|
Yeah that's pretty weak. I'd go with the 500 index and don't sweat too much about having an unbalanced portfolio for a while. If you're just contributing to the max company match, it won't make a whole lot of difference one way or the other for the first few years. e: on the flip side, going with one of the managed portfolios won't cost you a ton more over the first few years either. Just go with whatever helps you sleep at night. spf3million fucked around with this message at 14:05 on May 29, 2014 |
#
?
May 29, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
These numbers look wrong, JFIVX is showing an ER of 0.54% http://money.cnn.com/quote/mutualfund/mutualfund.html?symb=JFIVX
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:These numbers look wrong, JFIVX is showing an ER of 0.54% Expense ratios can (will) be different (worse) in 401(k)s than if you buy them as an individual.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Echo 3 posted:Expense ratios can (will) be different (worse) in 401(k)s than if you buy them as an individual. I never knew that. That seems pretty lovely.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Would it be foolish to elect to have no withholding from my paycheck and invest the money instead? If it's feasible, what investments would make sense?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Yes it would be incredibly foolish because you will pay a 10% penalty for not withholding enough, not to mention that there is no guarantee that your investments increase in value before tax time.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Guinness posted:Yes it would be incredibly foolish because you will pay a 10% penalty for not withholding enough, not to mention that there is no guarantee that your investments increase in value before tax time. Well, that's that then. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Sand Monster posted:
The Oppenheimer developing markets fund is probably your best fund. You are paying the institutional shares price (.88 vs loaded 1.5). FWIW my 401k has incredible funds (lower expenses than vanguard ira) and I choose to buy Oppenheimer as my emerging markets allocation. It has a solid track record and Emerging Markets is an area you might consider active management vs index funds (debatable). That said you still need a sensible asset allocation (you want emerging markets at 0-10% of portfolio). I'd contribute only the match to your crappy 401k then work on maxing your Roth ira. Do you have an HSA? that might be preferable to your 401k. After maxing Roth ira (and hsa) you have to decide of the tax benefits of your 401k with poo poo fees is better than paying taxes on low fee brokerage accounts. Generally tax benefits win over low fees. Consider that you can roll over your bad 401k to a low fee ira when you leave your job. If you had invested in taxable then that space would be lost forever.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
hitachi posted:
El Kabong posted:Would it be foolish to elect to have no withholding from my paycheck and invest the money instead? Echo 3 posted:Expense ratios can (will) be different (worse) in 401(k)s than if you buy them as an individual. LorneReams posted:I never knew that. That seems pretty lovely.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
El Kabong posted:Well, that's that then. Thanks. Basically 401k contributions are good since they are tax free on the contribution side and you also get free money from the company match assuming you meet the vesting criteria.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Yeah that's pretty weak. I'd go with the 500 index and don't sweat too much about having an unbalanced portfolio for a while. If you're just contributing to the max company match, it won't make a whole lot of difference one way or the other for the first few years. Yeah I didn't think it would matter too much because of the overall lovely fee structure but figured I would ask. I will pick whatever for the match and just worry about it once I start contributing to an IRA. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
***
potatoducks fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
jeffsleepy posted:I have a Fidelity roth 403b. My employer just switched from Fidelity to JP Morgan. I didn't switch my 403b over to JP Morgan because I didn't like their offerings. However, I would prefer to roll my Fidelity 403b into my Vanguard roth IRA. Can I do that even though I'm still at the same job because my company is no longer with them? No, I believe rollovers only are allowed if you jump ship for another company.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
hitachi posted:
Go with JETSX up to your match and talk to HR about how you and your coworkers are being ripped off.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
etalian posted:No, I believe rollovers only are allowed if you jump ship for another company. Is that a legal reason? Or just something companies decided on their own?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
etalian posted:No, I believe rollovers only are allowed if you jump ship for another company. I was sure that you had to be mistaken here, as it seems like that would be an open invitation for abusive employers to suddenly trap their employees' retirement savings in plans with usurious fees in exchange for kickbacks. But everything I'm turning up on the subject agrees that this really is the case. That's kind of worrying.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
Kilty Monroe posted:I was sure that you had to be mistaken here, as it seems like that would be an open invitation for abusive employers to suddenly trap their employees' retirement savings in plans with usurious fees in exchange for kickbacks. But everything I'm turning up on the subject agrees that this really is the case. That's kind of worrying. You can always quit your job and then roll your money wherever you want. (note: "you can always quit your job" is the lovely excuse for all manner of employer fuckery)
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
That's what you get when you tie things like healthcare and 401k to employment. The way it SHOULD work is there should be a 23,000 dollar contribution limit or thereabouts for IRA, and employers should be able to offer a match into a qualified IRA account of your choice. But the current setup is more profitable for financial companies and the occasional corrupt employer.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Kilty Monroe posted:I was sure that you had to be mistaken here, as it seems like that would be an open invitation for abusive employers to suddenly trap their employees' retirement savings in plans with usurious fees in exchange for kickbacks. But everything I'm turning up on the subject agrees that this really is the case. That's kind of worrying. Rollovers to another 401K are limited, but transfers to personal IRAs should be unlimited (it's basically a cashout) which I can't see how they would prevent that.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:That's what you get when you tie things like healthcare and 401k to employment. The way it SHOULD work is there should be a 23,000 dollar contribution limit or thereabouts for IRA, and employers should be able to offer a match into a qualified IRA account of your choice. But the current setup is more profitable for financial companies and the occasional corrupt employer.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:That's what you get when you tie things like healthcare and 401k to employment. The way it SHOULD work is there should be a 23,000 dollar contribution limit or thereabouts for IRA, and employers should be able to offer a match into a qualified IRA account of your choice. But the current setup is more profitable for financial companies and the occasional corrupt employer. But then how will we underhandedly shackle people to their mediocre jobs? We can't have people feeling secure enough to stand up for themselves or take entrepreneurial risks knowing that a social safety net protects them from bankruptcy in a worst-case scenario.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Guinness posted:But then how will we underhandedly shackle people to their mediocre jobs? We can't have people feeling secure enough to stand up for themselves or take entrepreneurial risks knowing that a social safety net protects them from bankruptcy in a worst-case scenario.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Actually self-employed 401k is the most bossest of all retirement plans. Not to mention the joys of my HDHP. 401k is safe in bankruptcy so build your own safety net if you want. Are IRA's safe in bankruptcy?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Are IRA's safe in bankruptcy? Also Solo 401(k)s are apparently NOT safe in Michigan or Rhode Island and there are general exceptions in a lot of states. Lame, but still safer than cash. No Wave fucked around with this message at 18:35 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Looks like they're safe up to a million dollars by federal law, appears to vary state-to-state. The exemption is up to 1.245 million, of course it has the fine point how extra income from your retirement account could be hauled off by your creditors. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/retirement-plan-bankruptcy-chapter-7-13-32410.html
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:That's what you get when you tie things like healthcare and 401k to employment. The way it SHOULD work is there should be a 23,000 dollar contribution limit or thereabouts for IRA, and employers should be able to offer a match into a qualified IRA account of your choice. But the current setup is more profitable for financial companies and the occasional corrupt employer. While I agree when I wear my empoyee hat, I feel like I should put on my 401k committee hat for a moment to play devil's advocate: When you let people have infinite choices (which an IRA will do), people who are not educated will be preyed upon and make godawful choices. Just look at what happens currently with teachers and 403b's. At least with a 401k you have a group of people who have a fiduciary responsibility to do right by their employees and select choices that may not be perfect but will at least be "good". When done right, this means that employees can pick from 10-15 funds that represent the various asset classes and have low fees and in general are good things to consider. Yeah, there are a lot of lovely 401k choices out there but that's because people who consider themselves educated get duped/pushed into lovely choices. If your CFO and head of HR and other committee members aren't able to make good choices imagine how poorly most employees would do. They'd go see some poo poo on CNBC or a "what mutual funds were best last year" list and then make choices even worse than what are available in many bad 401k plans. With a 401k plan, at least you can reach out to people on your committee to push them to improve the choices. My experience is that these people usually have the best interests of the employees at heart, but they take advice from people who do NOT have the best interests of the employees at heart and this can result in lovely options. Heck, I reached out with questions and was asked to join the committee at my company almost immediately because so few people were interested in 401k stuff at all (and we had pretty decent choices to begin with). It is also easier to have employees automatically enrolled in a 401k than in an IRA. Finally, I'm not sure there would be much reason to offer matches with an IRA since you wouldn't have to care about highly compensated employees in an IRA. When done right there are extra benefits in a 401k plan that go above and beyond just hand holding. You are treated as a group, so you can get access to share classes with higher minimums even for employees that don't have much to invest. I've been able to invest in Vanguard Total Stock Market at 5 basis points since my first contribution was made. We also have access to other funds (DFA specifically) that are not typically available in an IRA because they don't like to deal with individual investors. There are things that are BS that happen with 401k plans. The profit sharing BS (where the expense ratio for a fund is higher in your 401k than it would be in an IRA) is particularly off putting but many companies are moving away from that. Awareness about fees is increasing and my impression is that plans are generally improving across the board (some places faster than others). It definitely is not perfect, but I do feel like there are a lot of good things about 401k plans that may not be immediately obvious to critics and they do a much better job than some other things. I'm still bitter about how my mother's school district basically tossed them to the wolves with their 403b plan and she was taken advantage of for a long time until she finally uncovered just how badly her school district approved "financial planner" was screwing her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Vilgan posted:Just look at what happens currently with teachers and 403b's. Are you referring to something specific? I don't know anything about teacher retirement. I'm happy enough with the funds available in my ICMA-managed 457. I just wish I had an employer contribution. I get jealous everytime I hear someone mention an employer match with their 401k.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Velochis posted:Post your fund options and we will help you. Here's what I'm looking at, moving forward: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k2e8z61c2r87bvh/investments.png The funds crossed out are being removed from our options, and some of the others are being moved in. I have limited options in regards to Bonds and International funds, hence my previously planned fund selection. Definitely open to suggestions, though based on expense ratios and available options, the three Vanguard funds seem like a reasonable plan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
It's not all it's cracked up to be, I have to work at my company another two years before my employer match is vested. I dunno if that's gonna happen, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:Are you referring to something specific? I don't know anything about teacher retirement. Matches are cool and all, but I'm mostly jealous of the 52k cap that self employed people get. As for 403b's, I wasn't referring to any particular event that is well known just the fact that across the board they generally have terrible options, advisors that make their money by offering terrible funds to the people they are supposed to advise, and a system which doesn't look out for the teachers. Because they tend to be low salary, rely on pensions for their retirement, and not have a fiduciary committee looking out for them, a lot of teachers don't have good choices for their 403b. Because there isn't much money in it, the only people who are incentivized to offer a product to them are those with EXTREMELY high margins/commissions and so that can be all that they have available. For example, my mother's options back when she first set up her 403b were all funds with a 5% load and 2.5% or higher expense ratio. All the advisors that the school district approved were "free" but made their living from commissions so they had no interest in offering better options. This isn't a unique situation and one I've seen people complain about on financial forums and even some investment books acknowledge how bad 403b offerings usually are and direct people to 2-3 websites to help with that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
I just wanted to do a sort of "is the OP still fresh" check... 1) Contribute to 401(k) up to employer match -- Doing this now 2) Max out Roth IRA ($5,500 this year) -- Looking at doing once student loans are paid off. Are people opening these with Vanguard? I don't know if I understood that part of the OP correctly 3) Max out 401(k) ($17,500 limit this year) 4) If you were able to finish Step 3, you will end up rich in all likelihood. Start a taxable savings account, or go out and blow some money at a strip club or something. -- Nowhere near doing this yet
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Yeah that's pretty solid. HSAs are getting more talk lately - I don't know if more people have access to them now or what.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:Are you referring to something specific? I don't know anything about teacher retirement. Maybe your locality's HR folks finagled a way better deal than mine. I had a 457 with ICMA and their fees were absolutely atrocious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
Tyro posted:Maybe your locality's HR folks finagled a way better deal than mine. I had a 457 with ICMA and their fees were absolutely atrocious. Huh. That's interesting. I guess I just assumed that ICMA offered the same funds across the board for everybody, but maybe that's not the case. The default target retirement funds all have ERs over 1%, but thanks to this thread I was able to rebalance into four index funds all with ERs under 0.3%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Ok, that's pretty good. I remember being very underwhelmed and not being able to find anything with a fee below 1%. I think I ended up investing primarily in a midcap value fund with a ~1.5% fee, but that was a decade ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Our 457b has mediocre options, though there are at least 1-2 low ER funds in the major categories. We've shuffled around a few times, but currently use Great West Retirement as our vendor. Previously it was Nationwide Retirement, and I forget who was before them. Seems like every time we finally finish the x-year transfer of assets from the last move, our 457 committee makes a recommendation to our commissioner's court to solicit bids and move to a new vendor. Of course, everyone on the committee is white collar upper-management from the various agencies/departments within our county. Not a single 'regular joe, <50k/year' employee on it. I like being a squeaky wheel though. After over a year of harassing them and sending emails, we finally got a Roth option added in to our plan. Yay!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Madbullogna posted:I like being a squeaky wheel though. After over a year of harassing them and sending emails, we finally got a Roth option added in to our plan. Yay!!! Hmmm...this may be worth doing myself. We don't have a Roth option right now. Does anybody have any idea of why all 457's don't just automatically come with Roths and regulars? Like, does the investment company extract another pound of flesh from the organization for offering a Roth option?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
I was told that we had to wait for the commissioner's court to approve the committee going out and soliciting bids again, then those bids had to be received and worked up. Then it follows the usual paper trail and politics that local government always has, and finally the court decides if they'll approve the changes for that upcoming fiscal year. From what I heard, we did have to pay more to have the Roth option added in to our contract, but it ended up not affecting the bottom line since they made some changes to our overall fund selections/packages which balanced it out. It was definitely an uphill battle, as in our case, a lot of the folks reviewing and approving changes weren't benefiting from the Roth option being added in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
I just got hired at a company that offers three 401(k) options: "before-tax", "after tax", and "roth". Before this I had no 401(k) option, so I was just planning on maxing out my Roth IRA ($5500). I will be able to put in 5% of my income to the 401(k) (which is the employer match) or maybe even more, and max out my Roth IRA still as well. Which option should I take? They only provide the match for "before-tax" or "roth" options, so I'm assuming one of those, but I don't know which is better. If I select Roth, does that affect how much I can put in my Roth IRA? My salary will be 79k, I am getting married to someone this year who makes around 18k annually, he current puts 25% of his income towards his own Roth 401(k) through his company (they do a variable contribution, depending only on how the company does, last year it was 10%). I have no idea if any of this is relevant. Side note: should he change how much he's putting in that Roth 401(k)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
401k contribution limit is 17500 combined. For example you could do 10000 traditional and 7500 Roth if you so chose. Neither affects any IRA contribution at all. Same goes for IRA - it's 5500 total. You could do 3000 traditional and 2500 Roth if you wanted. Personally, I'd go all Roth in your circumstance unless your joint tax return this year with your partner will spill you into the 25% MFJ tax bracket - it sounds like you'll be on the upper end of that, which goes to 89k and change AGI. You don't want to go over that if you can help it by taking pre-tax 401k contributions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:34
|
|