vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
There is nothing wrong with self directed IRA's the problem is that most of the assets they specialize in are better done in other ways. Real estate is already extremely tax advantaged in the US. Buying inside a Traditional IRA would turn longterm capital gains (currently 15%) into ordinary income taxed at your tax rate when you withdraw this may be a plus or minus, but it is more likely than not that your ordinary income tax rate is higher. You also can't do the live in each house for 2 years before selling plan to eliminate capital gains taxes (250k individual 500k married couple). The final problem is that you are going to have problems getting a mortgage (it won't be a conforming loan) and will likely have to pay cash for any real estate purchased inside your IRA. Foreign real estate is similar to above except you have additional tax complexities. The key to the ownership in a business is that there are limits on who can control the business (you and maybe your family can't control the business). If you are experienced doing angel investing this might be a viable option (assuming you have a really big IRA you want to gamble with). If you want to speculate on precious metals you will probably be better offer using ETF's in a more traditional brokerage account (lower transactions costs more liquidity).
It is not absolutely clear that transitioning all your retirement money from mutual funds, stocks, bonds, CDs etc to an annuity (either now, or just before retirement) is the best decision, especially once you are old enough to have to take Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs). The IRS says in Publication 590 Distributions from individual retirement annuities.   If your traditional IRA is an individual retirement annuity, special rules apply to figuring the required minimum distribution. For more information on rules for annuities, see Regulations section 1.401(a)(9)-6. These regulations can be read in many libraries, IRS offices, and online at IRS.gov. I would recommend talking to a tax accountant before going your proposed route.
You should consider dollar cost averaging your investments. Retirement account is perfect for that - it's long term with periodic deposits. Overall, by investing in stocks now for a long term, you'll benefit more because the stocks are at their low(er) point.
The downside of the conversion for some, as you note, is the proration of existing pretax IRA money. You've already considered this, and it's not an issue for you. It's a simple bit of paperwork, nothing to scare you away from this approach.
"This may be a lame answer, but the best IRA contribution strategy is the one that will actually stick to. A single lump sum contribution every year may be a difficult thing for you to maintain.  When it's time to make your contribution, you may say ""eh, $5000 is a lot of money, and my checking account balance is kinda low, I'll wait before I contribute"".  You keep putting it off, and then you miss the opportunity for the year. If you setup small regular automatic withdrawals, your IRA contribution will run on auto-pilot.  Depending on your cash flow, this may not be favorable, though."
With this level of income, you might consider a Solo 401(k). It would allow you a much higher level of contributions and is more appropriate for your savings than the limited IRA deposits. It also offers a considerable number of options not available for IRAs. A loan for example.
If I am interpreting the information in your post correctly, then you are completely correct that NYCERS is by no means worth it--there is no dilemma here.  In fact, I think NYCERS a worse deal than you are giving it credit for. NYCERS contribution costs you 6.2% of your TOTAL income because of the tax implication.  The value of contributing to it is only the difference between what you can earn there and what you would earn in your 403(b).  It's not clear whether that is even a positive number.  Even if it is, it is only some small percentage times your contribution amount, which is 4.5% of your total income.  The benefit of contributing to NYCERS is minuscule or even nonexistent.  There is no way on earth that it makes up for your tax loss. Remember, the 5% interest you get in NYCERS (is that annually or total?) is compensation for the time value of money.  It's not as valuable as an immediate 5% gain on your contributions and nothing near as valuable as a 5% increase in your income.  If you keep your money out of NYCERS then you can earn capital gains on it elsewhere, like in your 403(b) or in an IRA. When it comes to investing, legally avoiding taxes is pretty much always top priority.  Choosing among investments is also important, but not nearly as much.  In your case the answer seems quite clear.  Stop contributing to NYCERS immediately.
There are many considerations before deciding on the best place for your funds: How liquid do you need the funds to be?   If this is for an emergency fund I would keep at least some in an account that you have instant access to,  What is your risk (volatility) tolerance? Would you be OK with the value dropping by as much as 30% in a year knowing that over time you'll probably earn 8-12% on it?  If not, then equity funds or other stock investments are probably not the best move for you. Do you need the funds now or are they for long-term (retirement) savings? Are you eligible to fund an IRA? That would defer your taxes until you withdraw the funds from the account, but there are age restrictions that you must heed to avoid penalties. Are CDs a good idea? They do pay decent interest, but in return for that you lock up your funds for a set period of time.  All that to say that there are many facets to determining the best place for your funds.  If you provide more specifics you can get a more specific answer.
First thing to do right now, is to see if there's somewhere equally liquid, equally risk free you can park your cash for higher rate of return. You can do this now, and decide how much to move into less liquid investments on your own pace. When I was in grad school, I opened a Roth IRA. These are fantastic things for young people who want to keep their options open. You can withdraw the contributions without penalty any time. The earnings are tax free on retirement, or for qualified withdrawls after five years. Down payments on a first home qualify for example. As do medical expenses. Or you can leave it for retirement, and you'll not pay any taxes on it. So Roth is pretty flexible, but what might that investment look like? It in depends on your time horizon; five years is pretty short so you probably don't want to be too stock market weighted. Just recognize that safe short term investments are very poorly rewarded right now. However, you can only contribute earnings in the year they are made, up to a 5000 annual maximum. And the deadline for 2010 is gone. So you'll have to move this into an IRA over a number of years, and have the earnings to back it. So in the meanwhile, the obvious advice to pay down your credit card bills & save for emergencies applies. It's also worth looking at health and dental insurance, as college students are among the least likely to have decent insurance. Also keep a good chunk on hand in liquid accounts like savings or checking for emergencies and general poor planning. You don't want to pay bank fees like I once did because I mis-timed a money transfer. It's also great for negotiating when you can pay in cash up front; my car insurance for example, will charge you more for monthly payments than for every six months. Or putting a huge chunk down on a car will pretty much guarantee the best available dealer financing.
You can invest another $5,500 in your Roth IRA each year, so you can invest up to $11,000 between the two tax years. Additionally you can make investments for the previous year up until 15 April the following year. In your case that will be close to graduation time, and you may decide to max out the contribution for 2014, but wait until you are settled into a new job before setting those savings aside long-term. When you start your first job, there will likely also be an option to invest in a 401k. You can still have the advantages of a Roth, but you will be limited to the investments available in the plan. Most employers I've seen today still offer a low-cost index fund, but you may have to speak up at a company meeting to pressure them to include one of those options in the plan. With a 401k your limit increases to $17,500/year. Make sure that the index fund you invest in has the lowest possible expense ratio. I use VOO. Depending on trading fees, etc., you might pick something else.
Rather than rolling the 401(k) to a new employer's plan, you should roll it into a traditional IRA.  You get more options for the money, there's no limit on how much you can roll over, and you have more control over the money.  If you do a direct rollover, there's no taxes or penalties involved. I'd recommend against taking any money out of the 401(k).  With the numbers you give above, it's like borrowing money at 31.5% interest, which is pretty high, and you're sacrificing your future retirement.  If you leave that money alone to grow with compounding, you'll have a lot more when you retire.  If you're not familiar with the concept of compound interest, it's worth reading up on - the numbers will blow you away. At the very least, if you desperately need to get $3000 out of it, take out just enough to net $3000 after taxes and penalties (not quite $4400 using the numbers you give) and do a rollover with the rest.  At least that way, you're keeping more in the IRA (just over $8600, vs the $5000 in your proposed scenario). Overall, I really recommend you find a way to accomplish your goals without touching your retirement savings.
Well, I was about to ask a similar question. Unless you get into stocks/mutual funds it seems like returns on less risky items such as CDs (certificate of deposit) are terrible. I don't think it is a good use of folks time to ask what a Roth IRA is.  We were considering buying a new car (~$20000 with zero down and 0.9% interest rate) but we drive maybe 6000 miles per year. We would be paying ~$550/month to park something in our garage. Our current car is sexless but absolutely reliable.  I am now looking elsewhere and may either invest the money in our house (i.e., refinishing upstairs) or paying down our debt. We have a home loan - $132,000 at 3.5% - and a student loan - $12,675 @ 3.375%.  Depending on the loan rate on your car, I would pay that down first. Alternatively, find a fee-only broker and drop around $500 for them to come up with a financial plan for you. They will probably recommend a Roth IRA with a specific mutual fund in mind. You'll need $2500 or so to open the Roth, contributions from there should be such that you can start/stop them on demand without fees.
"To answer, I'm going to make a few assumptions. First, the ideal scenario for a pre-tax 401(k) is the deposit goes in at a 25% tax rate (i.e. the employee is in that bracket) but withdrawn at 15%. This may be true for many, but not all. It's to illustrate a point. The SPY (S&P 500 index ETF) has a cost of .09% per year. If your 401(k) fees are anywhere near 1% per year total, over 10 years you've paid nearly 10% in fees, vs less than 1% for the ETF. Above, I suggest the ideal is that the 401(k) saves you 10% on your taxes, but if you pay 10% over the decade, the benefit is completely negated. I can add to the above that funds outside the retirement accounts give off dividends which are tax favored, and if you were to sell ETFs held over a year, they receive favorable cap-gains rates. The ""deposit to get the matching funds"" should always be good advice, it would take many years of high fees to destroy that. But even that seemingly reasonable 1% fee can make any other deposits a bad approach. Keep in mind, when retired you will have a zero bracket (in 2011, the combined standard deduction and exemption) adding to $9500, as well as a 10% bracket (the next $8500), so having some pretax money to take advantage of those brackets will help. Last, the average person changes jobs now and then. The ability to transfer the funds from the (bad) 401(k) to an IRA where you can control the investments is an option I'd not ignore in the analysis. I arbitrarily picked 1% to illustrate my thoughts. The same math will show a long time employee will get hurt by even .5%/yr if enough time passes. What are the fees in your 401(k)? Edit - Study of 401(k) fees - put out by the Dept of Labor. Unfortunately, it's over 10 years old, but it speaks to my point.
"Welcome to the 'what should otherwise be a simple choice turns into a huge analysis' debate. If the choice were actually simple, we've have one 'golden answer' here and close others as duplicate. But, new questions continue to bring up different scenarios that impact the choice. 4 years ago, I wrote an article in which I discussed The Density of Your IRA. In that article, I acknowledge that, with no other tax favored savings, you can pack more value into the Roth. In hindsight, I failed to add some key points. First, let's go back to what I'd describe as my main thesis: A retired couple hits the top of the 15% bracket with an income of $96,700. (I include just the standard deduction and exemptions.) The tax on this gross sum is $10,452.50 for an 'average' rate of 10.8%. The tax, paid or avoided, upon deposit, is one's marginal rate. But, at retirement, the withdrawals first go through the zero bracket (i.e. the STD deduction and exemptions), then 10%, then 15%. The above is the simplest snapshot. I am retired, and our return this year included Sch A, itemized deductions. Property tax, mort interest, insurance, donations added up fast, and from a gross income (IRA withdrawal) well into the 25% bracket, the effective/average rate was reported as 7.3%. If we had saved in Roth accounts, it would have been subject to 25%. I'd suggest that it's this phenomenon, the ""save at marginal 25%, but withdraw at average sub-11%"" effect that account for much of the resulting tax savings that the IRA provides. The way you are asking this, you've been focusing on one aspect, I believe. The 'density' issue. That assumes the investor has no 401(k) option.
Both of the other posters have some really good points worth remembering about the stability/liquidity of a savings account and the often overlooked fact that you can withdraw any money you put in to a Roth IRA because it's already been taxed. I'm 28 and found myself in a similar situation as you about a year or so ago. I wanted a relatively liquid place that I could store and grow some money. CD's and Savings accounts just weren't getting a high enough rate to make a return work for me, especially with only a little money to start. I would highly suggest checking out a social lending platform like Prosper.com or Lendingclub.com. I use Prosper.com and this platform will give you some really nice benefits: Here's a good article that can explain more about it and get you started: http://www.financialsamurai.com/investing-in-peer-to-peer-lending-with-prosper-com/ just keep in mind that while there is some liquidity here (you can resell the notes you invest in) generally speaking expect to hold on to those notes for at least 3 years (your share of the paid principal gets paid out to you in addition to the interest each month.)
I'd hazard that Jim is mostly worried that people are getting ripped off by high employer 401(k) fund fees. A lot of employers offer funds with fees over 1% a year. This sounds low-ish if you don't realize that the real (inflation-adjusted) return for the fund will probably average out to about 4%, so it's really something like a quarter of your earnings gone. With an IRA, you don't have to do that. You can get an IRA provider which offers good, cheap index funds and the like (cough Vanguard cough). Fund fees will probably be closer to 0.1%-ish. HOWEVER. The maximum IRA contribution in 2013 will be $5,500. The maximum for a 401(k) contribution will be $17,500. That extra capacity is enough to recommend a 401(k) over an IRA for many people. These people may be best served by putting money into the 401(k) and then rolling it over into a rollover IRA when they change jobs. Also, certain people have retirement plans which offer them good cheap index funds. These people probably don't need to worry quite as much. Finally, having two accounts is more complicated. Please contact someone who knows more about taxes than I am to figure out what limitations apply for contributing to both IRAs and 401(k)s in the same year.
This may be a good or a bad deal, depending on the fair market value (FMV) of the stock at the time of exercise. Let's assume the FMV is $6, which is the break even point. In general this would probably be treated as two transactions. So overall you would be cash neutral, but your regular tax income would be increased by $30,000 and your AMT income by $60,000.
"I think you have a really good idea, kudos to it. It will be difficult to break eve, and while you stressed the fact that you are ready to part with this money, it would be interesting for you not to part with this money just for the sake of trading. You will be frustrated because you are ""winning"" and breaking even or even losing money in the process. Think about that. For somebody with limited experience the derivatives market carries a very high risk also as everything in this matters carries high or very high yield. Trading futures on margin can actually work but I think you will need a bit more money. Check the mini contracts of infinity futures and calculate the commissions. You will be paying more for a contract, yes. you will need more money for your maintenance margin, yes, but if you day-trade and you have a cheapo broker this will be substantially lower. Gold contracts pay about 10 to 1 so a mini contract of 33 ounces will pay you 33 dollars per 1 dollar move. Your commissions will be about 4/5 usd in a discount broker and you will need to pay some exchange house fees, maybe about 15% of your trade will be fees. Check the contract specs and costs. As somebody said before, they wouldn't recommend trading on margin but with an account of that side I wouldn't know anything else. Trading physical gold on margin could also be an option. Just my 2 cents."
Zero. Zero is reasonable. That's what Schwab offers with a low minimum to open the IRA.  The fact is, you'll have expenses for the investments, whether a commission on stock purchase or ongoing expense of a fund or ETF. But, in my opinion, .25% is criminal. An S&P fund or ETF will have a sub-.10% expense. To spend .25% before any other fees are added is just wrong.
Now the question: is advisable for a beginner to speculate in CfDs?  No. If not, is there a better way to invest with a small amount of money? In the US, and I'm sure this carries to the UK, most (if not all) big brokerages (Schwab, TD Ameritrade, Fidelity, Vanguard, etc) have a set of funds that are zero load and zero commission though the fund will still have an expense ratio.  This is the Barclay's UK page related to zero cost investing in the Barclay's funds.  Barclay's might not be the right fit for a beginner as it seems there is a hefty account minimum, but the same zero commission concept exists in the UK.  Again, most of these brokerages will also have an extremely low expense ratio S&P index (or some other market index) fund.  As a beginner that's where you should start. This is not meant to patronize beginners, it's just math.  Assume your trade commission is £7.  If your investment is £100, you'll lose £7 right up front to the buy commission, then another £7 when you sell.  Lets say your position raises 10%, you'll be at a net loss of 4.7%. Meanwhile if you put your £100 in to a 0.1% expense fee mutual fund with no transaction commissions and no load fees, after a 10% gain you'd owe £0.11 due to the expense ratio at the of the year.  You'd have £109.89. Beginners get crushed by fees and commission.  It is not advisable, by any stretch of the imagination, to attempt to day trade or actively manage a portfolio of any sort of security; and commodities and currency are the WORST place to start.
There have been studies which show that Dollar Cost Averaging (DCA) underperforms Lump Sum Investing (LSI). Vanguard, in particular, has published one such study. Of course, reading about advice in a study is one thing; acting on that advice can be something else entirely. We rolled over my wife's 401(k) to an IRA back in early 2007 and just did it as a lump sum. You know what happened after that. But our horizon was 25+ years at that time, so we didn't lose too much sleep over it (we haven't sold or gone to cash, either).
Yes it is viable but uncommon. As with everything to do with investment, you have to know what you are doing and must have a plan. I have been successful with long term trading of CFDs for about 4 years now. It is true that the cost of financing to hold positions long term cuts into profits but so do the spreads when you trade frequently. What I have found works well for me is maintaining a portfolio that is low volatility, (e.g. picking a mix of positions that are negatively correlated) has a good sharpe ratio, sound fundamentals (i.e. co-integrated assets - or at least fairly stable correlations) then leveraging a modest amount.
"Congrats on saving the money but unfortunately, you're looking for a 24% annual rate of return and that's not ""reasonable"" to expect.  $200 per month, is $2,400 per year.  $2,400/$10,000 is 24%. In a 1% savings account with spending of $200 per month spending you'll have about $7,882 at the end of the year.  You'll earn about $90 of interest over the course of the year.  I'm sure other people will have more specific opinions about the best way to deploy that money.  I'd open a brokerage account (not an IRA, just a regular plain vanilla brokerage account), break off $5,000 and put it in to a low fee no commission S&P index fund; which CAN lose value.  Put the rest in a savings account/checking account and just spend wisely."
"As you've observed, when you're dealing with that amount of money, you're going to have to give up FDIC guarantees. That means that keeping the money in a bank account carries some risk with it: if that particular bank goes bust, you could lose most of your money. There are a few options to stretch the FDIC limit such as CDARS, but likely can't handle your hypothetical $800 million. So, what's a lucky winner to do? There are a few options, including treasury securities, money market funds, and more general capital investments such as stocks and bonds. Which one(s) are best depend on what your goals are, and what kind of risks you find acceptable. Money in the bank has two defining characteristics: its value is very stable, and it is liquid (meaning you can spend it very easily, whenever you want, without incurring costs). Treasury securities and money market funds each focus on one of these characteristics. A treasury security is a piece of paper (or really, an electronic record) saying that the US Federal Government owes you money and when they will pay it back. They are very secure in that the government has never missed a payment, and will move heaven and earth to make sure they won't miss one in the future (even taking into account recent political history). You can buy and sell them on an open market, either through a broker or directly on the Treasury's website. The major downside of these compared to a bank account is that they're not as liquid as cash: you own specific amounts of specific kinds of securities, not just some number of dollars in an account. The government will pay you guaranteed cash on specified dates; if you need cash on different dates, you will need to sell the securities in the open market and the price will be subject to market fluctuations. The other ""cash-like"" option is money market funds. These are a type of mutual fund offered by financial companies. These funds take your money and spread it out over a wide variety of very low risk, very short term investments, with the goal of ensuring that the full value will never go down and is available at any time.