query: Employer rollover from 403b to 401k?

positive: "403b plans are used by school districts, colleges and universities, nonprofit hospitals, charitable foundations and the like for their employees while 401k plans are used by most everybody else. I would suspect that a school district etc can use a 401k plan instead of a 403b plan if it chooses to do so, but the reverse direction is most likely forbidden: a (for-profit) company cannot use a 403b plan. One difference between a 403b plan and a 401k plan is that the employer can choose to offer, and the employee can choose to purchase, stock in the company inside the 401k plan. This option obviously is not available to charities etc. which don't issue stock. Your comment that the 403b plan invests solely in (variable) annuities suggests that the plan administrator is an insurance company  and that the employer is moving to more ""modern"" version that allows investments in mutual funds and the like. Forty years ago, my 403b plan was like that; the only investment choice was an annuity, but some time in the 1980s, the investment choices were broadened to include mutual funds (possibly because the 1986 Tax Reform Act changed the rules governing 403b plans).  So, are you sure that your employer is changing from a 403b plan to a 401k plan, or is it just a change of 403b plan administrator from the insurance company to another administrator who offers investment choices other than an annuity? Note, of course, that insurance companies have changed their options too. For example, TIAA (the Teachers' Insurance and Annuity Association) which was the 403b plan administrator for many schools and colleges became TIAA/CREF (College Retirement Equities Fund) where the CREF mutual funds actually were pretty good investments."

negative: "I would create a ""Rollover IRA"".   These IRAs are designed to take funds from a 401k and allow you to invest them without incurring a cash out penalty nor a tax due.   You will have more choices than if you leave it at your old 401k. If you cash out the 401k, you'll have much less to invest ($1500 - penalty - taxes) vs. doing a rollover 401k where you'll still have $1500 to invest. Then, once the money is inside the new Rollover IRA you can invest in whatever you please.   If you want to invest in Vanguard funds, I recommend opening the Rollover IRA at Vanguard.  Here is Vanguard's information page about rollovers from 401ks: https://investor.vanguard.com/what-we-offer/401k-rollovers/401k-403b-to-ira-rollover-benefits When you next change jobs and have another 401k with funds in it, you can roll it into the same Rollover IRA."

negative: For the rollover, you should probably talk to the recipient manager.  This would be your broker or whomever (your new employer if rolling into another 401k).  They should be able to update you on progress and let you know if you need to do anything.   In a comment, you say  I could be putting in money but instead im lossing. There is no requirement that an IRA have 401k money in it.  Just put the money in without the existing money.  Eventually the rollover will complete and add that money to whatever you contribute to the IRA.  The rollover should not affect your future contributions in any way.

negative: From your first link: IRS.gov: IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year-Rule IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year Rule Beginning in 2015, you can make only one rollover from an IRA to   another (or the same) IRA in any 12-month period, regardless of the   number of IRAs you own (Announcement  2014-15 and Announcement   2014-32). The limit will apply by aggregating all of an individual’s   IRAs, including SEP and SIMPLE IRAs as well as traditional and Roth   IRAs, effectively treating them as one IRA for purposes of the limit. They are limiting your ability to roll over money from an IRA to an IRA. You are looking to go from a 401K to an IRA. That is fine. The idea was that some people were taking all money from their IRA, using it for almost 60 days, then putting it back into an IRA. Thus getting a sort of short term loan. They could do this multiple times in a year. The direct trustee-to-trustee transfer are exempt from the once per year rule because the money is never in your possession.  Moving money from a 401K/403b/TSP plan from your former employer to an IRA or Roth IRA is fine, and isn't limited to once per year.

negative: AFAIK, individual 401k accounts are supposed to be funded from self-employment earnings, not from rollovers from 401k plans of previous employers. So, check with your accountant before making opening an individual 401k account and getting your previous 401k plan to re-issue the checks to be payable to your individual 401k account. You might also want to ask about whether loans are permitted from individual 401k accounts (my guess is they are not because the possibility of abuse of the privilege is too high since the employer and employee are the same individual).  In any case, loans against 401k plans are generally not a good idea, and many people on this forum have blogged about this matter.

negative: You can't rollover a 401k directly into a Roth IRA.  What you can do is rollover a 401k into a traditional IRA, and then convert some or all of the money to a Roth IRA.  This is independent of any contributions made to a traditional or Roth IRA.

negative: "Sometimes 403b's contain annuities or other insurance related instruments.  I know that in many New York schools the local teacher unions administer the 403b plan, and sometimes choose proprietary investments like variable annuities or other insurance products. In New York the Attorney General sued and settled with the state teacher's union for their endorsement of a high cost ING 403b plan -- I believe the maintenance fees were in excess of 3%/year!  In a tax deferred plan like a 401k, 403b or 457 plan, the low risk ""insurance fund"" is generally a GIC ""Guaranteed Investment Contract"". A GIC (aka ""Stable Value Fund"") is sort of cross between a CD and a Money Market fund. It's used by insurance companies to raise short term capital. GICs usually yield a premium versus a money market and are a safe investment. If your wife is in a 403b with annuities or other life-insurance tie ins other than GICs, make sure that you understand the fee structure and ask lots of questions."

negative: "The biggest reason why one might want to leave 401k money invested in an ex-employer's plan is that the plan offers some superior investment opportunities that are not available elsewhere, e.g. some mutual funds that are not open to individual investors such as S&P index funds for institutional investors (these have expense ratios even smaller than the already low expense ratios of good S&P index funds) or ""hot"" funds that are (usually temporarily) closed to new investors, etc. The biggest reason to roll over 401k money from an ex-employer's plan to the 401k plan of a new employer is essentially the same: the new employer's plan offers superior investment opportunities that are not available elsewhere. Of course, the new employer's  401k plan must accept such roll overs. I do not believe that it is a requirement that a 401k plan must accept rollovers, but rather an option that a plan can be set up to allow  for or not.  Another reason to roll over 401k money from one plan to another  (rather than into an IRA) is to keep it safe from creditors. If you are  sued and found liable for damages in a court proceeding, the plaintiff can come after IRA assets but not after 401k money.  Also, you can take a loan from the 401k money (subject to various rules about how much can be borrowed, payment requirements etc) which you cannot from an IRA. That being said, the benefits of keeping 401k money as 401k money must be weighed against the usually higher administrative costs and usually poorer and more limited choices of investment opportunities  available in most 401k plans as Muro has said already."

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: "There are certain allowable reasons to withdraw money from a 401K.  The desire to free your money from a ""bad"" plan is not one of them.   A rollover is a special type of withdrawal that is only available after one leaves their current employer.  So as long as you stay with your current company, you cannot rollover.  [Exception: if you are over age  59.5] One option is to talk to HR, see if they can get a expansion of offerings.  You might have some suggestions for mutual funds that you would like to see.  The smaller the company the more likely you will have success here.  That being said, there is some research to support having few choices.  Too many choices intimidates people. It's quite popular to have ""target funds""  That is funds that target a certain retirement year.  Being that I will be 50 in 2016, I should invest in either a 2030 or 2035 fund.  These are a collection of funds that rebalances the investment as they age.  The closer one gets to retirement the more goes into bonds and less into stocks.   However, I think such rebalancing is not as smart as the experts say.  IMHO is almost always better off heavily invested in equity funds.  So this becomes a second option.  Invest in a Target fund that is meant for younger people.  In my case I would put into a 2060 or even 2065 target. As JoeTaxpayer pointed out, even in a plan that has high fees and poor choices one is often better off contributing up to the match.  Then one would go outside and contribute to an individual ROTH or IRA (income restrictions may apply), then back into the 401K until the desired amount is invested.   You could always move on to a different employer and ask some really good questions about their 401K.  Which leads me back to talking with HR.  With the current technology shortage, making a few tweaks to the 401K, is a very cheap way to make their employees happy. If you can score a 1099 contracting gig, you can do a SEP which allows up to a whopping 53K per year.  No match but with typically higher pay, sometimes overtime, and a high contribution limit you can easily make up for it."

negative: Adding to justkt's answer. The big difference to you during the rollover is that moving the money to a Roth IRA, unless it was a Roth 401K, is going to require you pay a lot of taxes on the money you move. I'd suggest not doing that without guidance from a financial advisor.

negative: Your assumptions are flawed or miss crucial details. An employer sponsored 401k typically limits the choices of investments, whereas an IRA typically gives you self directed investment choices at a brokerage house or through a bank account. You are correct in noticing that you are limited in making your own pre-tax contributions to a traditional IRA in many circumstances when you also have an employer sponsored 401k, but you miss the massive benefit you have: You can rollover unlimited amounts from a traditional 401k to a traditional IRA. This is a benefit that far exceeds the capabilities of someone without a traditional 401k who is subject to the IRA contribution limits. Your rollover capabilities completely gets around any statutory contribution limit. You can contribution, at time of writing, $18,000 annually to a 401k from salary deferrals and an additional $35,000 from employer contributions for a maximum of $53,000 annually and roll that same $53,000 into an IRA if you so desired. That is a factor. This should be counterweighed with the borrowing capabilities of a 401k, which vastly exceeds an IRA again. The main rebuttal to your assumptions is that you are not necessarily paying taxes to fund an IRA.

negative: You'll want to roll the 401k over to a specifically designated rollover IRA. Rollover IRAs differ from an ordinary IRA account because they have NO contribution limit per year. Also Rolling over a 401k to a Roth IRA has consequences. There won't be a penalty but you will have to pay taxes on the amount being rolled over. The choice of Roth or Traditional IRA depends on your current tax situation as well as your expected taxes at retirement. Typically if you are in a low tax bracket and expect to be in a higher tax bracket at retirement a Roth IRA is suggested as withdrawals are tax free. With a rollover conversion you will have to evaluate whether paying taxes now outweighs the potential benefits of tax free withdrawals when you retire.

negative: Once you roll the money from the 401K into a rollover IRA don't mix it with new funds. The money from the 401K will be treated differently depending on if the funds are pre-tax, post-tax, Roth, or matching. (Yes, Post-tax and Roth are not the same thing). In the future an employer may allow you to roll IRA or 401K money into their program. They don't have to allow it, and they can put restrictions on the types of money they will accept.

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: Adapted from an answer to a somewhat different question. Generally, 401k plans have larger annual expenses and provide for poorer investment choices than are available to you if you roll over your 401k investments into an IRA. So, unless you have specific reasons for wanting to continue to leave your money in the 401k plan (e.g. you have access to investments that are not available to nonparticipants and you think those investments are where you want your money to be), roll over your 401k assets into an IRA. But I don't think that is the case here.  If you had a Traditional 401k, the assets will roll over into a Traditional IRA; if it was a Roth 401k, into a Roth IRA. If you had started a little earlier, you could have considered considered converting part or all of your Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA (assuming that your 2012 taxable income will be smaller this year because you have quit your job). Of course, this may still hold true in 2013 as well.  As to which custodian to choose for your Rollover IRA, I recommend investing in a low-cost index  mutual fund such as VFINX which tracks the S&P 500 Index. Then, do not look at how that fund is doing for the next thirty years.  This will save you from the common error made by many investors when they pull out at the first downturn and thus end up buying high and selling low. Also, do not chase after exchange-traded mutual funds or ETFs (as many will likely recommend) until you have acquired more savvy or interest in investing than you are currently exhibiting. Not knowing which company stock you have, it is hard to make a recommendation about selling or holding on. But since you are glad to have quit your job, you might want to consider making a clean break and selling the shares that you own in your ex-employer's company. Keep the $35K (less the $12K that you will use to pay off the student loan) as your emergency fund. Pay off your student loan right away since you have the cash to do it.

negative: 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? Regarding the 401K funds from  the previous employer, you can: Future investments: Roll overs don't have limits, but new investments do.

negative: "Almost all companies in the US have changed from formal pension programs to 401k plans, and most companies that still have pension programs don't allow new employees to  enroll in the new program; only the previous participants who are vested in the pension plan will get benefits while new employees get enrolled in the 401k plan. If this is the case with  your prospective employer, then demanding that you be allowed to enroll in the pension plan is likely to be futile; in fact, the likely response may well be ""Here is our offer. Take it or leave it"" or ""We are withdrawing  the offer we made"" especially if you are in a field where there are plenty of other people who could do the job instead of you. So be sure that you understand what your worth is to the company and how much leverage you have before starting to make counter-offers. With regard to money that you might have vested in your current employer's pension plan, your options are to leave it there until you retire and start getting a pension (generally not advisable in these parlous times when the company might not even exist by then), roll it over into an IRA or into your new employer's 401k plan. This last is the only matter that concerns your prospective employer and where you might need to ask; the new employer's 401k plan might not be structured to accept rollovers. If the money in your current employer's retirement plan is in a pension plan, what is paid out for rolling over might be different (and smaller) than what has been credited to you thus far. For example, my (State Government) pension plan credited 8% interest per annum on the amounts I contributed but this was fake money because had I resigned and withdrawn the pension contributions (for the purpose of rolling over into an IRA or even just taking it as cash), I would have received only my contributions plus only 4.5% interest per annum. The 8% interest credited is available only for the purpose of the purchase of an immediate annuity upon retirement; it is not something that is portable to a new plan, and if I want a lump-sum payout upon retirement instead of a pension in the form of an annuity, it would be the 4.5% rate again..."

negative: Whenever one takes a distribution from an IRA, it cannot be put back into an IRA unless one is doing something like (a) take a distribution from the IRA as a rollover where the owner gets cash in hand to be sent to the new IRA custodian within 60 days, and (b) deposit the money with the new IRA custodian within the prescribed time period. For distributions taken by a first-time home purchaser to buy or rebuild a home, the money can be put back and treated as a rollover up to 120 days after receiving it (Publication 590, page 51, column 2). Note also that distributions taken for  first-time homebuying lose their Qualified Distribution status if not paid to the seller (or bank, for closing costs etc) within 120 days of receipt of the distribution (Publication 590, page 51, column 1). However, one  cannot take a distribution from an IRA, no matter whether the sum comes from contributions, earnings, or previous rollovers, and put the money back into the IRA a few years down the road as having been unnecessarily withdrawn.   What you want to do -- take out some money out of your IRA to buy a house and  put the money back into the IRA later -- is effectively an interest-free loan from your IRA (even if you don't call it a loan or think of it as a loan), and you  are not allowed to do this (except in the special circumstances described above). On the other hand, unless you have a very atypical 401k plan, you can take a loan from your 401k (you will have to pay interest, though) and pay it back over several years. Thus, taking a loan from your 401k might be something you could consider as an alternative to withdrawing money from your IRA. But be aware that there are restrictions on how much you can borrow from your 401k, and usually you cannot withdraw employer match money, even if it has vested. Also, the loan becomes immediately due upon termination of employment, even if the termination was involuntary (i.e. the  employee was laid off or fired).

negative: 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: It depends how you do it.  If you roll it from your 401k directly to a Roth then you will have to pay the taxes.  The contributions to the 401k are tax deferred.  Meaning you do not owe taxes on the money until you collect it.  Roth contributions are post tax but the gains are not taxed so long as they are disbursed under acceptable conditions according to the regulations. If you roll it directly from the 401k to a regular tax deferred IRA you should be able to do that with out penalties or taxes.  You will still have to pay the taxes at disbursement. If you have the money disbursed to you directly then you will have to pay the penalties, fees, and taxes.  Your contributions to an IRA will then be subject to limitations based on the IRA.  It will literally be exactly like you are taking money from your pocket to invest in the IRA.   Your company should give you the option of a rollover check.  This check will be made out to you but it will not be able to be deposited in a regular account or cashed.  It will only be redeemable for deposit into a retirement account that meets the regulatory requirements of the 401k rollover criteria.  I believe the check I received a few years ago was only good for 60 days.  I recall that after 60 days that check was void and I would receive a standard disbursement and would be subject to fees and penalties.  I am not sure if that was the policy of T.Rowe Price or if that is part of the regulation.

negative: I've rolled mine over into IRAs, and once you have one rollover account you can roll further 401ks into it-- I've done that.

negative: "Assuming you are below retirement age, you typically cannot roll money from a Roth IRA into a 401k nor transfer money out of a 401k until you leave the company. Your best bet is to leave your exising roth ira separate from your 401k.  A good strategy for retirement accounts is whenever able (typically when you switch jobs) roll your 401k into a ""rollover IRA"" (not a roth).   Then you can manage your investments with more options than the 5-20 funds provided in the 401k.   I would recommend against rolling funds into a 401k because of the lack of options in most 401k plans. Also, 401k is pre-tax and Roth is post-tax.   Pre and post tax investments don't mix before withdrawal unless you do a conversion of some kind."

negative: When I did this I sold the stock out of my 401k account.  Then transferred the cash to my rollover IRA account.  No tax event was created for me.  Make sure your rollover IRA account is listed as tax deferred.  If this still doesn't work for you then it could be a bug in Quicken and your best bet is the Quicken forums.  Good luck.

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: "This question had better be asked of the 401k plan administrator rather than here. The plan document that you received when you began participating undoubtedly has a page or more of definitions of the terms used in the contract, and especially so if the meanings are nonstandard. For example, one would expect that a Final Distribution leaves a balance of $0 in the 401k account and so a ""per distribution"" fee is meaningless in the context of Final Distribution. As the post by mbhunter indicates, withdrawal and distribution seem to be used interchangeably in IRS documents, and so there probably is a nonstandard meaning assigned to these terms in the 401k document. Three possible nonstandard meanings of these two words come to mind. Withdrawal = at the request of the participant, and Distribution = as required by law, e.g. required minimum distribution Withdrawal = anything before age 59.5 or before termination of employment and Distribution =  anything after age 59.5 or after termination of employment Withdrawal = anything on which the 10% excise tax for premature distributions must be paid, or anything that is not eligible for rollover into another tax-deferred account and Distribution = anything on which the 10% excise tax does not need to be paid. But all the above is just idle speculation, and what matters is the plan   document's definitions of these terms, and that can be determined only   if you read your 401k plan document yourself. Reliance on the answers given   by the employer's HR department, or the plan administrator, as to what   the plan document says might or might not be advisable: even the IRS   has been known to give out incorrect information. In general, money cannot be withdrawn from a 401k plan and rolled over (or transferred via a trustee-to-trustee transfer) into another tax-deferred plan  while the participant is still employed by the sponsor of the 401k plan. Since most 401k plans have poor investment choices and excessive administrator fees, reflect that absent this prohibition, most people would with roll over money from their 401ks into their IRAs as often as feasible. You can withdraw money from a 401k account without paying the 10% excise tax for several reasons (including financial needs of various specified kinds), but you cannot then change your mind and put that money into your IRA, telling the IRA custodian that it is a rollover from the 401k. To do so will not just trigger the 10% excise tax on premature distributions from a 401k account, but you will also need to pay penalties for excess contributions to your IRA."

negative: The 60 day pay back rule of a distribution your are referring to is a reportable IRS rule so you won't be able to circumvent that by opening your own company with its own 401K and borrowing the funds from there. Failure to accurately report to the IRS leads to fines and possible jail time.    It's not advisable to withdraw from a retirement account but if you really need the money then you can move the funds to a Rollover IRA at the new broker/dealer, or custodian etc. Once you withdraw funds, the plan sponsor has to abide by a mandatory 20% tax withholding on the distribution, you'll be hit with a 10% tax penalty for early withdraw and you'll have to report the distribution as income when you file your personal income taxes. The move from a 401K to a Rollover however is legal and has no tax implications or penalties (besides possible closing fees at the old account) - that is until you decide to withdraw from it assuming you are under age 59 1/2.   Regarding your last point, 401Ks are administered by 3rd parties. You wouldn't be opening up any accounts directly with them necessarily. Best advice? Get a Financial Advisor in your area. I recommend going with an advisor who is backed by independent broker-dealer. Independent broker dealers don't offer their own investment products therefore don't push their advisors to sell you their 'in-house' products like big banks.   Here's a good article on using Rollover funds to start a venture: http://www.ehow.com/how_6789743_rollover-directed-ira-start-business.html  Here is a resource guide direct from the IRS (you can CTRL+F for any specific topics)  http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/401%28k%29-Resource-Guide---Plan-Participants---General-Distribution-Rules

negative: Most 401k plans (maybe even all 401k plans as a matter of law) allow the option of moving the money in your 401k account from one mutual fund to another  (within the group of funds that are in the plan).  So, you can exit from one fund and put all your 401k money (not just the new contributions) into another fund in the group if you like.  Whether you can find a fund within that group that invests only in the companies that you approve of is another matter. As mhoran_psprep's answer points out, changing investments inside a 401k (ditto IRAs, 403b and 457 plans) is without tax consequence which is not the case when you sell one mutual fund and buy another in a non-retirement account.

negative: You are right; Rollover is a process, and not an account type; the result is a Traditional IRA. There is no such thing as a 'Rollover IRA Account'. Rolling a 401(k) over to a Traditional IRA makes sense if a) you have to, because you leave the employer the 401(k) is with; b) because you Traditional IRA is cheaper or more flexible or in other ways 'better' for you, or c) if your next step is a backdoor rollover to a Roth IRA. Most of the time, it doesn't make sense, because employer 401(k) are often better and cheaper. Of course, for the investment company where you roll it too, it makes a lot of sense, because they get your money, so they recommend it. But that's only good for them, not for you. Of course you can roll into an existing account, if you want to roll. Making a new account has no advantage. I cannot imagine any IRA custodian wouldn't take rollovers; they would shoot themselves in the foot by that. What can happen - and you should consider this - that your IRA only accepts cash, and does not allow to transfer the shares you have in the 401(k). That means you have to sell and then re-buy, and you might lose a lot in fees there.

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: Kudos to you on having money in a retirement account as early as after college.  Many people don't start investing towards retirement until far to late and compound interest makes a major difference in those early years. Ideally, neither withdraw nor borrow from these accounts.  Withdrawing from your 403b will incur a 10% penalty unless you are over the minimum age on top of the normal tax on that income.  With a 401K loan you're putting yourself at risk if you run into a situation where you can't pay the loan back of incurring the same penalties as an early withdrawal.  This article covers the concerns well. In general, you want to view your retirement money as untouchable until the distributions need to start coming in retirement.  It's your future in there. Of course, this doesn't help the short term cash need.  Do you have money in an emergency fund somewhere?  Could a relative loan you money?  Can you move to a less expensive place in advance and squirrel away some of what would have been your rent cash?  Can you cut back to bare necessities and do the same?  Do you have some nice stuff sitting around that you could sell to make up that needed cash?  Will your current employer pay out unused vacation or are you getting any severance from this situation?  Will you qualify for unemployment? I other words, think about what you would do to get the money if your retirement accounts weren't there.  Then do that - as long as it's legal and doesn't involve running up debt on high interest lines of credit - instead of borrowing against your future.

negative: "Hi Alex.  I've been alerted you're seeking a better answer to this question. ;-)  Please accept my apologies for not coming back to this question sooner – it got buried. :-/  No, in general you cannot make an early withdrawal penalty-free from a 403(b) account to use towards the purchase of a home. Withdrawals before age 59 1/2 are generally subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty, on top of ordinary income tax. Some 403(b) plans may allow for a loan, but the availability and conditions vary by plan. If you'd consider a loan, you should check with your plan administrator or your plan's Summary Plan Description – often available at one's company intranet or HR web site.  (I do contract work for an HR consulting firm that assists others in building such sites, and SPDs are usually something made available for download in a ""Retirement"" or ""Wealth"" section of such web sites.) Note that a loan from a 403(b) would need to be paid back into the plan over some period of time, e.g. 5 years, though I have come across examples of some plans that do permit a longer pay back period of 10, 15, even 30 years if the loan is used for a home purchase.  But consider this article: The 403(b) Loan: The New Debtors Prison? Finally, to your last point:  Yes, if you have an IRA, there are rules permitting withdrawal of up to $10,000 penalty-free for use towards the purchase of a first home.  See page 53 in IRS Publication 590.  There's also a good article at Fool.com: All About IRAs - For First Time Home Buyers. Such a withdrawal from a traditional IRA remains subject to ordinary income tax.  If have a Roth IRA, you can withdraw free of income tax but you need to pay attention to the Roth IRA 5 Year Rule. Additional Resources:"

negative: You can't get a loan from an IRA. You cannot get a loan from your 401(k) plan with your previous employer; 401(k) plans do not give loans to ex-employees, only current employees. Thus, if you want to have the flexibility of getting a loan from the money in the 401(k) plan with your ex-employer, your only option is to roll it over into the 401(k) plan of your current employer. But be aware of the negatives in doing so, some of which are discussed in the answers to Why would you not want to rollover a previous employer's 401(k) when changing jobs?.


query: How do I analyse moving averages?

positive: Moving Average is mere average line based on historical period; broadly use to view the trend. But it has no relation to price action in due future course. If price is going below 20 SMA then in near future even the SMA will start directing toward south. In your case if price has fallen below all the short period average lines and long period average line then it is bearish in nature. Soon in few days you may find 20 SMA leading downwards followed by closest period and then long. Also SMA and EMA can best be observed in charting software in candlestick mode. Because these moving averages can also be adjusted and viewed based on Opening price, High prices, Low Price or closing price. In you case I guess the data is of closing price data. Overlapping of averages may be sign of reversals. So if you want to buy this stock you may have to wait till all the average lines cross-over and when new trend begins with SMA of shortest avg period (20) leading above the long avg period (90 days in your case). Then you can buy and just follow the trend. I hope it answers you question.

positive: One could use technical indicators in any number of ways...they aren't rigidly defined for use in any particular way.  If they were, only computers would use them. Having said that, moving averages are frequently used by people operating on the assumption that short-term price movements will soon be reverted back to a longer-term mean.  So if the price shoots up today, traders who use moving averages may believe it will come back down pretty soon.  If this is the belief (and it usually is for this type of trader), a price significantly above a moving average could indicate an overpriced stock.  A price below the moving average could indicate an underpriced stock. Similarly, a short-term moving average above the long-term moving average may indicate an overpriced stock.  When you are dealing with more than one frequency, though, there is more disagreement about how to use technical indicators.  Some traders would probably say the opposite: that a short term average above the long term average indicates an upward movement that will continue because they believe the stock has momentum. Note that I am not saying I believe in using these averages to predict mean reversion or momentum effects, just that traders who rely on moving averages frequently do.

positive: If you are going to be a long term investor you are only going to buy and hold. You will not sell. Thus future price is not relevant. Only dividend payout is relevant. Divide the dividend by the price you paid to get the yeald.  Edit:  once again the sitesite will not allow me to add a comment, so I have to edit a previous post...  What you call 'active investor' is not really investing, it is speculating. When you try to 'buy low, sell high' you have, at best, a 50-50 chance of picking the low. You then pay a commission on that buy. After you buy then you have a 50-50 chance, at best, of picking the high. You also have to pay the commission on the sell. 50% times 50% is 25%.So you have, at best a 25% chance of buying low and selling high. You are churning your account which makes money for the broker whether you make money or not. If, instead, you buy and hold a dividend paying security then the going price is irrelevant. You paid for the security once and do not have to pay for it again. Meanwhile the dividends roll in forever. 'Buy low, sell high' is a fools game. Warren Buffet does not do it, he buys and holds.

negative: Different moving averages work and not work for different indexes.  I have seen simulations where during bull or bear markets the moving averages work differently. Here is an example: http://www.indexresult.com/MovingAverage/Exponential/200/SP500

negative: I know you can't buy in your sector. My point was merely that if you believed you were so good at your job you would quit and trade on your own analyses.  I genuinely believe most analysts try their best and put forth legitimate analyses. The problem is that most believe they're smarter than they are :)

negative: The curved lines (on my screen orange, yellow and pink) are simple moving averages.  The fuchsia and blue straight lines are automatically generated trend lines.  Those lines are attempting to show how a stock is trending by showing potential bounce points and are commonly used in technical analysis (TA).

negative: Edit3: Regarding the usefulness of the bare number itself, it is not useful unless, for example, an employer uses that average in the computation of how many options the employer grants to the employee as part of the compensation paid. One of my employers used just such an average. What is far more common is to use two or more moving averages, of different periods, plotted on a chart.  My original response continues below... Assuming there are 252 trading days a year, the following chart does what you have done but with a moving average: AAPL on Stockcharts.com  Edit: BTW, I looked up the number of Federal holidays, there are 9. The average year has 365.2422 days. 365.2422 × 5/7 = 260.8873. Subtract 9 and you get 251.8873 trading days in the average year. So 252 is a better number for the SMA than 250 if you want to average a year.  Edit2: Here is the same chart with more than one average included: AAPL chart w/indicators

negative: The stock price is not only based on the general market trend and the stock's current profitability and prospects, but is also based on prediction of how the stock's prospects might change in the future. In almost every case, there are professional investors analysing the stock's future prospects and considering whether it's over or under values for its current price. However even professionals can be totally wrong.  If you feel like you have a good grasp on whether the stock will have improving or declining prospects over time, then you might be (if you're right) equipped to make a sensible decision on whether to hold the stock or not. If you don't think you have a good understanding about the stock, then an understanding of the general market direction might at least make stock in general worth holding. Otherwise, you are simply taking a punt. If you know of another stock that has better prospects, then ask yourself why you would hold onto the stock that you think will perform worse.  But also bear in mind that (in my understanding) research has shown that, on average, people who try to pick stocks rarely do better than a random selection, and more stock trades means more brokerage (which thanks to brokerage losses would mean you will end up doing worse than average unless you really do know better than the market).

negative: "I can't get over how many people explain these thngs like ""the boomers"" were some kind of conscious movement who collectively decided what and what not to do. ""They"" were people living life as dictated by the economic, political and sociological climate that they happened to be alive in. Speaking as a ""Millenial"", we need to stop trying to diagnose our own small slice of existence, stop whining about the incidental or circumstantial decisions that previous generations made that we can only possibly analyse with hindsight, and figure out if there's anything at all we can do to prevent the following generations from being completely fucked by our own inadvertent life choices."

negative: Dollar cost averaging doesn't (or shouldn't) apply here. DCA is the natural way we invest in the market, buying in by a steady dollar amount each pay period, so over time we can buy more shares when the market is down, and fewer when it's higher. It's more psychological than financial. The fact is that given the market rises, on average, over time, if one has a lump sum to invest, it should be deployed based on other factors, not just DCA'd in. As I said, DCA is just how we all naturally invest from our income.  The above has nothing to do with your situation. You are invested and wish to swap funds. If the funds are with the same broker, you should be able to execute this at the closing price. The sell and buy happen after hours and you wake up the next day with the newly invested portfolio.  If funds are getting transferred from broker to broker, you do have a risk. The risk that they take time, say even 2 days when funds are not invested. A shame to lose a 2% market move as the cost of moving brokers. In this case, I'd do mine and my wife's at different times. To reduce that risk.

negative: A general mutual fund's exact holdings are not known on a day-to-day basis, and so technical tools must work with inexact data. Furthermore, the mutual fund shares' NAV depends on lots of different shares that it holds, and the  results of the kinds of analyses that one can do for a single stock must be commingled to produce something analogous for the fund's NAV. In other words, there is plenty of shooting in the dark going on. That being said, there are plenty of  people who claim to do such analyses and will gladly sell you their results (actually, Buy, Hold, Sell recommendations) for whole fund families (e.g. Vanguard) in the form of a monthly or weekly Newsletter delivered by US Mail (in the old days) or electronically (nowadays). Some people who subscribe to such newsletters swear by them, while others swear at them and don't renew their subscriptions; YMMV.

negative: "I am not sure why you posted that, I hadn't seen that chart before. I get my facts from doing a search of debt as a factor of GDP from [the cbo.gov website](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51129).  Regardless, your Source backs up what I posted. From your source: ""Debt analyses are most relevant on a debt-to-GDP basis."""

negative: "How will 45K-60K ""end up in your pocket""?  Are you selling your home?  Where are you going to live?  You talk about moving to Arizona, what is so magical about that place? Congratulations on making a wise purchase.  Some people with new found money use it to correct past mistakes.  However, if they do not change their behavior they end up in the same situation just less them money they once had. While 50K income is respectable at your age, it is below the national average for households.  One factor in having a college education is those with them tend to experience shorter and fewer periods of unemployment especially for males.  Nothing will ever replace hustle, however.  I'd ask you to have a plan to raise your income.  Can you double it in 5 years?   You need to get rid of the revolving debt.  Do that out of current income.  No need to touch the house proceeds for something so small.  Shoot for 9 months. Then you need to get rid of the speeding fines and the vehicle loan.  That is a lot of vehicle for your income.  Again, I would do that out of current income or by selling the vehicle and moving to something more inline with your income.   As far as to moving or flipping foreclosures that is more of a question that has to do with your hopes and dreams.  Do you want to move your children every 3 years?  What if you move to Arizona and it turns out to be quite horrible?  You and your wife need to sit down and discuss what is best for your family."

negative: Bollinger Bands are placed standard deviations away from the moving average. Therefore if the price is volatile, the bands diverge from the mean. During consolidation the bands would converge. They do not provide a clear indication of whether the price is trending or not.

negative: "Average rent rates will typically rise and fall, and are market-dependent just like real estate. In the short term, a collapse in housing like the one we saw in 2008 can induce a spike in rental costs as people walk away or get foreclosed on, and move back into apartments. That then tends to self-adjust, as the people who had been in the apartments find a deal on a foreclosed house and move out. However, one thing I've seen to be near-constant in the apartment business is that a landlord will offer you a deal to get in, then increase the rent on you from year to year until you get fed up and move. This is a big reason I didn't have the same address for two years in a row until I bought my house. The landlord is basically betting that you won't want to deal with the hassle of moving, and so will pay the higher rent rate, even if, when you do the math, it makes more sense to move even to maintain the same rent rate. Eventually though, you do get fed up, look around, find the next good deal, and move, ""resetting"" your rent rate. I have never, not once in my life, seen or heard of any landlord offering a drop in rent as a ""loyalty"" move to keep you from going somewhere else. It's considered part of the game; retailers will price match, but most service providers (landlords, but also utility providers) expect a large amount of ""churn"" in their customer base as people shop around. It averages out."

negative: Actually I found companies hire based on experience, if you jump around you have more experience even if your work is average.  Companies pay what the job is worth now, i.e. market rate - why pay more.  Thus the real issue is many employees are not moving up with out moving out.  But you can look at it as people are mediocre (less than average) which would be true ~50% of the time.

negative: "In the words of David Einhorn, Flash Boys was ""based on a true story."" The way Lewis tells the story is extremely misleading, and you seem to have been suckered in.   HFT has reduced spreads to a small fraction of what they were 20 years ago, they are awesome for average people, who are retail traders. Lewis uses ""ordinary investors"" to mean guys like Einhorn, who do suffer from HFT because they make it hard to buy large blocks of stock without moving the price. But it is not a God-given right to buy stock without moving the price against yourself, and guys like Einhorn now understand how to trade given the current market structure."

negative: "When structures recur at different scales, they're called ""fractals"", and there is something called the ""fractal markets hypothesis"" which attempts to analyse stock market movements as fractals and in terms of (related) chaos theory. Whether you can profit from it I have no idea.  If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.  Many of the non-academic pages linked in the search results (previous link) remind me of technical analysis/chartist stuff (which - to me - always seems to be a lot better at explaining things after the event than actually predicting things)."

negative: What I do have is this (sample only): Stock X: Average Price of all I purchased before = 80 Total Shares = 200 So if Stock X's price today is 100 how do I know how much my average price will be? Using your sample if you buy 100 new shares and the price is 85 for the purpose of this example your previous total cost is $16,000 ($80 average cost * 200 shares).  With the new example you are adding $8500 to your total cost (100 new shares * $85 example cost per share)  that gives us a total cost of $24,500 and 300 shares. $24,500/300 gives us an average cost of $81.67 per share. As long as you have the average cost and the number of shares you can calculate a new average without knowing what the price was for each transaction. It may still become important to find the price information for tax purposes if you do not sell all of those shares at once and use FIFO for your taxes.

negative: "The formula for standard deviation is fairly simple in both the discrete and continuous cases. It's mostly safe to use the discrete case when working with adjusted closing prices. Once you've calculated the standard deviation for a given time period, the next task (in the simplest case) is to calculate the mean of that same period. This allows you to roughly approximate the distribution, which can give you all sorts of testable hypotheses. Two standard deviations (σ) away from the mean (μ) is given by:  It doesn't make any sense to talk about ""two standard deviations away from the price"" unless that price is the mean or some other statistic for a given time period. Normally you would look at how far the price is from the mean, e.g. does the price fall two or three standard deviations away from the mean or some other technical indicator like the Average True Range (an exponential moving average of the True Range), some support level, another security, etc.  For most of this answer, I'll assume we're using the mean for the chosen time period as a base. However, the answer is still more complicated than many people realize. As I said before, to calculate the standard deviation, you need to decide on a time period. For example, you could use S&P 500 data from Yahoo Finance and calculate the standard deviation for all adjusted closing prices since January 3, 1950. Downloading the data into Stata and applying the summarize command gives me: As you can probably see, however, these numbers don't make much sense. Looking at the data, we can see that the S&P 500 hasn't traded close to 424.4896 since November 1992. Clearly, we can't assume that this mean and standard deviation as representative of current market conditions. Furthermore, these numbers would imply that the S&P 500 is currently trading at almost three standard deviations away from its mean, which for many distribution is a highly improbable event. The Great Recession, quantitative easing, etc. may have changed the market significantly, but not to such a great extent.  The problem arises from the fact that security prices are usually non-stationary.. This means that the underlying distribution from which security prices are ""drawn"" shifts through time and space. For example, prices could be normally distributed in the 50's, then gamma distributed in the 60's because of a shock, then normally distributed again in the 70's. This implies that calculating summary statistics, e.g. mean, standard deviation, etc. are essentially meaningless for time periods in which prices could follow multiple distributions.  For this and other reasons, it's standard practice to look at the standard deviation of returns or differences instead of prices. I covered in detail the reasons for this and various procedures to use in another answer. In short, you can calculate the first difference for each period, which is merely the difference between the closing price of that period and the closing price of the previous period. This will usually give you a stationary process, from which you can obtain more meaningful values of the standard deviation, mean, etc.  Let's use the S&P500 as an example again. This time, however, I'm only using data from 1990 onwards, for the sake of simplicity (and to make the graphs a bit more manageable). The summary statistics look like this: and the graph looks like this; the mean is the central horizontal red line, and the top and bottom lines indicate one standard deviation above and below the mean, respectively.   As you can see, the graph seems to indicate that there were long periods in which the index was priced well outside this range. Although this could be the case, the graph definitely exhibits a trend, along with some seemingly exogenous shocks (see my linked answer).  Taking the first difference, however, yields these summary statistics: with a graph like this:  This looks a lot more reasonable. In periods of recession, the price appears much more volatile, and it breaches the +/- one standard deviation lines indicated on the graph.  This is only a simple summary, but using first differencing as part of the wider process of detrending/decomposing a time series is a good first step.  For some technical indicators, however, stationary isn't as relevant. This is the case for some types of moving averages and their associated indicators. Take Bollinger bands for instance. These are technical indicators that show a number of standard deviations above and below a moving average. Like any calculation of standard deviation, moving average, statistic, etc. they require data over a specified time period. The analyst chooses a certain number of historical periods, e.g. 20, and calculates the moving average for that many previous periods and the moving/rolling standard deviation for those same periods as well. The Bollinger bands represent the values a certain number of standard deviations away from the moving average at a given point in time. At this given point, you can calculate the value two standard deviations ""away from the value,"" but doing so still requires the historical stock price (or at least the historical moving average). If you're only given the price in isolation, you're out of luck.  Moving averages can indirectly sidestep some of the issues of stationarity I described above because it's straightforward to estimate a time series with a process built from a moving average (specifically, an auto-regressive moving average process) but the econometrics of time series is a topic for another day.  The Stata code I used to generate the graphs and summary statistics:"

negative: >You are being extremely aggressive and I don't understand why, I've been pretty level headed.  Sorry, this topic is probably my biggest pet peeve in US tax policy, and I have a strong distaste for our government's tax treatment, greed and arrogance.  >If our rate is the highest, but we still collect less than the average, tell me how these large corporations are being effectively taxed at the highest rate in the developed world? What am I missing?  Okay, let's take two companies with equal profits. One company is an MLP and pays zero corporate taxes, one company pays 40% taxes on profits. The average effective tax rate will be 20%, and one company will end up paying around the highest rate in the world.  I will post my source again.  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/25/sunday-review/corporate-taxes.html  Anyway, I think we should be doing our best to incentivize corporate formation by lowering corporate taxes to zero and moving the incidence of taxation directly to capital.

negative: "Yeah I understand how much power a downgrade can have on a nations access to the capital markets and can thus cripple and slow down economic growth but the call to micromanage the rating agencies more is a bit much. The last thing the financial system needs is another 3 letter acronym agency sending in some official to watch every move of the analysts at these firms.   The point of there being more than one rating agency is that you have multiple opinions and they average out to give you a realistic opinion, Standard and Poor's, Moody's, and Fitch don't have a conference call every time a deal comes through the door ""Hey guys what are we rating this at today"" they all do their own thing.  I would be interested to see situations in which all the CRAs gave a lower credit rating then a debt issuer actually deserved."

negative: The care itself is among the best, but the accessibility is poor compared to other similar countries, which is taken into consideration in all these studies and analyses. It seems to be hard to have both,  but we should try to get as close as possible to it.

negative: This is a retarded statement.  Excel was never meant to be used for gigantic complex models based on large data sets but it's still incredibly valuable.  I've been using it for 20 years in my career and when it comes to building quick and dirty analyses and forecasting models I will run circles around anybody trying to use R or Python.

negative: I don't know too much about the kelly criterion, but going by the other answers it sounds like it could be quite risky depending how you use it. I have been taught the first thing you do in trading is protect your existing capital and any profits you have made, and for this reason I prefer and use Position Sizing (PS). The concept with PS is that you only risk a small % of your capital on every trade, usually not more than 1%, however if you want to be very aggressive then not more than 2%. I use 1% of my capital for every trade. So if you are trading with an account of $40,000 and your risk R on every trade is 1%, then R = $400. As an example, say you decide to buy a stock at $10 and you work out your initial stop to be at $9.50, then our maximum risk R of $400 is divided by the stop distance of $0.50 to get your PS = $400/$0.50 = 800 shares. If the price then drops after your purchase, your maximum loss (subject to no slippage) would be $400.  If the price moves up you would raise your stop until your potential loss becomes smaller and smaller and then becomes a gain once your stop moves above your initial purchase price. The aim is to make your gains be larger than your losses. So if your average loss is kept to 1R or less then you should aim to get your average gains to 2R, 3R or more. This would be considered a good trading system where you will make regular profits even with a win ratio of 50%.

negative: Simply static support or resistance levels are ones that do not change with time. Two examples include horizontal lines and trend lines. Dynamic support or resistance levels are ones that change with time. A common example of a dynamic support/resistance are Moving Averages.

negative: And I was being facetious, apologies.   I think your assertion that the  > entire crux of the story was that credit ratings agencies weren't transparent  is a massive simplification of what happened. There are many great analyses of the crisis, and most of them come to the conclusion that 'it was a perfect storm' of different factors.  I gather you think the problem was regulatory, I think the problem is systemic.   To me it doesn't matter how the regulations are written what matters are the incentives. I see no evidence that the regulatory agencies in the US can effectively police, let alone effectively deter financial institutions from skirting the laws. In fact I think wall street runs on such a haystack of grey-area regulations that without wholesale, root and branch reform (e.g. antitrust laws similar to Standard Oil to be used on the big banks) there's no hope that any patchwork of regulations, well-intentioned as they may be, from making a difference.   CDOs are a great example of what to avoid.

negative: "Let's handle this as a ""proof of concept"" (POC); OP wants to buy 1 share of anything just to prove that they can do it before doing the months of painstaking analysis that is required before buying shares as an investment. I will also assume that the risks and costs of ownership and taxes would be included in OP's future analyses. To trade a stock you need a financed broker account and a way to place orders. Open a dealing account, NOT an options or CFD etc. account, with a broker. I chose a broker who I was confident that I could trust, others will tell you to look for brokers based on cost or other metrics. In the end you need to be happy that you can get what you want out of your broker, that is likely to include some modicum of trust since you will be keeping money with them. When you create this account they will ask for your bank account details (plus a few other details to prevent fraud, insider trading, money laundering etc.) and may also ask for a minimum deposit. Either deposit enough to cover the price of your share plus taxes and the broker's commission, plus a little extra to be on the safe side as prices move for every trade, including yours, or the minimum if it is higher. Once you have an account the broker will provide an interface through which to buy the share. This will usually either be a web interface, a phone number, or a fax number. They will also provide you with details of how their orders are structured. The simplest type of order is a ""market order"". This tells the broker that you want to buy your shares at the market price rather than specifying only to buy at a given price. After you have sent that order the broker will buy the share from the market, deduct the price plus tax and her commission from your account and credit your account with your share."

negative: Why is that? With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly, wouldn't it make more sense to suggest that new investors learn how to analyse companies and then make their best guess after taking into account those factors? I have a different perspective here than the other answers.  I recently started investing in a Roth IRA for retirement. I do not have interest in micromanaging individual company research (I don't find this enjoyable at all) but I know I want to save for retirement. Could I learn all the details? Probably, as an engineer/software person I suspect I could. But I really don't want to. But here's the thing: For anyone else in a similar situation to me, the net return on investing into a mutual fund type arrangement (even if it returns only 4%) is still likely considerably higher than the return on trying to invest in stocks (which likely results in $0 invested, and a return of 0%). I suspect the overwhelming majority of people in the world are more similar to me than you - in that they have minimal interest in spending hours managing their money. For us, mutual funds or ETFs are perfect for this.

negative: "TL;DR; There is no silver bullet. You have to decide how much to invest and when on your own.  Averaging down definition: DEFINITION of 'Average Down' The process of buying additional shares in a company at lower prices than you originally purchased. This brings the average price you've paid for all your shares down. BREAKING DOWN 'Average Down' Sometimes this is a good strategy, other times it's better to sell off a beaten down stock rather than buying more shares.  So let us tackle your questions: At what percentage drop of the stock price should I buy more shares. (Ex: should I wait for the price to fall by 5% or 10% to buy more.) It depends on the behaviour of the security and the issuer. Is it near its historical minimum? How healthy is the issuer? There is no set percentage. You can maximize your gains or your losses if the security does not rebound. Investopedia: The strategy is often favored by investors who have a long-term investment horizon and a contrarian approach to investing. A contrarian approach refers to a style of investing that is against, or contrary, to the prevailing investment trend.  (...) On the other side of the coin are the investors and traders who generally have shorter-term investment horizons and view a stock decline as a portent of things to come. These investors are also likely to espouse trading in the direction of the prevailing trend, rather than against it. They may view buying into a stock decline as akin to trying to ""catch a falling knife."" Your second question: How many additional shares should I buy. (Ex: Initially I bought 10 shares, should I buy 5,10 or 20.) That depends on your portfolio allocation before and after averaging down and your investor profile (risk apettite). Take care when putting more money on a falling security, if your portfolio allocation shifts too much. That may expose you to risks you shouldn't be taking. You are assuming a risk for example, if the market bears down like 2008: Averaging down or doubling up works well when the stock eventually rebounds because it has the effect of magnifying gains, but if the stock continues to decline, losses are also magnified. In such cases, the investor may rue the decision to average down rather than either exiting the position or failing to add to the initial holding.  One of the pitfalls of averaging down is when the security does not rebound, and you become too attached to be able to cut your losses and move on. Also if you are bullish on a position, be careful not to slip the I down and add a T on said position. Invest with your head, not your heart."

negative: An operating margin will not compare with ROE. If a company has even a small margin on a large turnover and has a comparative lower shareholder equity, it ROE will be much higher. One ratio alone can not analyse a company. You need a full set of ratios and figures.

negative: The interest in your account is usually calculated based on the average monthly balance. What the bank will do is try to figure out how much money did you have on average over the month and give you interest on that amount. For example, if you had 10k on deposit and took it out half way through the month, you will still receive interest on about 5k, based on a monthly rate. What I would do is read in detail your agreement with the bank to figure out if your interest is based on an average annual balance and is paid at the end of the year or if it is based on a different measurement. Also, I would be very careful if this is a CD account, since they will have early withdrawal fees. Hope this helps.

negative: if you know when and by how much something will fluctuate, you can always make money. Buy it when it's cheaper and sell it when it's more expensive. If you just know that it fluctuated a lot recently, then you don't know what it will do next. Most securities that go to zero or go much higher bounce all over the place for a while first.  But you don't know when they'll move decisively lower or higher.  So how could you figure out if you'll make money - you can't know. DCA will on average make you better off, unless the extra commissions are too high relative to your purchase sizes. But it will in retrospect make you worse off in many particular cases. This is true of many investment disciplines, such as rebalancing. They are all based on averages.  If the volatility is random then on average you can buy more shares when the price is lower using DCA. But when the lowest price turns out to have been on a certain day, you'd have been better off with a single lump sum put in on that day. No way to know in advance.  Degree of volatility shouldn't matter; any fluctuation is enough for DCA or rebalancing to get you ahead, though it's true they get you ahead farther if the fluctuations are larger, since there's then more difference between DCA and a lump purchase.  I think the real reason to do DCA and rebalancing is risk control. They reduce the risk of putting a whole lump sum in on exactly the wrong day. And they can help keep a portfolio growing even if the market is stagnant.

negative: "I reread your question. You are not asking about the validity of selling a particular stock after a bit of an increase but a group of stocks. We don't know how many.  This is the S&P for the past 12 months. Trading at 1025-1200 or so means that 80-100 points is an 8% move. I count 4 such moves during this time.  The philosophy of ""you can't go wrong taking a gain"" is tough for me to grasp as it offers no advice on when to get (back) in. Studies by firms such as Dalbar (you can google for some of their public material) show data that supports the fact that average investors lag the market by a huge amount. 20 years ending 12/31/08 the S&P returned 8.35%, investor equity returns showed 1.87%. I can only conclude that this is a result of buying high and selling low, not staying the course.  The data also leads me to believe the best advice one can give to people we meet in these circumstances is to invest in index funds, keeping your expenses low as you can. I've said this since read Jack Bogle decades ago, and this advice would have yielded about 8.25% over the 20 years, beating the average investor by far, by guaranteeing lagging the average by 10 basis points or so.  A summary of the more extensive report citing the numbers I referenced is available for down load - QAIB 2015 - Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior. It's quite an eye-opener and a worthy read. (The original report was dated 2009, but the link broke, so I've updated to the latest report, 2015)"

negative: "You don't seem to be a big fan of trading as you may think it may be too risky or too time consuming being in front of your computer all day long. You also don't seem to be a fan of buy and hold as you don't know what your investments will be worth when you need the funds. How about a combination of the two, sometimes called trend trading or active investing. With this type of trading/investing you may hold a stock from a couple of months to many years. Once you buy a stock that is up-trending or starting to up-trend you hold onto it until it stops up-trending. You can use a combination of fundamental analysis (to find out what to buy) and technical analysis (to tell you when to buy and when to sell). So these are some topics you can start reading up on. Using a technique like this will enable you to invest in healthy stocks when they are moving up in price and get out of them when they start moving down in price. There are many techniques you can use to get out of a stock, but the simplest has to be using stop losses. And once you learn and set up your system it should not take up much of your time when you actually do start trading/investing - 2 to 3 hours per week, and you can set yourself up that you analyse the market after the close and place any order so they get executed the next trading day without you being in front or the screen all day. Other areas you might want to read and learn about are writing up a Trading Plan, using Position Sizing and Money Management so you don't overtrade in any one single trade, and Risk Management. A good book I quite liked is ""Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom"" by Van Tharp. Good luck."