Q: My wife and I have no heirs. Our home is worth about $700,000 and nearly paid off. We’re thinking of taking a reverse mortgage at retirement. How does this work, how much could we get, and is it even a good idea? —Larry, Chesapeake Beach, Md.

A: A reverse mortgage is exactly what it sounds like: You are borrowing against the equity in your home, but instead of paying the bank every month, the bank pays you. And at the end of the term, the bank, not you, owns the property.

Like any home equity loan, a reverse mortgage allows you draw equity out of your house while continuing to live there. Its big advantage over other home equity borrowing is that you don’t have to pay back a dime while you live in the house, but once you sell or are no longer able to occupy the home as your primary residence, the total loan balance, plus interest and fees, must be paid in full.

You can receive the loan as a lump sum, a monthly amount, or a line of credit (essentially, a checkbook you use to spend the funds as needed), or some combination of these. If you still owe money on your mortgage, the new loan can be used to pay off the remaining balance.

The amount you can borrow depends on a variety of factors, including current interest rates, an appraisal of your home, your age (you must be at least 62 to qualify for a reverse mortgage), and your credit rating. The maximum amount allowed by the federal government is $625,000 for 2014. Reverse mortgage interest rates are fairly low, currently around 2% for a variable rate and around 5% for a fixed rate.

As good as that all sounds, there are serious pitfalls to reverse mortgages, says Sandy Jolley, a reverse mortgage suitability and abuse consultant in Los Angeles. The big one is that you’re spending down what’s likely your largest asset. Even though you don’t have heirs to leave the house to, you might need it later to help pay for assisted living or extended home health care. And you cannot take out another home equity loan once you have a reverse mortgage.

Also, reverse mortgage fees can clock in at a whopping 4%—not just of what you borrow but of your maximum loan amount. So in your case, you could be charged $25,000 (4% of $625,000) even if you opened up a reverse mortgage line of credit as an emergency reserve and never drew out any funds. “The fees are rolled into the loan and charged monthly compounded interest until the home is sold or taken by the lender to repay the debt,” Jolley says.

Another major concern with a reverse mortgage is that the lender can call the loan—meaning you have to pay the balance immediately, even if you have to sell your home to do so—should you ever let your homeowners insurance policy expire, get into arrears on your property taxes, fall behind on home maintenance, or move into an assisted living facility for a full year.

Because of these high costs and risks, Jolley suggests using a reverse mortgage only as a last resort. Consult a trusted family member or a financial planner who’s not in the business of selling reverse mortgages about whether you really will need that money in order to live comfortably in retirement. The combination of Social Security and your retirement savings (and the lack of a mortgage payment; congrats on that!) may provide the income you need to live the way you want to live. Save your equity until you really need it.

Read more about reverse mortgages:
When Tapping Your Home Pays
Should You Get a Reverse Mortgage?
The Surprising Threat to Your Financial Security in Retirement

Q: My grandson just bought his first home. He’s excited about putting in some sweat equity, but he has no tools because he’s always lived in an apartment. I’d like to surprise him with a good starter set. What should I get?

A: Not only will this thoughtful gift save your grandson the considerable cost of establishing a collection of DIY paraphernalia, it will also save him countless trips to the home center. Chances are, he would go out to buy the tools he needs piecemeal, meaning a trip (or two!) every time he tackles a new project.

Here are a few different types of starter kits you could get him:

Loaded tool bag: A tool bag is like an inside-out toolbox; all of the gear is exposed, stowed in dedicated pouches and pockets and easy to see and grab. You could buy a bag and load it up with tools yourself—or just purchase the Craftsman Evolv ($40 at Sears). It contains all the basics: screwdrivers, measuring tape, hammer, pliers, utility knife, and a plastic sorting tray for the nails, hooks, and screws he collects over the course of his projects. This is far from every hand tool he’ll ever need, but there’s room to add more as he builds his collection.

Cordless power tool set: Since he doesn’t already own any tools, we’re assuming he’s not expert enough to need a whole array of heavy-duty power tools. More affordable and handy would be a set of battery-operated power tools. Today’s lithium-ion batteries deliver plenty of muscle, hold their charge between uses, and use rechargeable batteries that are interchangeable for a host of same-brand tools. Porter-Cable offers a four-tool kit (circular and reciprocating saws, drill/driver, and flashlight, with two 20-volt battery packs, so one can be recharging while your grandson is using the other) for about $200 at amazon.com.

Extras: He’ll be able to tackle most any job around the house if you round out his collection with a large ratchet set (such as the Husky 65-piece mechanics toolset, $30 at Home Depot) for removing and installing bolts of any size; an electronic stud finder (like the Bosch Digital Multi-Scanner, $80 at Lowes) to make easy work of locating framing from which to hang shelves and cabinets soundly; and a small bubble level (like the magnetic aluminum torpedo level, $15 at Ace) to make sure those shelves and pictures are hung straight.

Q: I retired in 2009 to care for an ailing parent who has since passed away. I took Social Security at age 62, when the law allowed claimants to pay back their Social Security and receive the highest benefits at age 70. Since that time the law has changed and repayment can only be made in the first year. Do you know of any proposal to change the current rules for those who signed up under the old law? —Sandra

A: As Sandra correctly notes, Social Security changed its benefits withdrawal policy in December 2010, after she had retired under its prior rules—and it’s one of the most unusual policy shifts that the agency has enacted. Consider that Social Security, which often gets dinged for slow response time, made this change lightning fast. What’s more, the new policy seems to have little to do with the needs of beneficiaries like Sandra and everything to do with the agency being surprised—and perhaps chagrined—that people were paying attention to its often arcane rules and actually taking advantage of them.

Under the old policy, people who had begun receiving benefits could, at any time, pay back everything they’d received and effectively wipe clean their benefit history. By resetting their benefit record this way, people who took reduced retirement benefits early would be able to file later for much higher monthly payments. For people born between 1943 and 1954, for example, retirement benefits at age 70 are 76% higher than those taken at age 62.

Few people paid much attention to this rule until a growing group of financial planners and Social Security experts began highlighting the possible gains of withdrawing benefits and delaying claiming. As the word spread, journalists began to write about these rules for an even wider audience.

Social Security, which previously had no problem with the rule when few were using it, changed its mind as more and more people began withdrawing their benefits. Suddenly, without an extended period for evaluation or debate, the agency issued a final rule limiting the benefit withdrawal option—and it took effect immediately. If the public wanted to comment, it would be able to do so only after the rule was changed. By comparison, the decision to raise the official retirement age in the program from 66 to 67 was enacted in 1983—37 years before it will take effect in the year 2020.

Here’s what the agency said at the time it changed its rules on withdrawing benefits:

“The agency is changing its withdrawal policy because recent media articles have promoted the use of the current policy as a means for retired beneficiaries to acquire an ‘interest-free loan.’ However, this ‘free loan’ costs the Social Security Trust Fund the use of money during the period the beneficiary is receiving benefits with the intent of later withdrawing the application and the interest earned on these funds. The processing of these withdrawal applications is also a poor use of the agency’s limited administrative resources in a time of fiscal austerity—resources that could be better used to serve the millions of Americans who need Social Security’s services.”

Further, in making the shift to a one-year withdrawal period, the agency explained that the policy was designed to reduce the value of the option so few people would use it. Today, by the way, the agency supports delaying retirement much more than it used to.

Of course, telling people to delay claiming is of little help to people like Sandra, who retired under the old rule and was caught by the sudden policy shift. Is there any likelihood that the rule could be changed to accommodate this group? Not really, says James Nesbitt, a Social Security claims representative for nearly 40 years who is now providing benefits expertise for High Falls Advisors in Rochester, NY. “Unfortunately,” he says, “this change did not contain any grandfathering provision. I am not aware of any pending actions within Congress or Social Security that would extend grandfather rights to those who were disadvantaged by this change.”

Philip Moeller is an expert on retirement, aging, and health. His book, “Get What’s Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security,” will be published in February by Simon & Schuster. Reach him at moeller.philip@gmail.com or @PhilMoeller on Twitter.

More on Social Security:

How to protect your retirement income from Social Security mistakes

Here’s how Social Security will cut your benefits if you retire early

Will Social Security be enough to retire on?

Read next: Can I Collect Social Security From My Ex?

Q: I have been divorced twice and currently am not married. Can I draw Social Security off either of my ex-husbands? I was married to the first one for 16 years and the second for 11. And would I be able to remarry and still draw off the ex? I am 62 now. – Rita Diestel, Bruce, Miss.

A: You can collect Social Security benefits based on the earnings of a former spouse if you were married 10 years or more, and you are at least 62 and not currently married. So, you’re good on all three counts.

But there are a few more wrinkles, says Adam Nugent, managing partner of Foresight Wealth Management, an investment advisory firm in Sandy, Utah.

You can collect benefits from the ex-husband with the larger payout but only if you’re not eligible for a higher amount based on your own work record. You can check how much you’re entitled to and your ex-husbands’ payouts (if you have their Social Security numbers) at ssa.gov.

To collect on an ex, you must be divorced at least two years. The former husband that you base your benefits on must be at least 62, though he doesn’t have to have started receiving his benefits yet for you to get yours.

But just because you may be able to collect now doesn’t mean it’s the best move for you, says Nugent. You are entitled to 50% of your former husband’s benefits but, like anyone collecting Social Security, you’ll get less if you start taking it before your full retirement age of 66. The longer you delay the better. If you decide to take it before 66, your benefits will be permanently reduced, 8% for each year you take it before 66. “You will be rewarded for waiting,” says Nugent.

As for marrying again, if your ex is remarried, that won’t affect your benefits. But if you remarry that’s a different story. Nearly 60% of U.S. divorcees remarry and if you do, you are no longer able to get a divorced spouse’s benefits, unless you get divorced again yourself.

If you remain single, you can use many of the same strategies that married spouses use to boost your payouts, says Nugent. One option is to file a restricted application with Social Security (at full retirement age) to collect a divorced spousal benefit, which is half of what your ex gets. Then, once you reach 70, you can stop receiving the ex-spousal benefit and switch to your own benefit, which will be 32% higher than it would have been at your full retirement age.

The rules are a bit different if your former spouse dies. You are entitled to 100% of your deceased ex-spouse’s Social Security, the same as any widow even if he was remarried. And if you are married when your ex passes away, you can collect survivor benefits as long as you didn’t remarry until age 60 or later. If you are collecting Social Security based on your own work history, you can switch to survivor’s benefits if the payment is larger. Or, if you’re collecting survivor’s benefits, you can switch to your own retirement benefits — between 62 and 70 — if it offers a larger payment.

There’s a lot to think about, says Nugent, but most important is that there are big benefits for delaying. As a woman you’re more vulnerable in retirement than a man because women typically live longer. Of course, your health, expected longevity, and other retirement savings should be factored in as well. “But if you can wait at least a few more years to start collecting Social Security, that will give you more security in the long run,” says Nugent.

Do you have a personal finance question for our experts? Write to AskTheExpert@moneymail.com.

Read next: Why Social Security Suddenly Changed Its Benefits Withdrawal Rule

Q: We are in good health and have a Medigap Plan N for 2014. With same expected health in 2015, do we need anything more than Medicare A, B, and D plans? —Norbert & Sue

A: Medigap, a private insurance policy that supplements Medicare, picks up where Medicare leaves off, helping you cover co-payments, coinsurance, and deductibles. Some policies also pay for services Medicare doesn’t touch, like medical care outside the U.S.

This additional insurance is not necessary, but, says Fred Riccardi, client services director at the Medicare Rights Center, “if you can afford to, have a Medigap policy. It provides protection for high out-of-pocket costs, especially if you become ill or need to receive more care as you age.” (If you already have some supplemental retiree health insurance through a former employer or union, you may be able to skip Medigap; you also don’t need a Medigap policy if you chose a Medicare Advantage Plan, or Medicare Part C.)

If you purchase Medigap, you’ll owe a monthly premium on top of what you pay for Medicare Part B. The cost ranges from a median annual premium of $936 for Medigap Plan K coverage to $1,952 for Plan F coverage, according to a survey of insurers by Weiss Ratings. The median cost for your plan N was $1,332 a year.

Even if you didn’t end up needing your Medicap policy this year, however, think twice before you drop it.

If you skip signing up when you’re first eligible, or if you buy a Medigap plan and later drop it, you might not be able to get another policy down the road, or you may have to pay far more for the coverage.

Under federal law, you’re guaranteed the right to buy a Medigap policy during a six-month open enrollment period that begins the month you turn 65 and join Medicare, says Riccardi. (To avoid a gap in coverage, you can apply earlier.) During this time, insurance companies cannot deny you coverage, and they must offer you the best available rates regardless of your health. You can compare the types of Medigap plans at Medicare.gov.

You also have a guaranteed right to buy most Medigap policies within 63 days of losing certain types of health coverage, including private group health insurance and a Medigap policy or Medicare Advantage plan that ends its coverage. You also have this fresh window if you joined a Medicare Advantage plan when you first became eligible for Medicare and dropped out within the first 12 months.

Most states follow the federal rules, but some, such as New York and Connecticut, allow you to buy a policy any time, says Riccardi. Call your State Health Insurance Assistance Program to learn more.

Outside of one of these federally or state-protected windows, you’ll be able to buy a policy only if you find a company willing to sell you one.And they can charge you a higher premium based on your health status, and you may have to wait six months before the policy will cover pre-existing conditions.

Q: Is it okay to text my boss?

A: The answer depends the signals you’ve received in the past from your supervisor and on the information you’re trying to convey.

With the rapid rise in smartphone usage and the huge number of millennials now in the workforce, texting is indeed becoming more acceptable as a professional way to communicate, says Praful Shah, senior vice president of strategy at Ring Central, which makes business communication products.

“There’s been a huge shift toward businesses using texting for communicating with customers, partners and employees,” he notes. “For the younger generation of workers, it’s a natural part of their life and they are bringing behavior from their personal life into business.”

Still, it’s not right for every situation.

How to Tell if Your Boss Is Open to Receiving Texts

While surveys show that Gen Y is more attached to their mobile devices than older folks, across all generations more than 90% of people who own a smartphone text regularly. So age shouldn’t be a factor in deciding whether to contact your boss in this manner.

Rather, look out for one of these two clues that your boss would be okay with hearing from you by text:

1) He or she has texted you in the past.

OR

2) He or she has provided his or her cell number on the staff directory or in an email signature.

How to Tell if a Text is the Right Way to Communicate

A text is best reserved for situations in which you need an immediate response or want to provide a quick important piece of information, says Shah. But if you need more than a few brief sentences, an email is more appropriate.

Also, when the information is sensitive—such as a project being cancelled—it’s usually better to talk in person or by phone (though you could request the person’s time by text).

Timing is important, too. If it’s late at night or you know your boss in is in a meeting, a text can be intrusive and disruptive, says Shah. “For information that can wait, use email so your boss can decide when to respond.”

You should also limit frequency. You may text back and forth a lot with friends. But you don’t want to annoy the person who decides your raises.

Finally, your texts shouldn’t be as casual as the ones you send in your personal life. Use emoticons and abbreviations sparingly. “An occasional thumbs up symbol is fine,” says Shah.

You’re probably not writing full sentences, so grammar isn’t that important. But spelling is. “No matter what form of communication you’re using is at work, you look sloppy if you have misspellings,” says Shah. Read a text before you send it so that you won’t have to blame autocorrect.

Do you have a question about workplace etiquette for our experts? Write to Career@moneymail.com.

Q: Which is a better long-term investment — a Nasdaq index fund or an index fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500? — James

A: A Nasdaq fund could “play a supporting role in a diversified portfolio,” says Leslie Thompson, a financial adviser and principal at Spectrum Management Group in Indianapolis. But if you’re going to pick just one index fund for the core part of your portfolio, you’re better off buying a mutual fund or exchange-traded fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500,” she says.

Why?

Before getting into the details, let’s start with the basics.

Rather than picking and choosing “the best” securities to own, index fund simply buy and hold all the securities in a given market. By avoiding the stock selection process, index funds give you broad-based market exposure while being able to charge low expenses, which is a good thing.

The downside of this approach, of course, is that you won’t ever “beat the market” or finish at the top using this strategy. In fact, by owning all the stocks in a market, you will by definition get average market returns. However, this also means you will never badly lag the market either.

If you opt for this strategy, the market you choose to index is a critical decision.

The S&P 500 is considered the broadest of the best-known U.S. stock indexes.

The S&P 500 tracks the 500 largest, most liquid stocks listed on the New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq — and across a spectrum of industries. “For a long-term core holding, the S&P 500 better represents the economic environment providing more diversified exposures to all sectors of the U.S.,” Thompson says.

By contrast, the most popular Nasdaq index, the Nasdaq 100, tracks about 100 of the largest non-financial companies that are listed on the Nasdaq. It’s considerably less diverse, with technology companies accounting for about 60% of its weighting, says Thompson. It’s also extremely top heavy. “Just two companies, Apple and Microsoft, make up 23% of the index,” says Thompson. The top 10 stocks, meanwhile, account for about half of the entire index versus less than 20% for the S&P 500.

This tech focus hasn’t been such a bad thing over the last decade, when it comes to performance. The USAA Nasdaq Index 100 mutual fund is up an average of 10.6% a year over the last 10 years, nearly three percentage points a year more than the Vanguard 500 Index fund.

The tradeoff: potentially more volatility.

You’ll recall that when the dot.com bubble burst in 2000, Nasdaq stocks took a much bigger hit than the S&P 500. The downside for the Nasdaq 100 hasn’t been as extreme over the last decade, says Thompson, but this isn’t the norm. Keep in mind too that the Nasdaq composite index has yet to surpass its all-time peak of more than 5,000 which it reached in 2000.

The index’s strong performance of late, moreover, has been the result of outsize results from just a handful of companies. (You can probably guess which ones.) If and when these stocks tumble, so too will the index.

Q: My wife and I are 54 years old and we still have about 94% of our retirement savings in a variety of stock mutual funds and ETFs. Should I begin moving some of that to bond funds? — Gary Wirth, Pittsburgh

A: Assuming you and your wife are still more than a decade away from retirement, you’ll want to keep the bulk of your investments in stock funds and ETFs.

Even so, your 94% allocation to equities is on the high side at this stage of the game, says Mitch Tuchman, managing director of Rebalance IRA, a national independent investment advisory service that specializes in asset allocation.

At this point, while you’re still working and accumulating savings, adding bonds to your portfolio isn’t as much about earning income as it is giving your investments some ballast in case the stock market goes topsy turvy — as it did briefly in late September and early October.

The question then isn’t if you need some additional bond exposure, but how much more?

Most experts, including Tuchman, do not recommend relying on the old rule of thumb that says the percentage of your portfolio in fixed income should equal your age. According to that old standard, 54-year-olds ought to keep 54% of their portfolios in bonds while holding a minority of their money in equities.

That rule doesn’t apply for a couple of reasons, says Tuchman. First, people are working longer and living longer. Second, you have to consider the environment you’re in. With bond yields as low as they are, for as long as they’ve been, there is a real risk interest rates will go up.

Why is that bad?

Market interest rates move in the opposite direction of bond prices. When rates rise, prices on existing bonds in a portfolio will likely go down. In theory, this means you could lose money in bonds when this shift takes place.

Your target allocation to bonds will also depend on other factors, such as how long you and your wife plan to keep working and your emotional tolerance for market swings. If you lose sleep and make rash choices (i.e. move to cash) when the market dips, you should probably own a larger helping of bonds.

With all that said, Tuchman suggests a good target for you and your wife is about 15% in bonds. He recommends divvying that up among high-quality corporate bond funds, high-yield funds, and emerging market debt funds. “Those groups still pay a reasonable amount of interest and, for various reasons, are a better hedge in a rising rate environment,” he says.

Having 15% of your portfolio in bonds may still seem like an aggressive stance.

Keep in mind, though, that Tuchman is not saying that the rest of your investments belong in equities.

In addition to the bond holdings, Tuchman says it’s also a good idea to allocate 5% to 10% of your total portfolio to real estate — in the form of real estate investment trusts — and another 5% to 10% to dividend-paying stocks, which are considered more conservative than other types of equities.

As for the remaining 70% or so of your portfolio, make sure that’s well diversified among large-cap stocks, small-cap U.S. shares, foreign equities, and emerging-market stocks.

This mix should get you through the next several years, says Tuchman, who at 58 adheres to a similar strategy in his own portfolio.

Read more on asset allocation:

What is the right mix of stocks and bonds for me?

Q: I owe my handiness to projects I helped my father with as a kid. But my children show no interest in lifting a hammer. How do I motivate them to become capable do-it-themselfers?

A: Thanks to affluenza as well as the draw of computer-based learning, instead of hands-on tutorials, many of today’s young digital natives are sorely lacking in analog skills. We are creating a generation that may never know how to paint a straight line or re-shingle a shed.

The effects are twofold. First, your kids may grow up into adults who, for every household project, are at the mercy of those few capable peers who become handymen and contractors. They’ll pay every time they need to tighten a rattling window or fix the toilet.

Also this lack of hands-on knowledge is—ironically—a contributing factor as to why other countries are outcompeting the United States in science, technology, engineering, and math education, those so-called STEM subjects where many of the good jobs of the future promise to be.

Getting your kids involved with you in safe, age-appropriate DIY projects is a great way to bolster their “spatial awareness,” an understanding of 3D space and how things work that helps later with engineering and physics, according to Vanderbilt University psychologist David Lubinski.

Thus spending a few hours away from their screens helping you build garage shelves or plant flower bulbs can give your kids a leg up on a career in the very technology they love.

Of course, as any parent knows, telling them that may not be enough to motivate them. Yet don’t resort to bribing your kids with a trip to Five Guys or extra screen time to get them to help out, says Carol S. Dweck, a psychology professor at Stanford University. That sends the message that the job is an unpleasant one that no child in her right mind would want to do.

You’re better off channeling Tom Sawyer and making the project feel fun and interesting. It helps if you pick an exciting improvement task, such as building a fire-pit, hanging cabinets in the recreation room, or painting the kid’s own bedroom in her choice of color (perhaps from a list preselected by you), rather than a maintenance job like snaking a drain or bleeding the radiators. Older youth may be enticed by the chance to use power tools (with plenty of knowledgeable and safe parental supervision).

Projects with relatively immediate gratification, like painting or laying sod, are more inspiring for young minds. Thus make it a project that they’ll get to enjoy the results of—and do it at a time when distractions like video games and social networking are off limits anyway. Then, let her post photos of the finished work on Facebook, if she wants, to help build her pride and a sense of accomplishment in her work.

Got a question for Josh? We’d love to hear it. Please send submissions to realestate@moneymail.com.

Q: I am maxing out my 401(k). I understand there’s a new way to make after-tax contributions to a Roth IRA. How does that work?

A: You can thank the IRS for what is essentially a huge tax break for higher-income retirement savers, especially folks like yourself who are already maxing out contributions to tax-sheltered retirement plans.

A recent ruling by the IRS allows eligible workers to easily move after-tax contributions from their 401(k) or 403(b) plan to Roth IRAs when they exit their company plan. “With this new ruling, retirement savers are getting a huge increase in their ability contribute to a Roth IRA,” says Brian Holmes, president and CEO of investment advisory firm Signature Estate and Investment Advisors.

The Roth is a valuable income stream in retirement because contributions are after-tax, which means you don’t owe Uncle Sam anything on the money you withdraw. Unlike traditional IRAs which require you to start withdrawing money once you turn 70 ½, Roths have no mandatory distribution requirements, so your investments can continue to grow tax-free. And if you need to take a chunk out for a sudden big expense, such as medical bills, the withdrawal won’t bump you up into a higher tax bracket.

For high-income earners, the IRS ruling is especially good news. Singles with an adjusted gross income of $129,000 or more can’t directly contribute to a Roth IRA; for married couples, the income cap is $191,000. If you are are eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA, you can’t contribute more than $5,500 this year or next ($6,500 for people over 50). The IRS does allow people to convert traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs but you must pay income tax on your gains.

Now, with this new IRS ruling, you can put a lot more into a Roth by diverting your 401(k) assets into one. The annual limit on pre-tax contributions to 401(k) plans is $17,500 and $23,000 for people over 50; those limits rise to $18,000 and $24,000 next year. Including your pre-tax and post-tax contributions, as well as pre-tax employer matches, the total amount a worker can save in 401(k) and 403(b) plans is $52,000 and $57,500 for those 50 and older. (That amount will rise to $53,000 and $59,000 respectively in 2015.) When you leave your employer, you can separate the after-tax money and send it directly to a Roth, which can boost your tax-free savings by tens of thousands of dollars.

To take advantage of the new rule, your employer plan must allow after-tax contributions to your 401(k). About 53% of 401(k) plans allow both pre-tax and after- tax contributions, according to Rick Meigs, president of the 401(k) Help Center. You must also first max out your pre-tax contributions. The transfer to a Roth must be done at the same time you roll your existing 401(k)’s pre-tax savings into a traditional IRA.

The ability to put away more in a Roth is also good for people who want to leave money to heirs. Inherited Roth IRAs are free of tax, and because they don’t have taxable minimum required distributions, they can give your heirs decades of tax-free growth. “It’s absolutely the best asset to die with if you want to leave money behind,” says Holmes.

Do you have a personal finance question for our experts? Write to AskTheExpert@moneymail.com.

Read next: 4 Disastrous Retirement Mistakes and How to Avoid Them