query: Investment strategy for 401k when rolling over soon

positive: You will be rolling over the proceeds, since you can only deposit cash into an IRA. However, this should probably not affect your considerations much since the pre-rollover sale is non-taxable within the 401k and the period of roll-over itself (when the cash is uninvested) is relatively short. So, whatever investments you choose in your 401k, you'll just sell them and then buy them (or similar investments) back after the rollover to the IRA. If you're worrying about a flash crash right on the day when you want to cash out - that can definitely happen, but it is not really something you can prepare for. You can consider moving to money market several weeks before the potential date of your withdrawal, if you think it will make you feel safer, otherwise I don't think it really matters.

positive: The time horizon for your 401K/IRA is essentially the same, and it doesn't stop at the day you retire. On the day you do the rollover you will be transferring your funds into similar investments. S&P500 index to S&P 500 index; 20xx retirement date to 20xx retirement date; small cap to small cap... If your vested portion is worth X $'s when the funds are sold, that is the amount that will be transferred to the IRA  custodian or the custodian for the new employer. Use the transfer to make any rebalancing adjustments that you want to make. But with as much as a year before you leave the company if you need to rebalance now, then do that irrespective of your leaving. Cash is what is transferred, not the individual stock or mutual fund shares. Only move your funds into a money market account with your current 401K if that makes the most sense for your retirement plan. Also keep in mind unless the amount in the 401K is very small you don't have to do this on your last day of work. Even if you are putting the funds in a IRA wait until you have started with the new company and so can define all your buckets based on the options in the new company.

negative: 401k choices are awful because: The best remedy I have found is to roll over to an IRA when changing jobs.

negative: "I'm not sure what you mean by ""receive retirement benefits"". If the company had a 401k, that probably is the retirement plan. Few companies have both a 401k and an old-style pension plan, you typically have one or the other. So if your 401k was rolled over into some other account, you have already received your retirement benefits. If you mean that the 401k was rolled over into an IRA and you are asking if you can now start withdrawing from the IRA, see Excel Strategies answer. Short answer: Yes you can, but there's a 10% penalty unless you meet one of the exceptions."

negative: "You're confusing between ""individual"" 401k (they're called ""Solo-401k"" and are intended for self-employed), and Individual Retirement Account (IRA). You can't open a solo-401k without being self employed. You can open an IRA and roll over money from your old 401k to it. You cannot get a loan from IRA. You can ask the 401k plan manager to reissue the checks to the new trust, shouldn't be a problem. Make sure the checks are issued to the trust, not to you, to avoid withholding and tax complications. This is what is called a ""direct"" rollover. You might be able to roll the money over to the 401k of your new employer, it is not always allowed and you should check. You can probably then take a loan from that 401k. However, it diminishes the value of your retirement savings and you should only do it if you have no other choice (being evicted from your home, your children are starving, can't pay for your chemo, etc... this kind of disasters). Otherwise, I'd suggest rolling over to IRA, investing in funds with significantly lower fees (Vanguard target retirements funds for example, or index funds/ETF's), and reassessing your spending and budgeting habits so that you won't need loans from your 401k. Re companies - ETrade is nice, consider also Scottrade, TDAmeriTrade, Vanguard, Fidelity, Sharebuilder, and may be others. These are all discount brokers with relatively low fees, but each has its own set of ""no-fee"" funds."

negative: You can probably roll it over into the new company's 401k too, so just talk to your HR rep there.  I set up a separate Vangard IRA so when I changejobs or anything, I just dump my investments into that account and don't have to worry about keep track of them all over the place.

negative: As others mentioned, I am not sure what you mean by stating that your 401K was rolled over to a money market account. Assuming that it was rolled over to an IRA account, you can roll it over to another IRA account with a financial institution of your choice (either a brokerage or a bank.) Alternatively, you can withdraw these funds, but since you are under 59.5 years old, you would have to cough up 10% penalty to IRS for this unqualified withdrawal. Therefore, I would strongly recommend for you to wait till you reach this eligible age. Other qualified (penalty-free) withdrawals are: purchase of the first home, college tuition, medical insurance premiums for unemployed individuals, disability, and medical expenses exceeding 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income. I would assume that your 401K was a Traditional 401K account (before tax contributions), and not ROTH 401K, so yo would also have to pay taxes upon withdrawing funds whether you do it now or after you are 59.5 y.o.

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: "You can move money from a 403b to a 401k plan, but the question you should ask yourself is whether it is a wise decision. Unless there are specific reasons for wanting to invest in your new employer's 401k (e.g. you can buy your employer's stock at discounted rates within the 401k, and this is a good investment according to your friends, neighbors, and brothers-in-law), you would be much better off moving the 403b money into an IRA, where you have many more choices for investment and usually can manage to find investments with lower investment costs (e.g. mutual fund fees) than in a typical employer's 401k plan. On the other hand, 401k assets are better protected than IRA assets in case you are sued and a court finds you to be liable for damages; the plaintiff cannot come after the 401k assets if you cannot pay.  To answer the question of ""how?"", you need to talk to the HR people at your current employer to make sure that they are willing to accept a roll-over from another tax-deferred plan (not all plans are agreeable to do this) and get any paperwork from them, especially making sure that you find out where the check is to be sent, and to whom it should be payable. Then, talk to your previous employer's HR people and tell them that you want to roll over your 403b money into the 401k plan of your new employer, fill out the paperwork, make sure they know to whom to cut the check to, and where it is to be sent etc. In my personal experience, I was sent the check payable to the custodian of my new (IRA) account, and I had to send it on to the custodian; my 403b people refused to send the check directly to the new custodian. The following January, you will receive a 1099-R form from your 403b plan showing the amount transferred to the new custodian, with hopefully the correct code letter indicating that the money was rolled over into another tax-deferred account."

negative: You can't roll it over to a Roth IRA without tax penalties.   The best thing to do is roll it to an IRA that isn't tied to work at all.  Second best is to roll it into your new employer's 401k.  The reason that an IRA makes sense is that it gives you the same tax savings as a 401k, but it allows you to remain in control of the money regardless of your employment status.

negative: If you really want to use the money roll it over to the new companies 401k and then take a 401k loan out for whatever the expense is.  (Assuming the retirement plan allows them.) Generally 401k loans are frowned upon for all sorts of reasons however if the alternative is to just flat out withdraw the money it is a slightly better solution.

negative: The general advise is to contribute to the 401K up to the match limit. Then put money into a Roth IRA. Then put the rest into the 401K above the match. Yes you can have an IRA and a 401K. You can even have Roth and non-Roth versions. You do have to watch the limits, and exclusions, but there is nothing stopping you from contributing to multiple types in one year. Over a long career you may find your self with all the possible types of accounts.  When you re-qualify for the company 401K, there is no need to roll over the IRA money into the 401K. Just keep the IRA.

negative: Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k).

negative: "Another option you might consider is rolling over some of that 401K balance into a self-directed IRA or Solo 401K, specifically one with ""checkbook privileges"". That would permit you to invest directly in a property via your IRA/401K money without it being a loan, and preserving the tax benefits. (You may not be able to roll over from your current employer's 401K while still employed.)  That said, regarding your argument that your loan is ""paying interest to yourself"", while that is technically true, that neglects the opportunity cost -- that money could potentially be earning a much higher (and tax-free) return if it remains in the 401K account than if you take it out and slowly repay it at a modest interest rate. Real Estate can be a great way to diversify, build wealth, and generate income, but a company match and tax-free growth via an employee sponsored retirement account can be a pretty sweet deal too (I actually recently wrote about comparing returns from having a tenant pay your mortgage on a rental property vs. saving in a retirement account on my blog -- in short, tax-free stock-market level returns are pretty compelling, even when someone else is paying your mortage). Before taking rather big steps like borrowing from a 401K or buying a rental property, you might also explore other ways to gain some experience with real estate investing, such as the new crop of REITs open to all investors under SEC Reg A+, some with minimums of $500 or less. In my own experience, there are two main camps of real estate investors: (1) those that love the diversification and income, but have zero interest in active management, and (2) those that really enjoy real estate as a lifestyle and avocation, happy to deal with tenant screening and contractors, etc. You'll want to be careful to be sure which camp you're in before signing on to active investment in a specific property."

negative: I'd roll them all into one account, just for your own convenience.  It's a pain to keep track of lots of different accounts, esp. since you need logins/passwords, etc for all of them, and we all have plenty of those.  :) Pick a place like Vanguard or Fidelity (for example), where you can find investment options with lower fees, and do the standard rollover.  Once all the accounts are rolled into one, you can think about how to invest the stuff.  (Some good investments require larger minimums, so if you have several old 401ks, putting them together will give you more options.) Rolling them over is not hard, if you have paperwork from each of the 401ks.  You might be able to DIY online, but I found it helpful to call and talk to a person when I did this.  You just need account numbers, etc.  If you are moving brokerage accounts, you may need to provide paper documents/applications, which might require getting them notarized (I found a notary at my bank, even though the accounts I was moving from and to weren't at my bank), which means you'll need to provide IDs, etc. and get a special crimped seal after the notary witnesses your signature.

negative: What is my best bet with the 401K? I know very little about retirement plans and don't plan to ever touch this money until I retire but could this money be of better use somewhere else?  You can roll over a 401k into an IRA. This lets you invest in other funds and stocks that were not available with your 401k plan. Fidelity and Vanguard are 2 huge companies that offer a number of investment opportunities. When I left an employer that had the 401k plan with Fidelity, I was able to rollover the investments and leave them in the existing mutual funds (several of the funds have been closed to new investors for years). Usually, when leaving an employer, I have the funds transferred directly to the place my IRA is at - this avoids tax penalties and potential pitfalls.   The student loans.... pay them off in one shot?  If the interest is higher than you could earn in a savings account, then it is smarter to pay them off at once. My student loans are 1.8%, so I can earn more money in my mutual funds. I'm suspicious and think something hinky is going to happen with the fiscal cliff negotiations, so I'm going to be paying off my student loans in early 2013.  Disclaimer: I have IRA accounts with both Fidelity and Vanguard. My current 401k plan is with Vanguard.

negative: "Why not do both? The object is to ""squirrel"" away as much money as possible. The 401k has the advantage of being a payroll deduction. The IRA, if you can save the money, gives you more control. When you change jobs, you can ""roll over"" your first 401k into either your IRA or your second job's 401k. Note: There are legal limits on total contributions to IRA and 401ks. I've forgotten what they are, so find out for yourself. There may also be income limits, but ones that don't apply to most 23-year olds, unless they own their own company or work for say, Goldman Sachs."

negative: $10.90 for every $1000 per year. Are you kidding me!!! These are usually hidden within the expense ratio of the plan funds, but >1% seems to be quite a lot regardless. FUND X 1 year return 3% 3 year return 6% 10 year return 5% What does   that exactly mean? This is the average annual rate of return. If measured for the last 3 years, the average annual rate of return is 6%, if measured for 1 year - it's 3%. What it means is that out of the last 3 years, the last year return was not the best, the previous two were much better. Does that mean that if I hold my mutual funds for 10 years I will get   5% return on it. Definitely not. Past performance doesn't promise anything for the future. It is merely a guidance for you, a comparison measure between the funds. You can assume that if in the past the fund performed certain way, then given the same conditions in the future, it will perform the same again. But it is in no way a promise or a guarantee of anything. Since my 401K plan stinks what are my options. If I put my money in a   traditional IRA then I lose my pre tax benefits right! Wrong, IRA is pre-tax as well. But the pre-tax deduction limits for IRA are much lower than for 401k.  You can consider investing in the 401k, and then rolling over to a IRA which will allow better investment options. After your update: Just clearing up the question. My current employer has a 401K. Most of   the funds have the expense ratio of 1.20%. There is NO MATCHING   CONTRIBUTIONS. Ouch. Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and   start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K   plan with high fees. You should probably consider rolling over the old company 401k to a traditional IRA. However, it is unrelated to the current employer's 401k. If you're contributing up to the max to the Roth IRA, you can't add any additional contributions to traditional IRA on top of that - the $5000 limit is for both, and the AGI limitations for Roth are higher, so you're likely not able to contribute anything at all to the traditional IRA. You can contribute to the employer's 401k. You have to consider if the rather high expenses are worth the tax deferral for you.

negative: You need to look at all your investment as a whole. The 401K, IRA, and any taxable account need to be a part of the diversification and re-balancing. The fact you have regular deposits into the 401K needs to also be a part of your strategy.  Regardless of how much specific investments have gone up this year, you need to first determine how you want to be invested in large cap stock, small cap stock, bond, international, emerging markets... Then you need to see where you are today compared to those investment percentages. You then move the money in the retirement accounts to get to your desired percentage. And set the 401K deposits to be consistent with your goals. Many times the deposits are allocated the same way the balances are, but that is more complex if one of the sectors you are investing in exists completely outside the 401K.  When you re-balance in the future you will be selling sectors that grew the most and buying those that grew the least compared to their planned percentages. If all the moves are within the 401K and IRA then capital gains are not a concern. Don't think of the different accounts as separate baskets, but think of them as a whole investment strategy.

negative: You weren't eligible for a 401K in 2010, but you were eligible for an individual IRA.  If you had known by April 18th that you had this extra money, you could have deposited (not rolled over) the money, up to the maximum ($5,000 or so, I think), into an IRA account  You could do that because you didn't participate (legally) in an employer retirement program. But you didn't learn until early May, so you missed that deadline.  I doubt that the IRS has any provisions for waiving that April 18th deadline, but I could be wrong: see the IRS publications. In any case, to answer the question directly - no, you can't roll over the money you're getting back, because it was mistakenly in the 401K plan.  It will now become part of your 2011 income, and so you'll owe taxes on it when you file your tax return for the tax year 2011, in early 2012.

negative: For such a small amount, I really don't think it's worth the time and effort to withdraw it. Why not roll it over into a traditional IRA or a new 401k / 403b?

negative: Bad question.  Even people choosing a 401k strategy have to choose risk over reward.  But looking at this simply, if you take a 10 year chart of Gold, you will not find any other stock or commodity that could have been invested in that would have provided you with the same results with as little volatility over this time period.  http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au3650nys.gif

negative: No. Your deposits should not have been accepted in the first place. No legit rollover opportunity exists.  Related - Can excess 401K contributions returned with 1099-R be rolled over to a Traditional IRA?

negative: I want to take a loan out against an old 401k to use as the down payment on a house. The problem that I've found is that in order to borrow against the 401k it has to be considered current. I'd like to avoid rolling it over to my current job because then if I quit the entire load has to be repaid within 60 days.  I'm specifically wondering if me plan of starting a company with a 401k will work. From what I can tell, there's no limit on the number of current 401ks you can have. Since I'm obviously never going to fire myself, having to suddenly repay the entire loan won't be a problem.   I'd like to keep my job and money related to investments separate.

negative: Does the 457(b) plan allow for the rollover of other retirement funds into it? And do you have very specific reasons for wanting to roll over your SEP-IRA into the 457(b) plan instead of into some other IRA plan with a different custodian? For example, if you already have a Traditional IRA, is there any reason why your SEP-IRA should not be rolled over into the Traditional IRA? With regard to the question about separate accounts, once upon a time, rolling over money from an employment retirement plan (e.g. 401k) into a Traditional IRA required establishing a separate account called a Rollover Traditional IRA so that the rolled-over money (and the earnings thereon) were not commingled with standard traditional IRA money resulting from personal contributions). This was so that the account owner had the option of rolling over the separately kept money into a new employer's retirement plan (if such a rollover was permitted by the new 401k plan). If one did not want to ever roll over money into a new employer plan, one had to write a letter to the custodian telling them that commingling was OK; you never wanted to put that money into another 401k plan. The law changed some time later and the concept of Rollover IRAs holding non-commingled funds has disappeared.  With that as prologue, my answer to your question is that perhaps the law did not change with respect to 457(b) plans, and so the money that you want to rollover into the 457(b) plan needs to be kept separate and not commingled with your contributions via payroll deduction to the 457(b) plan (in case you want to ever roll over the SEP-IRA money into another SEP-IRA). Hence, separate accounts are needed: one to hold your SEP-IRA money and one to hold your contributions via payroll deductions.

negative: "Unfortunately, I missed most of segment and I didn't get to understand the Why? To begin with, Cramer is an entertainer and his business is pushing stocks. If you put money into mutual funds (which most 401k plans limit your investments to), then you are not purchasing his product. Also, many 401k plans have limited selections of funds, and many of those funds are not good performers. While his stock-picking track record is much better than mine, his isn't that great.  He does point out that there are a lot of fees (mostly hidden) in 401k accounts. If you read your company's 5500 filing (especialy Schedule A), you can determine just how much your plan administrators are paying themselves. If paying excessive fees is your concern, then you should be rolling over your 401k into your IRA when you quit (or the employer-match vests, which ever is later).  Finally, Cramer thinks that most of his audience will max out their IRA contributions and have only a little bit left for their 401k. I'm most definately ""not most people"" as I'm maxing out both my 401k and IRA contributions."

negative: The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal.  If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute.

negative: What you put that money into is quite relevant. It depends on how soon you will need some, or all, of that money.  It has been very useful to me to divide my savings into three areas...  1) very short term 'oops' funds. This is for when you forget to put something in your budget or when a monthly bill is very high this month. Put this money into passbook savings.  2) Emergency funds that are needed quite infrequently. Used for such things as when you go to the hospital or an appliance breaks down. Put this money in higher yeald savings, but where it can be accessed.  3) Retirement savings. Put this money into a 401-K. Never draw on it till you retire. Make no loans against it. When you change jobs roll over into a self-directed IRA and invest in an ETF that pays dividends. Reinvest the dividend each month.  So, like I said, where you put that money depends on how soon you will need it.

negative: If you define dollar cost cost averaging as investing a specific dollar amount over a certain fixed time frame then it does not work statistically better than any other strategy for getting that money in the market.  (IE Aunt Ruth wants to invest $60,000 in the stock market and does it $5000 a month for a year.) It will work better on some markets and worse on others, but on average it won't be any better. Dollar cost averaging of this form is effectively a bet that gains will occur at the end of the time period rather than the beginning, sometimes this bet will pay off, other times it won't. A regular investment contribution of what you can afford over an indefinite time period (IE 401k contribution) is NOT Dollar Cost Averaging but it is an effective investment strategy.

negative: Don't steal from the 401k. If you take the money out, you'll pay 28% in taxes and 10% in penalties -- only getting $12,960 out. Before you do anything, consult an online refi calculator to make sure you'll be in the house beyond the break-even point. With the numbers you've given and some reasonable guesses I made, it looks like you'll break even within a year. If your new employer's plan allows for loans, roll it into the new plan. Based on what you say you're putting in, you should be able to take a loan out of about $15-20k, which would get you to your LTV goal. Before you do this, calculate: and make sure you will comfortably be able to handle all of the payments. Make sure you're aware of the loan terms on your 401k loan. Understand the penalties associated with failing to make timely payments. Finally, beware of sinking all of your liquid cash into this -- how will you handle an emergency that comes up soon after closing on the new loan before you have a chance to rebuild your emergency fund?

negative: When you pick a company for your IRA, they should have information about rolling over funds from another IRA or a 401K. They will be able to walk you through the process. There shouldn't be a fee for doing this. They want your money to be invested in their funds. Once your money is in their hands they are able to generate their profits.  You will want to do a direct transfer. Some employers will work with the investment companies and send the funds directly to the IRA. Others will insist on sending a check to you. The company that will have your IRA should give you exact specifications for the check so that you won't have to cash it. The check will be payable to you or the IRA account. The IRA company will have all the details. Decide if you will be converting non-Roth to Roth, before doing the rollover.

negative: Your question is very widely scoped, making it difficult to reply to, but I can provide my thoughts on at least the following part of the question: I have a 401k plan with T. Rowe Price, should I use them for other investments too? Using your employer's decision, on which 401k provider they've chosen, as a basis for making your own decision on a broker for investing $100k when you don't even know what kind of investments you want seems relatively unwise to me, even if one of your focuses is simplicity.  That is, unless your $100k is tax-advantaged (e.g. an IRA or other 401k) and your drive for simplicity means you'd be happy to add $100k to any of your existing 401k investments.  In which case you should look into whether you can roll the $100k over into your employer's 401k program. For the rest of my answer, I'll assume the $100k is NOT tax-advantaged. I assume you're suggesting this idea because of some perceived bundling of the relationship and ease of dealing with one company & website?  Yes, they may be able to combine both accounts into a single login, and you may be able to interact with both accounts with the same basic interface, but that's about where the sharing will end.  And even those benefits aren't guaranteed.  For example, I still have a separate site to manage my money in my employer's 401k @ Fidelity than I do for my brokerage/banking accounts @ Fidelity.  The investment options aren't the same for the two types of accounts, so the interface for making and monitoring investments isn't either. And you won't be able to co-mingle funds between the 401k and non-tax-advantaged money anyway, so you'll have two different accounts to deal with even if you have a single provider.  Given that you'll have two different accounts, you might as well pick a broker/provider for the $100k that gives you the best investment options, lowest fees, and best UI experience for your chosen type/goal of investments. I would strongly recommend figuring out how you want to invest the $100k before trying to figure out which provider to use as a broker for doing the investment.

negative: "Open an investment account on your own and have them roll the old 401K accounts into either a ROTH or traditional IRA. Do not leave them in old 401k accounts and definitely don't roll them into your new employer's 401K. Why? Well, as great as 401K accounts are, there is one thing that employers rarely mention and the 401K companies actively try to hide:    Most 401K plans are loaded with HUGE fees. You won't see them on your statements, they are often hidden very cleverly with accounting tricks. For example, in several plans I have participated in, the mutual fund symbols may LOOK like the ones you see on the stock tickers, but if you read the fine print they only ""approximate"" the underlying mutual fund they are named for. That is, if you multiply the number of shares by the market price you will arrive at a number higher than the one printed on your statement.  The ""spread"" between those numbers is the fee charged by the 401K management company, and since employees don't pick that company and can't easily fire them, they aren't very competitive unless your company is really large and has a tough negotiator in HR. If you work for a small company, you are probably getting slammed by these fees. Also, they often charge fees for the ""automatic rebalancing"" service they offer to do annually to your account to keep your allocation in line with your current contribution allocations.  I have no idea why it is legal for them not to disclose these fees on the statements, but they don't. I had to do some serious digging to find this out on my own and when I did it was downright scary. In one case they were siphoning off over 3% annually from the account using this standard practice. HOWEVER, that is not to say that you shouldn't participate in these plans, especially if there is an employer match. There are fees with any investment account and the ""free money"" your employer is kicking in almost always offsets these fees. My point here is just that you shouldn't keep the money in the 401K after you leave the company when you have an option to move it to an account with much cheaper fees."

negative: Just the amount contributed to the Roth 401k that you rolled over, not the conversions from regular 401k/traditional IRA (for those there are holding period limitation of 5 year from conversion), the earning on it or the employer's match (neither of these can be withdrawn without penalty as a non-qualified withdrawal). However, I'd suggest not to withdraw from Roth IRA unless you're sleeping on a bench in a park and beg strangers for a piece of bread. This is the best retirement investment you can make while you're in the lower tax brackets, and withdrawing it would reduce dramatically your tax-free retirement income.


query: Why is OkPay not allowed in the United States?

positive: "The U.S. requires money transfer services to be licensed under 31 USC 5330 in addition to any applicable laws at the state level.  According to multiple sources online, including the thread referenced by MD-Tech's answer, OkPay either cannot or will not get a license, so they are out. I dug on this a bit more because I thought it was interesting, and OkPay has other issues with U.S. and other regulators related to its interaction with Bitcoins, which themselves are a hot potato for regulation right now and may explain the licensing problem.  It seems to also be facing regulatory pressure in other countries, by the way, so it's not strictly a problem they face in the U.S.  Just for whatever reason, the problem is greater here.  Some interesting summary points: With mounting pressure on online money exchanges from US regulators, payments processor OKPay has announced that it is suspending processing for all Bitcoin exchanges, including industry leader Mt. Gox. ... Earlier this month, the US Department of Homeland Security seized Mt. Gox's account with mobile payment processor Dwolla, on allegations that the account was in violation of US Code 18 USC § 1960 by operating an ""unlicensed money transmitting business."" Just where the Bitcoin market falls under US law is unclear, because the legality of Bitcoin transactions has yet to be tried in court and law enforcement has refused to comment on ongoing investigations, such as the Dwolla case. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/29/okpay_suspends_bitcoin_processing/ In March, the US Treasury said any firms dealing in the virtual currency would be considered ""money services businesses"" just like any other, which means they must hand over transaction information to the government and work to prevent money laundering. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/15/mt_gox_us_court/ In the UK, it apparently has also had trouble with banking partners (quoting a OkPay official regarding changing bank providers): The UK bank that we used before did not make a final decision on whether to handle transactions in favour of crypto-currencies or not. Therefore the compliance department of the bank asked us to restrict such transfers. This apparently allowed them to reverse a policy in the UK: OKPAY's policy shift comes just months after it stipulated that GBP users check a box, verifying that their funds would not be spent on cryptocurrency, a feature that further incited users. http://www.coindesk.com/okpay-gbp-bitcoin-transactions/ I hadn't heard of this company prior to your question, but having done some research, I tend to think that at least the part of this quote about language, attributed to a user, is true: OKPAY are quite paranoid about AML and another problem is that their support people seem to be very bad at English, so their replies are often hard to understand. Their support are also slow [sic]. However in my experience they are an honest company. I found at least one case where rumors that the entire company were going to shut down were traced back to a poorly translated message issued by the company. Again, I know only what I read just now about this company, but it looked like there were a few red flags - the problems with the US probably not being the most important.  This type of service is probably part of the future, but I'm not sure that I'd send money through it now in its current state or organization and regulation."

positive: according to their client services it is a licensing issue: Thread: OKpay didn't Accept USA clients? They do not elaborate but do suggest that they don't plan to fix that issue.

positive: If you read the link that MD-Tech provided, it actually indicates that the foreign companies (mostly banks) are choosing not to work with the United States in their latest answer, so it looks like it's not OkPay, but the financial companies that they use. On further research, the reason that this is banned is to prevent capital flight in the future.  OkPay offers may ways to transfer funds in and out, such as traditional credit cards, like VISA and MasterCard, and other non-traditional ways, such as crypto-coins.   Here is another example of how the US government is limiting what US consumers can do with their money.  Apparently while no one was looking in 2010, they were able to pass some new restrictions.

positive: Here's the real reason OKPay (actually the banks they interface with) won't accept US Citizens.   The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act Congress passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) in 2010 without much fanfare. One reason the act was so quiet was its four-year long ramp up; FATCA did not really take effect until 2014. Never before had a single national government attempted, and so far succeeded in, forcing compliance standards on banks across the world. FATCA requires any non-U.S. bank to report accounts held by American citizens worth over $50,000 or else be subject to 30% withholding penalties and possible exclusion from U.S. markets. By mid-2015, more than 100,000 foreign entities had agreed to share financial information with the IRS. Even Russia and China agreed to FATCA. The only major global economy to fight the Feds is Canada; however it was private citizens, not the Canadian government, who filed suit to block FATCA under the International Governmental Agreement clause making it illegal to turn over private bank account information. Read more: The Tax Implications of Opening a Foreign Bank Account | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/102915/tax-implications-opening-foreign-bank-account.asp#ixzz4TzEck9Yo  Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

negative: The U.S. Treasury said the same thing on the lawfulness of retailers refusing legal tender at point of sale - retailers are allowed to refuse any denomination of U.S. currency: [...]all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. [...]

negative: In the United States, savings accounts generally have higher interest rates than checking or money market accounts.  Part of this is the government restriction on the number of automated transactions per month that can be done on a savings account: this is supposed to allow banks to lengthen the time frame of the cash part of their investments for savings.  This limit is why direct deposit of one's paycheck is almost always into a checking or money market account... and why many people have savings accounts, especially with Internet banks, because they pay significantly higher interest rates than brick and mortar banks.

negative: "It says that you are exempt ""as long as such interest income is not effectively connected with a United States trade or business"". So the interest is from money earned from doing business with/through AirBnb, a US company. So you will have to report it. Even if your bank doesn't send you a 1099-INT, you have to report it, unless it is under $0.49 because the IRS allows rounding."

negative: The laws of the United States of America require that the federal currency issued is accepted as legal tender for all goods and services anywhere within this country.  One really has to wonder what the motivation behind this story is. VISA obviously knows that such a move is illegal. I am skeptical that there's any truth to the article at all.

negative: >Is it illegal to support the president of the United States? You act like people aren't allowed to have differing opinions from you.  A whole heap of people who think we should let bygones be bygones and unite behind our Orange Overlord seem to be the same people who wouldn't be caught dead supporting the president during Obama's terms. Basically every GOP member of Congress and their entire voting base. So where was the call for unity and civility from 2008-2016.

negative: Here is the solution: any money made inside the United States will be taxed under US tax law.  You want to do business here, open up a US headquarters that handles all the sales tracking and reporting. No tax dollars, no operations inside the US.   The united states carries such bulk buying power that companies will be forced to abide by its rules.

negative: "ECI is relevant to non-resident aliens who are engaged in trade or business in the US. For that, you have to be present in the US, to begin with, or to own a business or property in the US. So the people to whom it is relevant are non-resident aliens in the US or business/property owners, not foreign contractors.  From the IRS: The following categories of income are usually considered to be   connected with a trade or business in the United States. You are considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the United States if you are temporarily present in the United States as a   nonimmigrant on an ""F,"" ""J,"" ""M,"" or ""Q"" visa. The taxable part of any   U.S. source scholarship or fellowship grant received by a nonimmigrant   in ""F,"" ""J,"" ""M,"" or ""Q"" status is treated as effectively connected   with a trade or business in the United States. If you are a member of a partnership that at any time during the tax year is engaged in a trade or business in the United States, you   are considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the United   States. You usually are engaged in a U.S. trade or business when you perform personal services in the United States. If you own and operate a business in the United States selling services, products, or merchandise, you are, with certain exceptions,   engaged in a trade or business in the United States. For example,   profit from the sale in the United States of inventory property   purchased either in this country or in a foreign country is   effectively connected trade or business income. Gains and losses from the sale or exchange of U.S. real property interests (whether or not they are capital assets) are taxed as if you   are engaged in a trade or business in the United States. You must   treat the gain or loss as effectively connected with that trade or   business. Income from the rental of real property may be treated as ECI if the taxpayer elects to do so."

negative: "Yes. ""There is, ...no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services."" Taken from the US Department of the Treasury."

negative: The U.S. Minimum wage purchasing power peaked in 1968 with $8.68 (in 2016 dollars)...   Why are people advocating almost double? From what it sounds like...   Nobody has ever been able to rent a 2 bedroom apartment for minimum wage... Anywhere in the United States... EVER...

negative: Labor certification attorney helps you to get an allowance to work in United State but in this person to already have a job offer from a U.S. employer, who is in turn their sponsor, after that employer can submit an immigration petition to the USCIS. Read in brief at given link.

negative: "No, I'm sorry, but the fact that exchanges allow ""pay to play"" privelege to scalp orders is fairly well established at this time. It's skirts law simply because the exchanges don't profit *directly* from it. I understand that folks are upset that SEC is looking into turning off this free money faucet, but harranguing Katsayuma for opening a fair exchange that shuns the practice is a point of contention for me."

negative: "Or not have done it within public memory of the BOA fees and GoDaddy.  I still am not seeing the ""big idea"" with auto bill pay...do they want unrestricted access to people's bank accounts?  Bill first, ask questions later?"

negative: Nowadays, all checks you write will not be send to your bank anymore, but instead the bank where they get deposited does an ACH from your bank. That implies that not allowing this to happen, your bank would not be able to honor any checks you wrote (without enforcing paper check delivery in the mail, but the Check21 bill does not allow such enforcing anymore). Basically, your bank would not be able to do business with anyone. The obvious conclusion is that no such bank exists.

negative: Why are doctors so overworked? Maybe their AMA cartel restricting new entry is to blame. They also lobby to restrict the number of procedures that nurses can legally perform and limit the number of medical schools. This is a huge factor in the cost of health care in the United States.

negative: So let me get this straight... anti-tax warriors who argue from a right-wing libertarian stance that financial liberty is the most important form of liberty want to hold the taxpayers hostage to force the bloated federal government to fund a wall on the southern border of the United States that comprises the territory of multiple state governments, without allowing for those state governments and their citizens the liberty to decide for themselves, nor advocating for private capitalist interests to fund the wall out of their own pockets via private land ownership along the border, which is the hallmark of their entire economic theory?

negative: In a nutshell, there are significant entrance hurdles, legally and especially financially. The fixed cost and effort to get it set up is high (although later, the proportional cost and efforts are negligible). Therefore, this is only of interest for taxable amounts of seven digits or more - which most people don’t reach.

negative: The Federal Reserve website notes that creditors must accept cash for debts on services already rendered, but that businesses may refuse cash for services not yet rendered unless prohibited by local law. The Treasury website includes examples of businesses limiting what cash they will accept:  For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or   dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas   stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually   notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

negative: "Simple. If they don't allow you easily transfer money then they get to keep your money longer and earn more interest. Not to mention they can continue to charge fees for wire transfers. When I was in Colorado Springs all the banks allowed free bank to bank transfers. Why? Because their clients demanded it. Most of their clients were military members who needed to be able to send money home or to relatives in other states etc. When I moved to Texas I could not find a single bank that allowed free bank to bank tranfers. They had varying fee schedules for wire tranfers ranging from $7 to as high as $22. When I asked why they charged a fee to send money basically over the internet I was told that the Feds made them charge a fee. Big bunch of bull but I had to have a bank. Banks, in this country, will make it as hard as they legally can for you to remove your money from their greedy little mitts. I am going through this now with a bank in Idaho. Supposedly I can send funds bank to bank but I have to jump through a bunch of hoops that are difficult because I work during the bank hours. The bill pay site says I can do external tranfers but the button to ""set up external transfers"" is mysteriously missing. So I have to fill out paperwork in the presence of someone at the bank and submit it. I was even told that it had to be typed or it may be refused. The more I travel the more I mistrust banks and their schemes to keep my money."

negative: "In the United States, the Fair Credit Reporting Act allows companies to buy your credit information for ""legitimate business needs."" The legitimate use of credit scores and credit reporting varies state to state, but like it or not, you can expect a lot more non-lending use of your credit information in the future. Companies and individuals use credit reports as an assessment of general behavior because, unfortunately, they work. You've seen the disclaimers about ""past performance…"", but unfortunately in this case… past performance really has been shown to be a pretty reliable indicator of future behavior. So…"

negative: "Yes. From their TOS: ""By creating a Square Account, you confirm that you are either a legal resident of the United States, a United States citizen, or a business entity...""."

negative: It discourages people from obtaining a high-limit card simply to show off, because the bank's forcing them to use it or lose it.

negative: Essentially, this article points to having the Fed, ie taxpayers run a bank. First, it's not what the PO is and is chartered to do. All the pols have screwed the pooch by laying on rules and benefit mandates to make the USPS almost unworkable. The Feds are incapable of pulling this off. Now if the Service acts like a front/kiosk for pay for a bank without putting tax dollars in risk, that's an idea.

negative: Some countries, like the United States, allow a mortgage interest tax deduction.  This means the interest you pay on a mortgage, which is typically much more than half of the monthly payment at the beginning of a 25 year mortgage, is tax deductible, so you might get 33% or more of the interest back, and that effectively makes the interest rate significantly lower.  Therefore you are borrowing the money really cheap.  That makes MrChrister's answer even more appropriate.

negative: You cannot open an account in USA unless you have an address to provide to the bank in USA, You need ID, such as US Driver's License.

negative: > But, banks won't allow it.  It's not just banks - the Republican party seems to have had it in for the US Postal Service for the past decade.  Possibly because it's seen as trustworthy and effective, so they want to make it worse so people won't have things like that associated with government.  In 2006 at the height of their majorities in Congress they managed to pass that bill that forces the USPS to lose money rapidly, and has been forcing it to lay off people and close post offices and chip away at how convenient and effective it is.  But, postal banking could turn that around.  With it the USPS might bring in some income to balance out the expenses of that 2006 legislation.  People might even object more to post offices closing, or try to reopen them.  It would undermine a major part of Republican policy.

negative: The technical feature exists to (1)block all ACH activity, (2)block all ACH credits, or (3)block all ACH debits attempting to post to the deposit account.  The large financial institutions will not deviate from their company policies and won't offer something like this for a personal account.  The smaller institutions and credit unions are much more willing to discuss options.  Especially if you maintain a large deposit balance or have many products with the institution, you might convince them this feature is very important and insist they block all ACH activity on your account. This feature is used frequently on controlled asset accounts where the balance must be frozen for a variety of reasons.

negative: As a European we would wholeheartedly welcome a voluntary reduction in US geopolitical influence. The ability of the United States to dictate terms to Europe on strategic and political matters is an anomaly that has been allowed to persist for far too long.      Luckily for the rest of the world the US public are at large grossly uninformed in matters of foreign affairs and don't realise the exceptional strategic positioning they were granted in the wake of the second world war. And they're in the process of ceding that power.

negative: "If Illinois cannot go bankruptcy This is missing a few, very important words, ""...under current law.""   The United States changed the law so as to allow Puerto Rico to go into a form of bankruptcy.  So you cannot rely on a lack of legal support for bankruptcy to protect any bond investments you might make in Illinois.  It is entirely possible for the federal government to add a law enabling a state to discharge its debts through a bankruptcy process.  That's why the bonds have been downgraded.  They are still fine now, but that could change at any time.   I don't want to dive too deep into the politics on this stack, but I could quite easily see a bargain between US President Donald Trump and Democrats in Congress where he agreed to special privileges for pension debts owed to former employees in exchange for full discharge of all other debts.  That would lead to a complete loss of value for the bonds that you are considering.  There still seem to be other options now, but they seem to be getting closer and closer to that."

negative: "In the US, usury is complicated and depends on the type of account, the bank charter and the where the bank makes credit decisions. Most major US credit cards are issued by entities in Utah, South Dakota and Delaware. None of these states have usury limits. Many states have usury limits. In New York, for example a loan may not exceed 16% interest, if the institution is supervised by the State.  Credit card issuers are usually chartered as ""National Associations"" (ie Federally chartered banks regulated by the Comptroller of the Currency). There is no Federal usury statute, and Federally chartered banks are allowed to ""export"" many of the regulations of the state where credit decisions are made. Small states like South Dakota basically design their banking regulations to meet the needs of the banks, which are major employers."

negative: Most of the credit unions and small banks in USA do not have the connectivity to swift network and thus does not have a Swift Code, IBAN or other international routing codes. They can still receive international wire transfers. Sender's international financial institution should have a correspondent bank in the US (which acts as an intermediary bank) to which they can wire the money The intermediary bank will send the money domestically (within USA) using aba routing numbers of the small bank or credit union.

negative: "StasM, It's taken a while but many banks offer tokens - although they tend to limit the accounts for which they will be issued. All of the following issue tokens, but there are many more: CitiBank JP Morgan Union Bank Wells Fargo Callaway Bank Wachovia Bank of North Dakota The River Bank of Wisconsin Metcalf Bank, Kansas Stonebridge Bank In 2005 federal regulators stipulated that banks needed to get better with security for online banking customers, but they did not endorse a particular technology. Tokens (aka fobs) were endorsed. The news was negatively received by the banks because putting more steps in the way of a customer drives the customer away. See this 2005 report for more info: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/2005-11-02-cybercrime-prevention_x.htm  My guess is a tipping point was reached since then, where customers became savvy of the risks, and that the ""extra steps"" became less an issue than the ""extra security""."

negative: **United States Postal Service**  The United States Postal Service (USPS; also known as the Post Office, U.S. Mail, or Postal Service) is an independent agency of the United States federal government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. It is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.  The U.S. Mail traces its roots to 1775 during the Second Continental Congress, when Benjamin Franklin was appointed the first postmaster general. The Post Office Department was created in 1792 from Franklin's operation, elevated to a cabinet-level department in 1872, and transformed in 1971 into the U.S. Postal Service as an independent agency.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/economy/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^| [^Donate](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/donate)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28