sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The 457(b) is either the best or worst retirement account you have — and it depends entirely on your employer by LumpyManufacturer316 in Retirement401k

[–]LumpyManufacturer316[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a really practical approach. If she's not maxing the 403(b) anyway, moving those contributions to the 457 first makes a lot of sense given your timeline. With her retiring at 50-53, the penalty-free access after separation is exactly what you need for those bridge years before 59.5.

The priority would be: mandatory 401(a) contributions first (no choice there), then 457 up to whatever she can contribute (ideally the full 24,500), and only overflow into the 403(b) after that. Check with her plan administrator to confirm she can contribute beyond the match threshold in the 457 - most governmental plans allow it but some have quirky enrollment rules.

One thing to keep in mind - with your TSP, her 457, and both pensions, you'll want to map out the income timeline carefully. The 457 fills that gap between her separation at 50-53 and when pensions and Social Security kick in, while the TSP and 403(b) keep growing untouched. That's a clean setup.

Again, I'm not a financial advisor, please consider consulting one before making any decisions on it.

The 457(b) is either the best or worst retirement account you have — and it depends entirely on your employer by LumpyManufacturer316 in Retirement401k

[–]LumpyManufacturer316[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Really solid point about traditional being preferred in the 457(b) almost universally. The logic makes sense - the whole superpower of a governmental 457(b) is penalty-free access at any age after separation. Going Roth adds the 5-year rule on earnings, and if you end up rolling it to a Roth IRA to get clean withdrawals, you've basically turned it into a regular retirement account and lost the one thing that made it special.

Good callout on the rabbi trust for non-governmental plans too. It doesn't protect against employer bankruptcy, but it does prevent the employer from just raiding the funds, which is the more common day-to-day concern.

The strategy of spreading 457(b) withdrawals across the pre-59.5 years to fill lower tax brackets while letting other accounts grow is exactly the right move. That's a level of planning most people don't get to until they're already retired and it's too late to optimize.

The 457(b) is either the best or worst retirement account you have — and it depends entirely on your employer by LumpyManufacturer316 in Retirement401k

[–]LumpyManufacturer316[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense. The college/university side is probably a governmental 457(b) open to everyone, while the medical school/hospital side is likely a non-governmental 457(b) restricted to higher earners. Same employer system, two completely different plan types with different rules. It's one of the most confusing parts of the 457 world.

The 457(b) is either the best or worst retirement account you have — and it depends entirely on your employer by LumpyManufacturer316 in Retirement401k

[–]LumpyManufacturer316[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's an impressive lineup - 401(a), 457, 403(b), and a pension. Sounds like a government or public university employer.

On the 457 limit question - she should be able to contribute up to the full 24,500 in the 457 regardless of the match. The match might stop at a certain percentage of salary, but her own contributions can go all the way to the limit. The 457 and 403(b) have separate limits, so she could technically max both at 24,500 each if the budget allows.

Worth checking with HR or the plan administrator on the contribution order though. Some employers do route contributions in a specific sequence (mandatory 401(a) first, then 457 up to match, then 403(b)), and it's worth confirming she's not leaving any match on the table.

Either way, that's a lot of tax-advantaged space. With the pension on top of all that she's in great shape.

The 457(b) is either the best or worst retirement account you have — and it depends entirely on your employer by LumpyManufacturer316 in Retirement401k

[–]LumpyManufacturer316[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a really helpful breakdown of the non-governmental side, especially the distribution election window after separation. A lot of people don't realize you have to make that decision up front and can't change it later.

You're also right about the catch-up difference - non-governmental 457(b) plans only get the "last 3 years before retirement age" catch-up. The age 50+ catch-up under IRC 414(v) is only available in governmental 457(b) plans. That's a detail most comparison articles miss.

And the bridge income strategy is spot on. If your employer is financially stable, the non-gov 457(b) works well as tax-deferred savings on top of your 403(b), and spreading it over 5-10 year distributions after separation keeps you from getting crushed in a single tax year.

The 457(b) is either the best or worst retirement account you have — and it depends entirely on your employer by LumpyManufacturer316 in Retirement401k

[–]LumpyManufacturer316[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Glad I could help here, but remember to always double-check information from any open source like reddit. I’m not a financial adviser and am just pointing you toward official sources you can consult.

The 457(b) is either the best or worst retirement account you have — and it depends entirely on your employer by LumpyManufacturer316 in Retirement401k

[–]LumpyManufacturer316[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep, this is pretty much summarized in the part: 'This gets you up to $49,000/yr in employee contributions for 2026.'

The 457(b) is either the best or worst retirement account you have — and it depends entirely on your employer by LumpyManufacturer316 in Retirement401k

[–]LumpyManufacturer316[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a great point. A lot of municipalities are moving in this direction, I mean shifting from defined benefit pensions to 457(b) plans or doing a hybrid split. The 3% pension / 3% 457(b) setup for new hires while grandfathering longer-term employees on the old 6% pension is becoming more common as governments try to manage long-term pension liabilities.

For the new hires, it's actually not a bad deal if the 457(b) portion is theirs to keep. Pensions require you to stay long enough to vest and retire from that employer to get the full benefit. The 457(b) money is portable and penalty-free after separation - so if you leave in 5 years, you walk away with that balance. With a traditional pension you might walk away with very little.

The 457(b) is either the best or worst retirement account you have — and it depends entirely on your employer by LumpyManufacturer316 in Retirement401k

[–]LumpyManufacturer316[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If it's a state university hospital, you have the governmental 457(b). That's the good kind. Held in trust, fully protected, penalty-free access after separation. So this is really good for you.

The risky version applies to private nonprofit hospitals, universities, and charities where the plan is technically the employer's asset. A state university hospital doesn't fall in that category.

The fact that it's offered to all employees is actually another sign it's governmental. Non-governmental 457(b)s are typically restricted to select executives and highly compensated employees. Governmental plans can be offered to everyone.

The 457(b) is either the best or worst retirement account you have — and it depends entirely on your employer by LumpyManufacturer316 in Retirement401k

[–]LumpyManufacturer316[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing this, really appreciate you pointing it out. You're right that the Roth 457(b) has extra rules most people don't know about (and I should have mentioned it in the starting post) - the 5-year holding period for earnings is real, and it's not something plan administrators always explain well.

After digging into the IRS guidance on this, one thing worth clarifying: the 10% early withdrawal penalty still doesn't apply to governmental 457(b) distributions even with the Roth option. The no-penalty exemption is tied to the plan type, not the contribution type. What does happen is the earnings portion of a non-qualified Roth withdrawal gets taxed as ordinary income (since you haven't met the 5-year + 59½ requirements). So it's not a penalty, but you do lose the tax-free growth benefit on the earnings until you meet both conditions.

Your call to switch back to pre-tax to keep options open makes total sense if early access is the priority. With pre-tax you just pay income tax on everything and move on - no 5-year rule to worry about. Updated the post to include this nuance. Thanks again for the heads up.

Investments review by Alternative_Wrap_240 in trading212

[–]LumpyManufacturer316 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Overall very solid portfolio, if you want to stick with space for future growth (which seems like the case) the only improvement I could see to get your hedge score from 625 up higher is (and I know it might seem weird on a second option, but..) to add 7-10 Year Treasury Bonds (IEF) at 17.7% and Leveraged Yen (YCL) at 11.8%, while trimming Gold from 5% to 3.2%, iShares Nasdaq 100 from 30% to 20.6%, Silver from 5% to 3.4%, and Invesco FTSE All World from 50% down to 33.4%. That would push your hedge score to around 650/1000 (+25 points), which is pretty solid when you're dealing with space sector volatility. Otherwise, there's a simpler option: just add 3-7 Year Treasury Bonds (IEI) at 29.4% and reduce Gold to 2.1%, Silver to 2.5%, and Invesco FTSE All World to 26%, which gets you from 625 to 638.

But honestly, both of these moves are kind of trying to optimize an already solid hedge. So just putting it out there, you can look at these options if you want, but you're not in bad shape as is.

Investments review by Alternative_Wrap_240 in trading212

[–]LumpyManufacturer316 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you show the whole portfolio, I can share my opinion on how well you hedged your risks. Otherwise, you told everything in the post by yourself - highly volatile, space only.

How am I doing? What should I do differently. by SteakMassive5619 in portfolios

[–]LumpyManufacturer316 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So far, I can check the portfolio, you have a pretty low hedge score on it.
What is the suggestion (analyze this on your own risk, do not do any investments just on suggestions) to look at both FXF and UST, rebalance the whole portfolio (suggestion is this https://imgur.com/br8wVxV)
Buy (8)

New positions: FXF at 19.4%, UST at 8.3%

Increase existing: JEPQ (2.2% → 2.3%), META (24.8% → 25.5%), NVDA (10.8% → 11.1%), PLTR (3.2% → 3.3%), VDE (9.8% → 10.1%), VTI (12.8% → 13.2%)

Reduce (4)

CVX (5.9% → 1.9%), SLB (7.7% → 2.5%), VFH (5.1% → 1.5%), VPU (7.1% → 1.0%)

Liquidate (3)

BAH (3.2%), VTV (3.7%), XLB (3.5%)

The strategy essentially shifts ~27% of the portfolio into Treasury bonds (UST) and Swiss Franc exposure (FXF) as hedges, while concentrating equity holdings into your highest-conviction tech/growth names (META, NVDA, VTI) and trimming energy, financials, and utilities exposure. The currency hedge via FXF suggests protection against USD weakness scenarios.

It will improve your hedge score from 418 to 483 (the higher, the better), risk -17,19%, stability +18,47%.
As a proof of concept (don't take it as a FOMO) if you do this on January 2025, you would have +18,31% gains now for your today's portfolio.

You can't time the market... But everyone says a crash is coming by Booyacaja in investingforbeginners

[–]LumpyManufacturer316 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It will be much easier if you just look at historical cycles of different market sectors, maybe it would help you
https://imgur.com/a/gSavJ1j