vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
No. Even if you don't need the additional salary income now, you might be able to contribute the incremental amount over the Roth max to either of the other two types of IRAs, or maybe even something else. You never want to take a lower salary, especially not in exchange for something that is conditional e.g. benefits. Your salary is the only thing that is guaranteed as a condition of employment. Other things can be changed by the employer at a future point in time. If you have two different job offers and the salaries are different, that is a separate scenario. You should make the decision based on overall comparison, not just using Roth limit contribution criteria.
"Assuming you are below retirement age, you typically cannot roll money from a Roth IRA into a 401k nor transfer money out of a 401k until you leave the company. Your best bet is to leave your exising roth ira separate from your 401k.  A good strategy for retirement accounts is whenever able (typically when you switch jobs) roll your 401k into a ""rollover IRA"" (not a roth).   Then you can manage your investments with more options than the 5-20 funds provided in the 401k.   I would recommend against rolling funds into a 401k because of the lack of options in most 401k plans. Also, 401k is pre-tax and Roth is post-tax.   Pre and post tax investments don't mix before withdrawal unless you do a conversion of some kind."
Your assumptions are flawed or miss crucial details. An employer sponsored 401k typically limits the choices of investments, whereas an IRA typically gives you self directed investment choices at a brokerage house or through a bank account. You are correct in noticing that you are limited in making your own pre-tax contributions to a traditional IRA in many circumstances when you also have an employer sponsored 401k, but you miss the massive benefit you have: You can rollover unlimited amounts from a traditional 401k to a traditional IRA. This is a benefit that far exceeds the capabilities of someone without a traditional 401k who is subject to the IRA contribution limits. Your rollover capabilities completely gets around any statutory contribution limit. You can contribution, at time of writing, $18,000 annually to a 401k from salary deferrals and an additional $35,000 from employer contributions for a maximum of $53,000 annually and roll that same $53,000 into an IRA if you so desired. That is a factor. This should be counterweighed with the borrowing capabilities of a 401k, which vastly exceeds an IRA again. The main rebuttal to your assumptions is that you are not necessarily paying taxes to fund an IRA.
"You need a brokerage account to invest in ETFs (there are many different kinds of ETFs, not just one) and that usually means having some amount already deposited with them into the ""cash account"" in your name. Once the brokerage account is established, you can send whatever money from each paycheck to the brokerage and tell them to invest it in the ETF of your choice. There are no restrictions as to how much money you can send if you send them a check. If you want the money to be withheld from your paycheck, then of course, the limit is the amount of the take-home pay, and whether your employer offers such a service will affect the issue. If you are wanting to invest in ETFs through your employer's 401(k) plan (or 403(b) plan), there are lots of other considerations."
Are you very certain that your regular investments will produce >10% above and beyond what can be created from your 401(k) plan?    Unless you have a monumentally terrible selection of funds with massive fees you would need to be a truly exceptional investment genius to consistently beat the 10% penalty hurdle.  Also, losing the tax-deferred growth for your money is a large additional hurdle meaning that your investment skill would have to be near Warren Buffet levels to just break even.   That 10% + tax-deferral is easy free money just like the 50% match.  Wait for a few years until you switch jobs and roll the money into an IRA and you will have full control and a lot more money. Taking the penalty is a bad idea.
No. Like Keshlam said, unless you have a crystal ball there is no sure thing. However based on the things you said in your question, you could be better off doing some back testing. With your findings, you can then set up trades in your favor but again it's not 100%. You may also want to check out quant finance stackexhange.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, you don't need to move your assets into a new type of account to accomplish your goal of letting your money grow in a low cost vanguard index fund. Simply reallocate your assets within the Inherited IRA. If the brokerage you're in doesn't meet your needs (high transaction fees, no access to the Vanguard funds you're interested in) you can always move to a low cost brokerage. The new brokerage can help you transfer your assets so that the Inherited IRA remains intact. You will not have a tax burden if you do this reallocation and you'll be able to feel good about your diversification with a low cost index fund. You will, however, have to pay taxes on your RMD. Since you're young I can't imagine that your RMD will be greater than the $5k you can invest in a Roth IRA. If it is, you can open a personal account and keep letting the the money grow.
Short answer is fund a Roth.   If you are under 50 then you can put in $5500 or $6500 if you are older. Great to have money in two buckets one pre tax and one post tax.  Plus you can be aggressive putting money in it because you can always take money you put in the Roth out of the Roth with no tax or penalty.   Taxes are historically low so it makes a lot of sense to diversify your retirement.
In this case you can only contribute $850 to the IRA because you are taxed against the money at your marginal rate (15%). When you withdraw it, you don't pay any taxes and are left with the entire $850 $850. This is less than the above, because you are taxed the whole amount at your previous marginal rate. If however your tax rate in retirement was 30% for everything above $500, only then are the two scenarios equal. Your marginal tax rate in retirement has to be very high relative to your current tax rate for the Roth to ever catch up and be better. If you are able to deduct an IRA contribution, it will almost always be the best option. The average federal income tax rate on middle class families has not changed dramatically enough over the past 50 years to be above normal marginal tax rates - even at the 15% federal tax bracket, your marginal rate is still higher than the highest average tax rate for the past 50 years by at least 3% and normally significantly so. The reason I make this point about middle class marginal rates is that the majority of ""taxes might be higher in retirement!"" is very unlikely to be the case in a meaningful way given the past 50 years. However if you are in the top tax rate you are paying historic low tax rates (by a factor of nearly 3), but also observe you can't do either IRA since you must make $400k/year. The difference for middle class is no where near as noticeable. Keep in mind if you can't deduct, there is no reason to not contribute to the Roth. There are other factors contributing to the traditional/Roth decision. This answer only addresses the specifics in your question."
quid's answer explains the settlement period well. However, it should be noted that you can avoid the settlement period by opening a margin account. Any specific broker like Schwab may or may not offer margin accounts. Margin accounts allow you to borrow money to avoid the settlement period or to buy more securities than you can actually afford. Note that if you buy more securities than you can afford using margin, you expose yourself to losses potentially larger than your initial investment. If you fund your account with $50,000 and use margin to purchase $80,000 of stock which then drops in value by 80% you will have lost $64,000 and owe the broker $14,000 plus fees.
If the check was payable to you, you had 60 days to deposit to an IRA.  But, it needs to go into the same type of IRA as the 401(k) was. i.e. if the 401(k) was traditional, it goes into a traditional IRA, If 401(k) Roth, it goes into a Roth.  The 20% is not the penalty. The penalty is 10% for early withdrawal. The 20% is the tax withholding. If the 401(k) had $1250, and they kept $250 for taxes, you'd want to deposit the full $1250 into the IRA. At tax time, you'll get the $250 credited to your taxes, and either owe less or get a higher refund.
The general advise is to contribute to the 401K up to the match limit. Then put money into a Roth IRA. Then put the rest into the 401K above the match. Yes you can have an IRA and a 401K. You can even have Roth and non-Roth versions. You do have to watch the limits, and exclusions, but there is nothing stopping you from contributing to multiple types in one year. Over a long career you may find your self with all the possible types of accounts.  When you re-qualify for the company 401K, there is no need to roll over the IRA money into the 401K. Just keep the IRA.
the $5500 Roth IRA is not restricted to earned income, you can put whatever money you have tax free and gains free.
The 1099 income is subject to the same total limit on IRA deposits. If you are looking to shelter more than $5500, you might consider a Solo 401(k). It offers higher limits and other potential advantages.
I would definitely recommend putting some of this in an IRA. You can't put all $30K in an IRA immediately though, as the contribution limit is $5500/year for 2014, but until April 15 you can still contribute $5500 for 2013 as well. At your income level I would absolutely recommend a Roth IRA, as your income will very likely be higher in retirement, given that your income will almost certainly rise after you get your Ph.D. Your suggested asset allocation (70% stocks, 30% bonds) sounds appropriate; if anything you might want to go even higher on stocks assuming you won't mind seeing the value drop significantly. If you don't want to put a lot of energy into investment choices, I suggest a target retirement date fund. As far as I am aware, Vanguard offers the lowest expenses for these types of funds, e.g. this 2050 fund.
First, a Roth is funded with post tax money. The Roth IRA deposit will not offset any tax obligation you might have.  The IRA is not an investment, it's an account with a specific set of tax rules that apply to it. If you don't have a brokerage account, I'd suggest you consider a broker that has an office nearby. Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard are 3 that I happen to have relationships with.  Once the funds are deposited, you need to choose how to invest for the long term. The fact that I'd choose the lowest cost S&P ETF or mutual fund doesn't mean that's the ideal investment for you.  You need to continue to do research to find the exact investment that matches your risk profile. By way of example, up until a few years ago, my wife and I were nearly 100% invested in stocks,  mostly the S&P 500. When we retired, four years ago, I shifted a bit to be more conservative, closer to 80% stock 20% cash.
You're ignoring the fact that you still had the taxes from the $5500 (so $1375) left over when making the traditional IRA contribution.  So yes, the Roth IRA grew without further taxing more than the Traditional IRA did; but you could've just as easily invested that $1375 in the same investments. While you'd owe taxes on them, true, you'd still earn a boatload of money.  That's another $10,607 you've earned, not tax-free, but with gains at the 15% CGR is still $9170.  So you now have $60,627 in the Roth, available tax-free, or you have $60,627 available at a 10% or so average rate (12% if you like, though I think you'll find it's more like 10%).   Say $53351, plus $9170 from the not-sheltered income after taxes, for $62,521 after taxes. So you make about $2000 more by using the traditional IRA for $5500 and then just investing the rest in a long term account.  The math might be slightly worse if you invest in something that has regular dividend taxes due, but if you're careful to use tax-favored investments you should be okay, and even if you don't you'll still end up ahead in the end if you make the same exact investment as your tax-sheltered account. Ultimately the question is: are you paying more in taxes now, or later, comparing now marginal rate to later average rate.  If you are paying more in taxes now, then traditional IRA plus invest the rest unsheltered.  If you're paying more later, then Roth IRA.
If you are earning a salary, go for Roth IRA. You can contribute $5500 (2013 limits) every year . Once you open a account , let say Fidelity or Vanguard, you should invest based on risk appetite into some funds. the advantage is that your money grows tax free and when you are 25- 30 years old and need money for down payment of house, you can pull the money out with out any penalty. The gains you have made will continue to be in that account till the time your retire, growing every year.
My brother did it for a while, put in about $2700 and took out $2800 6 months later. He was on track to yield around 13% if he had let them stay there. He decided to liquidate that account and make an IRA with LendingClub.  So I'd say go for it.
A few other observations: EDIT: I set up a spreadsheet where each year I deposited $1000 for 35 years. Each year, the balance in the IRA account grows by 5%, but the taxable only by 5%*(1-0.15) = 4.25% due to the effect of taxes. At the end of 35 years, my simulation assumes you pay 15% on all the gains in the IRA, which would likely not be the case, but easier than forecasting through retirement and demonstrates what I'm trying to show. Here's plot showing the balance in the various accounts, the blue is the IRA account, orange the taxable account, and grey is the effective balance of the IRA, after paying taxes on the gains: And here's a plot of the advantage of the IRA (after paying taxes on the gains), vs the taxable account: Whether that's worth it to you or anyone depends on some the assumptions in the simulation, especially effective tax rates, and growth rates, as well as any personal issues. Some people may be less likely to raid an IRA account, for example, than a normal account. Conversely, if you have a project coming up, you may need something a bit more liquid than an IRA."
It varies. Depending on your brokerage, they may charge you per transaction, so the more transactions, the higher the cost. Though this (from what I've seen), is uncommon with many index funds. In terms of how aggressive you want to be with your investment varies on your comfort with risk, timeline of investment and many other factors beyond the scope of this question.  The biggest issue you may need to be aware of is if you are looking at mutual funds, they may have minimum investments. Depending on what that minimum investment is set to, you may not be able to split your $5500 into more than one fund.  A lot of this comes down to the specific funds in which your are anticipating investing, as well as the service you use to do so (Fidelity, Vanguard, etc). Ultimately, diversification can be a lot safer, but there are logistics to consider. Personally, I began with a target fund (a mutual fund with adjusted risk based on the estimated year of retirement) and add additional mutual funds, stocks and ETFs as time goes on.
Whether or not it's reasonable is a matter of opinion, but there are certainly cheaper options out there. It does seem strange to me that your credit union charges a percentage of your assets rather than a flat fee since they shouldn't have to do any more work based on how much money you have invested. I would look into rolling over your IRA to Vanguard or Fidelity. Neither charge administrative fees, and they offer no-load and no-transaction fee funds with low expenses. If you went with Fidelity directly, you'd be bypassing the middle man (your credit union) and their additional administrative fees. Vanguard tends to offer even cheaper funds.
More often than not the market will rise year on year. Your best move is to put the $5000 in on Jan 2. Are you in the 15% bracket? If not, that is, if higher, I'd suggest the traditional, deductible, IRA.
I think you need to understand the options better before you go around calling anything worthless... $11k in a 1% savings account gets you just over $100 each year. Obviously you're not buying Ferraris with your returns but it's $100 more than your checking account will pay you. And, you're guaranteed to get your money back. I think a CD ladder is a great way to store your emergency fund. The interest rate on a CD is typically a bit better than a regular savings account, though the money is locked away and while we seem to be on the cusp of a rate increase it might not be the best time to put the money in jail. Generally there is some sort of fee or lost interest from cashing a CD early. You're still guaranteed to get your money back. Stock trading is probably a terrible idea. If you want some market exposure I'd take half of the money and buy a low expense S&P ETF, I wouldn't put my whole savings if I were you (or if I were me). Many large brokers have an S&P ETF option that you can generally buy with no commission and no loads. Vanguard is a great option VOO, Schwab has an S&P mutual fund SWPPX, and there are others. Actively trading individual stocks is a great way to let commissions and fees erode your account. There are some startup alternatives with lower fees, but personally I would stay away from individual stock picking unless you are in school for Finance and have some interest in paying attention and you're ready to possibly never see the money again. You're not guaranteed to get your money back. There are also money market accounts. These will typically pay some interest based on exposing your funds to some risk. It can be a bit better return than a savings account, but I probably wouldn't bother. An IRA (ROTH and Traditional) is just an account wrapper that offers certain tax benefits while placing certain restrictions on the use of some or all of the money until you reach retirement age. As a college student you should probably be more concerned about an emergency fund or traveling than retirement savings, though some here may disagree with me.
Their paperwork should help you along.  Schwab is the broker and custodian, you are the administrator.  There's virtually no paperwork after the account is opened, until you hit $250K in value, and then there's one extra IRS form you need to fill out each year.  See One-Participant 401(k) Plans for a good IRS description of form 5500. Disclosure - I use the Schwab Solo 401(k) myself, and the only downsides, in my opinion, the don't offer a Roth flavor, and no loans are permitted. Both of these features would offer flexibility.
I suggest you look at many stocks' price history, especially around earnings announcements. It's certainly a gamble. But an 8 to 10% move on a surprise earning announcement isn't unheard of. If you look at the current price, the strike price, and the return that you'd get for just exceeding the strike by one dollar, you'll find in some cases a 20 to 1 return. A real gambler would research and find companies that have had many earnings surprises in the past and isolate the options that make the most sense that are due to expire just a few days after the earnings announcement. I don't recommend that anyone actually do this, just suggesting that I understand the strategy. Edit - Apple announced earnings. And, today, in pre-market trading, over an 8% move. The $550 calls closed before the announcement, trading under $2.
"Considering that I can't find anything on Chase's web site referencing a ""Money Market IRA"" I suspect that this is a type of account that they aren't actively supporting anymore, but aren't forcing you to cash it in.  I would call Chase to find out for sure, however. That said, a money market is not a good investment if you are looking for any kind of growth.  They are basically a savings account that pay (currently) a small amount of interest.  You can get much better return from other low-risk investments.  You can rebalance periodically if you want to keep a certain amount of ""cash"" available."
From what these people are saying, it is impossible for you to put $5,500 in if it were a Roth though, because the money has to be taxed. You are correct that this is wrong.  You can still put $5,500 in a Roth - the tax payment comes when you file, not when you make the investment.  This is when the Roth is better than a Traditional IRA, when you can invest the max either way.  Yes you get the tax break for the Traditional investment, and if you invest the tax savings you'll be in the same spot, all else being equal. If you only have a certain amount (after taxes) to invest, say $3,000 in a 25% marginal tax bracket, then it works out the same either way.  You can either invest $3,000 in a Roth and let it grow tax free, or put $4,000 in a traditional IRA since you can deduct $1,000 (15%) from your taxes when you file. Then your tax-adjusted balance when you withdraw is the same, since you'll have a lot more (33% more in fact) in your traditional IRA but will have to pay tax on the withdrawals.
The details of the 401(k) are critical to the decision. A high cost (the expenses charged within the) 401(k) - I would deposit only to the match, and I'd be sure to get the entire match offered. In which case, that $3000 might be good to have available if you start out with a tight budget.  Low cost 401(k) w/match - a no-brainer, deposit what you can afford. Roth 401(k) w/match - same rules for expenses apply, with the added note to use Roth when getting started and in a lower bracket.  Yes, it makes sense to have both.  You should note, depositing to the Roth now is riskless. The account, not the investment. If you decide next year you didn't want it, you can withdraw the deposit with no penalty or tax. Edit to respond to updated question - there are two pieces to the Roth deposit issue. The deposit itself, which puts the $3000 earned income into tax sheltered account, and the choice to invest. These two are sequential and you can take your time in between. I'm not sure what you mean by the dividend timing. In an IRA or 401(k) the dividend isn't taxed, so it's a non-issue. In a cash account, you might quickly have a small tax issue, but this doesn't come into the picture in the tax deferred accounts.
At exactly 105K you can take a deduction of 13/20*5500 = $3575 each and the rest ($1925) as a Roth deposit. No need to have non-deducted money, when you can just make use of both flavors of IRA.
And if we had bought a put today at the close we would pay the ask, which is 91.90/share, or $9190 total. So, to receive $50,000 for certain on Jan 19,2013 we could pay $49,552 for the GOOG stock, minus $8,900 for the money we received selling the call option, plus a payment of $9190 for the put option we need to protect the value. The total is $49,842. If we pay $49,842 today, plus execute the option strategy shown, we would have $50,000 on Jan 19,2013. This is a profit of $158, the options commissions are going to be around $20-$30, so in total the profit is around $120 after commissions. On the other hand, ~$50,000 in a bank CD for 12 months at 1.1% will yield $550 in similarly risk-free interest. Given that it is difficult to actually make these trades simultaneously, in practice, with the prices jumping all around, I would say if you really want a low risk option trade then a bank CD looks like the safer bet. This isn't to say you can't find another combination of stock and contract price that does better than a bank CD -- but I doubt it will ever be better by very much and still difficult to monitor and align the trades in practice."