Bogleheads.org

SSA.gov has both Login.gov and ID.me login options, in addition to direct username/password for accounts created prior to September 18, 2021, like mine. I can log in via ID.me, but not via Login.gov, apparently due to the preexisting SSA account. Despite this, on Login.gov it says that SSA is one of my connected accounts. Can anyone else with an old SSA account get in through Login.gov? You need to deactivate the legacy login and then register again with login.gov. See this thread: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7098604#p7098604 Thanks. I'm going to hang onto the old account until/unless SSA does what the IRS is threatening to do, and deactivates it themselves. Since Login.gov already says that SSA is connected, any effor...

SSA.gov has both Login.gov and ID.me login options, in addition to direct username/password for accounts created prior to September 18, 2021, like mine. I can log in via ID.me, but not via Login.gov, apparently due to the preexisting SSA account. Despite this, on Login.gov it says that SSA is one of my connected accounts. Can anyone else with an old SSA account get in through Login.gov?

Eno Deb wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 1:48 pm Login.gov has much better 2FA options than SMS. You can use a TOTP authenticator app (some password managers also support this) or even hardware keys (such as Yubikeys). I'd check if your password manager can generate TOTP codes, then you won't have to use up the backup codes.

Thanks! I was able to set up TOTP with both Login.gov and ID.me. My PM doesn't generate TOTP codes but I can save the key in the PM and generate the code on the command line ("oathtool --totp -b KEY" in Linux).

The first hurdle was that last year they wouldn't accept VOIP numbers such as Google Voice, claiming it was for security reasons, though GV is not vulnerable to SIM swapping and should be more secure. This year I found that the number could be added if it's done separately from the process of getting authorized for a specific service such as SSA or IRS. (If you try to do it as part of the authorization process, it's still not allowed.) Thanks, added my GV number today by logging directly into their website! :sharebeer BTW, Login.gov doesn't allow VOIP numbers, including GV, at all. "Do not use web-based (VOIP) phone services or premium rate (toll) phone numbers." They DO allow backup codes, which are basically just an additional ...

truenorth418 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 7:07 pm and I also regret voluntarily signing up for an IP PIN.

Same here. When I signed up I didn't realize it was impossible to opt out. The IRS was supposed to introduce an opt-out option but so far nothing. This could become a real problem if it becomes impossible to access one's IRS account in order to retrieve the PIN.

This sign-in option won't work after this filing season. Please create a new account as soon as possible. Does anyone know what up? Mark I signed in using my regular IRS account on Feb. 16, and the message wasn't there then, so no more than 4 days old. First noticed it today and found this thread by googling it. I was finally able to create an ID.me account with the necessary authorization a few weeks ago. The first hurdle was that last year they wouldn't accept VOIP numbers such as Google Voice, claiming it was for security reasons, though GV is not vulnerable to SIM swapping and should be more secure. This year I found that the number could be added if it's done separately from the process of getting authorized for a specific service suc...

If you search for "securities lending" at Morningstar.com, there are several articles, in particular I had read this one which suggests the risk should be very low, though it used to be higher.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/90 ... es-lending

Today, for the first time, I have lending for both of my retirement accounts (the only ones where I authorized it). On my Account Positions page, under each account, to the right of the ticker symbol, there is a green square with an "L" inside. Clicking on the green square pops up a window showing that in each case, the number of loaned shares is the entire whole share part of my holdings (but not the fractional part). The interest rate is 0.25%. Edit: Interest rate on 1/24: 0.25% on 1/25: 0.375% on 1/26: 0.75% on 1/27: 1.125% on 1/30: 1% on 1/31: 0.75% Number of loaned shares dropped slightly in the larger account on 1/30. Both loans ended 1/31. Interest paid on 2/03.

cbox wrote: ↑Fri Dec 30, 2022 1:56 am

MAI wrote: ↑Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:43 pm Secure 2.0 reduces the penalty for not taking the RMD from 50% to 25%. Am I correct in thinking that's already low enough that for many people it would be advantageous to pay the penalty instead of the RMD?

Not for me! What would be gained by paying a 25% penalty? And on what assumptions would that gain be based?

If all the taxes and possible loss of subsidies taken together which would be triggered by the RMD cost more than the 25% penalty. Of course not taking the RMD in a given year would increase the RMD for future years so that has to be accounted for. I suspect this will be academic in a few years since anyone qualifying for RMDs at 75 has at least 13 years to go and there were only 3 years between Secure 1 and 2.

I was born in 1960, so just barely young enough to qualify, and have 13 years till age 75. IMO, it's very likely that RMDs will have been eliminated before then. Also, Secure 2.0 reduces the penalty for not taking the RMD from 50% to 25%. Am I correct in thinking that's already low enough that for many people it would be advantageous to pay the penalty instead of the RMD?

The phrase "Buy, Borrow, Die" was originally coined by Ed McCaffery decades ago in an effort to describe the unfairness of the current tax system. He advocates a progressive consumption tax, for example see his 2002 book "Fair not Flat: How to Make the Tax System Better and Simpler".

https://gould.usc.edu/about/news/?id=4887

7eight9 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 5:29 pm Because a lot of investors know that non-dividend paying stock isn't really all that different from Pokemon Cards. It relies on the Greater Fool theory.

...when you buy a stock that doesn't pay a dividend, that is not an investment, that is a speculation ...(b)ecause the only way you can make money is it has to go up. --- Kevin O’Leary
https://www.wsj.com/articles/shark-tank ... %20go%20up

A dividend-paying company's stock has to go up enough to cancel the automatic drop every time a dividend is paid, or it goes to zero. So looking at it that way, any stock is speculation.

On average, the market goes up, which means that on average, it's best to buy as soon as possible, and sell as late as possible. The first means that on average, lump sum buying beats DCA buying (but of course you could have bad luck with a poor entry point). The second means that on average, selling as little as possible and only when the proceeds are needed (typically monthly) beats selling larger amounts less often (but of course you could miss out on the good luck of happening to take out your large lump sum at a good exit point).

You forgot to add as a caveat "As long as the government doesn't change the tax rules". Roths didn't even exist until 23 years ago, as a way to get tax revenue quicker. When enough money is sitting in Roths and causing a large drop in current tax revenue, the rules will change again.

Dead Man Walking wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 7:59 pm My gosh, some folks can really complicate life!

This is exactly what I think when I see endless posts regarding how much people need in their emergency fund. For me, 1-2 minutes a month and I'm done, for almost 10 years now.

jeffyscott wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 8:01 pm But the cost of a larger buffer is insignificant.

We might go from $5000 to $2000 during a typical month. So, say it's an average balance of $3500 at 0.5% that would earn less than $1.50 per month before taxes, about $1.16 after tax for me. It's not even worth spending 5 minutes a month to work around that.

You should be using something like 7%, not 0.5%, if the difference would have been invested in equities. That would correspond to around $15. It should only take about 1-2 minutes (which is what it takes me, see my post above) to calculate the minimum amount.

I keep my cash balance close to zero most of the time. My bills are all monthly. I transfer the necessary funds to the account at the end of the month after a dollar-based equity sale. The biggest bills (rent, credit cards) are known exactly weeks in advance. I set the payment due date on the credit cards to be a few days after the start of the month, to maximize the interest-free loan. The utility bills are critical, and they're relatively small, so I prefer to pay them immediately upon receipt and estimate the amounts in advance. There's a fee for paying them by credit card, so I use ACH. Near the end of each month, I calculate (what I need) - (what I already have), including some padding in the first term to more than cover the uncertain...

I signed up on July 2, but have not seen any lending activity or received a statement. I was hoping to receive a statement every month showing which accounts are enrolled, even if there was no lending. Apparently it only happens if there is lending. I was told by email that my taxable account is unenrolled. I own a sector index fund (XBI), not a broad market fund, which is probably more likely to be shorted.

taojaxx wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 11:54 pm

MAI wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 11:48 pm Can you use the still-working exception to postpone RMDs in your 401(k)/403(b) until you retire?

Not sure this works for me: I only have a regular IRA. 1099 now (Realtor).

If you had a 401(k)/403(b), and your employer's plan allowed the still-working exception, you could do a rollover into the employer plan.

Can you use the still-working exception to postpone RMDs in your 401(k)/403(b) until you retire?

I called them and was told that 1) income from lending shares in each account stays in that account, so only the taxable account would result in forced income, 2) enabling/disabling lending in each account must be done with a phone call or email, 3) the CAA is only for informational purposes since the MSLA refers to it, and that actually only the MSLA needs to be signed and returned, which I've just done. Hopefully in a week or so I should learn whether all of that is correct.

Out of curiosity, I went to https://www.fidelity.com/trading/fully-paid-lending and answered the 4 extremely easy eligibility questions. I was told I was eligible, and an information email with several forms attached was sent automatically later. Unlike the 4 questions, there appeared to be absolutely no effort to make the process or forms intelligible. It's stated that the MSLA and Collateral Appointment Letters have to be signed and returned. So I have three basic questions, for anyone already enrolled in this program, before digging further: 1) Does income associated with lending out shares in each account stay in that account? I have 2 IRA accounts and a taxable account. I need to avoid large amounts of forced income due to Obamacare cl...

corn18 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 9:02 pm Where do ya'll think we are in the three I's of a bubble WRT to BTC?

Innovation
Imitation
Idiocy

I think NFTs check the idiocy box.

as9 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 06, 2021 3:23 pm I can’t read the article

It doesn't seem to be paywalled, I signed out of my free Basic Morningstar account and I could still read it. I can't recall seeing any paywalled Morningstar articles. Rekenthaler's articles are always good.

Interesting Morningstar article considering the possibility that the ARK funds have significantly boosted the prices of stocks they invest in.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/10 ... gs-the-dog

If possible, try replacing "http" with "https" in the URL (if you can see what the download URL is). Even if it's not forced, it may be allowed.

occambogle wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 2:08 am I think that would be a stretch. By that definition anyone investing in S&P500 would have to answer yes.....

I am Spartacus.

I think part of the reason for asking about acquiring, not just selling, is because they want to include people mining. I think a lot of individuals don't even realize that is a taxable event. What I am confused by is whether you need to declare buying crypto with fiat and not selling... as this is not a taxable event, but the wording says "receive... or otherwise acquire"? To me, the wording indicates yes. In fact I just noticed that it actually says "acquire any financial interest in any virtual currency", so strictly speaking I guess if one buys shares of Tesla, or any other company dabbling in crypto, one has to answer yes as well. Edit: Since Tesla is now in the S&P, I guess that means anyone owning an S&P ...

So unlike equities, even if one only holds crypto, and didn't sell, they want to know. If you only held crypto the answer is no. Read the instructions. A transaction involving virtual currency does not include the holding of virtual currency in a wallet or account, or the transfer of virtual currency from one wallet or account you own or control to another that you own or control. You're right (I realized that after reading https://www.cointracker.io/blog/irs-clarifies-cryptocurrency-question-on-form-1040 ). But AIUI they do want to know if one acquires crypto during the year, unlike equities. And most people still don't hold crypto. Also, it's interesting that for now they only want a simple "yes" or "no" answer, not d...

SlowMovingInvestor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:18 am Very top of Schedule 1.

Thanks, I didn't have to file that schedule so didn't notice. Still significant that they moved it to Form 1040 so everyone has to answer it now.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/f1040s1--2019.pdf

SlowMovingInvestor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:06 am This question was there last year as well (first time).

This is similar to the question the IRS has for foreign bank accounts although that asks for mere ownership and has a $10K lower limit.

Where was it? Googling, I see references to it existing for 2019, but looking at my own 2019 forms and schedules I don't see it.

The 2020 Form 1040 has a new question, just below the name and address on page 1:

At any time during 2020, did you receive, sell, send, exchange, or otherwise acquire any financial interest in any virtual currency? [ ]Yes [ ]No

So unlike equities, even if one only holds crypto, and didn't sell, they want to know.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf

Aleph wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 3:25 am This makes a lot of sense, and I'm convinced this is why market cap is better than trying to target any other weighting.

It certainly reduces costs if one is holding a portfolio of individual stocks. If instead one is holding a cap-weighted fund, it only helps if the fund actually passes on the savings as a lower expense ratio. It's possible that given the preference for cap-weighting, some fund managers might take advantage and set their expenses higher for cap-weighted funds, instead of lower, hoping people won't check the actual expenses. In particular, I suspect IBB is overcharging. I don't know how common that is.

Aleph wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 3:22 am

MAI wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:42 pm Equal weight has the maximum diversification for a given set of holdings.

That sounds interesting but I don't follow (probably bc I am ignorant). What does it mean / why is that true?

If some of the N holdings have much greater weight than others, it's less diversified. The worst case is one weight of 1 and all the others 0, effectively a single holding. The best case is all of the holdings having a weight of 1/N (equal weight).

Equal weight has the maximum diversification for a given set of holdings. As for the argument that cap weighting is cheaper to maintain since there's no need to buy or sell to maintain the weights as long as long as stocks aren't added or removed from the index, that's true, BUT it only matters to the shareholder if the savings are actually passed on in lower expenses. For example, compare two biotech index ETFs, IBB (iShares) and XBI (SPDR). IBB is cap-weighted with a 0.46% expense ratio, XBI is equal-weighted with a 0.35% ratio. Maybe SPDR is cheaper generally?

MathIsMyWayr wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:21 pm

MAI wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:48 pm ...And the usual excuse that the RMDs are necessary to ensure that people pay the taxes before they die doesn't hold water, since unlike the step-up in basis (which has been around for a long time), the tax burden of a pre-tax account is passed on to the heir, it doesn't vanish at death.

A more accurate description is to ensure that tax deferral does not continue forever or IRA is not used as a tool for inheritance.

In a taxable account, the fact that only realized gains are taxed already potentially defers taxes forever (and they vanish at death, due to the step-up). And a pre-tax IRA is not a very effective tool for inheritance unless it's passed to a spouse.

It should be noted that not only does that graph not take into account last year's RMD age increase from 70.5 to 72, but there's already proposed bipartisan legislation (the Securing a Strong Retirement Act of 2020) to raise the RMD age to 75. In addition, likely biotech advances in anti-aging treatments in the next 10 or 20 years will create further pressure to raise the age further, or eliminate RMDs completely. And the usual excuse that the RMDs are necessary to ensure that people pay the taxes before they die doesn't hold water, since unlike the step-up in basis (which has been around for a long time), the tax burden of a pre-tax account is passed on to the heir, it doesn't vanish at death.

I am now seeing fractional share trading on the Fidelity website, under "Accounts & Trade/Trade". However, if I click on the black "Trade" link visible directly on the top of the page (alongside "Transfer", "Pay Bills", and "Add Note"), that version is still the old version. I note that both versions on the website have a refresh button, once you choose a Symbol. The mobile version does not, which is a pain. You can do a crude "refresh" on the mobile version only by choosing the same Symbol again by clicking on it and choosing the same one from the menu. Edit: Under the "Accounts & Trade/Trade" version, you can choose between "Simplified Ticket" and &quo...

Then it filled my order as two separate orders at slightly different prices, so I've got 2 tax lots to deal with now - and there was 4 cents leftover. All of my orders were executed as two trades, one for the whole share part, one for the fractional share part. Most of them had were routed differently for the fractional share part (whole share part routed through FDLM, I don't remember who the fractional share part used), and had a worse price (higher on buy, lower on sell) for the fractional part, but the two trades for my most recent order were both routed through FDLM, and had the same share price. It would be nice if they could always do that, and consolidate them into one trade, for simplicity. The rollout to the website is VERY slow....

This kind of "net cost to society" criticism specifically pointed at bitcoin is bizarre to me: I have 10 different bank branches and 26+ ATMs within 2 miles of my home which, theoretically, could be replaced by 1 larger bank with many fewer ATMs if I lived in some sort of "administratively controlled" country instead of a capitalist society that values competition. Imagine the amount of energy, steel, bricks, and computers that could be allocated elsewhere not to mention the amount of ongoing energy that gets "wasted" by armored cars needing to take extra trips, ATMs/offices being powered, etc. Now imagine that, instead of all of that current banking and financial infrastructure in the entire world , the crypt...

jason2459 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 10:12 pm

HenryPorter wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:34 pm Is it only during market hours that you can see the fractional trading window? I logged into my Fidelity account and can not see a fractional trade option as of 10pm.

Has to be done through the app, fewer trade selections selected (link under order type), and you then should see the dollar or shares option.

See above posts. Apparently there's a slow rollout on the website (not the mobile app), I'm still not seeing it.

I'm not seeing it either. When I enter a decimal point in the "Quantity" entry box, I get the error message "Quantity must be a positive whole number."

The video should be retitled "Why Cap-Weighted Index Funds Are Dangerous", because that's the only type discussed, and the cap-weighting is where it says the danger is. (I personally agree with that and prefer equal weighting, but I know most people here don't.)

bertilak wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 9:31 am It makes me wonder why people miss the old Advantage account. What does that get you above simply having a checking account?

I don't know about the Advantage account, but with the Fidelity CMA, a transfer between that account and other Fidelity accounts is immediate, no need for an ACH transfer. Faster and probably more reliable.

Vanguard does not own a bank therefore does not provide banking services. I do not expect they will offer banking services in the future unless they decide to buy a bank which in the past they have ruled out. Being owned by the funds I'm not sure why the fund managers would see it in the funds interests for Vanguard to own and operate a bank. I don't think a bank would buy Vanguard. The Advantage account functions were contracted out. Most other major brokerages (Fidelity, Schwab, eTrade, Merrill Lynch, Wells Trade) all either own a bank or are owned by a bank therefore can easily offer banking services like checking accounts and credit cards. USAA used to contract out a brokerage but they stopped doing that in favor of a partnership with ...

InvestorP wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:56 pm I'm a newbie to investing and I'm a bit confused about something. I understand long term capital gains are stocks held a year or longer and short term is less than a year.

Long term is at least a year and a day. Short term is one year or less. Watch that extra day.

Lots of trading tends to cause underperformance because of the bid-ask spread, even with no trading fees. Each time you buy or sell, you tend to get the worst of the two prices (bid when selling, ask when buying). That would have to be a LOT of trading. We're talking about turning your portfolio at most once a year. That's at most 0.1% cost. Additionally, retail benefits from being categorized as "uninformed" flow. It's perhaps not well known, but in many cases you actually get a better fill than an aggressive trade by a hedge fund. Unless you're loaded (moving more than $5 million, honestly more than something like $50 million but let's be conservative), your costs are on the order of 0.05%, i.e. the expense ratio for a Vanguard...

Lots of trading tends to cause underperformance because of the bid-ask spread, even with no trading fees. Each time you buy or sell, you tend to get the worst of the two prices (bid when selling, ask when buying).

If there's another Great Depression and the market drops by 90%, then 0.5% becomes 5% which is tolerable if it doesn't last too long.

I was finally able to create an Android virtual machine (using Genymotion), and install and use the Fidelity app in that, so as to avoid having to buy an actual mobile device (which I have no use for, and is harder to keep secure, since it may not get regular updates). The Fidelity app apparently contains ARM native code, so as described in the Genymotion documentation, I had to first install ARM translation before installing OpenGApps, after which I was able to install the Fidelity app from the Google Play Store. It seems to work fine. I noticed that it has no refresh button for the bid, ask, and last prices, unlike the web-based app. The quickest way to "refresh" is to reload the ticker symbol by clicking on it and then selectin...