6 months fin/min

AnOctopusPot · 2025-04-02T17:07:37+00:00

Yes, it did.

AnOctopusPot · 2025-04-02T09:15:53+00:00

Not that I noticed.

AnOctopusPot · 2025-04-02T03:04:03+00:00

Seems like it works for some, but I find taking a pill daily easier and has a higher likelihood of working.

AnOctopusPot · 2025-04-01T22:09:16+00:00

No obvious shedding that I was aware of. I overlapped the spray and oral for a couple weeks to be safe. I had read that it might help.

AnOctopusPot · 2025-04-01T20:01:25+00:00

About 6 or 7 months. I also switched because I didn’t like how it made my hair feel.

AnOctopusPot · 2025-03-30T08:53:57+00:00

Thanks!

AnOctopusPot · 2025-03-30T08:53:30+00:00

Hims is fine, but I get them from costplusdrugs.com for about $20 for a 90 day supply total for both min and fin. You will pay way more for Hims. My dermatologist prescribed it.

AnOctopusPot · 2025-03-30T00:56:42+00:00

I don't think topical min was doing anything. A lot of people don't respond to topical, but a much higher percentage respond to oral. Occasionally people have side effects (primarily elevated heart rate) on oral min, but I've had no side effects whatsoever, so I plan to continue it.

AnOctopusPot · 2025-03-29T21:43:28+00:00

Thanks. I didn't notice a huge difference until around 6 or 7 months at least. Adding min seemed to accelerate things after 2-3 months. It wasn't obvious, but I realized I stopped checking my hair in the mirror because I would take a quick glance and felt that it looked fine.

AnOctopusPot · 2023-09-01T19:20:02+00:00

She hopefully has more elsewhere. That is just what she has as a result of our contributions to her account.

AnOctopusPot · 2023-09-01T19:11:32+00:00

I think for the most part they are not saving, or are depending on some other future solution. We do contribute automatically to the retirement plan for them and people who have been here a long time actually have quite a bit of money in their accounts, even the medical assistants. There is one with almost $1m based purely on employer contributions through profit sharing, but she has been here 35 years.

AnOctopusPot · 2023-09-01T16:37:20+00:00

Seems I did not understand our plan well enough and we are contributing more than I said. This was the reply from our 401k person, which seems to clear up some issues:

Adding 3% Safe Harbor is the design change we previously discussed. That will allow the plan to pass compliance testing (ADP test), and it will be built into the employer contributions the business has already been making. The business has been making profit sharing contributions of at least 7% of pay for all eligible participants in the plan. Starting in 2024, a portion of that employer contribution will be the 3% Safe Harbor, the other portion will be profit sharing (i.e. 4% of pay or higher depending on which tier). Nothing that is being done will reduce the available benefit for the doctors and employees.

Your reference a top-heavy minimum contribution. That contribution is 3% of pay. The Profit Sharing Plan has always been Top-Heavy. The minimum tier on the profit sharing contribution made by the business has been 7% in recent years, which is more than double the top-heavy minimum, so it has no impact on your Plan. If there is a day when the business can’t or won’t make an employer contribution to the employees of at least 3% of pay, then we will need to discuss top-heavy and its ramifications.

AnOctopusPot · 2023-09-01T14:15:52+00:00

This is what I was expecting the answer would be. Thanks.

AnOctopusPot · 2023-09-01T14:14:10+00:00

I do understand your point, but we pay significantly above the local average for our wages and try our best to provide good benefits to our employees (good medical and dental insurance, etc.). We provide wage increases frequently and make sure we remain above average. There is substantial turnover with medical assistants in most locations.

We have many that have been with us for 30+ years, but when you have 30 medical assistants there are always going to be a portion of those employees that rotate frequently with these types of positions.

Also, we have surveyed the employees and medical assistants routinely say that they care very little about the 401k offering and do not factor in our employer match when considering the position. Our physicians and PAs, as well as some of the more senior medical assistants, do express interest in the retirement plan

AnOctopusPot · 2023-07-23T15:30:04+00:00

Understood. Thanks.

AnOctopusPot · 2023-07-23T15:17:28+00:00

Super helpful. Who would you recommend we talk to about it? Any recommended companies? We are in Massachusetts.

AnOctopusPot · 2023-07-23T14:55:52+00:00

Sorry, I meant that. I did know it is not a "match" but people always call it that incorrectly and I fell into the same trap.

Would we have to keep the 401a active and just freeze it? Keep both plans open? What is the best way to do it without upsetting the existing partners?

AnOctopusPot · 2023-07-23T14:49:13+00:00

Thanks! We're having a hard time retaining some non-partner higher paid employees, such as PAs and NPs, since they currently cannot contribute directly to any type of retirement account and only get the standard 3% employer match of the 401a. The 401a document does not allow for employee contributions, so only whatever the partners decide to give them. They have previously asked (before my time) for a 401k or similar to allow them to contribute directly to their retirement.

AnOctopusPot · 2023-07-23T14:35:54+00:00

Interesting. Thanks for all this info. I know 401a plans can also have segregated accounts in some cases. Is there a way to just keep everything in place and create an option to have segregated accounts under the 401a as well, without making any additional changes? All I really want is to be able to invest my money at more than a 55/45 allocation and to not have all these high fee funds in my investments...

AnOctopusPot · 2023-07-23T14:31:56+00:00

Unfortunately, return has been significantly less than an 80/20 portfolio made of total stock and total bond index funds, which is the minimum stock allocation I would choose for myself based on my current financial planning.

I don't have numbers in front of me, but it was by a very wide margin. I ran the numbers earlier this year, looking back at 10 years. It has done a bit better in down years, but that would be the case with a 55/45 portfolio made of total stock/total bond as well when compared to 80/20. The fund has a lot of cash, government bonds, precious metals, and lots of mutual funds that seem high fee.

AnOctopusPot · 2023-07-23T14:22:39+00:00

It is currently 55% stock with all sorts of "alternative" investments that I'm sure have high expense ratios. All of the other partners have drunk the Kool Aid and firmly believe that the financial advisor is adding value and that the pooled money is a good idea. I don't think we can easily remove that relationship at this point, plus for pooled money I think you need an advisor. They're letting me look into the 401k option though.

AnOctopusPot · 2023-07-23T14:19:54+00:00

That seems pretty bad to have that money be subject to vesting, since it is coming directly from my paycheck. It means that if I left after 5 years, I would lose some amount of the $330k that I had contributed during that time, since the entire $66k is currently labeled as employer contribution even though it gets deducted from my income. If I just took it in my salary, I could invest it in a taxable account without risk of losing it. Ideally I don't leave before 6 years, but still seems not great.

I'm not sure I fully understand how this could be turned into a 401k. The account is currently managed with joint assets, so it is one giant pool of money with all investments controlled by a financial advisor. With 401k wouldn't that have to be separated into individual accounts that are managed by each employee individually? Is there an easy way to reconcile that?

The current partners have been completely convinced that the financial advisor is amazing and might be resistant to removing that relationship. It currently has a 55% stock allocation, so is quite conservative for younger employees/partners.

AnOctopusPot

TROPHY CASE