query: Is it possible to transfer stock I already own into my Roth IRA without having to sell the stock?

positive: "No. A deposit to an IRA must be in cash. A conversion from traditional IRA to Roth can be ""in kind"" i.e. As a stock transfer. Last, any withdrawals can also be in stock or funds.  IRS Publication 590, so important, it's now in 2 sections Part A and Part B, addresses IRA issues such as this as well as most others.  By the way - now on page 7 - ""Contributions, except for rollover contributions, must be in cash."""

negative: "You can have as many IRA accounts as you want (whether Roth or Traditional), so you can have a Roth IRA with American Funds and another Roth IRA with Vanguard if you like. One disadvantage of  having too many IRA accounts with small balances in each is that most custodians  (including Vanguard) charge an annual fee for maintaining IRA accounts with small balances but waive the fee if the balance is large. So it is best to keep your Roth IRA in just one or two funds with just one or two custodians until such time as investment returns plus additional contributions made over the years makes the balances large enough to diversify further. Remember also that you cannot contribute the maximum to each IRA; the sum total of all your IRA contributions (doesn't matter whether to Roth or to Traditional IRAs) for any year must satisfy the limit for that year. You can move money from one IRA of yours to another IRA (of the same type) of yours without any tax issues to worry about. Such movements (called rollovers or transfers) are  not contributions and do not count towards the annual contribution limit. The easiest way to do move money from one IRA account to another IRA account is by a trustee-to-trustee transfer where the money goes directly from one custodian (American Funds in this case) to the other custodian (Vanguard in this case). The easiest way of accomplishing this is to call Vanguard or go online on their website, tell them that you are wanting to  establish a Roth IRA with them, and that you want to fund it by transferring money held in a Roth IRA with American Funds. Give Vanguard the account  number of your existing American Funds IRA, tell them how much  you want to transfer over -- $1000 or $20,000 or the entire balance as the case may be -- and tell Vanguard to go get the money.  In a few days' time, the money will appear in your new Vanguard Roth IRA and the American Funds Roth IRA will have a smaller balance, possibly a zero balance, or might even be closed if you told Vanguard to collect the entire balance.  DO NOT approach American Funds and tell them that you want to transfer money to a new Roth IRA with Vanguard: they will bitch and moan and drag their heels about doing so because  they are unhappy to lose your business, and will probably screw up the transfer. Talk to Vanguard only. They are eager to get their hands on your IRA money and will gladly take care of the whole thing for you at no charge to you. DO NOT cash in any stock shares, or mutual fund shares, or whatever is in your Roth IRA in preparation for ""cashing out of the old account"". There is a method where you take a ""rollover distribution"" from your American Funds Roth IRA and then deposit the money into your new Vanguard Roth IRA within 60 days, but I recommend most strongly against using this because too many people manage to screw it up. It is 60 days, not two months; the clock starts from the day American Funds cuts your check, not when you get the check, and it is stopped when the money gets deposited into your new account, not the day you mailed the check to Vanguard or the day that Vanguard received it,  and so on. In short, DO NOT try this at home:  stick to a trustee-to-trustee transfer and avoid the hassles."

negative: "I recommend a Roth IRA. At your age you could turn 25K into a million and never pay taxes on these earnings. Of course there are yearly limits (5.5k) on the amount your can contribute to a Roth IRA account. If you haven't filed your taxes this year yet ... you can contribute 5.5K for last year and 5.5K for this year.  Open two accounts at a discount brokerage firm. Trades should be about $10 or less per. Account one ... Roth IRA. Account two a brokerage account  for the excess funds that can't be placed in the Roth IRA. Each year it will be easy transfer money into the Roth from this account. Be aware that you can't transfer stocks from brokerage acct to Roth IRA ... only cash. You can sell some stocks in brokerage and turn that into cash to transfer. This means settling up with the IRS on any gains/losses on that sale. Given your situation you'd likely have new cash to bring to table for the Roth IRA anyway. Invest in stocks and hold them for the long term. Do a google search for ""motley fool stock advisor"" and join. This is a premium service that picks two stocks to invest in each month. Invest small amounts (say $750) in each stock that they say you should buy. They will also tell you when to sell. They also give insights into why they selected the stock and why they are selling (aka learning experience).  They pick quality companies. So if the economy is down you will still own a quality company that will make it through the storm. Avoid the temptation to load up on one stock. Follow the small amount rule mentioned above per stock. Good luck, and get in the market."

negative: "There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the ""low income"" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth."

negative: First, check out some of the answers on this question: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing When you have determined that you are ready to invest for retirement, there are two things you need to consider: the investment and the account.  These are separate items. The investment is what makes your money grow. The type of account provides tax advantages (and restrictions).  Generally, these can be considered separately; for the most part, you can do any type of investment in any account. Briefly, here is an overview of some of the main options: In your situation, the Roth IRA is what I would recommend. This grows tax free, and if you need the funds for some reason, you can get out what you put in without penalty. You can invest up to $5500 in your Roth IRA each year. In addition to the above reasons, which are true for anybody, a Roth IRA would be especially beneficial for you for three reasons: For someone that is closer in age to retirement and in a higher tax bracket now, a Roth IRA is less attractive than it is for you. Inside your Roth IRA, there are lots of choices. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However, picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the stock market.  There are lots of different types of stock mutual funds with different strategies and expenses associated with them. Managed funds actively buy and sell different stocks inside them, but have high expenses to pay the managers. Index funds buy and hold a list of stocks, and have very low expenses. The conventional wisdom is that, in general, index funds perform better than managed funds when you take the expenses into account.  I hope this overview and these recommendations were helpful. If you have any specific questions about any of these types of accounts or investments, feel free to ask another question.

negative: "The backdoor Roth IRA contribution has been possible for a few years now and is fairly widely known. The IRS hasn't said anything negative about it. An answer to my question here mentions that it could hypothetically be disallowed through the ""step transaction doctrine"", although that is the only time I have heard that possibility raised. For some background, the income limit on Roth conversions was removed as a ""revenue-offsetting provision"" of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. They want people who have deducted contributions in Traditional IRAs to convert to Roth and pay taxes now rather than waiting many years until retirement. Conversely, people performing the backdoor Roth IRA contribution have already paid taxes on that money and it's just preventing them from having to pay taxes many years later. It's easy to see how Congress would find this a satisfactory exchange."

negative: "The receiving Roth IRA custodian will almost certainly not charge you anything; they are eager to get their hands on the money. In fact, the easiest and most efficient way is to fill out the forms for opening a Roth IRA account with the new custodian (most of this can be done online, but it might be necessary to print out a paper form, sign it and send/fax it to the company), tell them that the Roth IRA will be funded by a trustee-to-trustee transfer from the current custodian, and tell them to go get the money from the online bank who is the current custodian of your Roth IRA account. Don't approach your online bank and tell them to send the money to your new Roth IRA custodian; it will cost money and take more time and the likelihood of a screw-up is way too high. The current custodian might charge you a fee for closing the account, or for ""breaking a CD"" if that savings account is a CD and you are withdrawing the money before the maturity date of the CD. This will be spelled out in the Roth IRA custodial agreement that you accepted when you opened the account (but most likely did not read in full when you received it, and might even have discarded). One final note: with just $11K, please do not open a brokerage account for your Roth IRA and invest in stocks, bonds etc.  For now, invest all your Roth IRA in a single low-cost mutual fund (preferably an index fund such as the Vanguard S&P 500 Index fund or Fidelity Spartan 500 fund); you can branch out into more funds when you have more money in your Roth IRA. Investing in these funds does not need you to have a brokerage account; you can do it directly on the fund's website. Avoid (for now) the siren song of Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) because you need to have a brokerage account to buy and sell them.  When you have more money in your Roth IRA account, say in ten years' time, you can start investing in individual stocks, ETFs and the like through a brokerage account, but don't do it now."

negative: "IRAs have huge tax-advantages. You'll pay taxes when you liquidate gold and silver. While volatile, ""the stock market has never produced a loss during any rolling 15-year period (1926-2009)"" [PDF]. This is perhaps the most convincing article for retirement accounts over at I Will Teach You To Be Rich. An IRA is just a container for your money and you may invest the money however you like (cash, stocks, funds, etc). A typical investment is the purchase of stocks, bonds, and/or funds containing either or both. Stocks may pay dividends and bonds pay yields. Transactions of these things trigger capital gains (or losses). This happens if you sell or if the fund manager sells pieces of the fund to buy something in its place (i.e. transactions happen without your decision and high turnover can result in huge capital gains). In a taxable account you will pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. In an IRA you don't ever pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. Over the life of the IRA (30+ years) this can be a huge ton of savings. A traditional IRA is funded with pre-tax money and you only pay tax on the withdrawal. Therefore you get more money upfront to invest and more money compounds into greater amounts faster. A Roth IRA you fund with after-tax dollars, but your withdrawals are tax free. Traditional versus Roth comparison calculator. Here are a bunch more IRA and 401k calculators. Take a look at the IRA tax savings for various amounts compared to the same money in a taxable account. Compounding over time will make you rich and there's your reason for starting young. Increases in the value of gold and silver will never touch compounded gains. So tax savings are a huge reason to stash your money in an IRA. You trade liquidity (having to wait until age 59.5) for a heck of a lot more money. Though isn't it nice to be assured that you will have money when you retire? If you aren't going to earn it then, you'll have to earn it now. If you are going to earn it now, you may as well put it in a place that earns you even more. A traditional IRA has penalties for withdrawing before retirement age. With a Roth you can withdraw the principal at anytime without penalty as long as the account has been open 5 years. A traditional IRA requires you take out a certain amount once you reach retirement. A Roth doesn't, which means you can leave money in the account to grow even more. A Roth can be passed on to a spouse after death, and after the spouse's death onto another beneficiary. more on IRA Required Minimum Distributions."

negative: Without making specific recommendations, it is worthwhile to point out the differing tax treatments for a Roth IRA: investments in a Roth IRA will not be taxed when you withdraw them during retirement (unless they change the law on that or something crazy). So if you are thinking about investing in some areas with high risk and high potential reward (e.g. emerging market stocks) then the Roth IRA might be the place to do it. That way, if the investment works out, you have more money in the account that won't ever be taxed. We can talk about the possible risks of certain kinds of investments, but this is not an appropriate forum to recommend for or against them specifically. Healthcare stocks are subject to political risk in the current regulatory climate. BRICs are subject to political risks regarding the political and business climate in the relevant nations, and the growth of their economies need not correspond with growth in the companies you hold in your portfolio. Energy stocks are subject to the world economic climate and demand for oil, unless you're talking alternative-energy stocks, which are subject to political risk regarding their subsidies and technological risk regarding whether or not their technologies pan out. It is worth pointing out that any ETF you invest in will have a prospectus, and that prospectus will contain a section discussing the risks which could affect your investment. Read it before investing! :)

negative: If you have just started an IRA (presumably with a contribution for 2012),  you likely have $5000 in it, or $10,000 if you made a full contribution for  2013 as well. At this time, I would recommend putting it all in a  single low-cost mutual fund. Typically, mutual funds that track an index such as the S&P 500 Index have lower costs (annual expense fees) than actively managed funds, and most investment companies offer such mutual funds, with Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, to name a few, having very low expenses even among index funds. Later, when you have more money in the account, you can consider diversifying into more funds, buying stocks and bonds, investing in ETFs, etc. Incidentally, if you are just starting out and your Roth IRA is essentially your first investment experience, be aware that you do not need a brokerage account for your Roth IRA until you have more money in the account to invest and specifically want to buy individual stocks and bonds instead of just mutual funds. If you opened a brokerage account for your Roth IRA, close it and  transfer the Roth IRA to your choice of mutual fund company; else you will be paying annual fees to the brokerage for maintaining your account, inactivity fees since you won't be doing any trading, etc. The easiest way to do this is to go to the mutual fund company web site and tell them that you want to transfer your IRA to them (not roll over your IRA to them) and they will take care of all the paper work and collecting your money from the brokerage (ditto if your Roth IRA is with a bank or another mutual fund company). Then close your brokerage account.

negative: Edited in response to JoeTaxpayer's comment and OP Tim's additional question. To add to and clarify a little what littleadv has said, and to answer  OP Tim's next question: As far as the IRS is concerned, you have at most one Individual Retirement Account of each type (Traditional, Roth) though the money in each IRA can be invested with as many different custodians (brokerages, banks, etc.) and different investments as you like. Thus, the maximum $5000 ($6000 for older folks) that you can contribute each year can be split up and invested any which way you like, and when in later years you take a Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) from a Traditional IRA, you can get the money by selling just one of the investments, or from several investments; all that the IRS cares is that the total amount that is distributed to you is at least as large as the RMD. An important corollary is that  the balance in your IRA is the   sum total of the value of all the investments that various custodians are holding   for you in IRA accounts. There is no loss in an IRA until every penny has been withdrawn from every investment in your IRA and  distributed to you, thus making your IRA balance zero.  As long as you have a positive balance, there is no loss: everything has to come out. After the last distribution from your Roth IRA (the one that empties your entire Roth IRA, no matter where it is invested and reduces your Roth IRA balance (see definition  above) to zero), total up all the amounts that you have received as  distributions from your Roth IRA. If this is less  than the total amount of money you contributed to your Roth IRA  (this includes rollovers from a Traditional IRA or Roth 401k  etc., but not the earnings within the Roth IRA that you re-invested inside the Roth IRA), you have a loss that can be deducted on Schedule A as a Miscellaneous Deduction subject to the 2% AGI limit. This 2% is not a cap (in the sense that no more than 2% of your AGI can be deducted in this category)  but rather a threshold: you can only deduct whatever part of your total Miscellaneous Deductions exceeds  2% of your AGI. Not many people have Miscellaneous Deductions whose total exceeds 2% of their AGI, and so they end up not being able to deduct anything in this category. If you ever made nondeductible contributions to your  Traditional IRA because you were ineligible to make a  deductible contribution (income too high, pension plan  coverage at work etc), then the sum of all these contributions is your basis in your  Traditional IRA. Note that your deductible contributions, if any, are not part of the basis.  The above rules apply to  your basis in your Traditional IRA as well.  After the last distribution from your Traditional IRA (the one that empties  all your Traditional IRA accounts and reduces your Traditional IRA balance to zero), total up all the distributions that you received (don't forget to include the nontaxable part of each distribution that represents a return of the basis). If the sum total is less than your basis, you have a loss that can be deducted on Schedule A as a Miscellaneous  Deduction subject to the 2% AGI threshold. You can only deposit cash into an IRA and take a distribution in cash from an IRA. Now, as JoeTaxpayer points out, if your IRA owns stock, you can take a distribution by having the  shares transferred from your IRA account in your brokerage to your personal account in the brokerage.  However, the amount of the distribution, as reported by the brokerage to the IRS, is the value of the shares transferred as of the time of the transfer, (more generally  the fair market value of the property that is transferred out of the IRA) and this is the amount you report on your income  tax return. Any capital gain or loss on those shares remains inside the IRA because your basis (in your personal account) in the  shares that came out of the IRA is the amount of the distribution.  If you sell these shares at a later date, you will have a (taxable) gain or loss depending on whether you sold the shares for more or less than your basis. In effect, the share transfer transaction is as if you sold the shares in the IRA, took the proceeds as a cash distribution and immediately bought the same shares in your personal account, but you saved the transaction fees for the sale and the purchase and avoided paying the  difference between the buying and selling price of the shares as well as any changes in these in the microseconds that would have elapsed between the execution of the sell-shares-in-Tim's-IRA-account, distribute-cash-to-Tim, and buy-shares-in-Tim's-personal account transactions.  Of course, your broker will likely charge a fee for transferring ownership of the shares from your IRA to you.  But the important point is that any capital gain or loss within the IRA cannot be used to offset a gain or loss in your taxable accounts.  What happens inside the IRA stays inside the IRA.

negative: Why would someone invest in other instruments (e.g. stocks) to pay for   childrens' college education when the capital gains on those are   taxed, unlike a home equity loan? Many tax advantageous vehicles exist for the purpose of saving for college education such as 529 plans, Roth IRAs, Series EE and I bonds. Tax and penalty free distributions from a portfolio of stocks is possible if the distributions are for qualified education expenses and the account is in the form of a Roth IRA.  A house is collateral for a home equity line of credit.  A combination of unfortunate events could cause someone to default on the loan and loose their residence. Also, the tax advantages of 529 plans, and Roth IRAs are not applicable to purchase a motor boat.  With respect, some people like to leave the home equity loan untapped for other uses. More Details: 529 plans are not taxed by on the Federal level when the withdraws are used for college.  In many states, contributions to state sponsored 529 plans are deductible on the state level.  These are not self directed so you can't trade stocks/bonds in a 529 plan, however, certain plans allow you to lock in the rate you pay for credit at today's prices. If you want a self directed (ability to trade stocks/bonds) vehicle with tax free disbursements for qualified education, consider a Roth IRA. There are yearly contribution limits, and penalty if the proceeds are not used for qualified educational expenses. Also I believe interest revenue from Series EE and I bonds is tax free if the bond is used for education. There are special conditions and situations to 529 plans, Roth IRAs, Series EE and I bonds, the purpose of this answer was to expand upon the tax advantageous vehicles for higher education.

negative: "I only follow the news of stocks I already own.  I use the GlobeInvest Watchlist  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/my-watchlist/ each Friday night.    In the drop-down views choose ALL NEWS I believe that there is a strong ""grass is greaner .."" effect from always looking at what other stock are doing - leading to switching just before your first stock takes off. It is only when I sell some position that I go looking at other possibilities."

negative: If the IRA is costing you $100 a year, you should almost certainly transfer it to a cheaper provider, regardless of whether you're going to withdraw anything.  You can transfer the IRA to another provider that doesn't charge you the fees.  Or you can convert it to Roth and combine it with your existing Roth.  Either way, you will keep all the money, and save $100 per year in the future. If you want to take money out of your retirement accounts, you should take it out of your Roth IRA, because you can withdraw contributions (i.e., up to the amount you contributed) from the Roth without tax or penalty. Whether you should withdraw anything from your retirement accounts is a different question.  If you're already maxing out your Roth IRA, and you have sufficient retirement savings, you could just instead plow that $5500 into your student loans.  (If you can afford it, of course, it'd be better to just pay the $7500 from your income and still contribute to the retirement accounts.)  There's no reason to withdraw from retirement accounts to pay loans when you could just divert current income for that purpose instead.

negative: "Roth is currently not an option, unless you can manage to document income. At 6, this would be difficult but not impossible. My daughter was babysitting at 10, that's when we started her Roth.  The 529 is the only option listed that offers the protection of not permitting an 18 year old to ""blow the money."" But only if you maintain ownership with the child as beneficiary. The downside of the 529 is the limited investment options, extra layer of fees, and the potential to pay tax if the money is withdrawn without child going to college. As you noted, since it's his money already, you should not be the owner of the account. That would be stealing.  The regular account, a UGMA, is his money, but you have to act as custodian. A minor can't trade his own stock account. In that account, you can easily manage it to take advantage of the kiddie tax structure. The first $1000 of realized gains go untaxed, the next $1000 is at his rate, 10%. Above this, is taxed at your rate, with the chance for long tern capital gains at a 15% rate.  When he actually has income, you can deposit the lesser of up to the full income or $5500 into a Roth. This was how we shifted this kind of gift money to my daughter's Roth IRA. $2000 income from sitting permitted her to deposit $2000 in funds to the Roth. The income must be documented, but the dollars don't actually need to be the exact dollars earned. This money grows tax free and the deposits may be withdrawn without penalty. The gains are tax free if taken after age 59-1/2.  Please comment if you'd like me to expand on any piece of this answer."

negative: "The two dimensions are to open the trade (creating a position) and to buy or sell (becoming long or short the option). If you already own an option, you bought it to open and then you would sell it to close. If you don't own an option, you can either buy it to open, or sell it (short it) to open. If you are already short an option, you can buy it back to close. If you sell to open covered, the point is you're creating a ""covered call"" which means you own the stock, and then sell a call. Since you own the stock, the covered call has a lot of the risk of loss removed, though it also subtracts much of the reward possible from your stock."

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: "There's a bit of confusion here.  Michael's article you linked is focused on the issue of post-tax 401(k) deposits. For those new to this, it sounds like we are talking about Roth 401(k) money. Not so. The Roth IRA was introduced in 1998, and the Roth 401(k) in 2006. Before '06, people had the ability to deposit more to their 401(k) than the pretax limit of $15,000 into the account as ""after tax"" deposits. My understanding is that these funds were analogous to the non-deducted IRA deposits for those outside the income limits.  Michael goes on the point out that now, with the addition of Roth 401(k) and Roth IRAs, there are folk with pre and post Tax 401(k) funds and trying to crack them for transfer to Traditional IRA and Roth IRA may be problematic.  Aside from a recent thread here, there are separate accounts for the Roth 401(k) and Traditional 401(k), and it's possible for the traditional to contain post tax money, which, given the recent introduction of the Roth 401(k) conversion, should be easily addressable."

negative: "There's currently not much reason to keep around a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA in my opinion -- a Roth IRA is almost strictly better. Think about it: a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a Roth IRA of the same amount. In both cases, contributions are after-tax (so no tax deduction). But when you withdraw, for the Roth IRA you don't have to pay tax, and for the non-deductible Traditional IRA, you have to pay tax on the ""earnings"". A Roth IRA can be contributed to at pretty much any income level, thanks to the backdoor Roth IRA process (which uses a temporary non-deductible Traditional IRA in the process). So there is not much reason for a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA. As for your question, a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a taxable account. Well, a non-deductible Traditional IRA is contributed to with after-tax money, and taxed on the earnings only on withdrawal. So the taxation is almost identical to things like stocks and homes, where the gain is not realized until the thing is sold. However, compared to things like savings accounts and bonds, where you get taxed on the interest yearly, it is much better. Every time you get taxed on gains like this, it is taxing gains earned from after-tax money, so if you think of an amount of money as being equivalent to the amount of money it grows to over time (time value of money), then it is taxing money that is (or grown from money that is) already taxed. So it is better to have this only happen at the end at withdrawal than every year."

negative: "Chris's answer is a great start. Keep in mind that when you withdraw from a Roth IRA, you ""shrink"" the size of the IRA (i.e. if the start up flourishes, you can't put the $10k you withdrew back, as you're limited to ~$5k in contributions per year). You may want to consider funding your startup with a credit card (ideally a balance transfer of $10k at 0% interest).  If you need to, you can always pay your card off with your Roth balance, but if the startup takes off, your IRA is unharmed. (On a side note, I wouldn't feel comfortable quitting my job to do a startup with only $10k in savings, but to each his own!)"

negative: If you're sure you want to go the high risk route: You could consider hot stocks or even bonds for companies/countries with lower credit ratings and higher risk. I think an underrated cost of investing is the tax penalties that you pay when you win if you aren't using a tax advantaged account. For your speculating account, you might want to open a self-directed IRA so that you can get access to more of the high risk options that you crave without the tax liability if any of those have a big payout. You want your high-growth money to be in a Roth, because it would be a shame to strike it rich while you're young and then have to pay taxes on it when you're older. If you choose not to make these investments in a tax-advantaged account, try to hold your stocks for a year so you only get taxed at capital gains rates instead of as ordinary income. If you choose to work for a startup, buy your stock options as they vest so that if the company goes public or sells privately, you will have owned those stocks long enough to qualify for capital gains. If you want my actual advice about what I think you should do: I would increase your 401k percentage to at least 10% with or without a match, and keep that in low cost index funds while you're young, but moving some of those investments over to bonds as you get closer to retirement and your risk tolerance declines. Assuming you're not in the 25% tax bracket, all of your money should be in a Roth 401k or IRA because you can withdraw it without being taxed when you retire.  The more money you put into those accounts now while you are young, the more time it all has to grow. The real risk of chasing the high-risk returns is that when you bet wrong it will set you back far enough that you will lose the advantage that comes from investing the money while you're young. You're going to have up and down years with your self-selected investments, why not just keep plugging money into the S&P which has its ups and downs, but has always trended up over time?

negative: Well it would appear that you had a wash sale that canceled out a loss position.  Without seeing the entire report, I couldn't tell you exactly what was happening or how you triggered § 1091.  But just from the excerpted images, it appears as though your purchase of stock was layered into multiple tranches - perhaps you acquired more of the stock in the 61-day period than you sold (possibly because of a prior holding).   If in the 61-day period around the sale of stock (30 days before and 30 days after), you also acquire the same stock (including by contract or option), then it washes out your loss.  If you held your stock for a while, then in a 61-day period bought more, and sold some, then any loss would be washed out by the acquisition.  Of course it is also a wash sale if your purchase of the stock follows your sale, rather than precedes it.  Your disallowed loss goes into the basis of your stock holding, so will be meaningful when you do have a true economic sale of that stock. From IRS Pub 550: A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. If you sell stock and your spouse or a corporation you control buys substantially identical stock, you also have a wash sale. Looking at your excerpted account images, we can see a number of positions sold at a loss (sale proceeds less than basis) but each one is adjusted to a zero loss.  I suspect the fuller picture of your account history and portfolio will show a more complicated and longer history with this particular stock.  That is likely the source of the wash sale disallowed loss notations. You might be able to confirm that all the added numbers are appearing in your current basis in this stock (or were reflected upon your final exit from the stock).

negative: Don’t take the cash deposit whatever you do. This is a retirement savings vehicle after all and you want to keep this money designated as such.   You have 3 options:  1) Rollover the old 401k to the new 401k. Once Your new plan is setup you can call who ever runs that plan and ask them how to get started. It will require you filling out a form with the old 401k provider and they’ll transfer the balance of your account directly to the new 401k.  2) Rollover the old 401k to a Traditional IRA. This involves opening a new traditional IRA if you don’t already have one (I assume you don’t). Vanguard is a reddit favorite and I can vouch for them as Well. Other shops like Fidelity and Schwab are also good but since Vanguard is very low cost and has great service it’s usually a good choice especially for beginners.  3) Convert the old 401k to a ROTH IRA. This is essentially the same as Step 2, the difference is you’ll owe taxes on the balance you convert. Why would you voluntarily want to pay taxes f you can avoid them with options 1 or 2? The beauty of the ROTH is you only pay taxes on the money you contribute to the ROTH, then it grows tax free and when you’re retired you get to withdraw it tax free as well. (The money contained in a 401k or a traditional IRA is taxed when you withdraw in retirement).   My $.02. 401k accounts typically have higher fees than IRAs, even if they own the same mutual funds the expense ratios are usually more in the 401k. The last 2 times I’ve changed jobs I’ve converted the 401k money into my ROTH IRA. If it’s a small sum of money and/or you can afford to pay the taxes on the money I’d suggest doing the same.  You can read up heavily on the pros/cons of  ROTH vs Traditional but My personal strategy is to have 2 “buckets” or money when I retire (some in ROTH and some in Traditional). I can withdraw as much money from the Traditional account until I Max out the lowest Tax bracket and then pull any other money I need from the ROTH accounts that are tax free.This allows you to keep taxes fairly low in retirement.  If you don’t have a ROTH now this is a great way to start one.

negative: "My original plan was to wait for the next economic downturn and invest   in index funds. These funds have historically yielded 6-7% annually   when entered at any given time, but maybe around 8-9% annually when   entered during a recession. These numbers have been adjusted for   inflation. Questions or comments on this strategy? Educate yourself as index funds are merely a strategy that could be applied to various asset classes such as US Large-cap value stocks, Emerging Market stocks, Real Estate Investment Trusts, US Health Care stocks, Short-term bonds, and many other possibilities. Could you be more specific about which funds you meant as there is some great work by Fama and French on the returns of various asset classes over time. What about a Roth IRA? Mutual fund? Roth IRA is a type of account and not an investment in itself, so while I think it is a good idea to have Roth IRA, I would highly advise researching the ins and outs of this before assuming you can invest in one. You do realize that index funds are just a special type of mutual fund, right? It is also worth noting that there are a few kinds of mutual funds: Open-end, exchange-traded and closed-end. Which kind did you mean? What should I do with my money until the market hits another   recession? Economies have recessions, markets have ups and downs. I'd highly consider forming a real strategy rather than think, ""Oh let's toss it into an index fund until I need the money,"" as that seems like a recipe for disaster. Figure out what long-term financial goals do you have in mind, how OK are you with risk as if the market goes down for more than a few years straight, are you OK with seeing those savings be cut in half or worse?"

negative: "First off, high five on the paycheck.  There are a few retirement issues to deal with. 401k issues - At that income level, you will probably fall into the ""Highly Compensated Employee"" category, which means things get a little more complicated, both for you and your employer.  (Wikipedia link) IRA issues - As you already realized, you make too much to directly open and contribute to a Roth IRA.  You can open a Traditional IRA, however.  Your income is already over the limit for Traditional IRA deduction (bummer), so it would seem there is little point to opening an IRA at all. However, there is a way to take advantage of a Roth IRA, even at your income level.  It is possible to convert a Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA.  There used to be income limits on the ability to do the conversion, which would have normally made this off limits to you.  Starting in 2010, the income limit is removed, so you can do this. Basically, you open a Traditional IRA, max it out, then convert it to a Roth.  Since there was no income deduction, you shouldn't have to pay any more taxes.  (link) Disclaimer: I've never tried this, nor do I know anyone who has, so you might want to research it a bit more before you try it yourself."

negative: A Roth IRA is just an account wrapper.  Inside a Roth IRA you can have a plain 0.1% savings account, or a brokerage account, or an annuity or whatever.  There's no rate of return for a Roth IRA. That particular calculator seems to assume you'll be wrapping a brokerage account in a Roth IRA and investing in the stock market.  Over a long period 6% is probably a reasonable rate of return considering the S&P 500 has returned about 7% over the last decade.

negative: "To answer your question point by point - I'd focus on the last point. The back of my business card -  Let's focus on Single. The standard deduction and exemption add to over $10K. I look at this as ""I can have $250K in my IRA, and my $10K (4%) annual withdrawal will be tax free. It takes another $36,900 to fill the 10 and 15% brackets. $922K saved pretax to have that withdrawn each year, or $1.17M total.  That said, I think that depositing to Roth in any year that one is in the 15% bracket or lower can make sense. I also like the Roth Roulette concept, if only for the fact that I am Google's first search result for that phrase.  Roth Roulette is systematically converting and recharacterizing each year the portion of the converted assets that have fallen or not risen as far in relative terms. A quick example. You own 3 volatile stocks, and convert them to 3 Roth accounts. A year later, they are (a) down 20%, (b) up 10%, (c) up 50%. You recharacterize the first two, but keep the 3rd in the Roth. You have a tax bill on say $10K, but have $15K in that Roth."

negative: Energy Transfer Partners, LP (stock symbol ETP) is the parent company of Dakota Access LLC, the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline.  Since ETP is a publicly traded company, it is certainly possible to purchase the stock. To answer your questions: Would it not be possible to buy their stocks, bring down the price of the stocks and keep it there until investors pull out because it is financially unwise to these investors? You cannot artificially bring the price of a stock down by buying the stock.  Purchasing large enough amounts would theoretically cause the price to go up, not down. You could theoretically cause the stock to go down by shorting the stock (borrowing shares and then selling them), but it would take a lot of shares to do this, and may not be successful.  If not successful, your losses are potentially unlimited. Would it alternatively be possible to buy enough stock to have a voice in the operations of the company? Yes, you could theoretically purchase enough of the stock to control the company.  The market capitalization of ETP is currently $17.9 Billion; if you owned half of the stock, you would have complete control of the company.  But buying that much stock would certainly influence the price of the stock, so it would cost you more than half of that amount to buy that much stock. You could get yourself a voice at the table for less without owning a full half of the stock, but you would not have full control, and would need support from others to get the outcome you want. Alternatively, someone determined to exert their influence could theoretically make an offer to purchase the Dakota Access subsidiary from ETP, which might be less costly than purchasing half of the entire corporation. Even if an extremely wealthy person were to try one of these options and destroy this company, it wouldn't necessarily stop another company from building something similar.  The investors you purchased the company from would have billions of dollars to do so with.

negative: "That depends, really. Generally speaking, though - Roth IRAs are THE PLACE for Stock-Market/Mutual-Fund investing. All the off the wall (or, not so off the wall) things like Real Estate investments, or buying up gold, or whatever other ideas you hear from people - they may be good or bad or whatnot. But your Roth IRA is maybe not the best place for that sort of thing.  The whole philosophy behind IRAs is to deliberately set aside money for the future. Anything reasonable will work for this. Explore interesting investment ideas with today's money, not tomorrow's money. That being said - at your age I would go for the riskier options within what's available.  If I were in your situation (and I have been, recently), I would lean toward low-fee mutual funds classified as ""Growth"" funds.  My own personal opinion (THIS IS NOT ADVICE) is that Small Cap International funds are the place to be for young folks. That's a generalized opinion based on my feel for the world, but I don't think I'm personally competent to start making specific stock picks. So, mutual funds makes sense to me in that I can select the fund that generally aligns with my sense of things, and assume that their managers will make reasonably sound decisions within that framework. Of course that assumption has to be backed up with reputation of the specific MF company and the comparative performance of the fund relative to other funds in the same sector. As to the generalized question (how else can you work toward financial stability and independence), outside of your Roth IRA: find ways to boost your earning potential over time, and buy a house before the next bubble (within the next 18 months, I'm GUESSING)."

negative: First of all, there are some differences between the retirement accounts that you mentioned regarding taxes.  Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts allow you to make pre-tax contributions, giving you an immediate tax deduction when you contribute.  Roth IRA, Roth 401(k) are funded with after tax money, and a non-retirement account is, of course, also funded with after tax money.  So if you are looking for the immediate tax deduction, this is a point in favor of the retirement accounts. Roth IRA & Roth 401(k) accounts allow the investment to grow tax-free, which means that the growth is not taxed, even when taking the investment out at retirement.  With Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts, you need to pay tax on the gains realized in the account when you withdraw the money, just as you do with a non-retirement account.  This is a point in favor of the Roth retirement accounts. To answer your question about capital gains, yes, it is true that you do not have a capital gain until an investment is sold.  So, discounting the contribution tax deductions of the retirement accounts, if you only bought individual stocks that never paid a dividend, and never sold them until retirement, you are correct that it really wouldn't matter if you had it in a regular brokerage account or in a traditional IRA.  However, even people dedicated to buy-and-hold rarely actually buy only individual stocks and hold them for 30 years. There are several different circumstances that will generally happen in the time between now and when you want to withdraw the money in retirement that would be taxable events if you are not in a retirement account: If you sell an investment and buy a different one, the gains would be taxable. If you want to rebalance your holdings, this also involves selling a portion of your investments.  For example, if you want to maintain an 80% stock/20% bond ratio, and your stock values have gone up to 90%, you might want to sell some stock and buy bonds.  Or if you are getting closer to retirement, you might decide to go with a higher percentage of bonds.  This would trigger capital gains. Inside a mutual fund, anytime the management sells investments inside the fund and realizes capital gains, these gains are passed on to the investors, and are taxable.  (This happens more often with managed funds than index funds, but still happens occasionally with index funds.) Dividends earned by the investments are taxable.  Any of these events in a non-retirement account would trigger taxes that need to be paid immediately, even if you don't withdraw a cent from your account.

negative: I have considered doing the same thing. One idea I have tossed around is investing in a REIT. A REIT is kind of like a Mutual Fund for real-estate. They normally own a large portfolio of real-estate (perhaps apartments, or commercial space, etc) and by owning a share you get some of the upward swing, without the hassle of ownership (i.e. you can sell instantaneously). The REIT sometimes handles the whole lifecycle of property management: finding renters, collecting rent, maintenance, etc. There are a lot of public REITs in the US that you can buy. Another option might be to buy shares in a Home Building company like KB Homes.  Yet another option that ties onto your lack of retirement savings is the little known fact that after tax Roth IRA contributions can be withdrawn without penalty! Since 401ks can be rolled over into a Roth IRA (normally you have to leave your employer), in theory a 401k contributions can also be cashed out you just need to be careful about tracking your contributions.

negative: It might be easiest to think of stock exchanges like brokers.  If you buy a home, and your broker goes bankrupt, you still own your home, but you could not sell it without the aid of another broker.   Same with stocks, you own the stocks you buy, but you would be unable to either purchase new stocks or sell your stock holdings without an exchange.

negative: I know in the instance that if my MAGI exceeds a certain point, I can   not contribute the maximum to the Roth IRA; a traditional IRA and   subsequent backdoor is the way to go. My understanding is that if you ever want to do a backdoor Roth, you don't want deductible funds in a Traditional account, because you can't choose to convert only the taxable funds. From the bogleheads wiki: If you have any other (non-Roth) IRAs, the taxable portion of any   conversion you make is prorated over all your IRAs; you cannot convert   just the non-deductible amount. In order to benefit from the   backdoor, you must either convert your other IRAs as well (which may   not be a good idea, as you are usually in a high tax bracket if you   need to use the backdoor), or else transfer your deductible IRA   contributions to an employer plan such as a 401(k) (which may cost you   if the 401(k) has poor investment options).


query: Has the likelihood of getting a lower interest rate by calling & asking been reduced by recent credit card regulations?

positive: "I don't know that this can actually be answered objectively.  Maybe it can with some serious research.  (Read: data on what the issuers have been doing since the law went into affect.) Personally, I think the weak economy and general problems with easy credit are a bigger issue than the new rules.  Supposedly, there is evidence that card issuers are trying to make up for the lost income due to the new regulations with higher fees.  I believe that your credit rating and history with the issuer is a larger factor now.  In other words, they may be less likely to lower your rate just to keep you as a customer or to attract new customers. According to The Motley Fool, issuers dropped their riskiest customers as a result of the new regulations. Some say that new laws simply motivated the issuers to find new ways to ""gouge"" their customers. Here are two NYTimes blog posts about the act: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/what-the-credit-card-act-means-for-you/ http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/the-effects-of-the-credit-card-act/ As JohnFx states, it does not hurt to ask."

negative: There is one massive catch in this which I found out when I went to Nationwide to ask for a loan. I've got a credit card which they kept increasing my credit limit, it's now at something ridiculous - nearly £10,000 but they keep increasing it. I never use that card, when I went to Nationwide though they said they couldn't give me a loan because I had £10,000 credit already and if I reduced this credit this would affect my credit rating and they could potentially give me a loan. I then realised what MBNA had craftily done.  I have two cards with this bank, one with really low interest and the other with really high interest (and a high credit limit) - even though the other card has a zero balance loan companies still see it as money I could potentially go and spend, it doesn't matter to them that I've not spent any money on that card in about 12 months, to them it's the fact that they could give me a loan and then I could go and spend another £10,000 on that card (as you can see extremely risky).   Of course this means that what MBNA are craftily doing is giving me such a high credit, knowing full well that I'm not going to use it, but it also prevents their competitors from offering me a loan, even at a lower rate, because I've already got too much credit available. So yes there is a catch to giving you a high credit limit on your cards and it's to prevent you from either leaving that bank or getting a lower interest rate loan out to clear the debt.

negative: I wouldn't advocate it, but one reason to pay a lower interest rate is if you have $990 on a $1000 limit credit card with 6% interest and $5000 on a $15k limit card at 10% interest. Having $500 to pay in a month and putting it on the lower interest would free up a greater percentage of credit on that card and could potentially help your credit rating I believe. I think having $1000 on 10 different credit cards w/ $15k limit reflects better than $10k on one $15k card, regardless of interest rates. Personally I think that's dumb b/c having the extra credit available is an opportunity to get into trouble a lot easier.

negative: "The best way I know of to get the interest rate lowered is to call the credit card company and simply ask. Typically if a credit card company thinks you will leave them for another company they will be willing to work with you.  There is also the option of transfering some of the higher interest debt to one of the lower interest credit cards. It sounds like you have your friend on the right track by focusing all extra money on the credit card with the highest interest rate. Then after that one is paid off send all extra to the next highest one and so on.  The classic ""snowball"" effect."

negative: "There are some loan types where your minimum payment may be less than the interest due in the current period; this is not true of credit cards in the US.  Separately, if you have a minimum payment amount due of less than the interest due in the period, the net interest amount would just become principal anyway so differentiating it isn't meaningful. With credit cards in the US, the general minimum calculation is 1% of the principal outstanding plus all interest accrued in the period plus any fees.  Any overpayment is applied to the principal outstanding, because this is a revolving line of credit and unpaid interest or fees appear as a charge just like your coffee and also begin to accrue interest.  The issue arises if you have multiple interest rates.  Maybe you did a balance transfer at a discounted interest rate; does that balance get credited before the balance carried at the standard rate?  You'll have to call your lender.  While there is a regulation in place requiring payment to credit the highest rate balance first the banks still have latitude on how the payment is literally applied; explained below.   When there IS an amortization schedule, the issue is not ""principal or interest"" the issue is principle, or the next payment on the amortization schedule.  If the monthly payment on your car loan is $200, but you send $250, the bank will use the additional $50 to credit the next payment due.  When you get your statement next month (it's usually monthly) it will indicate an amount due of $150.  When you've prepaid more than an entire payment, the next payment is just farther in to the future.  You need to talk to your lender about ""unscheduled"" principal payments because the process will vary by lender and by specific loan. Call your lender.  You are a customer, you have a contract, they will explain this stuff to you.  There is no harm that can possibly come from learning the nuances of your agreement with them. Regarding the nuance to the payment regulation: A federal credit card reform law enacted in May 2009 requires that credit card companies must apply your entire payment, minus the required minimum payment amount, to the highest interest rate balance on your card.  Some credit card issuers are aggressive here and apply the non-interest portion of the minimum payment to the lowest interest rate first.  You'll need to call your bank and ask them."

negative: 1. you want /r/personalfiance  2. 1 payment or 4-5 makes no difference 3. what makes the difference are a) interest rate b) pay as much as possible every month 4. pay as much as you can into the credit card with the highest interest rate, and the minimum payment on the rest; as you pay off a credit card, make as big of a payment to the one that has the highest interest rate 5. stop charging anything on any credit card and stop getting into any kind of debt 6. as you pay off a credit card, call the company and cancel it.

negative: No. Getting more credit lowers your credit utilization ratio (if you don't use it), which raises your credit rating, this can also be done by asking for a higher limit on your existing credit card. Also, there is a chance that the company you got your first card from won't pull your credit a second time when they go to the underwriter. As any extensions of credit lower your credit score, although the credit utilization ratio is weighted more heavily.

negative: Between half a year and a year should be enough to improve your interest rates drastically on car loan refinance. Make sure that your new credit card has already been reported to the agencies, and that the credit/debt ratio is lower than 30% on your revolving (credit card) accounts. That also means that you shouldn't carry too much balance, even if the APR is 0%.

negative: "Basically, your CC is (if normal) compounded monthly, based on a yearly APR. To calculate the amount of interest you'd pay on each of these accounts in a year, pull up a spreadsheet like Office Excel. Put in your current balance, then multiply it by the annual interest rate divided by 12, and add that quantity to the balance. Subtract any payment you make, and the result is your new balance. You can project this out for several months to get a good estimate of what you'll pay; in accounting or finance terms, what you're creating is an ""amortization table"". So, with a $10,000 balance, at 13.99% interest and making payments of $200/mo, the amortization table for one year's payments might look like: As you can see, $200 isn't paying down this card very quickly. In one year, you will have paid $2,400, of which $1,332.25 went straight into the bank's pockets in interest charges, reducing your balance by only $1,067.75. Up the payments to $300/mo, and in 1 year you will have paid $3,600, and only been charged $1,252.24 in interest, so you'll have reduced your balance by $2,347.76 to only $7,652.24, which further reduces interest charges down the line. You can track the differences in the Excel sheet and play ""what-ifs"" very easily to see the ramifications of spending your $5,000 in various ways. Understand that although, for instance, 13.99% may be your base interest rate, if the account has become delinquent, or you made any cash advances or balance transfers, higher or lower interest rates may be charged on a portion of the balance or the entire balance, depending on what's going on with your account; a balance transfer may get 0% interest for a year, then 19.99% interest after that if not paid off. Cash advances are ALWAYS charged at exorbitantly high rates, up to 40% APR.  Most credit card bills will include what may be called an ""effective APR"", which is a weighted average APR of all the various sub-balances of your account and the interest rates they currently have. Understand that your payment first pays off interest accrued during the past cycle, then pays down the principal on the highest-interest portion of the balance first, so if you have made a balance transfer to another card and are using that card for purchases, the only way to avoid interest on the transfer at the post-incentive rates is to pay off the ENTIRE balance in a year. The minimum payment on a credit card USED to be just the amount of accrued interest or sometimes even less; if you paid only the minimum payment, the balance would never decrease (and may increase). In the wake of the 2008 credit crisis, most banks now enforce a higher minimum payment such that you would pay off the balance in between 3 and 5 years by making only minimum payments. This isn't strictly required AFAIK, but because banks ARE required by the CARD Act to disclose the payoff period at the minimum payment (which would be ""never"" under most previous policies), the higher minimum payments give cardholders hope that as long as they make the minimum payments and don't charge any more to the card, they will get back to zero."

negative: Just call your credit union and ask if they will let you refinance at the lower rate. If they won't, then just increase your payment every month so that your car is paid off early (in 36 months instead of 60). You won't get the lower rate, but since your loan will be paid early, you'll be saving interest anyway.

negative: Get a loan at a decent interest rate and use that to pay off all of the credit cards. Then pay into that loan and leave the credit cards alone. Cancel them and don't use them. Credit card debt is possibly the worst kind of debt. So expensive. It's not designed for long term borrowing. It's designed to be paid off completely every month. Get a single loan and consolidate all your debt into it. It will have a lower interest rate and cost you a lot less in the long term.

negative: Since you are not paying the full balance off each month you are carrying a balance from month to month. That balance is being charged some interest rate X. With a balance transfer, the new credit card pays off that balance. As a result you now have a balance of the same amount (plus any processing charges) on the new credit card. Hence the balance has transferred from the old to the new. And you now pay the new credit card. Ideally you do this because the new credit card is offering a reduced interest rate, saving you money. Though be warned often that transfer rate is a limited time deal and any left over after the window expires will be charged the higher rate.

negative: I'm going to suggest a slightly different approach. Most answers seem to suggest paying off the lower rate card to clear it. Some answers / comments also talk about emergency funds. One risk of paying off a card is that the card issuer may choose to reduce your credit limit if they see you as high risk, to prevent you re-spending the money. If you don't trust yourself with the card then this could be a good thing (and remember you're always free to ask for a limit decrease). But if you want access to emergency funds, then I would suggest paying half onto each card. That way if one card cuts you off, you have a chance of still having access to the other in an emergency.

negative: The implied intent is that balance transfers are for your balances, not someone else's.  However, I bet it would be not only allowed but also encouraged.  Why?  Because the goal of a teaser rate is to get you to borrow. Typically there is a balance transfer fee that allows the offering company to break even.  In the unlikely event that a person does pay off the balance in the specified time frame the account and is then closed, then nothing really lost. Its hard to find past articles I've read as all the search engines are trying to get me to enroll in a balance transfer.  However, about 75% of 0% balance xfers result in converting to a interest being accrued.  If you are familiar with the amount of household credit card debt we carry, as a nation, that figure is very believable. To answer your question, I would assume they would allow it.  However I would call and check and get their answer in writing.  Why?  Because if they change their mind or the representative tells you incorrectly, and they find out, they will convert your 0% credit card to an 18% or higher interest rate for violating the terms.  Same as if a payment was missed. From the credit card company's perspective they would be really smart to allow you to do this.  The likelihood that your family member will pay the bill beyond two months is close to zero.  The likelihood that a payment will be missed or late allowing them to convert to a higher rate is very high.  This then might lead to you being overextended which would mean just more interest rates and fees.  Credit card company wins!  I would not be surprised if they beg you to follow through on your plan. From your perspective it would be a really dumb idea, but as you said you knew that. Faced with the same situation I would just pay off one or more of the debts for the family member if I thought it would actually help them.  I would also require them to have some financial accountability.   Its funny that once you require financial accountability for handouts, most of those seeking a donation go elsewhere.

negative: fine because the application was declined anyway. No it isn't fine. Credit card applications generally need a hard pull, so get it rectified. Firstly check if an application was really made on your behalf. Some companies use this ploy to pull you into a scheme of making you apply for a credit card. Secondly call up the credit card company and ask them about the details of who had made the application as you haven't done so and inform them that it was a fraudulent application. It might be somebody is using your personal details to do a identity theft in your name. Thirdly get in touch with the credit rating firms and see if a check has been made on your credit report. Dispute it if you see a check in your record and have it removed from your report. If you subscribe to credit agency, get the identity theft protection, helps you in such cases. And finally keep a diligent eye on your credit records from now on. Once bitten, twice shy.

negative: There are lots of things to consider in addition to your questions.  The rules changed in the US recently. I think you mean you will save more money. Your interest rate isn't likely to go up, but your principle will, so you will earn more interest income than before.   I would wager it won't be a significant amount however. You can certainly earn a reward, either cash back, points, miles or something else. BUT the sticking point with earning things with your card is harder than before.  Due to rules changes, merchants can now recuperate the fees they pay for accepting your credit card.  Rewards cards have a higher fee than non-rewards cards (because banks aren't in charities).  So now, depending on the merchant's choice, you could see a higher cost paying with a credit card (or a debit card) and that cost could wipe out your reward. And if your card has a fee, it has always been true that you need to evaluate the annual fee to confirm the benefit is more than paying for the fee. Additional advantages to credit cards

negative: "In the sole interest of improving your credit score, the thing you should focus on is lowering your overall utilization. The best thing you could do for this would be to get a loan to reconsolidate your credit card debts into a single, long term loan. The impact of this is that your credit card utilization, assuming the loan covers 100% of your balances, will suddenly drop to 0%, as you'll no longer have a balance on the cards. Additionally, at this point, with a consolidation loan, you'll be building loan history by making steady, fixed payments on the loan.  The loan will also, ideally, have a significantly lower interest rate than the cards, and thus will save you money that you'd otherwise be spending on interest.  A lot of others here will feed you some additonal, irrelevant advice - ""Pay off X credit card first!""; Ideally, you need to eliminate this debt. But to directly address the question of how you could improve your credit score, based on your utilization, I believe the best option would be for you to reconsolidate your credit card debt into a single loan, to reduce your utilization on the cards."

negative: If your credit is good, you should immediately attempt to refinance your high rate credit cards by transferring the balance to credit cards with lower interest rates.You might want to check at your local credit union, credit unions can offer great rates. Use the $4000 to pay off whatever is left on the high rate cards. If your credit is bad, I suggest you call your credit card company and try to negotiate with them. If they consider you a risk they might settle your account for fraction of what you own if you can send payment immediately. Don't tell them you have money, just tell them your are trying to get your finances under control and see what they can offer you. This will damage your credit score but will get you out of depth much sooner and save you money in the long term. Also keep in mind that if they do settle, they'll close your account. That way, you leverage the $4000 and use it as a tool to get concessions from the bank.

negative: ">Darden, based in Orlando, Fla., has made cost cutting a priority in recent years as sales growth and traffic have stalled at its flagship chains...  > Given the challenging job market, Darden has been able to offer lower pay rates to new hires. Bonuses for general managers have been reduced as sales have stagnated. Servers at Red Lobster are handling four tables at a time, instead of three.  >And last year, the company also put workers on a ""tip sharing"" program, meaning waiters and waitresses share their tips with other employees such as busboys and bartenders. That allows Darden to pay more workers a far lower ""tip credit wage"" of $2.13, rather than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.    So their food sucks and they're cheap."

negative: Yes, Lending Club is the biggest of the bunch, which to date have helped originate $1B of loans. LC just raised more money (bringing total to $100M) and Mary Meeker joined the board. There's a novelty aspect to it b/c it's new but it's just the beginning of parts of the banking industry/process/institutions being disintermediated.   Low vol is an easy sell, actually. If investors aren't being paid for risk, why assume it?

negative: No, it is never impossible to get credit so long as there are no price controls or quotas. In most of the United States, the impetus for housing is so strong that it's one sector of credit that has nearly no price regulation, price in this case being interest rates. Corporate banks will not touch you now because Dodd-Frank now makes them liable to you and investors if you default on the mortgage.  Also, Fannie & Freddie, who ultimately finance most mortgages in the US now require banks to buy back loans if they fail, so banks are only financing the most creditworthy. All is not lost because markets are like rivers if not fully dammed: they find a way through. In your case, you can get a fully-financed mortgage if you're willing to pay interest rates probably double what you could otherwise get in the market with good credit. If the foreclosure process is quick and benefits the lender more in your state, the interest rate will be even lower. Your creditors will most likely be individuals you find at mortgage investment clubs and religious institutions.  If you shop around, you'll be surprised at how low a rate you might get. Also, since the cost of your prospective home is so low, it's very easy for an investor flush with cash and few investments to take a flier on a mother committed to her children who only needs $50,000. The FHA has been vastly expanded, and since your individual credit is clean, there may be a chance to get financing through it, but be prepared for red tape.

negative: "In practice No, not at zero. Banks currently have the ability to borrow at very low interest rates but not quite at zero.  Using the Fed Funds Range as a metric we can see that recently (Nov 2015) the lower bound of the fed funds range was 0.05%.  Fed funds are overnight lend/borrow transactions between banks (often between the federal home loan banks and other institutions) 0.05% is also the FED's current Reverse Repo Program rate (RRP), which is the rate at which certain counterparties can deposit cash with the FED overnight in exchange for collateral.  The collateral (US Treasuries) is insurance against the FED defaulting, a very low risk considering the FED has the ability to create more US Dollars out of thin air.  In theory the RRP rate should be a lower bound for the fed funds rate however in practice it is possible to see lower rates trade in the street. What do you mean by ""Third party institutions""? Only banks of the highest credit quality are able to borrow at the lower bound of the Fed Funds range.  These are usually large domestic banks like JP Morgan, Bank of NY etc...  As credit quality decreases the rate at which they borrow increases. Currently Skandinavien, German, French banks have relatively good credit and borrow overnight money towards the lower part of the fed funds range.  Italian, Spanish and smaller regional US banks have lesser credit quality and borrow at the higher end of the Fed Funds range. Institutions with lower credit quality would borrow at still higher rates."

negative: "Central Banks are essentially a cartel, designed to let banks in general borrow money from depositors at relatively low interest rates.  They do this in two ways:  By reassuring depositors that momentary cash flow problems at banks will not result in banks failing, they lower the interest rates that depositors demand.  And by imposing strict regulations on banks that are borrowing from depositors at high interest rates.  (People who move money to the banks offering the highest interest rates are especially likely to participate in bank runs.) Borrowing ""too much"" from the Central Bank is considered to be a sign of a bank that is too weak to attract deposits from depositors at ""reasonable"" interest rates. If a bank borrows ""too much"" (as a percentage of the bank's assets) from the Central Bank, the bank regulators will subject the bank to heavy scrutiny.  If the bank fails to find ways to reduce its borrowing from the Central Bank, the bank regulators are likely to steal the bank from its shareholders, and sell the bank to a ""stronger"" bank that pays lower interest rates."

negative: "Banks have to disclose up front the Annual Percentage Rate or interest rate that will be charged if you have an outstanding balance on a credit card. However, the APR of 19.9% is not charged all at once. For example if you had a $100 dollar balance on your credit card you would not be charged 19.9% interest or 19.90 making your new balance 119.90. Instead you would be charged the periodic rate which is one month's interest. You can easily calculate the period rate by dividing the APR by 12. So, 19.9% equals 1.65833% per month. This means if you had a $100 balance you would be charged 1.65833% interest or 1.66 making your new balance 101.66. Ask the bank or look on the website for a document called ""Cardholders Agreement"". If you can't find a link ask them for a copy so you can read all the fine print ahead of time."

negative: "For scoring purposes, having a DTI between 1-19% is ideal.  From Credit Karma:  That being said, depending on the loan type you looking at receiving (FHA, VA, Conventional, etc), there are certain max DTIs that you want to stay away from. As a rule, for VA, you want to try to stay away from 41% DTI. Exceptions are made for people with sufficient funds in the bank (3-9 months) to go to higher DTIs. If you keep a 19% utilization overall, that will get you a higher score but it will also show that you have a monthly payment on a particular revolving credit account. While the difference between 729 and 745 seems like a lot of points, there are rules as to how the interest rates are determined. So you will find that many banks have the same or similar rates due to recent legislation in Dodd-Frank. In the days of subprime mortgages, this was not the case. Adjustable rate mortgages did not necessarily go away, the servicer just has to make sure that the buyer can weather the full amount once it reaches maturity, not the lower amount. That is what got a lot of people in trouble. From ""how interest rates are set"": Before quoting you an interest rate, the loan officer will add on how   much he and his branch want to earn. The branch or company sets a   policy on how little that can be (the minimum amount the loan officer   adds on to his cost) but does not want to overcharge borrowers either   (so they set a maximum the loan officer can charge) Between that   minimum and maximum, the loan officer has a great deal of flexibility. For example, say the loan officer decides he and his branch are going   to earn one point. When you call and ask for a rate quote, he will add   one point to the cost of the loan and quote you that rate. According   to the rate sheet above, seven percent will cost you zero points. Six   and three-quarters percent will cost you one point. In our example, at 7.125% the loan officer and branch would earn one   point and have some money left over. This could be used to pay some of   the fees (processing, documents, etc), which is how you get a ""no fees   -no points"" mortgage. You just pay a higher interest rate. Where this scoring helps you is in credit card interest rates and auto loan and personal loan rates, which have different rate structures.  My personal opinion is to avoid the use of the credit cards. Playing games to try to maximize your score in this situation won't help you when you are talking about 20 points potentially. If you were at the bottom level and were trying to meet a minimum score to qualify, then I would recommend you try to game this scoring system. Take the extra money you would put on a credit card and save it for housing expenses. Taking the Dave Ramsey approach, you should have at least $1000 in emergency funds as most problems you encounter will be less than $1000. That advice rings true."

negative: "I think they gave you the answer: You haven't previously shown that you can run that particular card up to (near) its existing maximum and then pay it off, so they don't have a strong indication that you can handle that large an unsecured loan. Generally, requests to have the limits raised when there isn't evidence that the customer is finding the current limit inconvenient are going to be considered suspicious. Remember, a great credit rating does not require that they consider you a good risk -- it's just one of the things they consider. Why do you need the limit raised? Have you tried contacting the bank's credit department directly and discussing what they will or won't let you do? Re paying off the card every month: Remember, they do get a processing fee from the vendor. They'd prefer that we paid interest (I'm told the term of art for those of us who don't is ""deadbeats""), but they certainly don't lose money when we don't. And they'd generally rather have us be loyal customers who MIGHT someday pay interest, and who are bringing in fees, than have us go elsewhere."

negative: The answer to your question is no. Your credit rating is the way creditors let each other know whether you are in a good position and have a strong tendency to repay your debts, not whether you are an easy target for making money on interest and penalties associated with failing to repay debts in full.  The fact that you make your payments on time will definitely not lower your credit rating. While the banks are not making as much money on you as they would if you carried a balance, they are also not spending a lot of money on you, nor losing a lot of money on people like you failing to repay debts.  The transactions charged to the retailers cover the costs of operating your card and then a little bit.  That is enough to make you worth keeping as a customer.  They are happy with your arrangement. The formula for credit rating computation is proprietary, but we know what the factors are overall.  Making payments on time consistently is a positive, not a negative factor.  However, they do look at the number of cards and overall mix of cards and other types of debt.  For example, if you have a very large amount of credit capacity in your cards and no mortgage, that could possibly be a negative.  If you have opened some of those accounts recently, it could be a negative.  If you have a larger number credit cards than they think is good, that could be a negative. There are other things as well that could be bringing your score down.  Probably worth it to take a look. If you want to get an idea of what factors are adding positively and negatively to your credit score, I'd encourage you to visit CreditKarma.com, Quizzle.com, or another source intended to help you understand and improve your credit rating.

negative: Yes. The more money you put down = less money the bank needs to loan = greater chances of approval.

negative: "The question asked in your last paragraph (what's the downside) is answered simply; if you take out a loan and close the cards, that's a ding on your score because your leverage ratio on this portion of your credit jumps to 100% or more, and because you'll be reducing the average age of your lines of credit (one line of credit a few days old versus five lines of credit several years old each). If you take out the loan and don't close the accounts, it's one more line of credit, increasing your total credit, lowering your leverage, but making institutions more reluctant to give you any more credit until they see what you'll do with what you have. In either case, assuming you can get the loan at less than the average rate of the cards (that's actually not a guarantee; a lot of lenders will want APRs in the 20s or 30s even for a title loan or other collateralized loan), then your cost of capital will also go down. That gives you more of a gap of discretionary income that you can better use to ""snowball"" all this debt as you are planning. Another thing to keep in mind is that the minimum payment changes as the balance does. The minimum payment covers monthly interest at least, and therefore varies based on your interest rate (usually variable) and your balance (which will hopefully be decreasing). A constant payment over the current minimum, much like a more traditional amortization, would be preferable."

negative: "Your CHMC insurance is payable to the lender not to you if you default. So technically you get nothing from it. However the likelihood is that you could not have got this loan, or got it only at an extremely high interest rate, without this insurance. The Canadian government has a page on CHMC, including a link to a page called ""What's in it for you?""."

negative: Yes.  I've spoken to mortgage officers from various banks who will do conventional loans with anything as low as 3.5% down, however there are many more restrictions (e.g., normally you can borrow funds from a parent or relative for a down payment, in this case that was prohibited). If you are already pre-approved, then your approval letter should state the specifics you need to adhere to.  If you would like to modify that (e.g. put a smaller amount down), then you could still get the loan, but your pre-approval won't be valid. I would recommend speaking with your lender (and perhaps with a few others as well) about the new home you are looking at.

negative: "recently there has been an increase in Companies charging a Credit Card surcharge, the current law does not fix the amount so therefore company's can set there own surcharges, which means you can pay different surcharges at different places. In the ""Money"" magazine a couple of months ago there was an interesting article that discussed a possible cap that was going to be introduced to cut down on the fluctuations of Credit Card surcharges as some places are generating revenue by abusing the Credit Card surcharge. Something to keep in mind is to ensure when using a Debit card you are not charged the surcharge. some businesses will treat the Debit card the same as a Credit Card."

negative: CUs are now starting to adopt some of the bank's tricks, like using a longer float during online bill paying and for outside transfers.  Also for overdrafts they are now starting to kick into fees or automatic loans rather than transferring money from your savings account.  I've been a member for decades and my CUs weren't doing this previously.