vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I've read the answers and respect the thought behind them.  I'd like to focus on (a) the magnitude of the emergency, and (b) the saving rate of the people affected. 3-6 months is interesting. It's enough not just to fix the car, repair the A/C, etc, but more than enough to lose one's job and recover. (Let's avoid the debate of how long it take to find a job, no amount of 'emergency savings' can solve that.) If one is spending below their means, any unexpected expense that can paid off within, say 3 months, doesn't really need to tap emergency funds (EF). And, at some level of income and retirement savings, one can more easily run a much lower EF.  My own situation - I had 9mo worth of expenses saved as EF. We were living well beneath our means, and I was looking at the difference between our mortgage (6%+) vs bank interest (near 0%). I used the funds to pay down principal, refinanced to a lower rate, and at the same closing got a HELOC. The psychology of this is tough, it then appears that for simple expenses, I'd be borrowing from my HELOC. On the other hand, the choice was between a known cost, the $5K/year the money was costing by sitting there plus the lower rate by going to a non-jumbo loan at the time, vs the risk of using 3% money from the HELOC. In the end, the HELOC was never tapped for more than a small portion of its line, and I never regretted the decision. Ironically, it's the person who isn't saving much that need the EF most. If you are a saver, you need to judge how long it would take to replace the funds.  I offer the above not as a recommendation, but as devil's advocate to the other excellent advice here. All cash flows are a choice, $100 going here, can't go there. I'd slip in a warning that one should capture matching 401(k) contributions, if offered, before funding the EF. And pay down any high interest debt. After that, the decision of how liquid to be is a personal choice, what worked for my wife and me may not be for everyone.
You will not benefit at tax time like you did with your initial contributions, because you have already benefited and are simply repaying your withdrawn contributions. However, capital gains are not taxed inside of your RRSP, until you withdraw the money. Let's say you have $10,000 to repay and have all the money now. It makes sense to repay it immediately. Whatever interest or capital gains you make inside of the RRSP are not taxed. However, your $10,000 contribution this year will not offer you any deductions on your tax return. There are exactly two reasons I can see to not immediately repay the full amount, if able. First, you may need the money for an emergency fund, and there are significant implications for removing money from your RRSP in such a case. Second, if you believe you will be in a higher tax bracket when you retire, it may not make sense to put any money into an RRSP right now. Almost certainly, you want to repay the entire lump sum if able.
No, don't bother.  You need to decide what you are saving for, and how much risk you are prepared to take. It would make sense if you wanted the money only in x years, and couldn't afford to lose say 20% or more if the stock market crashed the day before you needed the cash.  Typically if you are about to retire and buy an annuity, you want to protect your capital.  This isn't you. At 28, you might be saving for a wedding, a deposit on a house, possibly for school fees, or for eventual retirement.  It doesn't sound like you need to get back exactly 24k in July 2022. Keep the 6 months expenses in accounts that you can withdraw from at short notice.  Some of this in a current account, some might be in a savings account that doesn't pay interest if you make withdrawals. After that, I'd stick most of the rest in stock market tracker funds, but you might go for actively managed funds instead (ask another question and take professional advice, there will presumably be local tax considerations too), and add in most of your monthly savings too.  These should beat the 2.3% over the 5 years, and you can liquidate them easily if you want to buy a house. If there is a recession and a stock market dip, you presumably have the flexibility to hold on to them longer for the economy to recover.  And if you are intending to buy a house, then a recession will probably also involve a fall in house prices, so the loss in your savings will be somewhat balanced by the drop in the purchase price of your house. Of course, the worst case scenario is a severe downturn where you lose your job, are unemployed for a considerable period of time, burn through your emergency fund, and need to sell shares at a considerable loss to meet your expenses.   You might have family or dependents that you can borrow from or would need to support, which would change your tolerance for risk.  Having money locked away for 5 years in this scenario is even worse.  So if you don't want to put all your non-emergency savings into the stock market, you still want to choose something that is accessible at a slightly lower interest rate. But ultimately it sounds like you can afford to lose some of your savings, and the probability is that you will be rewarded with much better returns than 2.3% over 5 years.
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. If I were building a spreadsheet to address this, I'd be sure to consider the fact that in a taxable account, long term gains are taxed at 15% for higher earners (I take the liberty to ignore that wealthier taxpayers will pay a maximum 20% tax on long-term capital gains. This higher rate applies when your adjusted gross income falls into the top 39.6% tax bracket.) And those in the 10 or 15% bracket pay 0%. With median household income at $56K in 2016, and the 15% bracket top at $76K, this suggests that most people (gov data shows $75K is 80th percentile) have an effective unlimited Roth. So long as they invest in a way that avoids short term gains, they can rebalance often enough to realize LT gains and pay zero tax. It's likely the $80K+ earner does have access to a 401(k) or other higher deposit account. If they don't, I'd still favor pretax IRAs, with $11K for the couple still 10% or so of their earnings. It would be a shame to lose that zero bracket of that first $20K withdrawal at retirement. Again working backwards, the $78K withdrawal would take nearly $2M in pretax savings to generate. All in today's dollars."
That, to me is ""far into the 25% bracket."" $20,000 or 1/3 of income into the 401(k) and IRA and you're still in the 25% bracket. One can plan to a point, and then use the IRA flavors to get it dead on in April of the following year. To Ben's point regarding paying off the Student Loan faster - A $33K income for a single person, about to have the new expense of rent, is not a huge income. I'll concede that there's a sleep factor, the long tern benefit of being debt free, and won't argue the long term market return vs the rate on the loan. But here we have the probability that OP is not investing at all. It may take $2000/yr to his 401(k) capture the match (my 401 had a dollar for dollar match up to first 6% of income). This $45K, after killing the card, may be his only source for the extra money to replace what he deposits to his 401(k). And also serve as his emergency fund along the way."
Depends on how the money is invested within the 401k... but in general, prices move both up and down with a long-tem bias toward up.  Think of it this way: with fund shares priced lower now, you are getting shares cheaper than when you entered the plan. So this dip is actually working in your favor, as long as you are comfortable trusting that long-term view (and trusting the funds your 401k money is going into). Believe me, it's even scarier when you're nearer your target retirement date and a 10% dip may be six figures... but it's all theoretical until you actually start drawing the money back out, and you have to learn to accept some volatility as part of the trade-off  for getting returns better than bonds.
I can understand your fears, and there is nothing wrong with taking action to protect yourself from them. How much income do you need in retirement?  For arguments sake, lets say you need to pull 36K per year from your 401K or 3K per month.  Lets also assume that you current contribute (with any match) 1,000 per month.  Please adjust to your actual numbers accordingly. One option would be to pull out 48K right now and put it in a money market.  With your contributions, I would then put half into the money market and half into more aggressive investments.  In 10 years, you would have about 110K in your money market account.  You could live off of that for three years.  If the market does crash, this should give you plenty of time to recover. Taking this option opens you to another risk, which is being beat up by inflation or lack of growth on a nice pile of cash.  My time frame is not that different then yours (I am about 12 years away), but am still all in stocks.  Having 48K and more with not opportunity for growth frightens me more than any temporary stock market crash. Having said that I think it would be a horrible mistake to get completely out of stocks.  Many of those destroyed in 2008 also missed 2012 through 2014 which were awesome years.  So do some.  Set aside a year or three of income in something nice and safe.  Maybe one year of income in money market, one in bonds and preferred stocks, and one in blue chips.
The biggest problem is what happens when you make a withdrawal if an emergency occurs. If the money was a contribution from a past year, you will not be able to put those funds back into the fund until a later date. Assume the following scenario: The limits regarding maximum annual contribution and windows when you can contribute make this an inefficient way to operate the emergency fund/retirement fund.  Retirement and emergency funds are both important. Don't co-mingle them, it leads to double counting the money when you guesstimate where you are regarding your financial goals.
Craig touched on it, but let me expand on the point. Deposits, by definition, are withheld at your marginal rate. And since you can choose Roth vs Traditional right till filing time, you know with certainty the rate you are at each year.  Absent any other retirement income, i.e. no pension, and absent an incredibly major change to our tax code, I know your starting rate, zero. The first $10K or so per person is part of their standard deduction and exemption. For a couple, the next $18k is taxed at 10%, and so on. Let me stop here to expand this important point. This is $38,000 for the couple, and the tax on it is less than $1900. 5%. There is no 5% bracket of course. It's the first $20K with zero tax, and that first $18,000 taxed at 10%. That $38,000 takes nearly $1M in pretax accounts to offer as an annual withdrawal. The 15% bracket starts after this, and applies to the next $57K of withdrawals each year. Over $95K in gross withdrawals of pretax money, and you still aren't in the 25% bracket.  This is why 100% in traditional, or 100% in Roth aren't either ideal. I continue to offer the example I consider more optimizing - using Roth for income that would otherwise be taxed at 15%, but going pretax when you hit 25%. Then at retirement, you withdraw enough traditional to just stay at 10 or 15% and Roth for the rest.  It would be a shame to retire 100% Roth and realize you paid 25% but now have no income to use up those lower brackets.  Oddly, time value of money isn't part of my analysis. It makes no difference. And note, the exact numbers do change a bit each year for inflation. There's a also a good chance the exemptions goes away in favor of a huge increased standard deduction.
Congratulations on doing all the right things in your financial life. To me, the answer to your question is a no-brainer: pay off the loans immediately. However, I am sure that some people will post answers arguing exactly the opposite. I would also  recommend using the extra cash that you will have each month (since the payments on the loans will disappear) to increase your 401k contributions even though they will not attract additional company match, and once again, you will certainly get answers telling you why doing so is a very bad idea.
"At 50 years old, and a dozen years or so from retirement, I am close to 100% in equities in my retirement accounts.  Most financial planners would say this is way too risky, which sort of addresses your question.  I seek high return rather than protection of principal.  If I was you at 22, I would mainly look at high returns rather than protection of principal. The short answer is, that even if your investments drop by half, you have plenty of time to recover.  But onto the long answer. You sort of have to imagine yourself close to retirement age, and what that would look like.  If you are contributing at 22, I would say that it is likely that you end up with 3 million (in today's dollars).  Will you have low or high monthly  expenses?  Will you have other sources of income such as rental properties?   Let's say you rental income that comes close to covering your monthly expenses, but is short about 12K per year.  You have a couple of options: So in the end let's say you are ready to retire with about 60K in cash above your emergency fund.  You have the ability to live off that cash for 5 years.  You can replenish that fund from equity investments at opportune times.  Its also likely you equity investments will grow a lot more than your expenses and any emergencies.  There really is no need to have a significant amount out of equities.  In the case cited, real estate serves as your cash investment. Now one can fret and say ""how will I know I have all of that when I am ready to retire""?  The answer is simple: structure your life now so it looks that way in the future.  You are off to a good start.  Right now your job is to build your investments in your 401K (which you are doing) and get good at budgeting.  The rest will follow.  After that your next step is to buy your first home. Good work on looking to plan for your future."
"I highly doubt this was a mistake. In the event of a corporate merger/buyout, changes to employee 401(k) plans are usually hashed out as part of the M&A agreement. The choices made in the agreement depend on numerous factors, so it may be difficult to predict what happens to your plan in situations like this. A quick online search reveals a few articles, e.g. this one from expertplan.com, that list the three most common consequences for retirement plans: It sounds like the company that purchased your employer agreed to immediately vest employees in employer 401(k) contributions as part of the purchase agreement. Without knowing the details of the merger/buyout, I can't say this for sure, but this sounds like a plausible way to keep employees of the purchased company content.  Rather than roll it over, does it make sense to wait for that company to be purchased, in the hopes that a similar ""mistake"" occurs? Since this doesn't sound like a mistake, but rather a part of the buyout agreement, I don't think it's something you should count on in the future. It may be very likely, or it could be a relatively rare occurrence that happened to be part of this purchase agreement. I don't believe the Employee Retirement Income Security Act regulates what can or can't be done to your 401(k) in a buyout, except that the company is required to inform you of any changes (and obviously, the new 401(k) plan must conform to ERISA as well)."
"the most important information that you provided was ""I'm 25 years old"". You have a few years to save for a rental property. Taking a loan against your 401k only invites a lot of paperwork and a good deal of risk. Not only the ""if I lose my job I have to pay it back (in 60 days)"", but it effectively locks you into your current job because changing jobs also causes the same repayment consequences. Do you really love your job that much that you would stick with it for the loan you have? (rhetorical) One could argue that real estate is a good way to diversify away from the stock market (assuming you have your 401k invested in stocks). Another way to get the same diversification is to invest in REITs through your 401k. Owning rental property isn't something to rush into. You really have to like it.The returns and headaches that accompany it can be a drag and it's harder to get out of then stocks."
"Does it ever make sense? Yes, but almost never.  If you're in a situation where you're invested in something with low rates (think government securities) or cash equivalents, then you do need to think about rate spread as you mention. Does the savings over the life over the mortgage beat out the 35% hit now, plus all the interest you would earn over those 20 years? Have you factored in other considerations such as mortgage interest deduction on taxes? Don't forget you need to think about how rates will change down the line (they can't go much lower, so potentially you'll get better rates in the 401(k) down the line). Don't forget there's also the impact of inflation; again the rates on your savings may go up, but your mortgage is a fixed payment, so with even a low rate of inflation, your payments effectively become ""less"" over time. If your investments are in something like stocks and bonds, then I would say undoubtedly you would want to keep the money in the 401(k). Time in market and compounding are your best friends over a long time horizon. Also, as mentioned by @JohnFX, the hit of your 35% now is something you will absolutely feel now. Hopefully not, but your life situation could change where you have an emergency and need to drain your savings or you may not see the end of that 20 years."
At 22yo, unless you have a terminal illness, you have many years to earn and save a lot more that you will have in your 401k right now (unless you have already been extremely lucky in the market with your 401k investments). This means that even if you lost everything in your 401k right now, it probably wouldn't hurt you that much over the long term. The net present value of all your future savings should far exceed the net present value of your 401k, if you plan to earn and save responsibly. So take as much risk as you want with it right now. There is no real benefit to playing safe with investments at your age. If you were asking me how much risk should you be taking with a $10m inheritance and no income or much prospects of an income, then I'd be giving you a very different answer.
I used a large portion of my 401k to pay off my credit card.  My intentions were to then use my extra cash flow to build up the 401k again.  Unfortunately I didn't learn my lesson and now I'm back to where I started, minus my 401k savings.  If I could do it again, I would have cut up the card, kept the 401k and pay it down slowly.  Good luck to you.  I hope you do better than I did.
"Thirty thousand in credit card debt is a ""big elephant to eat"" so to speak. But you do it by taking a bite at a time. One positive is that you do not want to borrow from your 401K. Doing so is a horrible idea. The first question you have to ask yourself and understand, is how you accumulated 30K in credit card debt in the first place? Most people get there by running up a relatively small amount, say 5K, and playing the zero transfer game a few times. Then add in a late payment, and a negative event or two (like the car breaking down or a trip to the emergency room) and poof a large amount of credit card debt. Obviously, I have no idea if this is how you got there, and providing some insight might help. Also, your age, approximate income, and other debts might also help provide more insight. I assume you are still working and under age 59.5 as you are talking about borrowing from your 401K. Where I come from is that my wife (then girlfriend) found ourselves under stifling debt a few years ago. When we married, we became very intentional and focused on ridding ourselves of debt and now sit completely debt free (including the house). During our debt payoff time, we lived off of less than 25% of our salary. We both took extra jobs when we were able. Intensity was our key. If I were you, I would not refi the house. There are costs associated with this and why would you put more debt on your home? I might cash out the annuity provided that there are no negative tax consequences and depending on how much you can get for it. Numbers are the key here. However, I feel like doing so will not retire this debt. The first thing you need to do is get on a written budget. A game plan for spending and stick to it. If you are married, your spouse has to be part of this process. The budget has to be fresh each month, and each month you and your wife should meet. To deviate from the budget, you will also need to have a meeting. My wife and I still do this despite being debt free and enjoying very healthy incomes.
First, what's the reason? Why do you have that much in cash at all - are you concerned about market volatility, are you planning to buy a house, do you have tens of millions of dollars and this is your slush fund? Are you a house flipper and this is part of business for you? If you need the money for short term use - ie, you're buying a house in cash next month - then as long as you're in a sound bank (one of the big national ones, for example) it seems reasonable. You can never predict a crash like 2008, but it seems unlikely that Chase or Citibank will go under in the next few weeks. If you like to have a cash position, then split the money among multiple banks. Buy a CD at one major bank with some of the amount. My in-laws have a trust which is partially invested in CDs, and they use multiple banks for this purpose to keep their accounts fully insured. Each separate bank you're covered up to 250k, so if you have $150k at Chase and $150k at a local bank, you're covered. (You're also covered in a much larger amount - up to 1MM potentially - if you are married, as you can have a separate account each for $250k and a joint account up to $500k.) Otherwise, why do you have that much in cash? You should invest it in something that will return more than inflation, at a minimum... Edit post-clarifications: $350k is around my level of 'Maybe, maybe not'. You're risking $100k on a pretty low risk (assuming this isn't a small local bank, and even those are pretty low still). In order to remove that risk you have to do something active - ie, take 100k somewhere else, open a new bank account, etc. - which isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world, but it does take effort. Is it worth the 0.001% chance (entirely made up) you lose the 100k? That's $10, if you agree with that risk chance. Up to you.