So do I. Congratulations on realizing your need and setting out on this journey of learning about your money and how to work with it effectively. There are two basic issues ... one is your income and how to deal with it to make each of those dollars coming in work most effectively. The other is your asset base and how to manage it to make it grow well, working harder for you than for the other guys ... and avoiding having too much of snipped off by the purportedly big-deal managers to slip into their pockets. Better to learn what you're doing, over the years, and become your own manager! Pay yourself those fees that they charge (probably wise to deduct the cost of some of your mistakes, as you learn). In the investment group that I've attended monthly for about 7 years, we call them the tuition fees in the University of Learning How to Manage Your Own Money! I bought some equity-based mutual funds over 20 years ago, charging 2.5% of the value of the current asset value of the account, annually. When you multiply 2.5 by 20+ ... what do you get? 50% of the value of my asset, right? Is that the original asset amount? No - the creeping value of the asset as it grew, over time. I started a thread (I think over on KT) a couple of weeks ago asking whether people had ever seen stock certificates grow like rabbits! Had a person bought 1 share of JNJ at the beginning of 1970 (I'm using this for illustration, not suggesting that you should buy it, or not buy it) about how many shares would they think that they'd own, now? If you go to Yahoo->Finance and put JNJ in the "Get quotes" box at upper left, you'll get a page that shows a lot of info about current situation of the shares, including a chart at lower right of the stock price movements today. Clicking at a long-term period under that chart will show you share prices over your choice of various periods ... plus info about several stock splits - twice 3:1, and 4 times 2:1. What does that produce? 1->3->9->18->36->72->144 ... right? Price in 1970 $180./share (in dollars each of which was "worth" a lot more than each dollar is now). Current price about $63.00. That is, $180. grew to about $9,072. How do you like them apples? Not only that ... I read somewhere a while ago about a numberof stocks which had increased their dividend annually for 25 years ... I think JNJ has increased theirs annually for 40 years, if I'm not mistaken. Which adds some sugar to the applesauce, right? When did you ever hear of a Guaranteed Investment Certificate acting like that? Also wise for you to learn to deal with both income and assets in a tax-effective way. If you can reduce taxes now, often a good idea to do so, if the system at issue is useful in your case. Deferral is frequently a good idea, as well, when available. In Canada, a number of people look at the current rate on a GIC and at the rates paid by a stock, and say they like the interest rate better than the dividend rates usually offered. But when Canadians earn a dividend on a Canadian stock, the tax rate used to be lower, and last year the system of calculation changed to make it even lower again. I can't believe how many Canadians I've run into over the years who didn't know that! Quite often ignorance carries a substantial price. I think that I've said to thousands, over the years, that learning how money works is an interesting hobby ... **that pays well**!! (I've said it so often, around here, that I think that people must be getting sick of hearing it!) Not only that, if you put your dollars into a investment where their numbers are guaranteed not to shrink ... they're almost always guaranteed not to grow either. I bought a stock over 40 years ago for about $4. and change, which at that time paid about a (tax-advantaged) nickel or a dime. Over the years the value of that stock has gone up, down and sideways. I could have sold it last May for about $107. ... and it pays me an annual dividend now of $3.48. There's one catch - it has been doubly involved in the U.S. sub-prime mortgage debacle. The share price dropped to the $80.s, then recovered to near $100., then slipped back into the $80.s ... and in the past few weeks, as the sub-prime issue got more complex, far-reaching and distressng, the share price dropped down through the $70.s, into the $60.s, closing since the first of the year in the $60.s ... and I suspect that the dividend rate will likely be cut. Am I about to sell it? No. I paid $4.20 over 40 years ago, and if I sell now, I deduct the $4.20 amount that I paid from the current $68.20 or so, leaving me with $64.00 capital gain. I divide that by 2, leaving me with $32.00 on which I must pay tax at my usual rate (i.e., added to the top of my other income this year). But it does leave me with the other $32.00 realized free of tax. However, I'm getting close to 80 years of age (79 next Wed.) and my current tax bracket is lower that will be the case if I leave all of those assets intact till I kick the bucket - for then some of them will be taxed at lower rates, but after that's used, others will be taxed at higher rates until they get to the top rate, and my executor will have to pay that on some of those realized capital gains, then. Also ... since I have no spouse (to which the tax-deferred retirement account could be transferred, tax-free at the moment, to be added to her assets, to provide her with income and on her death to have the residue added to her income and taxed then, at whatever rate) they'll be added to my income in that year, as well. Likely taxed at top rate. I've thought of selling some of the stocks that I've held for years, in order to have the taxable portion of the capital gain taxed now, at my usual lower rate ... ... but if I do that, I have fewer dollars to re-invest, to go on not only growing, but adding to earnings in those years, until my demise. As it is, I add those $3,000. or so that I'm required to withdraw from my tax-deferred retirement account annually to my annual income. Do you think that I should follow the advice of some hot-shot financial advisors who tell how to get that payment out tax-free? Borrow $50,000. to invest it in a variety of stocks, using well over $100,000. (I wish!) of stock certificates as collateral, making it a fully secured line of credit, at interest of 6%, i.e $3,000. per year, using my $3,000. annual payout from my retirement account to pay the interest. My deal with the lender is that I pay interest only on the loan. As the loan is used for investment, the interest is deductible. As an old fart that doesn't want to take heavy risks, I invest in some quality Canadian stocks - paying about 3% interest, and as they are taxed at low rate, I have about 2.5% after-tax income, which in other circumstances I would use to help pay the interest on the loan. Suppose I'd borrowed that money 15 years ago, paying interest only through those years. If my Dad died and left me $50,000. as a legacy, and I took it to the bank to pay off the loan, how much would I owe them? That'd be $50,000., right? That would have bought a lot of good things, 15 years ago ... much more than now. I gained from inflation. Suppose you'd put $50,000. into the bank, 15 years ago, and the bank paid you the agreed upon rent on your money, in the years between ... and you went to collect the value of your GIC today ... how much would the bank give you? Right! Exactly $50,000. That would have bought a couple of good cars, 15 years ago ... not now. I gained from inflation ... you lost. Such strategies should be used with discretion, taking into account various possible scenarios, some of them quite unattractive, with the operator able to deal with them without serious inconvenience. I never want to see my friends get margin calls on such loans, unless they're able to meet the shortfall, whether with other assets ... or immediate cash. Good wishes for using both your income and assets increasingly skillfully! As you have further questions, feel free to ask. If some of them seem a bit too private for you to feel comfortable with discussing in this public place, I'm sure that several of us who have responded here would be pleased to offer you our opinions should you contact us privately. ole joyful

---""Personally, I dont think it is smart financial planning to have your entire life savings in your retirement account." Why not?"" I'd like to clarify the above response. The only exception that I can think of is an emergency account.--- Assuming you are funding your retirement account appropriately to provide adequate retirement income, why would you put additional savings into retirement accounts? Once there, you can't use them easily and without penalty until you are retirement age. No, tax savings from tax-deferred accounts are not inconsequential, but neither is the freedom that comes with having money available to use how when for what you want. I am putting money into a combination of 401k and Roth retirement accounts at a rate which will conservatively provide me with adequate retirement income. This is less than the max--(although well over employer-match). Every thing else goes into ordinary ol' non-tax-deferred investment accounts. It's not really "emergency" money--- i also have 6-month living expense emergency funds in my bank account. But I am in my 30s. Why would I put any money above and beyond what I will need for retirement somewhere that I can't easily reach it for the next 15-20 years? Maybe I'll want to go to grad school and want to use it for tuition. Maybe I'll get married and want to put my husband through school. Or my husband's kids. Maybe I'll want to buy a bigger more expensive house and want to use it for down payment. Or a second vacation and/or investment home. I might want to take a year off work and travel. I might want to take a year off work and be a mommy to a new baby. I might not *want* to take a year off work but be forced to when I'm fired from my current job and it takes me a year to find a new one. I might want start-up money for my own business. I might have a sudden desire for one of those convertible Mercedes two-seaters (is it the SL i think).... I might I might I might. Freedom (and security) is "why not?" (which are the same reasons btw that I'm saving it in the first place rather than simply spending everything above and beyond what I've decided I need to save for retirement)

I will give your question a shot and I am sure others will also add their advice. On question 1 - I suspect that the fees charged to manage the 403B are less that those charged for the 401k Here is info from the IRS website on 403B plans "IRC 403(b) Plans Certain employers are allowed to have Internal Revenue Service (IRC) 403(b) Tax-Sheltered Annuity plans. You are allowed to have a 403(b) plan if you are: A public school, college or university, A church, A public hospital, or A charitable entity tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Code. Basically, 403(b) plans are similar to 401(k) plans maintained by for-profit entities. Just as with a 401(k) plan, a 403(b) plan lets employees defer some of their salary. In this case, their deferred money goes to a 403(b) plan sponsored by the employer. This deferred money generally does not get taxed by the federal government or by most state governments until distributed. This is just as it is with 401(k) plans." I assume that your husband's employer meets the requirements for establishing a 403B plan. On question 2 - You can roll the money into a traditional IRA without having any tax consequences. You need to set it up as a direct rollover - that is the company that holds the 401K transfers the money directly to the bank/investment company that will have your husband's IRA. You cannot roll the money into a Roth IRA. The money that is contributed to a ROTH IRA has already had the income taxes paid on it. The money in the 401k has not had any taxes paid on it. If the money goes into a traditional IRA, you need to establish a separate IRA for that money. If your husband ever goes to work with a company that has a 401K plan that allows rollovers into the plan and your husband chooses to roll this portion of his IRA into that new employer's plan, it must not be mingled with other retirement funds. Good luck.

No, maifleur, you're on the wrong track angel, there's a procedure called a "tax free rollover" which is what's used to move an IRA balance from one financial institution to another. As the name says, it's tax free. There is no dollar limit on how much can be moved but it may be doable only one time per year (that's unclear but it's the IRS's position) and I think a rollover has to go to just one destination, and not three, but on that I'm not sure. It is a procedure, it needs to be done a certain way, but this is vanilla and a daily event to any institution holding IRA and other retirement plan balances. Your local bank should NEVER let you do what you did, they should have cautioned you. My suggestion at this point is you may need to get a CPA to help you, and expect in advance than many will have no experience with this. I would also go to the bank, tell them you relied on them and they let you down. Next, try to completely unwind what you did by closing the accounts you opened and getting the money back into the local bank IRA in its entirety. The local bank needs to cooperate with you to allow you to do this. Then, start all over again. When you do a tax free rollover, the check for the full balance is usually made payable to the institution the new account is located, not to you. Send the check to one place - Vanguard is a good choice. If you're not able to unwind and start again, you won't be happy with the outcome. What you've done is called an "early withdrawal of the IRA" since you're not yet 59 1/2. In addition to the gross amount being subject to income tax for you this year (which is always the case when an IRA account is distributed), the early withdrawal causes you to be subejct to an added 10% penalty. That's why you want to unwind what was done and start again. I hope it's possible but maybe not Good luck, report back how you fare.