vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I would definitely recommend contributing to an IRA. You don't know for sure you'll get hired full-time and be eligible for the 401(k) with match, so you should save for retirement on your own. I would recommend Roth over Traditional IRA in your situation, because let's say you do get hired full-time. Since the company offers a retirement plan, your 2015 Traditional IRA contribution would no longer be deductible at your income level (assuming you're single), and non-deductible Traditional IRAs aren't a very good deal (see here and here). If there's a decent chance you would get hired, this factor would override the pre-tax versus post-tax debate for me. At your income level you could go either way on that anyway. A Solo 401(k) would be worth looking into if you wanted to increase your contribution limit beyond what IRAs offer, but given that it sounds like you're just starting out saving for retirement, and you may be eligible for a 401(k) soon, it's probably overkill at this point.
While tax deferral is a nice feature, the 401k is not the Holy Grail.  I've seen plenty of 401k's where the investment options are horrible: sub-par performance, high fees, limited options.   That's great that you've maxed out your Roth IRA.  I commend you for that.   As long as the investment options in your 401k are good, then I would stick with it.
Your question is very widely scoped, making it difficult to reply to, but I can provide my thoughts on at least the following part of the question: I have a 401k plan with T. Rowe Price, should I use them for other investments too? Using your employer's decision, on which 401k provider they've chosen, as a basis for making your own decision on a broker for investing $100k when you don't even know what kind of investments you want seems relatively unwise to me, even if one of your focuses is simplicity.  That is, unless your $100k is tax-advantaged (e.g. an IRA or other 401k) and your drive for simplicity means you'd be happy to add $100k to any of your existing 401k investments.  In which case you should look into whether you can roll the $100k over into your employer's 401k program. For the rest of my answer, I'll assume the $100k is NOT tax-advantaged. I assume you're suggesting this idea because of some perceived bundling of the relationship and ease of dealing with one company & website?  Yes, they may be able to combine both accounts into a single login, and you may be able to interact with both accounts with the same basic interface, but that's about where the sharing will end.  And even those benefits aren't guaranteed.  For example, I still have a separate site to manage my money in my employer's 401k @ Fidelity than I do for my brokerage/banking accounts @ Fidelity.  The investment options aren't the same for the two types of accounts, so the interface for making and monitoring investments isn't either. And you won't be able to co-mingle funds between the 401k and non-tax-advantaged money anyway, so you'll have two different accounts to deal with even if you have a single provider.  Given that you'll have two different accounts, you might as well pick a broker/provider for the $100k that gives you the best investment options, lowest fees, and best UI experience for your chosen type/goal of investments. I would strongly recommend figuring out how you want to invest the $100k before trying to figure out which provider to use as a broker for doing the investment.
"Does your current 401(k) have low fees and good investment choices? If so you might be able to ""roll-in"" your rollover IRA to your 401(k), then do a backdoor Roth IRA contribution. A Roth IRA would be far more useful than a non-deductible traditional IRA."
"I think it would be worth it for you to look into something called a ""Self-directed IRA"" before you make any decisions. Sometimes the costs can be a little higher, but you may find the flexibility worth it. Basically, instead of being limited to a small set of mutual funds from which to choose, having the money in a self-directed IRA would let you branch out into real estate, gold, or other vehicles that aren't part of the usual 401K landscape. And count me as another vote for not taking the cash. MrChrister is right, there are plenty of other ways to pay that off without the penalty."
I recommend that you just leave the 401K where it is - a S&P 500 is a nice simple fund with very low expenses, and over the long term, I think that's a good choice for a 401K. I don't think it makes sense to put money in bonds at your age.
An experienced individual wouldn't ask such questions.  I don't say this to take a jab at you, but to provide context.  The matter is much more complicated than a simple answer to your question could accomplish. The short answer is no, not necessarily; but it depends on the details. Generally, if the employer matches, it's suggested that you take advantage of the match.  It's free money.  That said, it comes with some strings attached, like a vesting schedule.  It's not yours right away, necessarily.  Choices are limited in a 401k, but we should still come out ahead with that free money. The investment choices available in a 401k are also a part of the details.  If they meet your needs you should certainly consider the 401k even if the employer doesn't match. There is also the matter of one's particular tax situation, which is certainly an involved matter.  A 401k can certainly be a part of judicious tax planning.  It's a matter of working out the details. Continuing this theme of details and coming back to the employer match: if the employer doesn't mach, I would make sure that I'm maxing out an IRA before considering the 401k.  If the employer matched, I would probably contribute to take advantage of that match.  However, it quickly becomes complicated here.  I'm accustomed to employer matching up to some percentage of pay, which typically works out to be less then the anual contribution limits for a 401k.  So, I my plan for such a situation is to contribute up to the employer match in the 401k, then max out an IRA, and then return to the 401k to finish contributing up to its yearly maximum. There is plenty for you to consider in order to come up with a plan of action.  While it's certainly complicated, it's accessible to most people.  You don't have to be a genius.  In fact, eggheads are regularly trounced by the markets.
All data for a single adult in tax year 2010. Roth IRA  401K Roth 401k Traditional IRA and your employer offers a 401k Traditional IRA and your employer does NOT offer a 401k So, here are your options. If you have a 401k at work, you could max that out.  If you make close to $120K, you could reduce your AGI enough to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you do not have a 401k at work, you could contribute to a Traditional IRA and deduct the $5K from your AGI similar to how a 401k works. Other than that, I think you are looking at investing outside of a retirement plan which means more flexibility, but no tax advantage.
The compound interest argument is a good one.  While you are young, it is important to save, since time is on your side for compounding of interest.  I think the 401K is a good idea, but not for all of your savings.  Think about saving a percentage of your income, but put it in a couple places. Your Roth is also a great thing, since you'll be able to remove money without paying tax again.  The 401k (tax deferred) is a good idea if your company matches any of it (FREE MONEY!), and because it lowers your taxable income now, and it's taken out of your check before you see it, so you don't miss it.  It's still important to save other money that you can have for ready cash (unexpected dead car, for example, or medical bills, or what have you.) I find that I don't want to be managing my investments from minute to minute, or doing my own trades (I'd rather do other things), so I have a mix (Roth, 401k, cash savings) of automated contributions for savings, and I think hard before buying new stuff.  The point is to save, and if possible, try to save at least 10% of your income.
As long as you're in a lower tax bracket - you would probably be better off paying the taxes now, and investing into the Roth IRA/401K. However, you should be investing for your retirement now, and not later, because of the compounding effect, and also you'll gain the employer matching (if available).
"A fascinating view on this. The math of a 10% deposit and projected 10% return lead to an inevitable point when the account is worth 10X your income (nice) and the deposit, 10% of income only represents 1% of the account balance.  The use of an IRA is neither here nor there, as your proposed deposit is still just 1% of your retirement account total. Pay off debt? For one with this level of savings, it should be assumed you aren't carrying any high interest debt.  It really depends on your age and retirement budget. Our ""number"" was 12X our final income, so at 10X, we were still saving. For you, if you project hitting your number soon enough, I'd still deposit to the match, but maybe no more. It might be time to just enjoy the extra money. For others, their goal may be much higher and those extra years deposits are still needed. I'd play with a spreadsheet and see the impact of reduced retirement account deposits. Note - the question asks about funding the 401(k) vs paying down debt. I'd always advise to deposit to the match, but beyond that, one should focus on their high interest debt, especially by their 50's."
"The vanguard funds are all low fee your employer has done a good job selecting their provider for 401(k).  I would do a roth if you can afford it as taxes are at a historical low.   Just pick the year you want to get your money if you will need your money in 2040 pick  Vanguard Target Retirement 2040 Fund. Its that simple. This is not a ""thing"" ( low-risk, and a decent return ).  Risk and reward are correlated.   Get the vanguard and every year it rebalances so that you take less risk every year. Lastly listen to the Clark Howard podcast if you are having trouble making decisions or contact their 45 hour a week free advice email/phone help."
"As @AlexKuhl says, ever? yes, but generally? no. If your 401k is invested in stocks and bonds, the long term return is very likely higher than the interest on a mortgage. Long term return on the stock market is around 7%. Mortgage rates these days are around 4%. Add the tax penalty on top of that and you're almost surely better to keep your money in the 401k. There's also the psychological/budgeting factor. People very often say, ""I'll pull money out of my retirement fund for this important purchase and then put it back later."" And then later comes and there are other expenses and things they want to do and they never put the money back."
The best approach is to educate yourself and make these decisions for yourself. Hence, my attempt to educate you as best as I can at this point in time. Personally, I suggest you do what I did. Start reading the Wall Street Journal every day. (An acceptable substitute may be the business section of the New York Times.) At first you will be overwhelmed with information, but in the long run it will pay off. Another good piece of advice is to be patient and not rush into investing. If you are in a hurry to determine how you should invest in a 401(k) or other such investment vehicle due to a desire to take advantage of an employer's matching funds, then I would place my money in an S&P 500 index fund. I would also explore placing some of that money into broad index funds from other regions of the globe. The reason for broad index funds is to provide some protection from the normal fluctuations and to reduce the risk of a sudden downturn causing you a lot pain while you determine the best approach for yourself. In this scenario, think more about capital preservation and hedging against inflation then about ""beating"" the market."
For that reason, if you are just trying to move money out of your 401(k) to save on fees, the logical place to put it is in a traditional IRA. Moving money from a traditional to a Roth may make sense, for example, if your tax rate is temporarily low this year, but that would be a separate decision from the one you are looking at. You can always roll your traditional IRA into a Roth later if that does become the case. Otherwise, there's no reason to think your traditional 401(k) should be rolled into a Roth IRA according to what you have described."
What asset allocation is right for you (at the most basic the percentage if stocks vs bonds; at the advanced level, percentage of growth vs value, international vs domestic etc) is a function of your age, retirement goals, income stability and employment prospects until retirement.  Roth IRA is orthogonal to this.  Now, once you have your allocation worked out there are tactical tax advantage decisions available: interest income, REIT and MLP dividends are taxed at income and not capital gains rate, so the tactical decision is to put these investments in tax advantage accounts like Roth and 401ks.  Conversely, should you decide to buy and hold growth stocks there are tactical advantages to keeping them in a taxable account: you get tax deferment until the year you choose to sell (barring a takeover), you get the lower lt cap gains rate, and you can employ tax loss harvesting.
First off, you have done very well to be in your financial position at your age. Congratulations.  I first started investing seriously about 10 years ago, and when I started, I had a similar attitude to you. Learning how to invest is a journey, and it will take you a while to learn both the intellectual and emotional sides of investing. First off, there is nothing wrong with having a chunk of cash that you aren't investing effectively. It is far better to be losing earning power WRT inflation that it is to make a bad investment, where you can lose all your money quite quickly. I have perhaps 15% of my capital just sitting around right now because I don't have any place where I'm excited to put it. For your IRA, I would look at the options you have, and choose one that is reasonably well diversified and has low costs. In most cases, an index fund is a reasonable choice. My 401K goes into an S&P 500 index fund, and I don't have to worry about it. Beyond that, I suggest spending some time learning about investing, and then making some small and conservative investments. I've learned a lot from the Motley Fool web site.
Your analysis is not comparing apples to apples which is why it looks like investing money in a non-qualified account is better than a 401k (traditional or Roth).  For the non-qual you are using post tax dollars (money that has already been taxed). Now on top of that original tax you are also going to pay capital gains tax for any growth plus dividend rates for any dividends it throws off.  For the 401k, let's assume for the moment that $10,000 is invested in a traditional and that the marginal tax rate is always 20%. And for growth let's assume 10x. With a traditional your money will grow to $100,000 and then the IRS gets $20,000 as you pull the money out. The result is a net 80,000 for you.  For a Roth 401k, it is taxed first so only $8,000 gets invested. This then grows by the same multiplier to $80,000. (Until you consider changing tax rates the Roth and traditional give the same growth of money). Considering the non-qual option, like with the Roth we only have $8,000 to invest. However in this case you will not realize the full 10x growth as you will have to pay taxes on $72,000. These are taxes that the 401ks (and also IRAs) do not pay. There are other reasons to consider non-qual over maxing out your 401k. Liquidity, quality of investments, and fees being some of those. But the capital gains rate vs. ordinary income rate is not one, as the money in the non-qual still has to go through that ordinary income tax first before it is available to even invest.
The key thing to consider in a question like this is, What return am I getting on my investment versus what interest am I paying on the loan? If the investment returns more than what you're paying on the loan, than it makes sense to keep the investment and pay off the loan with other income. If the investment returns less, than it makes sense to cash it out to pay off the loan. One complicating factor is taxes. In the case of an IRA, you're not paying taxes on the profits. You do pay a tax penalty for an early withdrawal. Those are both factors that tend to make keeping the money in the IRA more desirable. And of course, if the choice is between keeping your investment and defaulting on the loan, you probably want to close out the investment. I don't know what return you're getting on your IRA, but it's probably more than 6.8%. I'd have to check but I think my retirement funds got over 20% last year. If you're not getting 6.8%, you might want to investigate switching to another investment fund. I'm sure there's a lot I don't know about your situation, but I'd think that keeping the IRA would be a better plan. If you can't add to it for some time well you get these debts paid off, well, that's how it is.
Overall I think your idea is sound. The key here is to  choose that 401k provider wisely and have a specific asset allocation plan (like Joe mentioned) Summary of this approach: Pluses:  Minuses: I'd consider Vanguard for simple, no frills investing. If you're looking to get into choosing stocks, check out the Motley Fool.
When you look at managed funds the expense ratios are always high. They have the expense of analyzing the market, deciding where to invest, and then tracking the new investments. The lowest expenses are with the passive investments.  What you have noticed is exactly what you expect. Now if you want to invest in active funds that throw off dividends and capital gains, the 401K is the perfect place to do it, because that income will not be immediately taxable. If the money is in a Roth 401K it is even better because that income will never be taxed.
Ideally, one would contribute the maximum amount you're allowed to both the TSP and an IRA. For the 2015 tax year, that would be $18,000 for the TSP and $5,500 for the IRA (if you're 50 or older, then you can add an additional catch up amount of $6,000 to the TSP and $1,000 to the IRA). If, like most people, you cannot contribute the maximum to both, then I would recommend the TSP over an IRA, until you've maximized your TSP. Unquestionably, you should contribute at least enough to the TSP to get the maximum agency match. Beyond that, there is a case to be made to contribute to an IRA for certain investors. Benefits of TSP, compared to IRA: Benefits of IRA, compared to TSP: So, for an investor who wants simplicity, I would recommend just doing the TSP (unless you can invest more, in which case an IRA is a smart choice). For a knowledgeable and motivated investor, it can make sense to also have an IRA to gain access to asset classes not in the TSP's basic index funds.
Your suggestion of taking the dividends from an index tracker fund - or indeed the income from any other investment - is fine, but the income will be substantially less than an annuity bought with the same money because you won't be using up any capital, whereas an annuity implicitly does that. Depending on the type of investment, it might also be substantially more risky. Overall, you only need to secure the income you actually need/want to live on. Beyond that level, keeping your money outside the pension system makes some sense, though this might change with the new rules referred to in other answers that mean you don't have to buy an annuity if you have enough guaranteed income anyway. In any case, I strongly suggest you focus first on ensuring you have enough to live on in retirement before you worry about leaving an inheritance. As far as setting up a trust goes, you might be able to do that, but it would be quite expensive and the government tends to view trusts as tax avoidance schemes so you may well fall foul of future changes in the rules."
I've changed jobs several times and I chose to rollover my 401k from the previous employer into an IRA instead of the new employer's 401k plan.  The biggest reason not to rollover the 401k into the new employer's 401k plan was due to the limited investments offered by 401k plans.  I found it better to roll the 401k into an IRA where I can invest in any stock or fund.
"Your question has a built in faulty premise.  ""ASSUMING a person knows how to use and invest their money wisely"" I'd ask if you were wise enough to beat the investments offered in your 401(k) after expenses, and with respect to the potential tax savings.  Then, since I'm a proponent of ""deposit to the match, even if you have to eat rice and beans to find the cash to do"" I'll extend the question to ask if you can beat the choices taking the match into account.  401(k) - Your $1000 starts as $1500 and has a tax due on withdrawal years later. AeroAccount - You start with $750 (after the tax) and might spend a decade before hitting $1500.  Start your own company? That might be another story. But to invest in the market and still beat the matched 401(k) takes a bit more wisdom than I'd claim to have."
"It's a trade-off. The answer depends on your risk tolerance. Seeking higher rewards demands higher risk. If you want advice, I would recommend hiring an expert to design a plan which meets your needs. As a sample point, NOT necessarily right for anyone else...I'm considered an aggressive investor, and my own spread is still more conservative than many folks. I'm entirely in low-cost index funds, distributed as ... with the money tied up in a ""quiesced"" defined-contribution pension fund being treated as a low-yield bond. Some of these have beaten the indexes they're tracking, some haven't. My average yield since I started investing has been a bit over 10%/year (not including the company match on part of the 401k), which I consider Good Enough -- certainly good enough for something that requires near-zero attention from me. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance. This may be completely wrong for someone at a different point in their career and/or life and/or finances. I'm posting it only as an example, NOT a recommendation.  Regarding when to rebalance: Set some threshhold at which things have drifted too far from your preferred distribution (value of a fund being 5% off its target percentage in the mix is one rule I've sometimes used), and/or pick some reasonable (usually fairly low) frequency at which you'll actively rebalance (once a year, 4x/year, whenever you change your car's oil, something like that), and/or rebalance by selecting which funds you deposit additional money into whenever you're adding to the investments. Note that that last option avoids having to take capital gains, which is generally a good thing; you want as much of your profit to be long-term as possible, and to avoid triggering the ""wash sales"" rule. Generally, you do not have to rebalance very frequently unless you are doing something that I'd consider unreasonably risky, or unless you're managing such huge sums that a tiny fraction of a percent still adds up to real money."
Great question and good for you for starting investments.  Are you young, like in your 20s? I would do all that you can in the ROTH.  You will not get a tax break now, but you will get one later.  Keep in mind that any company match does not go into ROTH but the IRA. I try to look at two things when judging a mutual fund:  the historic performance, and the expense fee.  When comparing two funds, if one has a 10% average return for 10 years, and a 1% fee, I feel it is better than a fund that has a 12% return for the same time period and a 3% fee.   If they are close, you can always put a little bit in each one.   An important question to ask is if you have debt.  You may want to scale back your contributions some to pay down that debt.  For me, I don't like to go below a company match to do so, but anything over and above might be better utilized to move that student, car or credit card loan to zero.  Others might disagree, so YMMV, but I have done this myself.