling the snowball down.”

He compared compound interest to a snowball that grows as it rolls downhill, with returns building on previous gains. The longer the process continues, the more opportunity investments have to compound.

“The trick is to have a very long hill,” Buffett said, “which means either starting very young or living very — to be very old.”

The principle applies well beyond stock picking. Money invested earlier has more time to earn returns, and those returns can generate additional gains. Investments can lose value, of course, but starting early gives compounding more time to work.

How Buffett would invest $10,000

When asked what he would do with $10,000 if he were graduating from school and starting over, Buffett said he would begin by examining companies alphabetically.

“I’d start with the As,” Buffett said. He would work through businesses one by one, paying particular attention to smaller companies, where investors working with modest sums might find opportunities that larger investors overlook.

Also read: Mark Cuban says one skill is key to making $1 million ‘every single time’

Buffett acknowledged that the market had changed since he began investing in the early 1950s. Finding undervalued companies had become harder, but he said the basic process would remain the same.

“You have to buy businesses and you — or little pieces of businesses called stocks — and you have to buy them at attractive prices, and you have to buy into good businesses,” Buffett said.

He also warned against expecting someone else to uncover every opportunity. Investors need to understand what they know, recognize what they don’t know and do the work required to make informed decisions.

“And you can’t look around for people to agree with you,” Buffett said. “You can’t look around for people to even know what you’re talking about. You know, you have to think for yourself.”

Related: Charlie Munger’s net worth: The late Berkshire Hathaway vice chair’s wealth at the time of his death

Charlie Munger offered another lesson about building wealth

Munger added a practical point about the challenge of accumulating money in the first place.

“The hard part of the process for most people is the first $100,000,” Munger said at the meeting. “If you have a standing start at zero, getting together $100,000 is a long struggle for most people.”

He pointed to three habits that could help people get there faster: 

• making rational decisions
• staying alert to opportunities
• spending substantially less than they earn.

That advice addresses a part of investing that can get lost in discussions about returns. The amount available to invest matters, too. Saving consistently creates the foundation that allows compounding to take hold.

Also read: What is Howard Buffett’s net worth in 2026? The new Berkshire chair’s wealth & shares

Buffett’s investment advice still matters today 

More than 27 years after that exchange, investors have access to online research, low-cost brokerages and index funds that can provide exposure to hundreds of companies. Yet the core challenge remains the same: finding a sensible way to invest, controlling costs and staying patient through market swings.

More Warren Buffett:

• Warren Buffett reveals he broke his own investing pattern
• Warren Buffett has a blunt take on today’s market
• Warren Buffett pulls no punches on stock market for 2026
• The 3 biggest mistakes Warren Buffett made as Berkshire CEO

For people who don’t want to analyze individual businesses, Buffett has repeatedly recommended low-cost S&P 500 index funds as a straightforward way to invest in a broad group of major U.S. companies. Those funds still carry market risk, but they offer an alternative to trying to identify a handful of winning stocks.

Buffett is no longer Berkshire Hathaway’s CEO. Greg Abel took over the role in January 2026, while Buffett remains associated with the company as chairman emeritus.

His role has changed, but the principles behind his investment philosophy remain recognizable. Start early when possible, buy good businesses at attractive prices, spend less than you earn and give investments time to grow.

The $30 billion question was asked with a laugh. Buffett’s answer was grounded in decades of experience. Building wealth from $10,000 was never about finding a shortcut. It was about making sound decisions and giving them enough time to add up.

Related: Read more

That’s what makes October the perfect time to tackle your financial must-dos. Here are five key moves to make before the holiday madness begins.

Read: These past three months are the key to the Social Security COLA

1. Do an emergency fund checkup

Do you have enough cash in savings to cover a good three to six months of expenses? If you’re not sure, now’s the time to find out.

While unemployment is still relatively low, today’s economy is a tricky one. Higher borrowing costs are causing companies to cut corners and, in some cases, jobs. Between that and AI-related fears and speculations, you need to be on alert if you’re still working and depend on your paycheck for income.

A solid emergency fund could be your ticket to surviving a layoff without hurting your long-term financial plans. To see if your emergency fund is sufficient, review your recurring expenses and see if you have enough cash to pay those bills for three months at a minimum.

Also, many planners will tell you that your emergency fund is meant to cover essential bills — things like food, mortgage payments, and expenses you can’t do without. But it’s important to be realistic. If you’re out of work, you can’t never leave the house or cancel every streaming service to cut costs. What are you going to do — stare at the walls in between job interviews?

In other words, make sure your emergency fund can pay for at least three months of not just essential expenses, but reasonable non-essential expenses. Continuing to pay for cable, Netflix, or a few nights out per month with friends isn’t reckless if you have money in the bank to cover it.

2. Create a holiday budget

It’s nice to go all out for the holidays, but a lot of folks risk getting into debt after all’s said and done. If you’re trying to avoid debt or focus on other financial goals, it’s important to get a handle on your holiday spending. And that starts with a budget.

You might think you can wait until November to put a holiday budget together. But remember, some of those sales might drop as early as October. And if you don’t have a spending plan, you risk going overboard. Make that budget now so you don’t have to stress about it later.

3. Gear up for open enrollment at work

If you’re working, you may remember that November is typically when employers ask workers to choose benefits for the upcoming year. You may get access to your company’s benefits portal beforehand, but either way, expect to have a limited amount of time to decide on things like your health insurance plan and FSA funding.

To make those decisions easier, take a look at your healthcare needs and spending now. The costs you’ve incurred to date in 2026 could help you decide whether to max out an FSA for the new year, for example, versus contribute less.

4. Check your progress on retirement plan contributions

If you have a retirement savings goal you’re looking to meet for the year, now’s a great time to check your progress. That way, you can take steps to ramp up if you’re behind.

Keep in mind that if you’re saving in an IRA, you have until next year’s tax-filing deadline to finish contributing for 2026. If you’re saving in a 401(k), any money you want counted toward 2026 needs to hit your account by December 31.

Pay close attention to your 401(k) progress in particular if your company offers a generous workplace match. If you need to make changes to your contribution rate to snag your match in full, the sooner you tell your payroll department, the better.

It could take a pay cycle or two to process that type of change. Filling out the right forms now could help you avoid missing out on matching dollars you’re hoping to claim.

5. Explore tax-reduction strategies

Have assets in a taxable account that have lost value? Selling them could be a great way to reduce your tax liability this year. Similarly, if you’re sitting on capital gains, now’s a good time to explore ways to minimize the associated tax bill, like increasing charitable contributions.

Focusing on taxes this fall could help you pay less and stress less. And if you’re looking for help on the tax front, the time to find an accountant is now, before the end of the year gets busy and tax season prep starts ramping up.

While we’re not at the tail end of 2026 just yet, it’s an optimal time to tackle the moves above so you don’t run out of time later. Giving up one weekend of hiking, farmers markets, and football to do these tasks could help you start the new year in a better place financially.

This article written for TheStreet by Nifty 50+

In this interview (watch the video too), Oh and I, discuss how retirement income can help pay those costs, why national averages may not reflect an individual’s circumstances and how aging can affect a health care budget.

Below is a transcript of the interview with Oh, edited for brevity and clarity.

How should retirees interpret lifetime health care estimates?

Bob Powell: A lifetime estimate creates awareness, but people pay health care expenses annually, potentially through Social Security or distributions from an individual retirement account. Doesn’t thinking about those annual expenses make the number more manageable?

Jae Oh: No doubt, Bob. While the numbers are big and help increase awareness, we don’t think about how much we will spend on food over a lifetime and say we need all of that in a 401(k) to have a secure retirement.

There is also the presumption that I’m going to live all 30 years. We hope it’s true, but there are many scenarios where it’s not.

So it’s not as if you have to pay that number up front today.

Why do Medicare costs deserve attention?

Powell: It is still a big sum of money on top of living expenses. What do you make of that?

Oh: I think it raises awareness. Many people who are not familiar with Medicare presume it covers everything at zero dollars: You enroll when you turn 65 or retire, and everything is free. That is untrue.

While the numbers are big and help increase awareness, we don’t think about how much we will spend on food over a lifetime and say we need all of that in a 401(k) to have a secure retirement… So it’s not as if you have to pay that number up front today.

It’s important for people to understand that there are big costs they are going to encounter through retirement as they think about their retirement plan.

Why might health care averages miss your circumstances?

Powell: You are not fond of averages. What is your disagreement with using them here?

Oh: Even the premiums on Medigap can vary a great deal from state to state. The numbers reported may be too low, for example, if you live in Miami-Dade.

The cost of a Medigap policy for a 75-year-old will be much higher there than in Ohio. You’ve got these averages, which aren’t going to be wrong arithmetically, but they just may not apply.

For people living on Social Security alone, or people whose savings and investments may not support the retirement lifestyle they want, Medicare Advantage is a different price point entirely.

How might aging affect your health care budget?

Powell: Is planning for health care costs as a percentage of income, with that percentage increasing as people age, a useful approach?

Oh: I think that is as good as any. In general, Father Time is undefeated, and sometimes that path can be bumpy for some people.

I think it makes sense that, as you get older, you will require more health care services and incur higher costs, requiring a bigger percentage of your retirement income.

What should retirees keep in their planning?

Powell: Take the lifetime estimate with a grain of salt, but recognize that you need to plan for health care costs in retirement. Is that fair?

Oh: I think that’s very fair. People are planning year to year and throughout time.

Health care and long-term care services can involve very large numbers and can change the trajectory of retirement stability depending on your resources.

Related: The 2027 health insurance shock: How GLP-1 costs and the ACA “Subsidy Cliff” could hit your wallet

A September 2026 research report from Fidelity Investments revealed that completing all of those steps still leaves most affluent Americans feeling unprepared for what comes next.

The research identified one overlooked factor that consistently separated the most confident families from those who completed identical paperwork but still felt uneasy. 

Addressing it required no additional legal filings, no revisions to existing documents, and no fees paid to any attorney or adviser.

Also Read: Fidelity uncovers the hidden threat to generational wealth

Only 37% of older adults feel confident about their plans

The Fidelity research surveyed 654 married or partnered Americans ages 55 and older with at least $500,000 in net worth and at least one adult child.

Only 37% of respondents reported high peace of mind about their overall estate and financial planning, a surprisingly low figure for a group that had already drafted wills, established trusts, or designated beneficiaries.

Wealth alone did not improve confidence levels, and the study indicated that the most affluent households felt no less anxious about their planning than those with smaller portfolios. 

More than 4 in 10 respondents with a net worth of over $5 million reported only moderate or low peace of mind about their estate plans.

The respondents who reported strong confidence shared one common trait that held true regardless of net worth, portfolio size, or the complexity of their legal documents. 

Fidelity described those families as having high “transition readiness,” a measure that combines completed plans, shared conversations, and clearly defined family roles.

The study found that those families were four times more likely to report high confidence and five times more likely to feel assured about their estate planning.

Julie Virta, Senior Wealth Adviser at Vanguard and a certified financial planner, warned that that families who delay sharing their plans often underestimate the damage that silence inflicts on the people meant to benefit from those plans.

<strong>Most parents or grandparents expect to share their plans ‘someday,’ but that day can come later than they intend, or later than their heirs need... Silence doesn’t protect loved ones. It can leave doubt, resentment, and fractured relationships long after assets transfer,</strong>

Estate documents record what was decided without preparing the people named in them for the responsibilities, timing, and reasoning behind those decisions. 

The families who closed that gap did so by communicating their plans directly, and the shift in confidence they experienced became one of the study’s clearest findings.

Why most families avoid the conversations that matter most

The study’s most revealing data involves what families are not doing with the plans they create. About one-third of parents said they had never had an open conversation about future planning with their adult children.

Among those who had avoided such discussions, the most common reason was simply not knowing how to start the conversation.

Other parents said they believed they had already discussed enough, while some preferred to wait until later in life to share planning details. 

These avoidance patterns persisted across income levels and appeared even among families that had completed every standard planning document available to them.

More Fidelity:

• Fidelity breaks down IRA rules that catch heirs off guard
• Fidelity says retirement health costs just hit a new high
• Fidelity warns Roth IRA conversions can backfire

The research also exposed a wide gap between what parents assumed and what they had actually prepared their children to handle. 

Nearly two-thirds of parents believed their adult children could take responsibility for the family’s finances, yet only 21% had communicated their completed estate plans to those same children, according to the study.

Parents who shared finished plans with their families were over three times as likely to report high confidence in their planning, the study confirmed. 

Decades of research reinforce Fidelity’s conclusion on trust and communication

Fidelity’s findings align with a body of research that has tracked wealth transfer outcomes for decades. 

A 20-year study of 3,250 affluent families conducted by Roy Williams, founder of The Williams Group, and his co-researcher Vic Preisser, found that 70% of wealth transfers fail by the second generation and 90% fail by the third.

Communication and trust breakdowns drove 60% of all failed transitions, while inadequately prepared heirs accounted for another 25%, according to the study. 

Tax, legal, and all other non-family causes combined accounted for just 15% of failures, upending the common assumption that tax planning and portfolio management are what determine whether family wealth survives across generations.

Both the Fidelity data and the Williams Group research describe the same pattern repeating across generations, income levels, and degrees of financial sophistication. 

The conversations, role definitions, and shared understanding that determine whether estate plans survive a real transition consistently receive the least attention from the families drafting them.

How to build the conversations that protect generational wealth

For families preparing for any kind of wealth transition, the evidence from both the Fidelity study and the Williams Group’s multi-decade research points to a specific sequence of actions. 

Fidelity recommended starting with one specific conversation: asking each family member how confident they feel about the existing plan and what concerns they want to raise before those concerns become friction points. 

The study also urged families to clarify early who will manage finances, provide care, and handle health or legal decisions going forward. Assumptions about those roles often differ between generations and tend to surface as conflict during real transitions.

The Williams Group’s research adds urgency for any reader who has completed the documents but has not yet discussed them with the people named in them. 

Fidelity recommends working with a licensed financial advisor to facilitate these conversations alongside technical planning for beneficiary designations and tax-efficient transfer strategies.

Related: Fidelity finds 4 in 5 parents skip key estate plan step

Case in point: A $1,000 item purchased back in 2000 would cost $1,945 today. A Social Security benefit issued in 2000 wouldn’t be able to maintain the same level of purchasing power, which is why COLAs exist. Of course, COLAs weren’t always automatic like they are today. It used to be that lawmakers would have to vote in inflation adjustments. The process today is much less cumbersome. Social Security COLAs are pegged to third quarter changes in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). When there’s an increase in the CPI-W, Social Security gets a boost in line with that increase.

Now if you’ve been paying attention to what things cost this year, you’re probably well aware that prices are up. That means Social Security benefits will most likely enjoy a generous boost in the new year.  Here are a few things to expect from the COLA announcement on October 14 and the actual raise you receive in January.

Read: These past three months are the key to the Social Security COLA

A larger boost than in 2026

The 2026 COLA came in at 2.8% this past January. Based on inflation readings to date, the 2027 COLA is expected to land in the 3.5% to 3.6% range.

Now for context, since 2010, there have only been four COLAs to surpass the 3% mark:

• 2012’s COLA was 3.6%
• 2022’s COLA was 5.9%
• 2023’s COLA was 8.7%
• 2024’s COLA was 3.2%

So a COLA above 3% is pretty huge. But don’t get too excited just yet.

Modest help beating inflation

While Social Security may be in line for one its biggest COLAs in recent history, that doesn’t mean the upcoming raise will actually keep up with inflation. If trends tell us anything, it’s that Social Security COLAs tend to fall short in that regard. The nonpartisan Senior Citizens League reports that Social Security benefits have lost 13.7% of their buying power over the past decade. Is that intentional? Maybe.

The more Social Security has to pay out in COLAs, the more the program’s limited financial resources are strained. Congress clearly hasn’t been too motivated to address the issue of insufficient COLAs given that preventing benefit cuts is a more pressing issue. But the reason Social Security’s COLAs haven’t stood up to real-world inflation boils down to how they’re calculated. Remember how we talked about the CPI-W? It’s a great measure of the cost increases wage earners face. For retirees, not so much.

If you’re 72 and don’t work, you probably spend differently than your 45-year-old son who goes to work every day. Advocates have long pushed to have Social Security COLAs based on an index that measures retiree expenses. But Congress hasn’t acted.

A limited impact on finances broadly

If you’re on Social Security, you may be excited by the idea of a significant COLA. Don’t be.

First, large COLAs always come at the expense of higher price increases. So yes, your Social Security checks might go up a bit. But the extra $70 or $80 you receive will probably be spent paying for higher-priced gas, groceries, and medications. That’s hardly a win.

Also, remember that Social Security COLAs are meant to match inflation at best. Think of your upcoming increase as a means of reimbursing yourself for the higher costs you incurred for much of 2026. To put it another way, don’t expect your upcoming COLA to make a big positive mark on your finances. You might get a little more breathing room covering essentials. That’s about it.

And also, don’t forget that if you’re on Medicare, a big Part B hike could chip away at a good chunk of your upcoming COLA. Medicare probably won’t announce a standard Part B premium for a number of weeks after the COLA announcement. So prepare for another guessing game even once the Social Security Administration sheds light on next year’s increase.

The news drops October 14

October 14 is when the Social Security Administration should make its 2027 COLA official, assuming there’s no holdup like there was last year thanks to the government shutdown. It’s a good day to tune in for news on your upcoming raise, which may be a less stressful event now that you know what to expect.

This article written for TheStreet by Nifty 50+

A medication you depend on could disappear from your plan’s approved list, and two preferred pharmacies could produce different costs for your prescriptions.

In an interview with me, Oh recommends looking closely at covered medications and pharmacy prices when comparing plans. For beneficiaries facing Medigap premium increases, he also cautions that changing policies can involve medical underwriting.

Below is a transcript of the interview with Oh, edited for brevity and clarity.

What should beneficiaries review when comparing drug plans?

Bob Powell, CFP, RMA: When it comes time for the annual enrollment period, should people price shop or look at something else?

Jae Oh: Absolutely. When the number becomes bigger, it becomes even more important. It’s no longer just a nuisance.

Your approved drug list, the formulary, may change. It’s not only that premiums could increase, but a medication you need and depend on may not be on the approved list.

If price alone wasn’t the reason, then certainly the price plus a possible change in formulary warrants a second look for everyone.

The bottom line is that some people will be stunned at the increases to Part D or the different types of coverage and choices made under Medicare Advantage plans.

How can pharmacy choice change prescription costs?

Powell: When you’re going through Medicare Plan Finder, figuring out which pharmacy to use can be confusing.

Oh: I would definitely squint at whatever results you have. Medicare.gov’s Plan Finder is a good place to start.

You’re going to want to look at your medications and make sure the pharmacy you want to visit to buy or pick up your medications is included.

One important nuance is that even within preferred pharmacies, based on your particular combination of prescriptions, your overall cost can be different from preferred pharmacy one to preferred pharmacy three. That is entirely possible.

Powell: The bar is high to find the right plan for yourself. Doing so without the help of a competent professional makes it harder, from where I sit.

Oh: The underlying issue is complicated, Bob. As a result, the solution can be difficult and very unsettling to people.

What premium increases is Oh seeing?

Powell: What are you seeing with prescription drug premiums heading into 2027?

Oh: The annual notice of change has gone out, and we are seeing anecdotal evidence.

Even in states where there were plans that cost zero dollars, there’s now going to be a premium. For people with expensive medications, where the premium may have been $60, for example, increases of more than 50%, to near or exceeding $100, can be found.

Why does Oh say drug premiums face pressure?

Powell: Why the increase in Part D premiums?

Oh: I think there are two dominant reasons. The first is the Inflation Reduction Act, which you and I have discussed multiple times. In 2027, that out-of-pocket maximum will be capped at $2,400.

The full cost of that is becoming realized. The carriers and drug manufacturers have to bear that additional cost.

The second factor is the end of a premium stabilization program for Part D. That program is ending. When you add these two together, that has contributed to higher Part D premiums and costs.

Powell: We’re often told to look for a generic, but in some cases the generic may not be in the first tier. That might surprise some people.

Oh: For people who have known conditions, this is not news. They’ve dealt with higher-tier medications in the past. It is certainly the case that the price of some generic medications has increased as well.

It’s not only that the premiums could increase, but a medication that you need and depend on may not be on the approved list. So if price alone wasn’t the reason, then certainly the price plus a possible change in formulary… warrants a second look for everyone.

Why can Medigap cost more with unchanged coverage?

Powell: We mentioned that Medigap premiums might be increasing as well. What should people know?

Oh: By sticker price, certainly you see very large increases. Four or five years ago, we were used to something like 6% or 8% increases. That number can easily be 25%, if not higher, year over year, even if your coverage doesn’t change.

You’re still on Plan N or Plan G, for example. Very large increases have been seen around the nation.

Can beneficiaries switch Medigap plans after an increase?

Powell: For people in Plan G or Plan N experiencing those increases, is one possible action to move to a lower-priced plan or one that offers fewer features?

Oh: If you’re on Plan G, for example, and considering moving to Plan N, that’s possible. But in most states, you need to pass medical underwriting, even if you are an existing policyholder.

Certain states have something called a birthday rule or anniversary rule. There are very few states that have unrestricted open enrollment.

What perspective should beneficiaries keep about Medicare costs?

Powell: What advice can we leave our listeners and viewers? I’m going to put the burden on you.

Oh: Thanks, Bob.

There are perhaps wrong ideas that Medicare was free or that it paid for everything. That has never been true.

Now there’s a bigger dollar price, making the decisions more consequential.

Related: Medicare Advantage lawsuit could affect 2027 benefits, plan choices

Moving in together is one of the fastest ways to cut your cost of living. You split the rent, the internet, the electric bill and the furniture, and each of you keeps more of every paycheck.

That math runs in reverse when the relationship ends. The person who moves out has to fund a whole new set of move-in costs, often within weeks and often without a second income to lean on.

Plenty of couples will face that moment. About 58% of U.S. adults lived with a spouse or romantic partner in 2023, according to Pew Research Center data.

Most breakup money advice focuses on splitting joint accounts and deciding who keeps the dog. The bigger number usually sits in the lease you’re about to sign alone.

Now there’s a price tag on that fresh start. Moving out after a breakup costs an average of $4,540, according to a recent study from Integra Credit, a Chicago-based online lender.

When I checked the study’s state rankings against current deposit laws, though, the most expensive state on its list didn’t hold up.

Why going solo after a split hits your wallet so hard

When you share a one-bedroom, each of you covers part of the rent. Move out, and you suddenly owe 100% of a new one, plus the money a landlord wants before handing over the keys.

Those upfront costs stack up fast. Most landlords ask for a security deposit, the first month’s rent and an application or credit check fee before you get a key, and then come the movers, the utility setups and renter’s insurance.

Related: Many homeowners have a major insurance gap

Renters were already stretched before any breakup. Some 23% of renters fell behind on rent at some point in the past year, up two percentage points from 2024, according to the Federal Reserve’s 2025 Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking.

The same survey found 63% of adults would cover a hypothetical $400 emergency expense with cash or its equivalent. That share has been stuck at the same level since 2022.

A $400 surprise is one thing. A bill more than 11 times that size is another.

Integra Credit ranks the priciest states to break up in

Integra Credit’s study models a specific scenario: a single renter with no dependents leaves a shared one-bedroom apartment for a new one-bedroom in the same state, using a moving company.

The national average for that move comes to $4,540 if you take your own furniture. Here’s where the money goes, according to Integra Credit:

• Security deposit: $1,826, or 40.2% of the total
• First month’s rent: $1,414, or 31.2%
• In-state movers: $875, or 19.3%
• Utilities, renter’s insurance and application fees make up the rest

If you start from scratch on furniture, Integra estimates the bill climbs to $7,807, or 72% more.

Location changes everything. Integra ranks California as the most expensive state to break up in at $7,876, followed by Connecticut at $6,829 and Nevada at $6,714.

Oklahoma comes in cheapest at $3,122, helped by the lowest average one-bedroom rent in the study, $895. West Virginia ($3,254) and Mississippi ($3,286) round out the bottom three.

That’s a $4,754 gap between the cheapest and priciest states, which is bigger than the national average bill itself.

California’s 2024 deposit cap rewrites the top of the list

The security deposit drives most of that gap, and that’s where Integra’s California math deserves a closer look.

The study assumes California landlords can charge two months’ rent as a deposit, which pushes the state’s average deposit to $4,358. That was the rule until mid-2024.

More Personal Finance:

• Health insurance is about to cost you a lot more in 2027
• Zillow reports surprising housing market shift
• Suze Orman warns parents about funding a kid’s business

California’s Assembly Bill 12 took effect July 1, 2024, capping most residential security deposits at one month’s rent, furnished or not. A narrow exception still lets small landlords who own no more than two rental properties with four or fewer units combined charge up to two months.

The law is “a simple common sense change,” its author, Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), said when it was signed, CBS News reported.

When I re-ran Integra’s California line items with a one-month deposit, the move-out bill fell to $5,697. That’s $2,179 less, and it’s below Pennsylvania’s $5,784, the 10th-highest total on Integra’s list.

On Integra’s own numbers, that would hand the top spot to Connecticut, where landlords can still collect two months’ rent from tenants under 62.

Maryland has the same problem. The state’s Renters’ Rights and Stabilization Act capped most deposits at one month’s rent for leases signed on or after Oct. 1, 2024, according to Maryland’s housing department.

In my analysis, that trims Maryland’s total from $6,267 to about $4,591, which would drop it out of Integra’s top 10.

None of this makes moving cheap in either state. California still has the fourth-highest one-bedroom rent in Integra’s data at $2,179, so ask any new landlord whether the small-owner exception applies before you budget.

Full rent on your own does more damage than the moving bill

The one-time bill gets the headlines, but the recurring cost often does more damage.

Say you and a partner split a $2,179 California one-bedroom down the middle. Your share was about $1,090, and living alone in a similar unit means paying the full amount, or roughly $13,000 more a year.

In Oklahoma, the same math adds about $5,370 a year. Either way, the extra rent shows up every month, long after the movers have gone.

That’s why planners push for savings in your own name, even inside a happy relationship. Each partner should keep an account with enough to cover several months of basic expenses, certified financial planner Brian Court of JustAnswer told Newsweek in August.

His test before signing any lease or loan together is simple: “Could I afford this payment by myself if I had to?”

How to shrink your move-out costs before signing a lease

You can’t control your state’s rent. You can control several of the line items in Integra’s estimate.

• Settle the old deposit first. If your ex is keeping the apartment, ask them to buy out your half of the existing deposit, and put the agreement in writing.
• Rethink the movers. Professional movers average $875 in Integra’s data, and a rental truck plus a few friends can cost far less.
• Keep the furniture you can. Buying new pushes Integra’s estimate from $4,540 to $7,807.
• Know your state’s deposit cap. California, Maryland, New York and Massachusetts all limit most deposits to one month’s rent.
• Keep renter’s insurance. Integra puts the average premium at about $22 a month, cheap protection for everything you just moved.

One more thing worth knowing: Integra Credit sells personal loans and lines of credit, so it has a commercial interest in people facing large one-time bills. That doesn’t make its numbers wrong, but it’s a good reason to check them, which is how the California gap turned up.

A breakup tests your heart first and your balance sheet right after. The renters who land on their feet are usually the ones who kept a safety net in their own name all along.

Related: Zillow predicts major mortgage rate, housing market change

What made the advice compelling was the tax environment it was designed for. When Congress created the 401(k) framework in 1978, the top federal marginal rate sat at 70%. A pre-tax contribution at that level delivered real value.

The top rate today is 37%. That gap is changing the math for high earners, and a growing number of them are no longer contributing the maximum as a result.

Also read: Fidelity uncovers striking shift in 401(k) balances

The data on who is pulling back from 401(k) contributions

Vanguard tracks contribution behavior across millions of plan participants. Its How America Saves 2026 report found that about 51% of workers earning at least $150,000 maxed out their 401(k) last year. In 2018 that figure was 60%.

Among workers earning between $100,000 and $149,999, the drop is even steeper. The share who maxed out fell from 22% in 2018 to just 10% today.

Part of that is the rising limit. Workers can contribute up to $24,500 in 2026, compared with $18,500 in 2018. For a worker earning $150,000, hitting the ceiling now takes about 16% of their pay. A few years ago, it took 12%. Maxing out requires a bigger commitment than it used to.

Craig Copeland, director of Wealth Benefits Research at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, told Bloomberg the trend started about two years ago and has picked up speed over the past 12 months.

“We need to be more sophisticated than just max it out,” Copeland told Bloomberg.

Why the tax argument is shifting

A traditional 401(k) has a simple logic. You put money in before taxes, it grows, and you pay taxes on it when you take it out. The bet is that your tax rate in retirement will be lower than it is right now.

With the top rate at 37%, down from 70% when the account was created, that spread has narrowed considerably. Some high earners now expect to pay a smaller tax bill today only to face a larger one when they start withdrawing in retirement.

Required minimum distributions make the concern more concrete. Once investors reach a certain age, the IRS requires them to take taxable withdrawals from traditional accounts whether they need the money or not.

For retirees drawing other income, those forced withdrawals can push them into a higher bracket at exactly the wrong time. Some early retirees are converting traditional accounts to Roth before RMDs kick in to get ahead of the problem.

Early retirement is another reason to rethink the account

Charlie Dice, a 39-year-old who helps farmers and ranchers obtain federal loans, has about $500,000 in her 401(k). She plans to cut her contribution from 20% of her pay to 5%, keep her full employer match, and redirect the rest to a brokerage account and a Roth IRA.

Her reason goes beyond the tax argument. She wants the option to stop working before 60, and money inside a traditional 401(k) generally cannot be touched before age 59½ without a 10% penalty. Locking away additional savings in an account she may not be able to use for two decades does not fit her plan.

More Personal finance:

• Pay raises trail inflation so Ramit Sethi says, “Ask for $5,000”
• Your home insurance deductible could be $20,000. Would you be ready?
• Why your next car purchase will be an affordability nightmare

“People, especially my generation, need to not box themselves into one way of thinking,” Dice told Bloomberg.

Roth IRA contributions can be withdrawn at any time without tax or penalty. Earnings carry restrictions, but the principal stays accessible. A taxable brokerage account goes further. There are no age restrictions, no penalty rules, and no contribution limits beyond what your budget allows.

Where the money is going instead

Health savings accounts are one of the more popular destinations for redirected savings. Contributions go in pre-tax, growth is tax-free, and withdrawals for medical expenses are also tax-free.

Few accounts offer that combination. After age 65, you can use the money for anything, not just healthcare, and pay ordinary income tax on it the same way you would with a traditional IRA.

Roth IRAs work differently. You contribute after tax, but the money grows tax-free, and qualified withdrawals in retirement are also tax-free. If you expect your tax rate to be the same or higher later, paying taxes now can be the smarter trade.

High earners above a certain income cannot contribute directly, but many use a backdoor Roth, which means contributing to a traditional IRA first and then converting it, to get around the limit.

Taxable brokerage accounts offer the broadest investment access. Most employer-sponsored 401(k) plans limit participants to a set menu of funds chosen by the plan administrator.

A brokerage account has no such restrictions. It also lets investors manage tax-loss harvesting and make charitable giving more efficient, which matters more as balances grow.

What this means for your own retirement plan

The employer match still comes first. If your employer matches contributions up to a certain percentage, hit that number before you do anything else. The match is part of your compensation. Not taking it means working for less than you are actually being paid.

After the match, your next step depends on your situation. If you expect to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement, pre-tax 401(k) contributions beyond the match still make sense. If you expect your rate to stay flat or rise, a Roth account or taxable investment account may serve the extra dollars better.

Think about your timeline. If you want to stop working before 59½, a 401(k) can work against you. The money is there but you cannot get to it without a penalty. Planning to retire early while locking most of your savings in a traditional account is a mismatch worth catching now.

The 401(k) is not going away. Fidelity counted a record 769,000 401(k) millionaires in the second quarter of 2026, up 19% in just three months. The account still does what it was designed to do. The question for high earners is whether doing exactly what the account was designed for still fits what they are trying to build.

Related: Dave Ramsey warns Americans on 401(k)s, Roth 401(k)s

Catch-up contributions are the vehicle that lets workers over 50 push past the standard deferral limit and fully maximize their 401(k) savings each year, according to the IRS. 

A key provision of the SECURE 2.0 Act now requires higher-income participants to direct those extra dollars into after-tax Roth 401(k) accounts.

The change eliminates the upfront deduction that made aggressive 401(k) deferrals appealing during peak earning years, right when the tax shelter matters most. 

Data from Vanguard’s How America Saves 2026 report, which tracks roughly 5 million plan participants, shows broader contribution patterns evolving alongside this mandate.

Also Read: Suze Orman flashes a 401(k) warning on saving for retirement

SECURE 2.0’s Roth catch-up mandate and the new 401(k) contribution limits

Section 603 of the SECURE 2.0 Act targets workers aged 50 and older whose 2025 Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) wages topped $150,000. That dollar threshold, raised from $145,000 in the prior year, is adjusted annually for inflation under the schedule outlined in IRS Notice 2025-67.

Workers who exceed that wage floor can no longer route their catch-up dollars into a traditional pre-tax 401(k) to shrink their current-year tax bill. The 2026 deferral limit is $24,500, up from $23,500, and the catch-up cap for those 50 and older increased to $8,000, the IRS notice noted.

Also read: Hewlett Packard, Dell have a PC problem

Workers between ages 60 and 63 can still access a higher catch-up of $11,250, unchanged from 2025, under the SECURE 2.0 framework. Only the catch-up portion triggers the Roth requirement, while the base $24,500 deferral can remain pre-tax for those who prefer it, the IRS reported.

Plans without a Roth 401(k) option must block affected participants from making catch-up contributions until the sponsor adds one, the Federal Register specified.

What Vanguard’s 2025 data shows about 401(k) catch-up participation

Vanguard’s How America Saves 2026 report, offers the broadest snapshot of workplace retirement behavior. The average participant deferral rate held steady at 7.6% of pay across the firm’s recordkeeping base, while the median landed at 6.6%.

Workers aged 55 and older deferred nearly twice as much of their pay as the youngest participants in the survey. Age served as the primary determinant of higher contribution rates across all plan types tracked in the survey, the data revealed.

More Retirement:

• Retirement Tech in 2026: AI, Operational Efficiency, and Better Participant Experience
• George Kamel, Rachel Cruze warn about a mortgage retirement trap
• Massachusetts retirement taxes explained: What retirees should know before moving or staying

Only 45% of participants boosted their deferral rates in 2025, through individual decisions or automatic escalation features in their plans. 

Average total contribution rates, combining employee and employer contributions, reached 12.1%, up nearly two percentage points over the past decade, Vanguard reported.

Average account balances hit a record $167,970 at year-end 2025, up 13% from a year earlier, driven by market gains and broader participation, the data indicated.

Vanguard’s retirement consulting team sees the Roth mandate as an education opportunity

Only 16% of eligible participants used catch-up contributions in 2025, Vanguard found, meaning most older workers were not maximizing the pre-tax benefit the mandate now restricts.

Roth 401(k) plans have expanded since the account type launched in 2006, but worker-level adoption has consistently lagged behind plan-level availability. 

About 98% of Vanguard plans offered a Roth option at year-end 2025, up from 86% at year-end 2024, yet only 18% of workers used the feature when it was available, the Vanguard report detailed.

David Stinnett, Principal of Strategic Retirement Consulting & Solutions at Vanguard, told PlanSponsor the mandate will change how participants think about retirement tax planning.

<strong>It's a good opportunity to educate people on the benefits of Roth and how it's different, and the concept of tax diversification,</strong>

Vanguard’s December 2025 commentary on Roth contributions frames Roth savings as a way to achieve tax diversification alongside pre-tax 401(k) and traditional IRA balances, with the added benefit of locking in current tax rates against future increases. 

For high earners caught by the 2026 catch-up mandate, that after-tax exposure now builds by default.

How affected workers can protect their 401(k) catch-up contributions in 2026

Catch-up room lost during any period the plan lacks a Roth 401(k) option cannot be recovered later in the same tax year, under the final regulations.

The Roth catch-up requirement took effect January 1, 2026, but the final regulations issued in September 2025 don’t formally apply until January 1, 2027, for most plans. A good-faith interpretation standard covers plans during 2026 as payroll systems adjust, the IRS confirmed.

Hayden Adams, Director of Tax and Financial Planning at the Schwab Center for Financial Research, pointed affected savers toward funding a Roth IRA if modified adjusted gross income stays under the 2026 thresholds, or maxing out a health savings account tied to a high-deductible health plan.

“Adding such funds to your portfolio gives you greater tax flexibility,” Adams said.

Related: Vanguard spotlights Roth IRA trap hiding in your income

Amid this surge in home-buyer demand, home-sale prices spiked. I had to offer tens of thousands of dollars over the listing price for a seller to finally accept my offer.

And I don’t think housing costs have felt the same since.

Home prices are growing at a much more modest pace in 2026, but that spike in 2022 and 2023 put them at a high threshold.

Mortgage rates have ticked up and down occasionally, but they’re also significantly higher right now. The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate hit 7.40% on Oct. 8, according to Freddie Mac, its highest point since November 2023.

The high home prices and mortgage rates have made monthly mortgage payments unaffordable for many Americans. So, will housing costs ever go back to “normal?”

Actually, they might. In fact, the real estate technology company Redfin thinks they could return to normal in just five years.

Read more: Zillow predicts major mortgage rate, housing market change

What are ‘normal’ housing prices?

To understand Redfin’s predictions, you need to know what the company means by “normal” housing prices.

In this Redfin report, housing costs are considered “normal” when they return to their August 2018 levels. Redfin measures this using the mortgage-payment-to-income ratio, or the amount you spend on monthly mortgage payments compared to your monthly gross (pre-tax) income.

When Redfin talks about a monthly “mortgage payment,” it’s assuming you have a 30-year mortgage. The mortgage payment also includes the principal, interest, property taxes, and insurance.

More Housing Market:

• Zillow reports surprising housing market shift
• Jean Chatzky has fresh perspective on 5-year rule for homebuyers
• Redfin finds record housing market change as buyers gain power

To break down how this ratio works, I’ll give an example. Let’s say your monthly gross income might be $8,000, and your mortgage payment might be $2,400. This monthly payment is 30% of your income, so your housing costs would be considered “normal.”

The 30% mortgage payment-to-income ratio threshold is a well-known benchmark for housing affordability, according to a 2018 Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies paper.

Redfin analysts are clear that “normal” and “affordable” are not synonymous.

“At the metro level, ‘normal’ does not necessarily mean ‘affordable;’ rather, ‘normal’ means the metro has returned to its 2018 level of home prices relative to incomes, even if the median home in some expensive metros remains out of reach for the typical household,” wrote Redfin.

Redfin says housing costs could return to normal in 5 or 6 years

Redfin outlines four key scenarios in this analysis.

First, home-price growth holds steady at about 2.1%, but mortgage rates fall to 6%. In this case, housing costs could go back to normal within five years.

Second, housing prices could return to normal in six years if the opposite happens — if home-price growth flattens and mortgage rates stay around 7.5%.

The third option is the best-case scenario: Mortgage rates drop to 6% and home-price growth flattens. This could bring costs back to normal in just a little over two years, in early 2029. However, Redfin notes that this is an unlikely outcome.

The fourth option is the worst-case scenario. If mortgage rates hold between 7% and 8% and home-price growth continues at 2.1% annually, it could take at least 10 years for housing costs to return to normal.

“That’s also unlikely but possible: If rates stay that high, home-price growth would be difficult to sustain without a further decline in home sales,” Redfin wrote.

When will mortgage rates or home prices decrease?

Mortgage rates have been spiking lately, but economists expect them to cool down in the near to medium future.

Zillow forecasts that the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate will drop to 7.1% by the end of 2026 and reach 6.5% by the end of 2027. The September 2026 Fannie Mae Housing Forecast put the 30-year fixed rate at 6.8% through the end of 2026, then at 6.7% throughout 2027.

The Mortgage Bankers Association’s mortgage rate forecast through 2027 is fairly similar to Fannie Mae’s. The association expects home price growth to cool off over the next few years, though. In the September MBA Mortgage Financial Forecast, it puts the FHFA U.S. House Price Index annual rate of change at 0.8% for 2026, 0.5% for 2027, and 1.2% for 2028.

The housing market is always full of twists and turns. Something could happen to cause mortgage rates or home prices to shift drastically one way or the other.

But looking at current predictions, it’s more likely that housing costs will take a little longer than five or six years nationwide — but probably not 10 years.

However, if you can afford to buy before then, don’t waste time and energy trying to time the real estate market.

“Many house hunters feel stuck between two bad options: Stretch themselves to buy at today’s rates, or wait for lower rates only to see prices climb further out of reach,” said Redfin Senior Economist Asad Khan. “But prospective buyers shouldn’t get hung up on timing the market.”

“These hypothetical scenarios should give would-be buyers and sellers some hope that the market can normalize with only modest changes in rates or prices,” Khan said.

Related: A mortgage rule change just gave FICO its worst day since 1989

A friend called John Nersesian, the founder of Nersesian Wealth Education, after realizing a large investment gain and losing a tax deduction connected to his business. The sale produced a profit, Nersesian said, but also raised income enough to affect another part of the tax return.

That experience illustrates the wealth educator’s concern about treating financial decisions in isolation. In his interview with me, he discussed income limits on business deductions and newer tax benefits, including the expanded state and local tax deduction.

Below is a transcript of the interview with Nersesian, edited for brevity and clarity.

How can a capital gain affect a business deduction?

John Nersesian: I had a friend who called me last year who is self-employed and entitled to this Section 199A deduction, but he lost it. Unknowingly, he realized a really large capital gain in his portfolio.

That’s ordinarily a good outcome, right? What he didn’t realize is that recognizing the gain increased his income. By increasing his income above the threshold, the individual lost the 20% deduction he otherwise would have been entitled to.

Bob Powell: Sometimes people are tax-averse for the wrong reasons, right?

Nersesian: Let’s make sure we really understand the implications of income, capital gains, and taxes. Paying taxes means you were successful in your career and compensated well, or you had another source of income through a successful investment decision.

Those are good events, generally speaking. But I think all of us want to be tax-smart and not pay any more than is required through some smart planning.

By increasing his income above the threshold, the individual lost the 20% deduction he otherwise would have been entitled to.

Why review eligibility for the business income deduction?

Nersesian: It’s called the Section 199A deduction, otherwise known as QBI. If you’re in a specialized service business, lawyers, financial services people, accountants, there’s a phaseout.

Having income above a certain threshold may cause an individual to lose that valuable deduction. Have a conversation with your financial planner and tax adviser about your expected level of income and how you can proactively manage it.

What can limit the larger SALT deduction?

Powell: The SALT deduction increase to $40,000 was part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). Fol­ks will have a limited window to enjoy that expanded deduction, right?

Nersesian: Yes. Many of the updated deductions for individuals took effect in 2025 or 2026, but several have scheduled expiration dates. It’s like that carton of milk in the back of your refrigerator: You’d better drink it quickly before it goes bad.

For 2026, the SALT cap rises slightly to $40,400 (up from $40,000 in 2025). Once your modified adjusted gross income exceeds $505,000, that deduction phases down at a rate of 30 cents per dollar over the threshold.

It will never drop below the $10,000 statutory floor if you paid that much or more in qualifying state and local taxes, but high earners won’t receive the full benefit.

Why look beyond the advertised tax break?

Nersesian: We all read about these really great tax breaks we were going to receive. The taxman giveth and the taxman taketh away.

Many of the benefits we heard about with a lot of media and fanfare are subject to a phaseout. Either they’re set to expire down the road, or they’re not available for high-income earners.

Related: The year-end RMD trap: Why waiting until late December could cost retirees 25%

Heading into 2027, the same script is unfolding. Premiums are expected to rise. The COLA figure has not been released yet. Whatever number the Social Security Administration announces, Part B will take a share of it before beneficiaries see a dime.

Into that gap, the White House and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have dropped a one-time $90 payment. More than 20 million Medicare Part B beneficiaries are eligible, the White House announced.

Direct deposits are landing on or around Oct. 8, and paper checks are expected later in the month.

Also read: Suze Orman flags the Medicare gap retirees are missing

Not every Part B enrollee qualifies for the $90 payment

Medicare covers more than 70 million people, but the $90 payment reaches only about 20.8 million of them. The eligibility rules are specific, and several large groups are left out.

Beneficiaries who receive Medicaid assistance do not qualify. Medicaid already helps cover their Part B premiums. Sending them the $90 would duplicate a benefit they already receive.

People who pay an income-related monthly adjustment amount, known as IRMAA, are also excluded. IRMAA surcharges apply to higher-income enrollees who pay more than the standard Part B premium. The payment is aimed at those on the standard rate only.

Medicare Advantage enrollees are not eligible, nor are beneficiaries living outside the United States.

To qualify, a person must be enrolled in Medicare Part B, pay the standard monthly premium, and live in the United States without Medicaid assistance or an IRMAA surcharge.

Beneficiaries who are unsure whether they qualify can call Medicare at 1-800-633-4227 to confirm their status before the payment window closes.

Where the $90 is actually coming from

The money is drawn from the Medicare Improvement Fund, a pool of unused federal dollars that Congress authorized to support improvements to Medicare’s fee-for-service program.

Nobody touched it for years. Using it now for direct payments to beneficiaries is something critics are watching closely, writes MEAWW News. The checks land weeks before the official 2027 premium announcement. That timing has people asking whether this is a policy decision or a political one.

The payment is separate from the $500 refund checks going to certain Affordable Care Act marketplace enrollees. The two programs are unrelated and funded differently.

Beneficiaries do not need to apply or provide any banking information to receive the $90. It will arrive automatically based on existing Medicare records.

What the 2027 premium increase actually looks like

The standard monthly Part B premium is currently $202.90 in 2026. It is projected to rise to approximately $209.50 in 2027. That is an increase of $6.60 per month.

Annualized, that is $79.20 in extra costs per beneficiary. The $90 covers it and leaves a few dollars to spare. But that math only works once.

After 2027, the higher premium stays. The payment does not come back. Beneficiaries will pay the full increase out of their Social Security checks with nothing to offset it.

More Healthcare/Health:

• One IRA withdrawal can triple your Medicare premium
• UnitedHealth’s earnings comeback hides a risk Wall Street can’t price
• Medicare’s new $50 GLP-1 deal has a catch

Part B covers doctor visits, outpatient care, preventive services, and certain medical equipment. Because the premium is deducted directly from Social Security benefits, any increase reduces the net value of whatever COLA adjustment beneficiaries receive in a given year.

That connection matters. A higher Part B premium does not just cost more in isolation. It directly shrinks the effective value of the annual raise that Social Security is supposed to deliver.

The Social Security COLA announcement is still coming

No official number yet on the 2027 COLA. Analysts have it landing somewhere between 3.4% and 3.6%, FOXBusiness reported. The Social Security Administration is expected to publish the final figure later this month.

Whatever that number turns out to be, the Part B premium increase will reduce how much of it actually reaches beneficiaries’ accounts. A COLA that looks meaningful on paper can shrink considerably once the premium deduction is applied.

A 3.5% increase on an average monthly benefit of around $1,900 would add roughly $66. That is before the premium adjustment. After accounting for the higher Part B cost, the net gain narrows further.

Beyond Part B, beneficiaries may also face higher costs for Medicare Part D drug coverage, Medigap supplemental policies, and out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs and healthcare services. The $90 payment does not address any of those rising costs.

How to confirm payment status and avoid scams

To check eligibility, call Medicare directly at 1-800-633-4227. After Oct. 15, the Social Security Administration at 1-800-772-1213 should also be able to pull up payment status.

Beneficiaries should use those official numbers only. Unsolicited calls, emails or text messages asking for banking details or Social Security numbers in connection with this payment are scams.

Medicare will not ask for account information or charge any fee to process the payment. The money arrives automatically. No action is required to claim it.

Those who believe they qualify but do not receive a payment by the end of October should verify their mailing address and direct-deposit information with Medicare or the Social Security Administration directly.

Related: Health insurance is about to cost you a lot more in 2027

Powered by the Automated Clearing House (ACH) network, e-checks move billions of dollars annually for recurring bills, large purchases, and business payments.

While they offer steep cost savings over credit cards, they operate under fundamentally different rules than plastic. Knowing how e-checks work, and where their security gaps lie, is critical before linking your direct bank account.

What is an e-check?

An e-check is a digital payment drawn directly from a checking account through the ACH network. Instead of writing paper checks by hand, you provide your checking account number and bank routing number along with formal transaction authorization.

The merchant or payee processes this information electronically, pulling funds directly from your bank account. E-checks are commonly used for a number of regular payments including:

• Mortgage payments
• Monthly rent payments
• Car loan repayments
• Membership fees
• Tax payments
• Credit card payments
• Utility payments

E-checks provide a more convenient way to pay versus a traditional paper check, but it’s important to consider both the benefits and potential risks of e-checks.

Key benefits of e-check payments

1. Lower processing fees

Credit card processing fees typically range between 1.5% and 3.5% per transaction. E-checks, in contrast, carry flat processing fees (often under $1.00 per transaction) or low percentages near 0.5% to 1.5%.

For high-ticket purchases — such as rent, tuition, or wholesale vendor payments — e-checks offer buyers and sellers substantial savings.

2. Enhanced security over paper checks

Paper checks are inherently vulnerable. They pass through multiple hands in the mail and explicitly expose account details written on paper.

E-checks substitute physical handling with 256-bit data encryption, tokenization, and digital authentication protocols, significantly mitigating physical theft risks.

3. Seamless automation for recurring bills

E-checks allow consumers and businesses to set up automated recurring payments for subscriptions, insurance policies, or mortgage payments.

Because checking account routing numbers rarely change (unlike credit card expiration dates and reissued card numbers), recurring transactions experience fewer administrative disruptions.

Hidden risks and drawbacks of e-checks

1. Processing delays and bounced fees

Unlike credit or debit card transactions, which approve or decline instantaneously, e-checks can take one to five business days to clear the ACH network.

If funds are lacking when the transfer settles, the transaction bounces, triggering overdraft or returned-check fees from both your bank and the vendor.

2. Strict limits on transaction reversibility

Under Federal Reserve Regulation E, consumers have protection against unauthorized electronic bank transfers. However, dispute resolution for an e-check is often far more burdensome than a credit card chargeback.

If you encounter a merchant dispute over service quality or non-delivery, reversing an e-check is difficult once the funds clear.

3. Direct exposure of checking funds

When an e-check process is compromised, fraudsters gain direct access to cash in your primary bank account.

Unlike credit card fraud, where disputed charges freeze the lender’s money, e-check fraud temporarily drains actual liquid savings until your bank resolves the investigation.

E-checks vs. credit cards vs. wire transfers

The verdict: When should you use an e-check?

Use an e-check for: High-dollar routine bills (rent, tuition, tax obligations, vendor payables) where credit card processing surcharges would add significant cost. E-checks also offer a way to avoid additional debt or interest payments since funds are pulled directly from your checking account. 

Avoid an e-check for: Transactions with unfamiliar online vendors, time-critical purchases requiring immediate delivery, or items where purchase protection and simple chargebacks are required.

Related: Bond ladders: how to build a stairway to stability

John Nersesian remembers the $3,000 limit on deducting net capital losses against ordinary income from the year he graduated from Lehigh and began paying taxes. In his interview with me, he pointed to the same dollar limit decades later.

But that limit is only part of his portfolio discussion. Nersesian, the founder of Nersesian Wealth Education, also described how losses can offset capital gains and why investors sometimes need to sell investments that have performed well to restore the portfolio they intended to own.

Below is a transcript of the interview with Nersesian, edited for brevity and clarity.

What can investment losses accomplish at tax time?

John Nersesian: Nobody likes to invest in a losing strategy, but if you have unrealized losses, they can provide an ancillary benefit.

We start first with short-term transactions. We net out our short-term gains and losses. We then move on to our long-term transactions, taking long-term gains against long-term losses for a net long-term position.

The third step is to pull the two together, to take our net short-term transactions against our net long-term transactions. Losses can be used dollar for dollar to offset gains.

If you have additional losses above and beyond, you can use all of $3,000 of any net loss against ordinary income. I have a bone to pick with the IRS. You want to know what it is?

Bob Powell: I do.

Nersesian: I started paying taxes in 1981. I graduated from Lehigh back then. Do you want to guess the maximum amount an individual could take off ordinary income for any of these losses? It was $3,000.

Here we are, 45 years later, and the number is $3,000.

Why review wash-sale rules before harvesting losses?

Nersesian: When an individual does book a loss to offset gains, they’ve got to be aware of this wash-sale rule.

How can market performance change a portfolio’s risk?

Nersesian: I meet with my adviser, and we talk about our intended strategy. Maybe we wrote an investment policy, and we take a look at where we are today.

Maybe my equity portfolio has done really well. Maybe my fixed-income portfolio has done less well. Now the current holdings are out of alignment with my original policy.

There may be a reason to retain the current exposure, or I may want to rebalance. Rebalancing forces us to do what is emotionally difficult but often financially productive.

Related: The year-end RMD trap: Why waiting until late December could cost retirees 25%

Rebalancing requires you to sell what has already appreciated and reallocate those dollars into assets that have performed less well. The biggest benefit is that it avoids drift: an exposure that was never intentionally sought but may subject our clients or our friends to greater downside risk.

Why can rebalancing feel wrong after market losses?

Nersesian: I’ll give an example going back to 2008. An individual started with a million-dollar portfolio allocated across five core strategies: growth stocks, international, fixed income and so on.

By Dec. 31, the portfolio looked very different. It was down in value, but look at the mix and how it drifted. What started as 70-30 stocks to bonds turned out to be 58-42. The equity portion was lower; the fixed-income portion was higher due to market returns.

I don’t know too many people who went to their advisers at the end of the year, after suffering those significant losses, asking their adviser to buy them more equities.

It would have been counterintuitive for that individual to allocate more money to equities, but that’s exactly what rebalancing would have done.

Powell: It’s an inelegant way of saying it, but sometimes people refer to rebalancing as selling your winners and buying your losers.

Nersesian: If anything, the individual probably would have asked to reduce their equity exposure because of the pain they had just endured. Maybe the greatest benefit of a formal rebalancing approach is that it instills discipline in an emotionally charged world.

How can a written investment policy guide decisions?

Powell: It bears repeating: creating an investment policy statement would take the emotion out of this and guide you. We agreed what our allocations should be. That’s our plan, and we stick to it.

Nersesian: There are two important steps. The first is writing that policy statement or plan. The second is adherence to it, utilizing it after it’s been created. That’s what a great adviser can help you with.

Related: The “Gap Year” Roth: Early retirees slash lifetime taxes before RMDs hit

The Roth individual retirement account (IRA) offers tax-free investment growth and withdrawals in retirement, but annual income limits determine who can contribute. 

Vanguard’s 2026 Roth IRA contribution limits guide reveals a phase-out zone that can shrink or eliminate your allowed Roth IRA contribution once earnings cross a threshold. 

The risk is greatest for workers who fund their account early and later receive a raise, bonus, or capital gains that exceed the ceiling. The penalty for contributing more than the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) allows recurs annually until corrected. 

The problem is harder to detect because your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) can change unpredictably throughout the calendar year.

Also Read: Vanguard flags costly blind spot in 401(k) Roth savings

Vanguard flags 2026 Roth IRA phase-out thresholds for savers

The 2026 Roth IRA contribution limit is $7,500 for savers under age 50, and $8,600 for those aged 50 or older. Those caps rose from $7,000 and $8,000, respectively, in 2025, reflecting cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) that the IRS published in Notice 2025-67.

Single filers with MAGI below $153,000 can contribute the full amount, but the allowance shrinks within the $153,000-$168,000 phase-out range, Vanguard noted. Direct Roth IRA contributions drop to zero once a single filer’s MAGI reaches $168,000, the IRS confirmed.

Married couples filing jointly face a narrower phase-out range of $242,000 to $252,000, leaving households only $10,000 in income to clear before total disqualification.

That compressed range makes a year-end bonus or a spouse’s freelance earnings particularly risky for couples who contribute their full amount in January 2026.

The single-filer phase-out range rose $3,000 compared to 2025, when the band ran from $150,000 to $165,000. For married couples filing jointly, the range climbed $6,000, from $236,000 to $246,000 in the prior year, the IRS confirmed.

Participation in an employer-sponsored retirement plan does not affect Roth IRA eligibility, the IRS’s retirement-topics guidance stated. 

Savers covered by a 401(k) at work can still contribute to a traditional or Roth IRA, with Roth contributions limited only by the MAGI thresholds above.

What the IRS changed in 2026 retirement contribution limits

The IRS raised the annual IRA contribution limit to $7,500 from $7,000 for the 2026 tax year, the agency announced in Notice 2025-67. 

Catch-up contributions for individuals aged 50 and over also rose to $1,100 from $1,000, reflecting inflation indexing introduced under the SECURE 2.0 Act.

Those contribution limits apply to all of a saver’s traditional and Roth IRAs combined, meaning additional accounts do not increase the total, the IRS states in Publication 590-A.

More Vanguard:

• Vanguard’s new 401(k) numbers have good news for Millennials
• Vanguard doubles down on U.S. stocks with 4 new ETFs
• Vanguard sends urgent warning on a major 401(k) growing problem

Despite the higher ceilings, savers with variable income from bonuses or stock options may not discover they exceeded the revised thresholds until year-end, Vanguard warned. 

A contribution that looked safe under the new limits in January 2026 can become an excess by December 2026 if earnings climb, the firm noted.

The compounding 6% excise penalty the IRS charges on excess contributions

The IRS levies a 6% excise tax on any excess Roth IRA contribution for every year the surplus stays in the account. That penalty recurs automatically for each tax year the saver leaves the overcontribution unresolved.

Nick Bour, Founder and CEO of Inspire Wealth, told Forbes Advisor that excess IRA contributions are more widespread than most savers realize.

<strong>This is a far more common issue than one may think, especially for self-employed people or people that may have made too much money to qualify for deductible contributions or a Roth IRA contribution,</strong>

A $1,000 excess contribution generates $60 in annual penalties that persist until the saver withdraws the surplus or applies it to future years. 

The IRS caps the tax at 6% of either the excess amount or the combined year-end value of all the saver’s IRAs, whichever is lower, and savers report it on Form 5329.

How savers with unpredictable earnings can protect their Roth IRA

Savers who discover that their MAGI exceeds the phase-out ceiling after contributing can request a refund of excess contributions from their custodian before their tax-filing deadline, under IRS Publication 590-A.

For 2026 contributions, the deadline falls on April 15, 2027, and extends to October 15, 2027, for savers who filed for a tax extension.

In certain cases, the contribution can instead be recharacterized as a traditional IRA contribution under IRS rules that still allow regular contributions.

For workers whose earnings consistently exceed the income limit, Vanguard outlines a backdoor Roth IRA strategy that uses traditional IRA conversions to bypass the restriction. That approach requires contributing to a non-deductible traditional IRA first, then converting the balance to a Roth account.

Lisa Featherngill, an Independent Consultant at Wealth by Design LLC, told Fox Business the 2026 ceilings help workers shelter more income, a change “especially helpful as retirement gets longer and more expensive.”

Related: Vanguard uncovers the real cost of early Social Security

The idea was that the financial benefits of owning would finally outweigh the costs of buying, including the down payment, closing costs, and other expenses I wouldn’t have faced as a renter.

After reaching that break-even point, my home could become a tool for building wealth.

Jean Chatzky, a personal finance author and founder and CEO of HerMoney Media, has long advocated the “five-year rule,” saying it may be better to rent if you don’t want to stay somewhere for at least five years.

Chatzky didn’t invent the concept, but she has promoted the idea since publishing her book “Operation Money” in 2014.

Buying and owning a home has become much more expensive since 2014, though. Home prices and mortgage rates are higher. This means the math for the five-year rule might not add up anymore.

Chatzky recently revisited the five-year rule idea in a podcast interview.

Chatzky suggests 6 or 7 years may be a better home-buying timeline

While Chatzky has not formally disavowed the five-year rule, she did mention expanding the timeline in an Aug. 28 episode of Hala Taha’s podcast Young and Profiting (YAP).

“If you’re not going to be someplace for five years, I don’t think you should buy,” Chatzky told Taha. “The cost of buying is just too steep.”

Mortgage rates in particular are making potential homebuyers nervous. The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate reached 7.40% on Oct. 8, according to Freddie Mac data, its highest point since November 2023.

Read more: Jean Chatzky has strong new warning on 401(k), IRA danger

“I don’t think that mortgage rates at this level should stop people who want to be in a place for six, seven years and more,” she continued. “You’ll eventually, hopefully, get an opportunity to refi that loan.”

Chatzky’s saying that if you stay in a home for several years, mortgage rates will likely decrease during that time, and you can refinance into a more affordable rate.

Chatzky isn’t abandoning the five-year rule, but her comments suggest that today’s buyers may want to think beyond five years when evaluating whether buying makes financial sense.

Zillow puts the typical break-even point at 6.2 years

Zillow research supports Chatzky’s claim that buying a house could take six years or longer to break even financially.

An August analysis from the real-estate technology company found that the typical American household needs 6.2 years to break even after buying a single-family home compared to renting. And that’s assuming they can make a 20% down payment — which many buyers cannot afford.

“The common wisdom is that saving early to buy a home is the smart financial move, but the reality is more nuanced,” wrote Zillow senior economist Kara Ng. “Buyers should think about not just when they can afford to buy, but how long they’d need to stay before owning makes more financial sense than renting.”

More Housing Market:

• Zillow reports surprising housing market shift
• Redfin says October could be the best time to buy a house
• Lennar delivers harsh reality check for housing market

The break-even timeline depends on where you live, though. According to Zillow’s August research, after buying a single-family home, the typical homeowner took 5.3 years to break even in Las Vegas, 9.5 years in Dallas, and 18.4 years in Seattle.

The timeline shortens if you buy a starter home, which Zillow defines as “the average home in the lowest third of home values in a given region.”

By opting for a starter home, the nationwide break-even timeline shortened to 2.6 years after purchase.

The typical homeowner had to stay in their home for 3.7 years in Nevada, 5.9 years in Dallas, and 13.2 years in Seattle.

Homeownership is a lifestyle choice, not an investment

Some personal finance personalities preach that homeownership is essential for building wealth. Chatzky doesn’t have that mindset, though. She’s open that buying isn’t for everyone, especially if you don’t plan to stay in one place for very long.

“There are some cases where renting is just better,” she told Taha.

But if you do plan to stay in the home for a long time, buying a house and building equity can be a great way to build the kind of life you want. Your home equity becomes a financial cushion.

“And you can use that cushion to supplement your standard of living,” Chatzky said. “You can use it to pay for long-term care. You can use it to keep a roof over your head. You can use it to sell and move to Costa Rica. You have choices because you have this additional cushion.”

The bottom line? If you’re buying a primary residence, try not to think of it as an investment. Think of it as a lifestyle choice. If buying fits your timeline and life goals, then it could be the right move.

That doesn’t mean a home can’t help you build wealth. It means your primary residence doesn’t have to be evaluated like a stock or other investment.

Related: Chase now offers up to 1% off mortgage rates to more customers

You open the letter, see a bigger number and assume you’re ahead. The raise that counts is the one left over after the grocery store, the utility company and your landlord take their share.

Employers reported pay increases in about the same narrow band in 2024, 2025 and 2026, according to Marsh’s Mercer QuickPulse Survey. The number on the letter kept going up, and so did the price of nearly everything it was supposed to cover.

That balance has now tipped against you. Employers have set aside 3.2% for merit raises next year, while consumer prices rose 3.4% over the 12 months through August, the latest reading from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

So the default outcome of your next review is a pay cut dressed up as a raise. That leaves one variable you control: whether you ask for more, and how.

Ramit Sethi, the author of “I Will Teach You to Be Rich,” has a blunt answer to the 3% review. He tells workers to stop thinking in percentages and ask for a dollar figure, starting at $5,000.

I ran his advice against this fall’s pay data. The ask holds up, and so does his headline math, with two caveats you should know before you walk into that meeting.

What September’s payroll report showed about your paycheck

Nonfarm payrolls grew by 29,000 in September, and the unemployment rate held at 4.2%, with 7.1 million people out of work, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics release of Oct. 2.

Average hourly earnings rose five cents to $37.81, a 3.0% gain over the year. At the average workweek of 34.4 hours, that works out to about $67,635 a year.

More Personal Finance:

• Crypto ETFs promise big gains, but investors ignore 5 red flags
• IRS sends notices about new Saver’s Match worth up to $2,000
• Dave Ramsey emphasizes key warning on 401(k)s, IRAs

That’s an average across private-sector workers, so treat it as a yardstick for your own review rather than a typical salary.

The revisions were worse than the headline. July went from a gain of 21,000 to a loss of 10,000, and August fell from 162,000 to 133,000.

Why a 3.2% raise loses ground to inflation

Employers plan to spend 3.2% of payroll on merit increases in 2027 and 3.5% on all salary increases combined, according to Marsh’s Mercer QuickPulse Survey, published Aug. 31 and fielded among 1,001 U.S. organizations in mid-July.

“Economic uncertainty is top of mind for employers this year, and compensation dollars are tight,” said Tauseef Rahman, Marsh’s U.S. workforce reward solutions leader, in the release.

In my analysis, the gap shows up fast once you run that budget against prices. A 3.2% raise on $67,635 is $2,164, while keeping pace with 3.4% inflation takes $2,300.

Related: Ramit Sethi’s 87% rule is why big earners still feel broke

You finish $135 behind before you’ve spent a dollar.

The official measure already shows it happening. Real average hourly earnings, which adjust pay for consumer prices, fell 0.3% over the 12 months through August, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Sept. 11.

Energy did most of the damage, rising 16.3% over the year, while shelter rose 3.0% and food 2.7%, per the agency’s August consumer price index release.

Sethi’s $5,000 negotiating rule, run through the math

Sethi frames his advice in dollars instead of percentages. His fixed-cost rule, which I covered in September, explains why high earners still feel broke, and this one is about growing the top line.

“$5,000 or even $10,000 a year might sound like a lot to you, but it’s a drop in the bucket for most companies,” he wrote in the raise guide on his website, last updated July 29, 2025.

The same page sells his Road to $100K memberships, priced at $30 to $49 a month, which is worth knowing when negotiation advice arrives attached to a course catalog.

He argues a $5,000 bump compounds over a career once it’s invested. “If you invest that raise every year, it could grow to over $1.3 million by the time you retire, assuming an 8% return,” he wrote.

That checks out on his assumptions. Investing $5,000 a year at 8% reaches $1,295,283 after 40 years, by TheStreet’s calculation, and clears $1.3 million in year 41.

Two caveats belong next to it. At a 7% return, the same 40 years produce $998,176.

And four decades out, $1,295,283 is worth about $340,050 in today’s money if inflation holds at the current 3.4%.

The ask itself is the more useful number. On average pay of $67,635, $5,000 is a 7.4% raise, or 2.31 times what employers have budgeted.

Where the money goes next is a separate decision, and Sethi has an automation system most people skip.

Your raise by the numbers

• 2027 merit increase budget: 3.2%, with total salary increases at 3.5%
• Consumer price inflation, 12 months through August: 3.4%
• Real average hourly earnings, 12 months through August: down 0.3%
• Average hourly earnings, September: $37.81, up 3.0% over the year
• Wage growth for job stayers: 3.6%, versus 5.0% for job switchers (August)
• Job openings, August: 7.1 million, with a 3.3% hires rate and a 1.9% quits rate

Sources: Marsh’s Mercer QuickPulse Survey, Aug. 31, 2026; Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI, Real Earnings, Employment Situation and JOLTS releases; Atlanta Fed Wage Growth Tracker, data through August 2026.

Job switchers still out-earn people who stay put

Leaving has been the reliable way to beat a 3% review, and it still works by a measurable margin.

Wage growth for workers who changed jobs ran 5.0% in August, up from 4.4% in July, while workers who stayed put held at 3.6%, according to the Atlanta Fed’s Wage Growth Tracker, a three-month moving average updated Sept. 10.

On $67,635, that 1.4-point spread is worth $947 in the first year, and it repeats every year after because it’s built into your base.

The hard part is getting through the door. Hires ran 5.2 million in August, a 3.3% rate, and quits ran 3.1 million, a 1.9% rate, per the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey released Sept. 29.

Openings stood at 7.1 million in August, roughly matching the 7.1 million people the BLS counted as unemployed in September.

Who you are when you knock matters. The wage premium for job switchers “rebounded significantly through first quarter 2026,” Anton Cheremukhin and Theresa Rincker of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas wrote in a May 26 analysis.

They also found that “firms are bypassing the unemployed to hire from within the ranks of the already employed.”

Hiring out of unemployment has “consistently failed to keep pace with either prepandemic baseline,” they wrote. That leaves the bottom rung of the ladder cut off from the ones above it.

How to prepare for your 2027 salary review

Price your own review first. Multiply your salary by 0.032 and compare the result with what your household spends on energy, rent and groceries.

Then rehearse. TheStreet has covered how to ask when prices are rising, and the mechanics haven’t changed.

Ask for a dollar figure. A request for 3.5% invites a counteroffer inside the budget, while a request for $5,000 forces a conversation about where the money comes from.

Move before the budget closes. Mercer fielded its survey in mid-July for the following year, so the pool you’re negotiating against is often set months before your review.

Speak up. “If you don’t bring up the topic of compensation, most managers will assume you’re satisfied with what you’re earning,” Sethi wrote on the same page.

If you’re employed and weighing a move, the Atlanta Fed data put the switching premium at 1.4 points. If you’re out of work, the Dallas Fed research suggests this market treats you differently, so budget for a longer search.

September’s inflation and real earnings data land Oct. 14. If prices hold near 3.4% while employers hold near 3.2%, the 2027 review season arrives with its arithmetic already settled.

The people who beat it will be the ones who walk in with a number, and who treat the raise as part of a bigger plan for their money.

Related: Ramit Sethi’s 5 best financial insights for building a rich life

“We expect sales to remain lower than last year through the fourth quarter,” Zillow wrote.

“However, it’s not out of the question that rates will decline as rapidly as they rose, which would bring both buyers and sellers back to the market. At this point in the calendar, the question is whether they would sit out until next spring.”

High mortgage rates and typical fall seasonality combined to slow home sales in September, according to Zillow’s latest report.

Preliminary data shows closed sales fell 2.5% year over year, while pending sales dropped 8.5%.

Here is where Zillow’s observation about renting versus homebuying comes into play.

“The for-sale market’s slowdown was predictable given where mortgage rates currently stand, but the continued strength in the rental market is more surprising,” said Mischa Fisher, chief economist at Zillow.

“Buyers on the margins are finding the monthly savings for renting too good to pass up, even if their long-run goal is still to purchase a home.”

Mortgage rates may decline

“Mortgage rates actually fell today — something they’ve done only 7 times since August 25th,” wrote Matthew Graham of Mortgage News Daily (MND) on Oct. 6. “While the outright levels remain near the highest since 2003, they’re near the lowest in just over a week with top-tier 30-year fixed rates down to 7.56% for the average lender.”

Graham adds a couple of questions about mortgage rates.

“What gives? Is this a sign that recent upward momentum is starting to wane?” Graham wonders. “It’s too soon to conclude such things, but it is somewhat encouraging that yesterday’s long-term high was basically right in line with the high seen on September 30th (7.61 vs 7.60). This is the sort of ‘double top’ behavior that some analysts look for when trying to identify momentum shifts.

“Bottom line: it’s too soon to start celebrating. But it’s better than the average day of late.”

Freddie Mac reported in an Oct. 1 statement that the weekly 30-year fixed-rate mortgage (FRM) clocked in at 7.28%.

“With mortgage rates on their current trajectory, the housing market continues to be supported by favorable economic conditions,” said Sam Khater, Freddie Mac’s chief economist.

Zillow clarifies home-renting trends

As buyers back away from purchasing homes, increased demand in the rental market is driving up prices.

“The typical U.S. rent rose 2.7% year over year in September, the biggest annual gain since April 2025,” Zillow explained. “Annual rent growth has accelerated every month since April and is widespread, rising for both multifamily and single-family homes.”

More on housing market:

• Lennar delivers harsh reality check for housing market
• How Fed rate hikes impact home sellers (and how to navigate the shift)
• Zillow predicts mortgage rate, housing market change

To attract tenants amid rising costs, property owners are increasingly offering concessions, with 39.6% of Zillow rental listings featuring a concession in September — a slight uptick from 39.3% in August and a notable climb from 37.4% a year earlier, according to Zillow.

Rental concessions are temporary discounts or perks — such as free rent, waived fees, or gift cards — offered by landlords to attract prospective tenants and quickly fill vacant apartments.

Redfin, Fed weigh in on mortgage rates, Fed interest rate action

Rates face continued upward pressure as bond market investors grapple with the same concerns that have already pushed mortgage rates up by 1.5 percentage points this year.

“Last week’s main economic data and news all reduced the probability of a Fed rate hike in October,” wrote Redfin’s head of economic research Chen Zhao. “They took some pressure off expectations for cumulative hikes through the end of 2027, but mortgage rates still ended the week up modestly.

“The biggest development was a weak jobs report that, despite some noisy statistical issues, indicates no pressing need for the Fed to hit the brakes further.”

Investors must wait another week for the upcoming inflation report, which will play a critical role in shaping the Federal Reserve’s policy decision at its Oct. 28 meeting.

On Sept. 16, the Federal Open Market Committee raised the target rate for the federal funds rate by 25 basis points to 3.75% to 4%.

“Economic activity is expanding at a solid pace,” wrote the Board Governors of the Federal Reserve System in a statement. “While uncertainty remains elevated owing, in part, to geopolitical developments, domestic spending has been resilient. Productivity growth is strong, and capital investment is robust. Job gains have kept pace with the workforce, and the unemployment rate has changed little.

“Inflation remains elevated. Today’s policy action will support a timelier return to the Committee’s 2 percent goal. The Committee will deliver price stability.”

Related: Zillow reports surprising housing market shift