---""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 would avoid a loan from my 401K at all costs. You pay it back with post-tax dollars so you are taxed on it twice and if you ever leave your company, or worse, get laid off, the balance is due in 60 days or so. I've seen the "taxed twice" claim about 401K loan many times, usually on the websites of big investment companies who have a stake in keeping your 401K accounts to themselves for as long as possible. It's bogus. Anyone who takes out a 401K loan will make monthly payments back into the same 401K, usually for a period of five years. Of course the payments are made with after tax dollars, but the same would be true of paying back any loan except for those tied to a mortgage, such as a HELOC. And once it's paid back, the withdrawals you take out when you finally retire will be taxed at the same rate as they would have been if you had never taken out the loan. You pay interest on the loan at a fixed rate that is set by the plan and usually lower than any rate you could get for an unsecured loan. That means the unpaid loan balance is earning returns at that fixed rate. If you happen to take out the loan at the beginning of a down market, it'll likely be earning at a better rate than the rest of your 401K, and you will actually have a larger 401K balance at the end of the loan than you would have had otherwise. In times of an up market, however, the reverse will be true. The real and best reason not to do it is if you think you might leave your employment, voluntarily or otherwise, before the end of the loan term, because you will have to pay it all back.

USAA has a good rep so I don't think it should be a problem for you to leave it there for a while. SmartMoney's website I believe is free for access, but I could be wrong - I'm a WSJournal subscriber and the two are owned by the same company so there's a lot of cross-links on the websites. It isn't easy finding an good independent fiduciary advisor, but for people who need help developing a comprehensive financial plan (which is not the same as earning a high ROI on investments), I think it's essential. Most middle-class folks would find it helpful to talk to a neutral third party who can ask the hard questions and analyze your total financial picture. One thing for everyone to be aware of is that when I refer to financial planning, this is not only a legal term, it actually refers to creating a 'road map' that takes you from your current financial situation to achieving your short, medium, and long-term goals. It is aiming for a moving target, so any life-changing events - life, death, marriage, divorce, change of job - means some fine-tuning may be needed to your plan. To produce a good plan requires time spent in not only gathering all your financial info and analyzing it, but defining your goals. Some will be achievable and some will not be. Only you can define and prioritize them, and a good advisor will help if needed. You can get a financial plan, separate from investing advice, from any certified fiduciary advisor. Cheaper ones are computer 'plug in the numbers' produced, so always make sure you understand the base assumptions, and have multiple scenarios run to be sure you're covered for any contingencies/emergencies you haven't foreseen. Establish the total cost of meeting, gathering info, analyzing, and producing the plan(s) up front before signing anything. It takes time to do a financial plan, and anyone promising you it will be easy and fast isn't going to do a comprehensive job. It's an advantage for the fiduciary to be an insurance agent OR to be very familiar with insurance analysis, because many people could use advice on how to use different types of insurance to mitigate risk in various areas of their life. At a minimum you should contact at least three fiduciary advisors, obtain references, and investigate them thoroughly, before working with one. Even if all you need is a financial plan, do the research, but confine the requested references to clients who received a financial plan at least three years ago and are willing to discuss its usefulness. It is not uncommon for people to pay for a financial plan and then follow the suggested actions on their own; e.g., do their own investing, etc., without engaging the advisor to handle their portfolio. OTOH, a financial plan that goes unimplemented is just a useless piece of paper. We used to have to gently 'nag' our clients that they still hadn't completed certain checklist items on their plan, so it depends on how good you are at doing tasks that many people put off....until it's too late.

If you do not study investments alot, I would not bother with trying to manage it. Chances are pretty high in my opinion that you'll never get as good results as the pros who make their living managing money. True, but rolling it over into an IRA at a financial house of your choosing often gives you more options: for example, lifestyle-geared investment plans (more aggressive for younger clients, more conservative for when you don't have time to make up a bear market); index funds (more than just the Dow Jones or S&P 500); etc. There are lots of people who can offer easier investment strategies ("couch potato" portfolios, "one-minute" investing, ...) and while one size does not fit all investors, if you find an investment approach that has appeal to you, it very likely will be easier to pursue it at a large investment house than through an employee-sponsored plan.