query: How to contribute to Roth IRA when income is at the maximum limit & you have employer-sponsored 401k plans?

positive: "From the way you frame the question it sounds like you more or less know the answer already. Yes - you can make a non-deductable contribution to a traditional IRA and convert it to a Roth IRA. Here is Wikipedia's explanation: Regardless of income but subject to contribution limits, contributions can be made to a Traditional IRA and then converted to a Roth IRA.[10] This allows for ""backdoor"" contributions where individuals are able to avoid the income limitations of the Roth IRA. There is no limit to the frequency with which conversions can occur, so this process can be repeated indefinitely. One major caveat to the entire ""backdoor"" Roth IRA contribution process, however, is that it only works for people who do not have any pre-tax contributed money in IRA accounts at the time of the ""backdoor"" conversion to Roth; conversions made when other IRA money exists are subject to pro-rata calculations and may lead to tax liabilities on the part of the converter. [9] Do note the caveat in the second paragraph. This article explains it more thoroughly: The IRS does not allow converters to specify which dollars are being converted as they can with shares of stock being sold; for the purposes of determining taxes on conversions the IRS considers a person’s non-Roth IRA money to be a single, co-mingled sum. Hence, if a person has any funds in any non-Roth IRA accounts, it is impossible to contribute to a Traditional IRA and then “convert that account” to a Roth IRA as suggested by various pundits and the Wikipedia piece referenced above – conversions must be performed on a pro-rata basis of all IRA money, not on specific dollars or accounts. Say you have $20k of pre-tax assets in a traditional IRA, and make a non-deductable contribution of $5k. The account is now 80% pre-tax assets and 20% post-tax assets, so if you move $5k into a Roth IRA, $4k of it would be taxed in the conversion. The traditional IRA would be left with $16k of pre-tax assets and $4k of post-tax assets."

negative: Is there any benefit to investing in a Roth 401(k) plan, as opposed to a Roth IRA?  They have separate contribution limits, so how much you contribute to one does not change the amount you can contribute to the other.  Which is relevant to your question because you said  the earnings on that account compounded over the next 40 years growing tax-free will be much higher than what I'd save on current taxes on a traditional 401(k).   This is only true if you max out your contribution limits.  If you start with the same amount of money and have the same marginal tax rate in both years, it doesn't matter which one you pick.   Start with $10,000 to invest.  With the traditional, you can invest all $10,000.  With the Roth, you pay taxes on it and then invest it.  Let's assume a tax rate of 25%.  So invest $7500.   Let's assume that you invest either amount long enough to double four times (forty years at 7% return after inflation is about right).  So the traditional has $160,000 and the Roth has $120,000.   Now you withdraw them.  For simplicity's sake, we'll pretend it's all one year.  It's probably over several years, but the math is easier in a single year.  With the Roth, you have $120,000.  With the traditional, you have to pay tax.  Again, let's assume 25%.  So that's $40,000, leaving you with $120,000 from the traditional.  That is the same amount as the Roth!   So it would make sense to  If you can max out both, great.  You do that for forty years and your retirement will be as financially secure as you can make it.  If you can't max them out, the most important thing is the employer match.  That's free money.  Then you may prefer your Roth IRA to the 401k.   Note that you can also roll over your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA.  Then you can withdraw your contributions from the Roth IRA without penalty or additional tax.  Alternate source.   Beyond answering your question, I would still like to reiterate that Roth or traditional does not have a big effect on your investment unless you max them out or you have different tax rates now versus in retirement.  It may change other things.  For example, you can roll over a Roth 401k to a Roth IRA without paying taxes.  And the Roth IRA will act like it was contributed directly.  You have to check with your employer what their rollover rules are.  They may allow it any time or only at employment separation (when you leave the job).   If you do max out your Roth accounts, then they will perform better than the traditional accounts at the same nominal contribution.  This is because they are tax free while your returns in the other accounts will have to pay taxes. But it doesn't matter until you hit the limits.  Until then, you could just invest the tax savings of the traditional as well as the money you could invest in a Roth.

negative: "The limit on SEP IRA is 25%, not 20%.  If you're self-employed (filing on Schedule C), then it's taken on net earning, which in your example would be 25% of $90,000. (https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-for-self-employed-people) JoeTaxpayer is correct as regards the 401(k) limits.  The elective deferrals are per person - That's a cap in sum across multiple plans and across both traditional and Roth if you have those.  In general, it's actually across other retirement plan types too - See below. If you're self-employed and set-up a 401(k) for your own business, the elective deferral is still aggregated with any other 401(k) plans in which you participate that year, but you can still make the employer contribution on your own plan. This IRS page is current a pretty good one on this topic:  https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans Key quotes that are relevant: The business owner wears two hats in a 401(k) plan: employee and employer. Contributions can be made to the plan in both capacities. The owner can contribute both: •Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit:  ◦$18,000 in 2015 and 2016, or $24,000 in 2015 and 2016 if age 50 or over; plus •Employer nonelective contributions up to:  ◦25% of compensation as defined by the plan, or ◦for self-employed individuals, see discussion below It continues with this example: The amount you can defer (including pre-tax and Roth contributions) to all your plans (not including 457(b) plans) is $18,000 in 2015 and 2016. Although a plan's terms may place lower limits on contributions, the total amount allowed under the tax law doesn’t depend on how many plans you belong to or who sponsors those plans. EXAMPLE Ben, age 51, earned $50,000 in W-2 wages from his S Corporation in 2015. He deferred $18,000 in regular elective deferrals plus $6,000 in catch-up contributions to the 401(k) plan. His business contributed 25% of his compensation to the plan, $12,500. Total contributions to the plan for 2015 were $36,500. This is the maximum that can be contributed to the plan for Ben for 2015. A business owner who is also employed by a second company and participating in its 401(k) plan should bear in mind that his limits on elective deferrals are by person, not by plan. He must consider the limit for all elective deferrals he makes during a year. Notice in the example that Ben contributed more that than his elective limit in total (his was $24,000 in the example because he was old enough for the $6,000 catch-up in addition to the $18,000 that applies to everyone else).  He did this by declaring an employer contribution of $12,500, which was limited by his compensation but not by any of his elective contributions. Beyond the 401(k), keep in mind that elective contributions are capped across different types of retirement plans as well, so if you have a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k), your total contributions across those plans are also capped.  That's also mentioned in the example. Now to the extent that you're considering different types of plans, that's a whole question in itself - One that might be worth consulting a dedicated tax advisor.  A few things to consider (not extensive list): As for payroll / self-employment tax: Looks like you will end up paying Medicare, including the new ""Additional Medicare"" tax that came with the ACA, but not SS: If you have wages, as well as self-employment   earnings, the tax on your wages is paid first.   But this rule only applies if your total earnings   are more than $118,500. For example, if you   will have $30,000 in wages and $40,000 in selfemployment   income in 2016, you will pay the   appropriate Social Security taxes on both your   wages and business earnings. In 2016, however,   if your wages are $78,000, and you have $40,700   in net earnings from a business, you don’t pay   dual Social Security taxes on earnings more   than $118,500. Your employer will withhold   7.65 percent in Social Security and Medicare   taxes on your $78,000 in earnings. You must   pay 15.3 percent in Social Security and Medicare   taxes on your first $40,500 in self-employment   earnings and 2.9 percent in Medicare tax on the   remaining $200 in net earnings. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf Other good IRS resources:"

negative: Alright, team!   I found answers to part 1) and part 2) that I've quote below, but still need help with 3).  The facts in the article below seem to point to the ability for the LLC to contribute profit sharing of up to 25% of the wages it paid SE tax on.  What part of the SE tax is that?  I assume the spirit of the law is to only allow the 25% on the taxable portion of the income, but given that I would have crossed the SS portion of SE tax, I am not 100%.  (From http://www.sensefinancial.com/services/solo401k/solo-401k-contribution/) Sole Proprietorship Employee Deferral The owner of a sole proprietorship who is under the age of 50 may make   employee deferral contributions of as much as $17,500 to a Solo 401(k)   plan for 2013 (Those 50 and older can tack on a $5,500 annual catch-up   contribution, bringing their annual deferral contribution to as much   as $23,000). Solo 401k contribution deadline rules dictate that plan   participant must formally elect to make an employee deferral   contribution by Dec. 31. However, the actual contribution can be made   up until the tax-filing deadline.  Pretax and/or after-tax (Roth)   funds can be used to make employee deferral contributions. Profit Sharing Contribution A sole proprietorship may make annual profit-sharing contributions to   a Solo 401(k) plan on behalf of the business owner and spouse.   Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(3) states that employer   contributions are limited to 25 percent of the business entity’s   income subject to self-employment tax. Schedule C sole-proprietors   must base their maximum contribution on earned income, an additional   calculation that lowers their maximum contribution to 20 percent of   earned income. IRS Publication 560 contains a step-by-step worksheet   for this calculation. In general, compensation can be defined as your   net earnings from self-employment activity.  This definition takes   into account the following eligible tax deductions: (1) the deduction   for half of self-employment tax and (2) the deduction for   contributions on your behalf to the Solo 401(k) plan.  A business   entity’s Solo 401(k) contributions for profit sharing component must   be made by its tax-filing deadline. Single Member LLC Employee Deferral The owner of a single member LLC who is under the age of 50 may make   employee deferral contributions of as much as $17,500 to a Solo 401(k)   plan for 2013 (Those 50 and older can tack on a $5,500 annual catch-up   contribution, bringing their annual deferral contribution to as much   as $23,000). Solo 401k contribution deadline rules dictate that plan   participant must formally elect to make an employee deferral   contribution by Dec. 31. However, the actual contribution can be made   up until the tax-filing deadline.  Pretax and/or after-tax (Roth)   funds can be used to make employee deferral contributions. Profit Sharing Contribution A single member LLC business may make annual profit-sharing   contributions to a Solo 401(k) plan on behalf of the business owner   and spouse. Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(3) states that   employer contributions are limited to 25 percent of the business   entity’s income subject to self-employment tax. Schedule C   sole-proprietors must base their maximum contribution on earned   income, an additional calculation that lowers their maximum   contribution to 20 percent of earned income. IRS Publication 560   contains a step-by-step worksheet for this calculation. In general,   compensation can be defined as your net earnings from self-employment   activity. This definition takes into account the following eligible   tax deductions: (i) the deduction for half of self-employment tax and   (ii) the deduction for contributions on your behalf to the Solo   401(k).  A single member LLC’s Solo 401(k) contributions for profit   sharing component must be made by its tax-filing deadline.

negative: "Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000.  Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a ""matching contribution"".  That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year.  However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out.  On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money.  This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax.  In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year.  So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it.  Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year.  You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)).  They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here:  Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you.  A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov"

negative: "From a purely analytical standpoint, assuming you are investing your Roth IRA contributions in broad market securities (such as the SPDR S&P 500 ETF, which tracks the S&P 500), the broader market has historically had more upward movement than downward, and therefore a dollar invested today will have a greater expected value than a dollar invested tomorrow.  So from this perspective, it is better to ""max out"" your Roth on the first day of the contribution year and immediately invest in broad market (or at least well diversified) securities. That being said, opportunity costs must also be taken into account--every dollar you use to fund your Roth IRA is a dollar that is no longer available to be invested elsewhere (hence, a lost opportunity).  With this in mind, if you are currently eligible for a 401k in which your employer matches some portion of your contributions, it is generally advised that you contribute to the 401k up to the employer-match.  For example, if your employer matches 75% of contributions up to 3.5% of your gross salary, then it is advisable that you first contribute this 3.5% to your 401k before even considering contributing to a Roth IRA.  The reasoning behind this is two-fold: first, the employer-match can be considered as a guaranteed Return on Investment--so for example, for an employer that matches 75%, for every dollar you contribute you already have earned a 75% return up to the employer's limit.  Secondly, 401k contributions have tax implications: not only is the money contributed to the 401k pre-tax (i.e., contributions are not taxed), it also reduces your taxable income, so the marginal tax benefit of these contributions must also be taken into account.  Keep in mind that in the usual circumstances, 401k disbursements are taxable. Finally, many financial advisors will also suggest establishing an ""emergency fund"", which is money that you will not use unless you suffer an emergency that has an impact on your normal income--loss of job, medical emergency, etc.  These funds are often kept in highly liquid accounts (savings accounts, money-market funds, etc.) so they can be accessed immediately when you run into one of ""life's little surprises"".  Generally, it is advised that an emergency fund between $500-$1000 is established ASAP, and over time the emergency fund should be increased until it has reached a value equivalent to the sum of 8 months' worth of expenses.  If funding an IRA is preventing you from working towards such an emergency fund, then you may want to consider waiting on maxing out the IRA before you have that EF established. Of course, it goes without saying that credit card balances with APRs other than 0.00% (or similar) should be paid off before an IRA is funded, since while you can only hope to match the market at best (between 10-15% a year) in your IRA investments, paying down credit card balances is an instant ""return"" of whatever the APR is, which usually tends to be between a 15-30% APR. In a nutshell, assuming you are maxing out your 401k (if applicable), have an emergency fund established, are not carrying any high-APR credit card balances, and are able to do so, historical price movements in the markets suggest that funding your Roth IRA upfront and investing these funds immediately in a broadly diversified portfolio will yield a higher expected return than funding the account periodically throughout the year (using dollar cost averaging or similar strategies).  If this is not the case, take some time to consider the opportunity costs you are incurring from not fully contributing to your 401k, carrying high credit card balances, or not having a sufficient emergency fund established. This is not financial advice specific to any individual and your mileage may vary.  Consider consulting a Certified Financial Planner, Certified Public Accountant, etc. before making any major financial decisions."

negative: You can also roll money from prior 401ks into current 401ks. Call the administrator of the 401k you prefer (i.e., Fidelity/Schwab, whoever the financial institution is). Explain you don't work there anymore and ask if you can roll money into it. Some plans allow this and some don't. So either, 1) You  can roll all your prior 401ks into your current 401k. 2) You might be able to roll all prior 401ks into the prior 401k of your choice if they will accept contributions after you've left. You can't move the amount in your current employer's 401k until you separate or hit a certain age. 3) Like mentioned above, you can roll all prior 401ks into an IRA at any financial institution that will let you set up an IRA. Process: -Call the financial institutions you want to move the money from. Tell them you want a direct rollover. Have them write the check to the financial institution you are rolling into with your name mentioned but not the beneficiary (i.e., check written to Schwab FBO: John Doe account #12345) Tax implications: -If you are rolling from a pre-tax 401k to a pre-tax 401k or IRA, and the money goes directly from institution to institution, you are not liable for taxes. You can also roll from a Roth type (already taxed) account into another Roth type account with no tax implications. If they write a check to YOU and you don't put the money in an IRA or 401k within 60 days you will pay ~20% tax and a 10% early withdrawal penalty. That's why it's best to transfer from institution to institution. 401k vs IRA: -This is a personal decision. You could move all your prior 401ks into an IRA you set up for yourself. Generally the limitations of a 401k are the lack of funds to invest in that fit your retirement strategy, or high expense ratios. Be sure to investigate the fees you would pay for trades in an IRA (401k are almost always free) and the expense ratio for funds in your 401k vs funds you might invest in at a broker for your IRA. Best of both: -You can roll all your 401ks into a single 401k and still set up an IRA or Roth IRA (if your income qualifies) that you can contribute to separately. This could give you flexibility in fund choices if your 401k fees tend to be cheaper while keeping the bulk of your nest egg in low cost mutual funds through an employer account. Last advice: Even if you don't like the options in your current 401k, make sure you are contributing at least enough to get any employer match.

negative: "when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money).  growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for  by the growth in the deferred portion.  that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed.  this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account.  the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire.  also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the ""wash sale"" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers.  even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty."

negative: "The primary tax-sheltered investing vehicles in Canada include: The RRSP. You can contribute up to 18% of your prior year's earned income, up to a limit ($24,930 in 2015, plus past unused contribution allowance) and receive an income tax deduction for your contributions. In an RRSP, investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. No tax is due until you begin withdrawals. When you withdraw funds, the withdrawn amount will be taxed at marginal income tax rates in effect at that time. The RRSP is similar to the U.S. ""traditional"" IRA, being an individual account with pre-tax contributions, tax-deferred growth, and ordinary tax rates applied to withdrawals. Yet, RRSPs have contribution limits higher than IRAs; higher, even, than U.S. 401(k) employee contribution limits. But, the RRSP is dissimilar to the IRA and 401(k) since an individual's annual contribution allowance isn't use-it-or-lose-it—unused allowance accumulates. The TFSA. Once you turn 18, you can put in up to $5,500 each year, irrespective of earned income. Like the RRSP, contribution room accumulates. If you were 18 in 2009 (when TFSAs were introduced) you'd be able to contribute $36,500 if you'd never contributed to one before. Unlike the RRSP, contributions to a TFSA are made on an after-tax basis and you pay no tax when you withdraw money. The post-tax nature of the TFSA and completely tax-free withdrawals makes them comparable to Roth-type accounts in the U.S.; i.e. while you won't get a tax deduction for contributing, you won't pay tax on earnings when withdrawn. Yet, unlike U.S. Roth-type accounts, you are not required to use the TFSA strictly for retirement savings—there is no penalty for pre-retirement withdrawal of TFSA funds. There are also employer-sponsored defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) retirement pension plans. Generally, employees who participate in these kinds of plans have their annual RRSP contribution limits reduced. I won't comment on these kinds of plans other than to say they exist and if your employer has one, check it out—many employees lose out on free money by not participating. The under-appreciated RESP. Typically used for education savings. A lifetime $50,000 contribution limit per beneficiary, and you can put that all in at once if you're not concerned about maximizing grants (see below). No tax deduction for contributions, but investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. Original contributions can be withdrawn tax-free. Qualified educational withdrawals of earnings are taxed as regular income in the hands of the beneficiary. An RESP beneficiary is typically a child, and in a child's case the Canadian federal government provides matching grant money (called CESG) of 20% on the first $2500 contributed each year, up to age 18, to a lifetime maximum of $7200 per beneficiary. Grant money is subject to additional conditions for withdrawal. While RESPs are typically used to save for a child's future education, there's nothing stopping an adult from opening an RESP for himself. If you've never had one, you can deposit $50,000 of after-tax money to grow on a tax-deferred basis for up to 36 years ... as far as I understand. An adult RESP will not qualify for CESG. Moreover, if you use the RESP strictly as a tax shelter and don't make qualified educational withdrawals when the time comes, your original contributions still come out free of tax but you'll pay ordinary income tax plus 20% additional tax on the earnings portion. That's the ""catch""*. *However, if at that time you have accumulated sufficient RRSP contribution room, you may move up to $50,000 of your RESP earnings into your RRSP without any tax consequences (i.e. also avoiding the 20% additional tax) at time of transfer. Perhaps there's something above you haven't considered. Still, be sure to do your own due diligence and to consult a qualified, experienced, and conflict-free financial advisor for advice particular to your own situation."

negative: As others have explained defined contribution is when you (or your employer) contributes a specified amount and you reap all the investment returns.  Defined benefit is when your employer promises to pay you a specified amount (benefit) and is responsible for making the necessary investments to provide for it.   Is one better than the other? We can argue this either way.   Defined benefit would seem to be more predictable and assured.  The problem being of course that it is entirely reliant upon the employer to have saved enough money to pay that amount.  If the employer fails in that responsibility, then the only fallback is government guarantees.  And of course the government has limitations on what it can guarantee.  For example, from Wikipedia:   The maximum pension benefit guaranteed by PBGC is set by law and adjusted yearly. For plans that end in 2016, workers who retire at age 65 can receive up to $5,011.36 per month (or $60,136 per year) under PBGC's insurance program for single-employer plans. Benefit payments starting at ages other than 65 are adjusted actuarially, which means the maximum guaranteed benefit is lower for those who retire early or when there is a benefit for a survivor, and higher for those who retire after age 65. Additionally, the PBGC will not fully guarantee benefit improvements that were adopted within the five-year period prior to a plan's termination or benefits that are not payable over a retiree's lifetime. Other limitations also apply to supplemental benefits in excess of normal retirement benefits, benefit increases within the last five years before a plan's termination, and benefits earned after a plan sponsor's bankruptcy. By contrast, people tend to control their own defined contribution accounts.  So they control how much gets invested and where.  Defined contribution accounts are always 100% funded.   Defined benefit pension plans are often underfunded.  They expect the employer to step forward and subsidize them when they run short.  This allows the defined benefits to both be cheaper during the employment period and more generous in retirement.  But it also means that employers have to subsidize the plans later, when they no longer get a benefit from the relationship with the employee.   If you want someone else to make promises to you and aren't worried that they won't keep them, you probably prefer defined benefit.   If you want to have personal control over the money, you probably prefer defined contribution.   My personal opinion is that defined benefit plans are a curse.  They encourage risky behavior and false promises.  Defined contribution plans are more honest about what they provide and better match the production of employment with its compensation.  Others see defined benefit plans as the gold standard of pensions.

negative: "Summary: It's because you are effectively contributing more money in the second case, so you have more money at the end.  The effect of being covered by an employer retirement plan (in the case of a 401(k), that means either you or your employer contributed to it during the year) is that it prevents you from deducting Traditional IRA contributions unless your income is below a very low level (for Single filing status, it phases out at an MAGI of between $62k and $72k). Since you are unable to deduct the Traditional IRA contribution, but you entered that you are still making the full $5500 contribution every year, that means you are making a non-deductible contribution of $5500 every year instead of a deductible contribution. Nondeductible contributions are ""after-tax"", whereas deductible contributions are ""pre-tax"" (because your taxable income is reduced by the amount of the contribution, so you effectively don't pay income tax on the income you used to contribute). $1 of pre-tax money is not the same as $1 of after-tax money. If your marginal tax rate is 25%, then $1 of pre-tax money is equivalent to $0.75 of after-tax money. However, since in both cases you are putting in the same nominal amount of contribution ($5500), but one is pre-tax and one is after-tax, in the after-tax case you are effectively contributing more money, i.e. more money is taken out from your bank account that year. The $5500 pre-tax contribution is equivalent to only $5500 * 0.75 = $4125 after-tax, i.e. you are only short $4125 from your bank account at the end of the year after making a $5500 deductible contribution, whereas you are short $5500 after making a $5500 non-deductible contribution, so it's not a fair comparison. The non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions are not taxed when withdrawn (though the earnings earned from those contributions are still taxed), so that's why you are left with a greater amount. This is a similar situation to what happens when you try to compare a $5500 deductible Traditional IRA contribution to a $5500 Roth IRA contribution -- it will look like the Roth IRA case leaves you with much more money, but that's again because you are effectively contributing more money, because the Roth IRA contribution is after-tax, so it's not a fair comparison. (The Roth IRA case will produce a much greater ""advantage"" than the non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution case, because for a Roth IRA, both the contributions and earnings will not be taxed at withdrawal.)"

negative: Does the 5 year rule apply on the After-tax 401k -> Roth 401k -> Roth   IRA conversion of the 20000 (including 10000 earnings that was   originally pre-tax)? No. The after-tax amounts are not subject to the 5 years rule. The earnings are. How does this affect Roth IRA withdrawal ordering rules with respect   to the taxable portion of a single conversion being withdrawn before   the non-taxable portion? Taxable portion first until exhausted. To better understand how it works, you need to understand the rationale behind the 5-year rule. Consider you have $100K in your IRA (traditional) and you want to take it out. Just withdrawing it would trigger a 10K statutory penalty, on top of the taxes due. But, you can use the backdoor Roth IRA, right? So convert the 100K, and then it becomes after-tax contribution to Roth IRA, and can be withdrawn with no penalty. One form filled ad 10K saved. To block this loophole, here comes the 5 years rule: you cannot withdraw after-tax amounts for at least 5 years without penalty, if the source was taxable conversion. Thus, in order to avoid the 10K penalty in the above situation, you have a 5-year cooling period, which makes the loophole useless for most cases. However amounts that are after tax can be withdrawn without penalty already, even from the traditional IRA, so there's no need in the 5 years cooling period. The withdrawal attribution is in this order: Roth IRA rollovers are sourced to the origin. E.g.: if you converted $100 to the Roth IRA at firm X and then a year later rolled it over to firm Y - it doesn't affect anything and the clock is ticking from the original date of the conversion at firm X. 5-year period applies to each conversion/rollover from a qualified retirement plan (see here). Distributions are applied to the conversions in FIFO order, so in one distribution, depending on the amounts, you may hit several different incoming conversions. The 5 years should be check on each of them, and the penalty applied on the amounts attributable to those that don't have enough time. 5-year period for contributions applies starting from the beginning of the first year of the first contribution that established your Roth IRA plan. The penalty applies to the amounts that were included in your gross income when conversion occurred, i.e.: doesn't apply on the amounts converted from after-tax sources. Note the difference from the traditional IRA - distributions from pre-tax sources are prorated between the non-deductible (basis) amounts and the deductible/earnings amounts (taxable). That is why the taxable amounts are first in the ordering of the distributions.

negative: "So you are paying taxes on your contributions regardless, the timing   is just different. I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just   putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or   something like that. What am I missing? You are failing to consider the time value of money. Getting $1 now is more valuable to you than a promise to get $1 in a year, even though the nominal amount is the same. With a certain amount of principal now, you can invest it and it will (likely) grow into a bigger amount of money (principal + earnings) at a later time, and we can consider the two to have approximately equivalent value (the principal now has the same value as the principal + earnings later). With pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, the principal + earnings are taxed once at the time of withdrawal. Assuming the same flat rate of tax at contribution and withdrawal, this is equivalent to Roth IRA, where the principal is taxed at the time of contribution, because the principal now has the same value as the principal + earnings later, so the same rate of tax on the two have the same value of tax, even though when you look at nominal amounts, it might seem you are paying a lot less tax with Roth IRA (since the earnings are never ""taxed""). With actual numbers, if we take a $1000 pre-tax contribution to Traditional IRA, it grows at 5% for 10 years, and a 25% flat rate tax, we are left with $1000 * 1.05^10 * 0.75 = $1221.67. With the same $1000 pre-tax contribution (so after 25% tax it's a $750 after-tax contribution) to a Roth IRA, growing at the same 5% for 10 years, and no tax at withdrawal, we are left with $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67. You can see they are equivalent even though the nominal amount of tax is different (the lower amount of tax paid now is equivalent to the bigger amount of tax later). With a taxable investment which you will not buy and sell until you take it out, you contribute with after-tax money, and when you take it out, the ""earnings"" portion is subject to capital-gains tax. But remember that the principal + earnings later is equivalent to the principal now, which is already all taxed once, and if we tax the ""earnings"" portion later, that is effectively taxing a portion of the money again. Another way to look at it is the contribution is just like the Roth IRA, but the withdrawal is worse because you have to pay capital-gains tax instead of no tax. You can take the same numbers as for the Roth IRA, $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67, but where the $1221.67 - $750 = $471.67 is ""earnings"" and is taxed again at, say, a 15% capital-gains rate, so you lose another $70.75 in tax and are left with $1150.92. You would need a capital-gains tax rate of 0% to match the advantage of the pre-tax Traditional IRA or Roth IRA. After-tax money in Traditional IRA has a similar problem -- the contribution is after tax, but after it grows into principal + earnings, the ""earnings"" part is taxed again, except it is worse than the capital-gains case because it is taxed as regular income. Like above, you can take the same numbers as for the Roth IRA, $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67, but where the $471.67 ""earnings"" is taxed again at 25%, so you lose another $117.92 in tax and are left with $1103.75. So although the nominal amount of tax paid is the same as for pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, it ends up being a lot worse. (Everything I said above about pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, after-tax money in Traditional IRA, and Roth IRA, also applies to pre-tax money in Traditional 401(k), after-tax money in Traditional 401(k), and Roth 401(k), respectively.) Regarding the question you raise in the title of your question, why someone would get contribute to a Traditional IRA if they already have a 401(k), the answer is, mostly, they wouldn't. First, note that if you merely have a 401(k) account but neither you nor your employer contributes to it during the year, then that doesn't prevent you from deducting Traditional IRA contributions for that year, so basically you can contribute to one or the other; so if you only want to contribute below the IRA contribution limit, and don't need the bigger 401(k) contribution limit, and the IRA's investment options are more attractive to you than your 401(k)'s, then it might make sense for you to contribute to only Traditional IRA. If you or your employer is already contributing to your 401(k) during the year, then you cannot deduct your Traditional IRA contributions unless your income is very low, and if your income is really that low, you are in such a low tax bracket that Roth IRA may be more advantageous for you. If you make a Traditional IRA contribution but cannot deduct it, it is a non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution, i.e. it becomes after-tax money in a Traditional IRA, which as I showed in the section above has much worse tax situation in the long run because its earnings are pre-tax and thus taxed again. However, there is one good use for non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions, and that is as one step in a ""backdoor Roth IRA contribution"". Basically, there is an income limit for being able to make Roth IRA contributions, but there is no income limit for being able to make Traditional IRA contributions or for being able to convert money from Traditional IRA to Roth IRA. So what you can do is make a (non-deductible) Traditional IRA contribution, and then immediately convert it to Roth IRA, and if you did not previously have any pre-tax money in Traditional IRAs, this achieves the same as a regular Roth IRA contribution, with the same tax treatment, but you can do it at any income level."

negative: "Your confusion is that that answerer is not comparing a $5500 Roth IRA contribution to a $5500 Traditional IRA contribution. Rather, they were comparing a $3600 Roth IRA contribution to a $5000 Traditional IRA contribution. It is fairer to do such a comparison because (assuming that this person's marginal tax rate is 28%) both of them start with the same amount of pre-tax money ($5000 of pre-tax money is equivalent to $3600 of post-tax money in 28% tax bracket). As a result, both a $5000 Traditional IRA contribution and a $3600 Roth IRA contribution will leave you with the same amount of cash in your bank account at the end (after taxes are filed). That's why it's a fair comparison. And when you do such a comparison, it will mathematically indeed always turn out to the same result for Traditional and Roth if the contribution and withdrawal are at the same tax rate. On the other hand, if you were to compare a $5000 Roth IRA contribution to a $5000 Traditional IRA contribution, even though it's the same nominal dollar figure, you would be comparing apples and oranges because in one case it's a post-tax dollar amount and in the other case a pre-tax dollar amount. The Roth IRA contribution actually leaves you with less in your bank account at the end (after taxes are filed) than the same nominal dollar amount of Traditional IRA contribution. So you are comparing an (effectively) ""larger"" Roth IRA contribution to a ""smaller"" Traditional IRA contribution. Of course the ""larger"" contribution gets more tax advantages over time, and so the result looks better. Note that since Traditional IRA contribution and Roth IRA contributions share the same nominal dollar amount annual limit, but we know that $1 of Roth IRA contributions is effectively larger than $1 of Traditional IRA contributions, that means that Roth IRA contributions has an effectively ""higher"" annual limit than Traditional IRA contributions. For example, a $5500 Traditional IRA contribution is equivalent to a $3960 Roth IRA contribution for someone in the 28% bracket; whereas a $5500 Roth IRA contribution would be equivalent to a $7638.89 Traditional IRA contribution, which you can't do. So it's not possible to do a fair comparison when you go near the limit. If it is important to you to tax-advantage the ""largest"" amount of money, then that is a reason to go for Roth IRA, since it has an effectively higher annual limit. You cannot replicate the tax advantage of a $5500 Roth IRA contribution with a Traditional IRA contribution, because that money in pre-tax dollars is beyond the limit of a Traditional IRA contribution."

negative: "If I understand correctly, the Traditional IRA, if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Actually, #1 and #2 are characteristics of Roth IRAs, not Traditional IRAs. Only #3 is a characteristic of a Traditional IRA. Whether you have a 401(k) with your employer or not makes absolutely no difference in how your IRAs are taxed for the vast majority of people. (The rules for IRAs are different if you have a very high income, though). You're allowed to have and contribute to both kinds of accounts. (In fact, I personally have both). Traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free as people sometimes mistakenly call them - they're very different), meaning that you don't have to pay taxes on the contributions or profits you make inside the account (e.g. from dividends, interest, profits from stock you sell, etc.). Rather, you pay taxes on any money you withdraw. For Roth IRAs, the contributions are taxed, but you never have to pay taxes on the money inside the account again. That means that any money you get over and above the contributions (e.g. through interest, trading profits, dividends, etc.) are genuinely tax-free. Also, if you leave any of the money to people, they don't have to pay any taxes, either. Important point: There are no tax-free retirement accounts in the U.S. The distinction between different kinds of IRAs basically boils down to ""pay now or pay later."" Many people make expensive mistakes in their retirement strategy by not understanding that point. Please note that this applies equally to Traditional and Roth 401(k)s as well. You can have Roth 401(k)s and Traditional 401(k)s just like you can have Roth IRAs and Traditional IRAs. The same terminology and logic applies to both kinds of accounts. As far as I know, there aren't major differences tax-wise between them, with two exceptions - you're allowed to contribute more money to a 401(k) per year, and you're allowed to have a 401(k) even if you have a high income. (By way of contrast, people with very high incomes generally aren't allowed to open IRAs). A primary advantage of a Traditional IRA is that you can (in theory, at least) afford to contribute more money to it due to the tax break you're getting. Also, you can defer taxes on any profits you make (e.g. through dividends or selling stock at a profit), so you can grow your money faster."

negative: "What you're describing is a non-deductible traditional IRA.  That is what happens when your employer 401K or your high income disqualifies gou from using a traditional IRA the normal way.   Yes, non-deductible traditional IRAs are stupid.**   Now let's be clear on the mechanism behind the difference.  There's an axiom of tax law that the same money can't be taxed twice.  This is baked so deep into tax law that it often isn't even specified particularly.  The IRS is not allowed to impose tax on money already taxed, i.e. The original contribution on an ND Trad IRA.  So this is not a new kind of IRA, it is simply a Trad IRA with an asterisk.  **But then, some say so are deductible traditional IRAs when compared to the Roth.   The real power of an ND Trad IRA is that it can be converted to Roth at all income levels.  This is called the ""Roth Backdoor"".  It combines three factors. Contribute to an ND Trad IRA, stick it in a money market/sweep fund, and a week later convert to Roth, pay taxes on the 17 cents of growth in the sweep fund since the rest was already taxed.  The net effect is to work the same as a Roth contribution - not tax deductible, becomes a Roth, and is not taxed on distribution.   If you already have traditional IRA money that you contributed that wasn't taxed, this really screws things up.  Because you can't segment or LIFO your IRA money, the IRS considers it one huge bucket, and requires you draw in proportion. EEK! Suppose you contribute $5000 to an IRA in a non-deductible mode.  But you also have a different IRA funded with pretax money that now has $45,000.   As far as IRS is concerned, you have one $50,000 IRA and only $5000 (10%) is post-tax.   You convert $5000 to Roth and IRS says 90% of that money is taxable, since it's the same pool of money.  You owe taxes on all of it less the $500 fraction that was pre-taxed, and $4500 of already-taxed IRA remains in the account.  The math gets totally out-of-hand after just a couple of conversions.   Your best bet is to convert the whole shebang at one time -- and to avoid a monstrous tax hit, do this in a gap year."


query: Why does Charles Schwab have a Mandatory Settlement Period after selling stocks?

positive: It's important to understand that, in general, security transactions involve you and a relatively unknown entity with your broker standing in the middle.  When you sell through Schwab, Schwab needs to receive the funds from the other side of the transaction.  If Schwab gave you access to the funds immediately, it would essentially be a loan until the transaction settles after funds and securities change hands.   If Schwab made funds available to you as soon as they were received, it might still be two days until the money is received; because the other side also has three days. Guaranteed one day settlement would have to include receipt of funds from the buyer in one day and Schwab can't control that. You need to remember this transaction likely includes at least one party in addition to you and Schwab.  Here's the SEC page related to the three day settlement period,  About Settling Trades in Three Days:  T+3

positive: Another explanation is that they keep your money three days to make money with it, because they can. The other reasons might have been valid 100 years ago, and no bank would voluntarily cut that down until forced by law. Example: In Europe, bank to bank transfers used to take three days, until a law forced them to give next day, and suddenly it was possible.

positive: quid's answer explains the settlement period well. However, it should be noted that you can avoid the settlement period by opening a margin account. Any specific broker like Schwab may or may not offer margin accounts. Margin accounts allow you to borrow money to avoid the settlement period or to buy more securities than you can actually afford. Note that if you buy more securities than you can afford using margin, you expose yourself to losses potentially larger than your initial investment. If you fund your account with $50,000 and use margin to purchase $80,000 of stock which then drops in value by 80% you will have lost $64,000 and owe the broker $14,000 plus fees.

positive: That is the standard set by most securities exchanges: T+3 : trades complete three days after the bargain has been struck.

positive: "TLDR:  Why can't banks give me my money? We don't have your money. Who has my money? About half a dozen different people all over the world. And we need to coordinate with them and their banks to get you your money. I love how everyone seems to think that the securities industry has super powers.  Believe me, even with T+3, you won't believe how many trades fail to settle properly.  Yes, your trade is pretty simple. But Cash Equity trades in general can be very complicated (for the layman).  Your sell order will have been pushed onto an algorithmic platform, aggregated with other sell order, and crossed with internal buy orders. The surplus would then be split out by the algo to try and get the best price based on ""orders"" on the market.  Finally the ""fills"" are used in settlement, which could potentially have been filled in multiple trades against multiple counterparties. In order to guarantee that the money can be in your account, we need 3 days. Also remember, we aren't JUST looking at your transaction. Each bank is looking to square off all the different trades between all their counter parties over a single day. Thousands of transactions/fills may have to be processed just for a single name. Finally because, there a many many transactions that do not settle automatically, our settlements team needs to co-ordinate with the other bank to make sure that you get your money. Bear in mind, banks being banks, we are working with systems that are older than I am. *And all of the above is the ""simplest"" case, I haven't even factored in Dark Pools/Block trades, auctions, pre/post-market trading sessions, Foreign Exchange, Derivatives, KYC/AML."

positive: "They're taking advantage of float.  Like so many things in the financial world today, this practice is a (strictly legal) fraud. When you make the transaction, the money is available immediately, for reasons that should be intuitively obvious to anyone who's ever used PayPal.  It doesn't take 3 minutes for the broker to get that money, let alone 3 days.  But if they can hold on to that money instead of turning it over to you, they can make money from it for themselves, putting money that rightfully belongs to you to work for them instead, earning interest on short-term loans, money market accounts, etc. The SEC mandates that this money must be turned over to you within 3 days so it should not surprise anyone that that's exactly how long the ""we have to wait for it to clear"" scam runs for.  Even if it doesn't seem like very much money per transaction, for a large brokerage with hundreds of thousands of clients, all the little bits add up very quickly.  This is why they feel no need to compete by offering better service: offering poor service is making them a lot of money that they would lose by offering better service."

positive: Simple Schwaab does not have actually your securities they have leased them out and have to borrow them back. all assets are linked with derivatives now. They show on the balance sheet but have to be untangled. Thats why the market drops disproportionally fast to the actual number of shares sold.

negative: According to Regulation T, you can make as many day trade (round trip) stock purchases using a cash account as long as you have the funds to cover each and every round trip sale. However, the funds generated from the sales cannot be used again to purchase new stocks until the settlement period (T-2 or T-3) is over. For example, say you have $10000 dollars in your cash account and no securities. You buy 1000 shares of XYZ stock in the morning at one dollar per share and you sell the stock 30 minutes later because it went up say by 50 cents. According to Regulation T, you cannot use the money generated from the sale of your 1000 shares until after the settlement date. However, you can use the remaining $9000 dollars in your account to execute other trades just as the first trade. You can do this as many times as you want as long as you have funds available to pay for the transaction the same day it's executed. The only thing to worry about and that isn't clear, is, what happens if you perform this action more than 3 times in a week? Does it mean that your cash account now becomes a margin account subject to margin account rules because you executed more than three round trip trades in a five day rolling period?

negative: Typically the settlement price for a financial instrument (such as AAPL stock) underlying a derivative contract is determined from the average price of trading in that instrument during some short time window specified by the exchange offering the derivative.  (Read the fine print on your contract to learn the exact date and time of that settlement period.) Because it's in an exchange's best interest to appear as fair as possible, the exchange will in general pick a high-volume period of time -- such as the close of trading on the expiry date -- in which to determine the settlement price. Now, the expiry date/time may be different from the last time at which the option can be traded, which may be different from the underlying settlement time.  For example, most US equity options currently expire on the Saturday following the third Friday of the month, whereas they can last be traded at end-of-day on the third Friday of the month, and the settlement period may be at a slightly different time on the third Friday of the month.  (Again, read the contract to know for sure.)  Moreover, your broker may demand to know whether you plan to exercise the option at an even earlier date/time. So, to answer your question: After-hours trading can only affect the settlement price of an underlying instrument if the exchange in question decides that the settlement period should happen during after-hours trading.  But since no exchange that wants to stay in business would possibly do that, the answer is no. Contract expiry time, contract exercise time, final contract trading time, and underlying settlement time may all fall at different dates/times.  The important one for your question is settlement time.

negative: At the bottom of the page you linked to, NASDAQ provides a link to this page on nasdaqtrader.com, which states Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The dates you are seeing are the dates the member firms settled their trades. In general (also from nasdaq.com), the settlement date is The date on which payment is made to settle a trade. For stocks traded on US exchanges, settlement is currently three business days after the trade.

negative: Yes, the newly bought shares will have a long-term holding period, regardless of when you sell them.  In addition, it's only a wash sale if you sold the first shares for a loss; it's not a wash sale if you sold them for a gain. Wikipedia mentions this: When a wash sale occurs, the holding period for the replacement stock includes the period you held the stock you sold. Example: You've held shares of XYZ for 10 years. You sell it at a loss but then buy it back within the wash sale period. When you sell the replacement stock, your gain or loss will be long-term — no matter how soon you sell it. Charles Schwab also mentions this: Here's a quick example of a wash sale. On 9/30/XX, you buy 500 shares of ABC at $10 per share. One year later the stock price starts to drop, and you sell all your shares at $9 per share on 10/4/XY. Two days later, on 10/6, ABC bottoms out at $8 and you buy 500 shares again. This series of trades triggers a wash sale. The holding period of the original shares will be added to the holding period of the replacement shares, effectively leaving you with a long-term position.

negative: "And to answer your other questions about fees, there are a number of sites that compare brokers' fees, Google ""broker fee comparison"". I like the Motley Fool, although there are a lot of others. However, don't go just by the comparison sites, because they can be out-of-date and usually just have the basic fees. Once you find a broker that you like, go to that broker's site and get all the fees as of now. You can't sell the shares that are in your Charles Schwab account using some other broker. However, you can (possibly now, definitely eventually, see below) transfer the shares to another broker and then sell them there. But be aware that Charles Schwab might charge you a fee to transfer the shares out, which will probably be larger than the fee they'll charge you to sell the shares, unless you're selling them a few at a time. For example, I have a Charles Schwab account through my previous employer and it's $9.99 commission to sell shares, but $50 to transfer them out. Note that your fees might be different even though we're both at Charles Schwab, because employers can negotiate individual deals. There should be somewhere on the site that has a fee schedule, but if you can't find it, send them a message or call them. One final thing to be aware of, shares you get from an employer often have restrictions on sale or transfer, or negative tax consequences on sale or transfer, that shares just bought on the open market wouldn't, so make sure you investigate that before doing anything with the shares."

negative: OptionsXpress includes India in the list of countries where is possible to open an international account to invest in the US Stock Market. They just merged with Charles Schwab and they have a nice online trading platform. Stocks and ETFs are little bit pricey.. Get in touch with them to get more information.

negative: Yes, there is a delay between when you buy a stock and when you actually take ownership of it.  This is called the settlement period. The settlement period for US equities is T+2 (other markets have different settlement periods), meaning you don't actually become a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you buy.  Conversely, you don't stop being a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you sell. Presumably at some point in the (far) future all public markets will move to same-day changes of ownership, at which point companies will stop making announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd and will switch to announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd at 13:00 UTC

negative: "Because it takes 3 business days for the actual transfer of stock to occur after you buy or sell to the next owner, your cash is tied up until that happens. This is called the settlement period. Therefore, brokers offer ""margin"", which is a form of credit, or loan, to allow you to keep trading while the settlement period occurs, and in other situations unrelated to the presented question. To do this you need a ""margin account"", you currently have a ""cash account"". The caveat of having a retail margin account (distinct from a professional margin account) is that there is a limited amount of same-day trades you can make if you have less than $25,000 in the account. This is called the Pattern Day Trader (PDT) rule. You don't need $25k to day trade, you will just wish you had it, as it is easy to get your account frozen or downgraded to a cash account. The way around THAT is to have multiple margin accounts at different brokerages. This will greatly increase the number of same day trades you can make. Many brokers that offer a ""solution"" to PDT to people that don't have 25k to invest, are offering professional trading accounts, which have additional fees for data, which is free for retail trading accounts. This problem has nothing to do with:  So be careful of the advice you get on the internet. It is mostly white noise. Feel free to verify"

negative: "I have an account with ETrade. Earlier this week I got an offer to participate in the IPO proper (at the IPO price). If Charles Schwab doesn't give you the opportunity, that's a shortcoming of them as a brokerage firm; there are definitely ways for retail investors to invest in it, wise investment or no. (Okay, technically it wasn't an offer to participate, it was a notice that participation was possibly available, various securities-law disclaimers etc withstanding. ""This Web site is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation to buy these securities. The offer is by prospectus only. This Web site contains a preliminary prospectus for each offering."" etc etc)."

negative: "I'd advise you to use a broker. Even a discount broker like Charles Schwab would do. First, they would do the ""trades"" purchase/sale, on your behalf, using parameters you specify (and also tell you where the ""market"" is at any given time). Second, they may sell you bills of a desirable term (e.g. six weeks) of out their own inventory. Third, they will lend you money (50% or more) against your holdings, so you'll have some money when you need it, and the balance when the bills mature."

negative: Charles Schwab and HSBC offer security tokens.

negative: I often sell covered calls, and if they are in the money, let the stock go. I am charged the same fee as if I sold online ($9, I use Schwab) which is better than buying back the option if I'm ok to sell the stock.  In my case, If the option is slightly in the money, and I see the options are priced well, i.e. I'd do another covered call anyway, I sometimes buy the option and sell the one a year out.  I prefer to do this in my IRA account as the trading creates no tax issue.

negative: Fidelity, Charles Schwab, TDA, and just about every make online brokerage gives you massive amounts of free trades each year and when you sign up. Pretty much the same as 100+ free trades /yr over a 10 year period. Also, you get commission-free trade for the most popular ETFs, which is much more important.  Lastly, if you care about free trades, you're probably investing poorly. Non-professionals shouldn't be making that many non-ETF trades in a year. Professional traders wouldn't blink over a tiny $5-10 commission fee.

negative: Here's an excerpt from the Charles Schwab website which I think will help evaluate your position: The simple answer to your question is no, the value of a gift of stock   for gift tax liability is NOT the donor's cost basis, but rather the   fair market value of the stock at the time the gift is given. So let's   say you purchased 100 shares of XYZ stock at $50 a share. Your cost   basis is $5,000. Now the stock is $80 a share and you give it as a   gift. The value of your gift for gift tax purposes is $8,000. In 2015, you can give up to $14,000 to an unlimited number of   individuals each year without paying a gift tax or even reporting the   gifts. If you give over that amount to any individual, however, you   must report the gift on your tax return, but you don't have to pay   taxes until you give away more than the current lifetime limit of   $5,430,000—for the amount above and beyond $14,000 per person per   year. So in the example above, there would be no gift tax liability.   However, if the stock happened to be $150 a share, the value of the   gift would be $15,000. You'd then have to report it and $1,000 would   be applied toward your $5,430,000 lifetime exclusion. You will need to pay a gift tax on the current value of the stock. I'm not familiar with the tax laws in India, but if your brother was in the US, he wouldn't pay taxes on that gift until he sells the stock. The recipient doesn’t have to worry about gift taxes. It's when the   recipient decides to sell the stock that the issue of valuation comes   up—for income taxes. And this is where things can get a bit more   complicated. In general, when valuing a gift of stock for capital gains tax   liability, it's the donor's cost basis and holding period that rules.   As an example, let's say you receive a gift of stock from your   grandfather. He bought it for $10 a share and it's worth $15 a share   on the day you receive it. If you then sell the stock, whether for a   gain or a loss, your cost basis will be the same as your   grandfather’s: $10 per share. Sell it at $25 and you'll pay tax (at   the short- or long-term rate, depending on how long he owned the   stock) on a gain of $15 a share; sell it at $8 and your capital loss   will be $2 a share. Ultimately, with a gift this large that also crosses international borders, you really should hire a professional who is experienced with these types of transactions. Their fees/commission will be completely offset by the savings in risk and paperwork.  http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/How-Do-You-Value-a-Gift-of-Stock-It-Depends-on-Whether-You-re-the-Giver-or-the-Receiver

negative: Do not take the cash! You might be able to leave the money with the large company.  Ask the HR people at the company.  If you are satisfied with their work, no sense leaving if you don't have to.  I have coworkers that have 401K all over from all the buyouts the company went through. If you don't want to leave it behind, do a rollover into your own account with a low cost carrier.  (Vanguard, Fidelity and Charles Schwab are popular)  Whoever you choose for your own account can help you rollover the funds without penalty.  (Schwab helped me over the phone, it was pretty simple) More about rolling over a Roth 401K

negative: Anytime you invest in stocks, you do that inside an investment account - such as the type you might open at ETrade, Vanguard, Fidelity or Charles Schwab.   Once you have the account and fund it, you can tell the system to invest some/all of your money in  When you open your investment account, their first question will be whether this is a cash account, traditional IRA, or Roth IRA.  The broker must report this to the IRS because the tax treatment is very different.

negative: The way I would use it is, every trade done by a broker has a client side and a street side.  The client side is for their brokerage account, and the street side is whoever they traded with Say, John Doe calls me at Charles Schwab and wants to buy 100 IBM.  I look at the market and decide that the best execution is on Arca.  I trade on Arca for the client.  Then, I book a client side trade into his account, and a street side trade against Arca.  If I myself was a dealer in IBM and executed against my inventory, the street side would basically be internal, booking a trade against my account.

negative: "Stock support and resistance levels mean that historically, there was ""heavy"" buying/selling at those levels. This suggests, but does not guarantee, that ""someone"" will buy at ""support"" levels, and ""someone"" will sell at ""resistance levels. Any ""history"" is meaningful, but most analysts will say that after six months to a year, the impact of events declines the further back in time you go. They can be meaningful for periods as short as days."

negative: "By their agreements with the central counterparty - in the US, the exchange or the Options Clearing Corporation, which interposes itself between the counterparties of each trade and guarantees that they settle. From the CCP article: A clearing house stands between two clearing firms (also known as member firms or participants). Its purpose is to reduce the risk a member firm failing to honor its trade settlement obligations. A CCP reduces the settlement risks by netting offsetting transactions between multiple counterparties, by requiring collateral deposits (also called ""margin deposits""), by providing independent valuation of trades and collateral, by monitoring the credit worthiness of the member firms, and in many cases, by providing a guarantee fund that can be used to cover losses that exceed a defaulting member's collateral on deposit. Exercisers on most contracts are matched against random writers during the assignment process, and if the writer doesn't deliver/buy the stock, the OCC does so using its funds and goes after the defaulting party."

negative: There are hundreds of entities which offer mutual funds - too many to adequately address here. If you need to pick one, just go with Vanguard for the low low low fees. Yes, this is important. A typical expense ratio of 1% may not sound like much until you realize that the annualized real rate of return on the stock market - after inflation - is about 4%... so the fund eats a quarter of your earnings. (Vanguard's typical expense ratios are closer to 0.1-0.2%). If your company offers a tax-deferred retirement account such as a 401(k), you'll probably find it advantageous to use whatever funds that plan offers just to get the tax advantage, and roll over the account to a cheaper provider when you change employers. You can also buy mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) through most brokerages. E*Trade has a nice mutual fund screener, with over 6700 mutual funds and 1180 ETFs. Charles Schwab has one you can browse without even having an account.

negative: From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(1)i): ... if a taxpayer sells or transfers shares of stock in a corporation that the taxpayer purchased or acquired on different dates or at different prices and the taxpayer does not adequately identify the lot from which the stock is sold or transferred, the stock sold or transferred is charged against the earliest lot the taxpayer purchased or acquired to determine the basis and holding period of the stock. From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(3): (i) Where the stock is left in the custody of a broker or other agent, an adequate identification is made if—   (a) At the time of the sale or transfer, the taxpayer specifies to such broker or other agent having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold or transferred, and ... So if you don't specify, the first share bought (for $100) is the one sold, and you have a capital gain of $800. But you can specify to the broker if you would rather sell the stock bought later (and thus have a lower gain). This can either be done for the individual sale (no later than the settlement date of the trade), or via standing order: 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(8) ... A standing order or instruction for the specific identification of stock is treated as an adequate identification made at the time of sale, transfer, delivery, or distribution.

negative: Since I am having the same question so I made couple of phone calls based on some answers above. The 1st one was TD Amertrade: They don't directly accept money from China. The 2nd one was Charles Schwab: NO FEES to accept the money from China whatsoever! Open an account is free with ACH function and more. Hope it helps for anyone who needed.

negative: "In the case of Wells Fargo, I believe that free trading is linked to your overall banking relationship with the firm. So if you have a checking account with a balance of $X, or  a total relationship with the bank (""relationship"" is usually defined as loan balances + deposit balances) over a certain amount, they give you a plum like free stock trades. The theory behind this approach is that banks want to be a one-stop shop for you. The idea is that they can market the banks products to you over a period of years (lowering customer acquisition cost) and offer you a level of convenience that allows them to charge a premium for services. For example, many people will pay a rate or fee premium on a mortgage or car loan so that they can do all of their business in one place. In other cases, free trading is linked to marketing campaigns by funds. Charles Schwab started this with the ""no transaction fee"" mutual fund store many years ago -- transaction fees are actually paid for by the mutual funds who pay for placement in the program. ""Free ETF trade"" programs are similar."

negative: This was the day traders dilemma. You can, on paper, make money doing such trades. But because you do not hold the security for at least a year, the earnings are subject to short term capital gains tax unless these trades are done inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA.  There are other considerations as well: wash sale rules and number of days to settle.  In short, the glory days of rags to riches by day trading are long gone, if they were ever here in the first place.  Edit: the site will not allow me to add a comment, so I am putting my response here: Possibly, yes. One big 'gotcha' is that your broker reports the proceeds from your sales, but does not report your outflows from your buys. Then there is the risk you take by the broker refusing to sell the security until the transaction settles. Not to mention wash sale rules. You are trying to win at the 'buy low, sell high' game. But you have a 25% chance, at best, of winning at that game. Can you pick the low? Maybe, but you have a 50% chance of being right. Then you have to pick the high. And again you have a 50% chance of doing that. 50% times 50% is 25%. Warren Buffet did not get rich that way. Buffet buys and holds. Don't be a speculator, be a 'buy and hold' investor. Buy securities, inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA, that pay dividends then reinvest those dividends into the security you bought. Scottrade has a Flexible Reinvestment Program that lets you do this with no commission fees.

negative: It comes down to the practical value of paying dividends. The investor can continually receive a stream of income without selling shares of the stock. If the stock did not pay a dividend and wanted continual income, the investor would have to continually sell shares to gain this stream of income, incurring transaction costs and increased time and effort involved with making these transactions.

negative: I used to work at a record keeping company, and while we worked with plan administrators through transitions in investment offerings, we never actually worked through a forced sale.  From what I recall I thought that was illegal, and that all the administrator can do is stop offering the investment (i.e. no new buy ins), but people who still have their money in it can either continue to hold or sell.

negative: Brokerage firms are required to report the number of shares being shorted.  This information is reported to the exchange (NYSE of NASDAQ) and is made public.  Most financial sites indicate the number of shares being shorted for a particular stock.  The image below from Yahoo finance shows 3.29 million shares of CMG were being shorted at the close of 9-28-2012.  This is over 12% of the total outstanding shares of CMG.  For naked short selling additional information is tracked.  If the brokerage is unable to borrow shares to deliver before the settlement date of a short sale then the transaction is recorded as fails-to-deliver.  No money or shares are exchanged since the brokerage is unable to deliver the shares that were agreed upon.  A large amount of fails-to-deliver transactions for a stock usually indicates an excessive amount of naked shorting.  When investors and brokerage firms start to aggressively short a stock they will do so without having borrowed the shares to sell.  This will result in a large amount of naked short selling.  When there are a large number of naked short sellers not all the sellers will be able to borrow the necessary shares before the settlement date and many fails-to-deliver transactions will be recorded. The SEC records the number of fails-to-deliver transactions. The table below summarizes the fails-to-deliver transactions from 1-1-2012 through 9-14-2012 (data obtained from here). The “Ext Amount” column shows the total dollar value of the transactions that failed ( i.e. Fail Qty * Share price ).  The “Volume” column is the total number of shares traded in the same time period.  The “% Volume” shows the percentage of shares that failed to deliver as a percentage of the total market volume. The table orders the data in descending order by the quantity of shares that were not delivered.  Most of the companies at the top of the list no longer exist.  For many of these companies, the quantity of shares that failed to deliver where many multiples of the number of shares traded during the same time period.  This indicates massive naked short selling as many brokerages where unable to find shares to borrow before the settlement date. More information here.

negative: In short (pun intended), the shareholder lending the shares does not believe that the shares will fall, even though the potential investor does. The shareholder believes that the shares will rise. Because the two individuals believe that a different outcome will occur, they are able to make a trade. By using the available data in the market, they have arrived at a particular conclusion of the fair price for the trade, but each individual wants to be on the other side of it. Consider a simpler form of your question: Why would a shareholder agree to sell his/her shares? Why don't they just wait to sell, when the price is higher? After all, that is why the buyer wants to purchase the shares. On review, I realize I've only stated here why the original shareholder wouldn't simply sell and rebuy the share themselves (because they have a different view of the market). As to why they would actually allow the trade to occur - Zak (and other answers) point out that the shares being lent are compensated for by an initial fee on the transaction + the chance for interest during the period that the shares are owed for.

negative: It depends on the broker. The one I use (Fidelity) will allow me to buy then sell or sell then buy within 3 days even though the cash isn't settled from the first transaction. But they won't let me buy then sell then buy again with unsettled cash. Of course not waiting for cash to settle makes you vulnerable to a good faith violation.

negative: I have been careful here to cover both shares in companies and in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Some information such as around corporate actions and AGMs is only applicable for company shares and not ETFs. The shares that you own are registered to you through the broker that you bought them via but are verified by independent fund administrators and brokerage reconciliation processes. This means that there is independent verification that the broker has those shares and that they are ring fenced as being yours. The important point in this is that the broker cannot sell them for their own profit or otherwise use them for their own benefit, such as for collateral against margin etc..  1) Since the broker is keeping the shares for you they are still acting as an intermediary. In order to prove that you own the shares and have the right to sell them you need to transfer the registration to another broker in order to sell them through that broker. This typically, but not always, involves some kind of fee and the broker that you transfer to will need to be able to hold and deal in those shares. Not all brokers have access to all markets. 2) You can sell your shares through a different broker to the one you bought them through but you will need to transfer your ownership to the other broker and that broker will need to have access to that market. 3) You will normally, depending on your broker, get an email or other message on settlement which can be around two days after your purchase. You should also be able to see them in your online account UI before settlement. You usually don't get any messages from the issuing entity for the instrument until AGM time when you may get invited to the AGM if you hold enough stock. All other corporate actions should be handled for you by your broker. It is rare that settlement does not go through on well regulated markets, such as European, Hong Kong, Japanese, and US markets but this is more common on other markets. In particular I have seen quite a lot of trades reversed on the Istanbul market (XIST) recently. That is not to say that XIST is unsafe its just that I happen to have seen a few trades reversed recently.

negative: There's some risk, but it's quite small: The only catastrophic case I can think of is if the brokerage firm defrauded you about purchasing the assets in the first place; e.g., when you ostensibly put money into a mutual fund, they just pocketed it and displayed a fictitious purchase on their web site.  In that case, you'd have no real asset to legally recover.  I think the more realistic risks you should be concerned with are: The only major brokerage firm that I'm aware of that accepts liability for theft is Charles Schwab: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/schwabsafe/security_guarantee.html If you're going to diversify for security reasons, be sure to use different passwords, email addresses, and secret question answers on the two accounts.

negative: This is a joke, just like all the other settlements.  What does it mean?  This payment just symbolizes all the money they are letting go of through short sales, etc.  Their just using this payment to cover their losses.  Its not a payment, its an agreement to relieve $16Billion in debts.