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

Remember you can own more than 40 different types of assets in an IRA account. You're not limited to holding just traditional securities. Most major brokerage firms managing IRAs offer a selection of mutual funds for you to invest in but restrict your holdings to traditional securities. They are usually not equipped to handle real estate, private equities or others asset classes that the IRS permits. For instance, you can own most any type of real estate including vacation houses, boat slips, and/or commercial. You cannot, however, own any real estate that you care currently benefiting from. For example, you can own a beach house but you or your family cannot use the property during the time it's held within your IRA. But, you can rent it for a profit. Another example...you can purchase a building lot and flip it 30 days later for a profit...all legal within your IRA. You can even invest in cattle within your IRA. Banks will also lend on IRA purchases. So, it's possible to use leverage. You can expect to pay a slightly higher interest rate than if you were borrowing personally but, in some cases such as real estate, the ability to use leverage in your IRA more than justifies the higher rate. Most people are only aware of the traditional mutual fund type of investments. But, if those are doing poorly...well, you've got other choices. To invest in other types of assets, you need to open whats called a "self-directed IRA" with a custodian that allows you to invest in the full range of asset types allowed by the IRS. With a self-directed IRA, you can invest in real estate and privately held businesses, make secured loans (such as a mortgage), make unsecured loans, and also invest in traditional assets such as stocks and mutual funds. With real estate bought by a self-directed IRA, any income and capital gains grow tax-deferred in the case of traditional IRA or tax-free in the case of a Roth. Fees for a "self directed" IRA with a full-service custodian are higher than those charged by custodians offering only traditional securities. There are only 3 assets classes the IRS forbids you to hold within an IRA: Collectibles, Life Insurance, & S Corporations. As usual with the IRS, there are lots of little quirky rules that failure to follow could result in significant penalties so this type of IRA investing is not recommended for people skittish about actively participating in the decision making process. Anyway, you would not have to sell an office building or a herd of cattle just because you changed custodians. The "system" is geared towards funneling the "masses" into traditional securities. OTOH, that's the safest investment for the vast majority of people. /tricia

Thanks - but I guess I am confused again on several points. 1) I do have a separate account for a roth IRA created a few years ago. I was hoping to contribute the max $5k, to my Roth and the max $5K to a reg IRA (after tax), in addition to what i already contributed to my old 401K (which I will be rolling over into an IRA account.) Is there a limit on what the yearly total of the three account contributions can be? 2) Since I was previously putting about 30-35% of my income into my 401K in previous years, trying to get as close to the max as I could, i am worried about a big tax hit this year (6 months of full income with no 401K deductions to reduce it), so was looking for an option to reduce my tax bite. 3) If need to keep all my pre and post tax IRA records, it sounds like I will have a lot to do on retiring in 5-8 years, going thru all my old IRA records (hmmm, about 30 years worth of monthly statements from a variety of companies), I had thought this was true, but apparantly I got some bad advice from an accountant a few years ago, who assured me there was no reason to keep all my various accounts (pension and 401K rollovers, and post and pre tax iras) separate. Argh! such fun to look forward to - but I am pretty sure I saved most everything - got the cardboard boxes to prove it.

. I also have about 13,000 in my 401K account that I will either have to rollover to an IRA or take the distribution from my old job. I 'think' it would be best that you roll it over, and totally avoid distribution. From the link below: "Your 401k withdrawal options are as follows if you are under 59 � -Take a lump sum distribution, in which case your 401k plan provider will write you a check for the value of your account less a 20% withholding tax mandated by the IRS, and a 10% withdrawal penalty. The 20% tax that is withheld, but NOT the 10% penalty, will be counted against your income tax payable or will be counted towards any refund due for the tax year when you file your tax return. Some 401k penalty free withdrawal exceptions are here. -You can do nothing and leave it with your previous employer as long as the amount is greater than $5,000. Amounts less than $5,000 will usually be distributed to you, less a 20% withholding tax, regardless of you age. (Check with your plan sponsor) -Do 401k rollover into an IRA or a solo 401k (if you are planning to open your own one person business) Here is a link that might be useful: 401k Withdrawal Options