ONE PERCENT IS THE average annual cost charged by actively managed stock mutual funds. One percent is also the typical fee charged by financial advisors for managing a client’s portfolio. Paying 1% means keeping 99% for yourself. What’s the harm in that? Here are some pictures of Lower Manhattan. It’s dotted with the skyscrapers that comprise the financial district, home to some of Wall Street’s largest firms. Just the seven largest U.S. banks together are worth more than $1.5 trillion (yes, trillion). This is just the tip of the financial industry iceberg. Charging 1%, it seems, can really add up. But let me show you how 1% can affect your bottom line. Imagine you contribute the maximum allowable to your 401(k) plan every year for the next 30 years. I’ll assume the contribution limit increases at 3% each year, as it has for the past three decades. I’ll also assume you invest that money entirely in stocks and earn 10% a year, which is the historical average. How much would you have in your 401(k) by 2051? The answer, assuming you could avoid paying all fees, is $4,184,000, as you’ll see in table No. 1. Now, take the same portfolio but subtract 1% in fees for your mutual funds and another 1% in fees charged by your financial advisor. That means your investments would grow at 8% a year, instead of 10%. How much would your portfolio be worth in 2051? The answer: $2,977,000. But that’s only half of the picture. We also need to examine what happens during retirement. Let’s assume you and your spouse live another 30 years in retirement. (For a 65-year-old opposite gender couple, there’s a 46% chance of at least one person surviving to age 95.) During this time, you spend down your 401(k) using the 4% rule. I’ll assume a 5% rate of return to reflect the more conservative portfolio one should have in retirement. Meanwhile, annual inflation runs at 3%. The results for the “no fees” and “2% fees” scenarios are summarized in table No. 2. The “total fees actually paid”—the $512,000 before retirement and the $910,000 during retirement—is the dollar amount that was actually subtracted from your portfolio and paid to the mutual fund managers and your financial advisor. You may notice that the difference in nest egg value after 30 years of saving money—$1,207,000—is far larger than the $512,000 in total fees paid. That’s due to the effect of compounding. Every $1 paid out in fees is $1 less that can compound in the future. In fact, while the “total fees actually paid” are substantial, they grossly underestimate the true cost of financial advice. What really matters is how much you’re able to spend in retirement and pass on to your heirs or give to charity at the end of your life. Remember that in both the “no fees” and “2% fees” scenarios, the exact same dollar amount—$927,721—was saved and contributed to the 401(k). The “return on investment” is the sum of your retirement spending and any bequest. This bottom line is summarized in table No. 3. In our example, the true cost of 2% is more than $5 million over a lifetime. In fact, it’s even worse than that, since the “2% fees” portfolio ran out of money after just 25 years in retirement. Imagine the stress of watching your 401(k) balance dwindle to zero in your later retirement years. I know what you’re thinking: A truly no-fee portfolio is simply not realistic. I beg to differ. Today, Fidelity Investments offers two total stock market index funds—one for the U.S. and another covering international markets—that both have expense ratios of zero. Fidelity also has a broadly diversified U.S. bond fund that sports an expense ratio of 0.025%. For a portfolio with 60% stocks and 40% bonds, the blended average expense ratio using these three funds would be 0.01%. That’s pretty close to zero in my book. What about the services of a financial advisor? If you own a three-fund portfolio and can perform simple arithmetic, do you really need the help of a financial croupier? I would argue not. Now, there are certainly services that financial advisors provide besides portfolio management and those services can be valuable, but you could pay an advisor on an hourly basis for them. The stark reality is that many people pay far more than 2% to financial intermediaries. Mutual funds are plagued by myriad hidden fees. High turnover in taxable accounts produces significant tax drag. Not many financial advisors will put you in a three index-fund portfolio. How could they justify their fee? Instead, many will put you into complex portfolios with alternative asset classes that not only underperform the simple three-fund portfolio, but also charge even higher fees. And when formerly highflying funds begin to underperform, your advisor may swap them out for funds with better recent track records. Such performance chasing will further detract from your returns. Finally, some unscrupulous brokers or advisors may even churn your account, racking up hefty commissions at your expense. The solution to Wall Street’s “just 1%” is what I call the three golden rules of investing. First, invest in the entire market using index funds. Second, keep expenses as low as possible. Finally, buy and hold. Indeed, buy and hold is your best defense against the financial equivalent of Newton’s law of motion. As Warren Buffett put it, “For investors as a whole, returns decrease as motion increases.” By following the three golden rules, you’re all but guaranteed to outperform 90% of investors over the long run. Just for fun, I also looked at the other side of the equation, namely your “advisor’s portfolio.” Assuming the 2% fees went to a single person, how much would the advisor’s portfolio grow as a result of the fees you paid? I assume the advisor is in the no-fee portfolio earning 10% a year. By the time you reach retirement, your advisor’s nest egg—courtesy of your fees—would be worth $1.2 million. John Lim is a physician and author of "How to Raise Your Child's Financial IQ," which is available as both a free PDF and a Kindle edition. Follow John on Twitter @JohnTLim and check out his earlier articles. [xyz-ihs snippet="Donate"]

DEEP DOWN INSIDE, I want to be the richest person in the graveyard.  I retired at age 62, confident in our financial plan to survive market fluctuations. We saved over 25% of our income for nearly three decades. Perhaps a bit too much, but we lived well and always had sufficient funds to raise a family, maintain our household, and put our children through postgraduate education. If anything, our retirement spending level is conservative, based on a 40 year time frame for both my wife and I. We have a slightly nuanced financial plan. Suffice to say it is reassuring to know that we are beyond financial security if we simply maintain an inflation adjusted 4% withdrawal rate. Indeed, calculations suggested we could double our pre-retirement budget, with no worries or loss of sleep. Risk be damned! Slowly, we made a conscious decision to spend more. At first it was tough to break old habits. I mean, frugality runs deep in my immediate family. You could use my brother and I as chromosomal templates in a genetic search to discover the frugality gene.  My wife and I now go out for coffee without blinking an eye at paying nearly 6 bucks for a cup of Joe (plus tip). We don’t hesitate to escape the Houston heat by scarfing 5 dollar a scoop ice cream. We no longer plan our restaurant outings according to Happy Hour schedules or local senior discounts.  Even so, three years into retirement, our annual spending remains well below what our financial plan says we can safely afford.  Time to up the ante. We bought season tickets to the symphony and added a dinner date before the performance. We took international vacations twice a year, exploring new countries and cultures. We drove to national parks and treated ourselves to overnights in hotels instead of motels. We gifted our children, with hopes they would bolster their own long-term savings. Gosh, we even made significant charitable gifts to institutions we only previously dreamed of supporting.  Spending is easy. Spending wisely is a challenge. Ironically, the strong stock market since our retirement has made it remarkably difficult to spend our money as initially planned. It sounds counter intuitive, but let me explain.  Our retirement portfolio allocation has a stock to bond ratio of 75:25.  The stock component primarily matches total market returns. Specifically, our stock component has grown more than 65% since we retired. Because of this, we put aside 10 years of safer funds (bonds and cash equivalents) to weather any potential market storm. We successfully navigated the immediate sequence of return risk (SORR) hurdle, that pesky danger of facing a poor investment market performance in earliest years of retirement.  We feel both blessed and safe. We sleep well at night. Our financial calculators now indicate that we can spend even more than original predictions. Yet that realization is causing me angst. After all, we spent a lifetime saving, scrimping and sacrificing to reach this point. Indeed, we value the concepts of avoiding excess, of seeking value and purpose in purchases. Our goals were never to impress the neighbors, but rather be content and grateful with what we have.   I want people to know I had a choice about how I spent my accumulated dollars. I chose a life of frugality, questioning everything I purchased. Do I really need that new phone? My current one makes calls, surfs the web, and navigates when I need directions.  Do I need a new car? My dented 11 year old Honda gets me safely to my destinations. Shall I purchase the kayak I’ve been eyeing, or simply rent one for the two times a year I brave the waters?  Perhaps the real measure of a successful retirement is not how much money remains at the end, but whether those resources were used in ways that enriched the lives of others and brought meaning to our own. Financial independence now gives us choices, and a freedom after decades of disciplined saving. It is okay if I leave this world with more than enough funds still in the bank. There are values I learned along the way; those of prudence, generosity, gratitude, and the quiet confidence that comes from living well below one's means. In the end, wealth is simply a tool; character is the true legacy. Perhaps the goal isn't to die with the largest portfolio, but to know that every dollar reflected the values by which we chose to live. Therefore, if I can’t spend it all according to my values, I guess I’m okay with being the one of the richest men in the graveyard.  Jeffrey K. Actor, PhD, was a professor at a major medical school in Houston for more than 25 years, serving as an academic researcher with interests in how immune responses function to fight pathogenic diseases. Jeff’s retirement goals are to write short science fiction stories, volunteer in the community and spend time in his garden. Check out his earlier articles.

THE CHOICE BETWEEN a traditional retirement account or a Roth is a frequent topic on HumbleDollar. The choice is generally framed as a choice between paying taxes up front (a Roth), or deferring taxes until withdrawal (traditional). I thought it would be interesting to evaluate a real-life example of how this choice might work out. In December of 2016 my wife and I had an opportunity to each open a Roth IRA. My wife took a partial sabbatical that year, and that, combined with maxing out our 401k accounts, gave us a chance to each open a $4,500 Roth IRA. The maximum allowable contribution that year was $6,500 for those 50 and over. Up until then we had assumed that our marginal tax bracket would likely be lower in retirement, and focused on contributing to our employer’s traditional 401k plans. Despite that, we decided to move forward with opening a Roth IRA. I thought it would give us some tax diversity, and the opportunity to do Roth conversions when, and if, it made sense in the future.  In December of 2016 we opened Roth IRAs at Vanguard and invested the $4,500 in their S&P 500 Index Fund. Those initial funds have been invested for almost 10 years. Over that decade we have added some additional funds, and have done a few conversions. I recently did a quick analysis to see how my Roth experience would have compared to investing in a traditional IRA.   In 2016, our marginal tax bracket was 28%.  To contribute the $4,500 required $6,250 of pre-tax income. Due to some financial engineering over the last year, including selling our second home in late 2025, I expect our 2026 marginal tax bracket to stay within the 12% bracket. I’ve been looking at this closely because I’m considering doing a Roth conversion later this year. The table below shows the comparison between the Roth performance, and what a traditional IRA would have produced. The annual rate of return was determined using Nick Maggiulli’s S&P 500 Historical Return Calculator. The table shows that the Traditional IRA would have been the better choice, producing about $3,500 more in available funds, or about 22% more. This demonstrates that the primary driver in choosing between a Roth and a traditional qualified account is a consideration of the tax rates at the time of contribution and at the time of distribution. There have been a number of changes to the tax code in the last decade that have contributed to the result, but I certainly didn’t predict any of them.  If you guess wrong, you pay the price in a higher tax bill. In the example above, the extra $1,750 invested in the traditional account produced an additional $6,143.31 in earnings. The lower tax rate at the distribution of the traditional IRA results in the $3,500 in extra funds. Even though the Roth IRA had tax free earnings growth, the initial larger tax rate overcame that advantage, when compared to the traditional IRA.   Because of my pension and my wife’s social security benefit, 85% of her social security benefit is taxable income, so that is not a consideration in our tax calculation. I used Dinkytown’s 1040 Calculator to run a series of estimates of our 2026 tax return to assess if we want to execute a Roth Conversion this year. We are still 4 years from taking RMDs, and I will start my Social Security in a year when I turn 70. My current thinking is a conversion of about $40,000 will keep us in the 12% bracket. There would also be a small NJ state tax impact. My simple analysis reinforces what I’ve been taught. Roth contributions make the most sense when you think your current tax bracket is lower than when you expect to withdrawal the funds. There are secondary considerations, like no tax diversification, no RMDs, and uncertainty about future tax rates. If you intend to pass the funds to heirs, it might make sense to perform Roth conversions today at the 22% tax bracket if you intend to pass these accounts to heirs who may be in their peak earnings years. Not sure? I believe I recall several HumbleDollar contributors write something about splitting the difference?   Richard Connor is a semi-retired aerospace engineer with a keen interest in finance. He enjoys a wide variety of other interests, including chasing grandkids, space, sports, travel, winemaking and reading. Follow Rick on Twitter @RConnor609 and check out his earlier articles.

RECENTLY, A FELLOW—let’s call him Tom—contacted me with a distressing story of financial fraud. I’ll describe what happened then review steps you might take to prevent this same sort of thing. Tom first noticed there might be a problem when he spotted a larger-than-average withdrawal from his checking account. The payee was a 529 college savings plan. But because Tom and his wife—let’s call her Jane—have 529 accounts for their children, the transaction almost went unnoticed. Tom assumed it was a transfer into his own family’s account. But when he mentioned it to Jane, she noted that they had stopped contributing to their 529. That prompted them to investigate further. What they found was that scammers had set up a new 529 account in Tom’s name. They then initiated an electronic funds transfer to move more than $2,000 from Tom and Jane’s checking account into the new 529 set up by the thieves. The intention presumably was to then withdraw the funds from the 529, at which point the theft would become unrecoverable. How were the thieves able to initiate the transfer from Tom and Jane’s bank? This is the part that’s distressing: They took advantage of the widely-used Automated Clearing House (ACH) system. Unfortunately, this system has key weaknesses that make it susceptible to fraud like this. First, it allows funds to be “pulled” out of an account. That’s in contrast to a wire transfer, which can only be “pushed” out by someone with access to the account. So a thief would only need your name, account number and bank routing number to siphon funds from that account. And unfortunately, that information is printed on the front of every check, making it accessible to someone looking to perpetrate this type of scheme. Once the thief had the new 529 account set up in Tom’s name, it was just one simple step to initiate a transfer from Tom and Jane’s bank since the accountholder’s name was the same on both accounts. It was so seamless that if Tom hadn’t been reviewing the transactions in his account, he might never have noticed the theft. According to the FBI, losses due to cybercrime have increased from $1 billion per year to $21 billion over the past 10 years, and ACH theft is a tactic thieves are using more frequently, so it’s worth looking at strategies to help keep your accounts secure. Here are six recommendations.

1. Secure the login to your bank account by setting up two-factor authentication. And if your bank supports it, use an authenticator app, rather than text messages, for the authentication codes. Ideally, if your bank supports it, switch to a passkey. This is a newer technology that represents a significant advance over traditional passwords. Most importantly, they aren’t vulnerable to phishing attacks. They’re also easier to use, providing one-click logins, and you can store passkeys in a password manager. For those reasons, more websites are beginning to support passkeys. I’d make the switch as soon as your bank makes them available.
2. Set up alerts through your bank to monitor activity in your checking account. Every bank is different, but most allow you to set up email- or text-based alerts to let you know when transactions above a specified threshold are processed, or when other types of activity occur.
3. Monitor your transactions. These days, it can be hard to keep an eye on every account. Households often have one or more bank accounts plus credit cards and electronic payment services like Venmo or Zelle. Most people realistically don’t have the time to review every account in real time. That’s why I recommend a service like Monarch or YNAB, which are web-based versions of traditional budgeting tools like Quicken. These services can pull in transactions from all your accounts and present them in a consolidated list, making review much easier. If you kept Monarch or YNAB open in a browser window on your home computer, you could scroll through recent transactions whenever you have a spare minute.
4. To narrow the circle of people who have access to your account information, try limiting the number of paper checks you write. Especially with Zelle and Venmo as alternatives for making payments, this is getting easier. If you do write paper checks, be sure to use a gel pen and to avoid freestanding mailboxes. Those steps can help prevent a related type of fraud, as Jonathan Clements explained a few years back.
5. Pay attention to notifications of data breaches. Unfortunately, breach announcements seem to occur so frequently that we’ve become immune to them. It’s worth paying attention, though, to understand which particular pieces of information have been stolen. If it looks like your banking information is included in a breach, it might be worth opening a new account, inconvenient as that would be.
6. Have your guard up against unsolicited phone calls, emails or text messages. If someone is contacting you about an “account security issue,” or claims to be calling from your bank or from the IRS, be especially wary. Those are common tactics for creating a sense of urgency that can cause people to let their guard down.

What if, like Tom and Jane, you spot a fraudulent transaction in your account? Then it’s important to report it as quickly as possible. Regulation E can limit your liability, but the faster you report a suspicious transaction, the more protection it provides. Liability is limited to just $50 if a theft is reported within two business days, but that exposure increases to $500 if it’s reported later. And after 60 days, there are no guarantees. Thieves, unfortunately, don’t seem to sleep, which means that we need to be more vigilant than in the past, and need to be continuously vigilant. As personal finance author Mike Piper wrote recently, “Cybersecurity should be considered another core area of personal finance—no different from insurance planning, for instance.” Adam M. Grossman is the founder of Mayport, a fixed-fee wealth management firm. Sign up for Adam's Daily Ideas email, follow him on X @AdamMGrossman and check out his earlier articles.