Do my 401k/Roth accounts benefit from compounding?
You buy a share of something for $100.  It goes up by 10% over a year, and you now have $110 in value.  It goes up by 10% next year and you now have $121.  That original $10 increase was compounded even though you're not earning interest because the gains are measured as a percentage.  If, instead, you'd only invested the second year you'd have less value.  Assuming the markets average a positive gain (above inflation) you see greater gains the earlier you're invested. During the course of the year, the S&P individual stocks will have some dividends. Not every last stock but a good number of them. Enough that the average dividend for the S&P has been about 2% recently.  So if the S&P index goes up, say 10%, an S&P fund should go up closer to 12%. For a fund holder, you'd normally see a declared dividend and cap gain distribution toward the end of each year. When you hold shares in a 401(k), dividends are reinvested into the fund, usually with no involvement from the members. You might be confusing two different things. An advantage of investing over a long term is the compounding of returns.  Those returns can be interest, dividends, or capital gains.  The mix between them depends on what you invest it and how you invest in it.  This advantage applies whether your investment is in a taxable brokerage account or in a tax-advantaged 401K or IRA.  So, start investing early so that you have longer for this compounding of returns to happen. The second thing is the tax deferral you get from 401(k) or IRAs.  If you invest in a ordinary taxable account, then you have to pay taxes on your interest and dividends for the year in which they occur.  You also have to pay taxes on any capital gains which you realize during the year.  These yearly tax payments are then money that you don't get the benefit of compounding on.  With 401(k) and IRAs, you don't have to pay taxes during these intermediate years. "Sure, stocks don't pay interest. I just looked up the word ""compound"" in a couple of dictionaries and the relevant definition in all of them just mentioned interest and not growth in the value of stock. So it may be technically inaccurate to talk about ""compound growth"" of a stock. I'll yield to someone more knowledgeable about the technical language of finance to answer that part. But regardless of whether the word strictly applies, the concept certainly does. Suppose you put $1000 into a mutual fund and the fund grows by 10%. You now have $1100. The next year the fund grows by 15%. So you gain 15% of what? Of your original $1000? No, of your present balance, $1100. The effect is the same as compound interest. There is the fundamental difference that interest is normally a fixed rate: you get such-and-such percent a year as spelled out in a contract. But change in the value of a stock depends on many factors, none of them guaranteed."
"Whether you contribute to an IRA (Traditional or Roth) and whether you contribute to a 401k (Traditional or Roth) are independent. IRAs have one contribution limit, and 401ks have another contribution limits, and these limits are independent. I see no reason why you wouldn't maximize the amount of money in tax-advantaged accounts, if you can afford to. In your first year of work, especially if you only work for part of the year, you're likely in a lower tax bracket than in the future, so Roth is better than Traditional. Another thing to note is that the money in the Roth IRA can be part of your ""safety net"" -- contributions to a Roth IRA (but not earnings) can be withdrawn at any time without tax or penalty. So if there is an emergency you can withdraw it, and it wouldn't be any worse than in a taxable account. And if you don't need it, then it will enjoy the tax benefits of being in the IRA." "I have a similar situation -- five different accounts between me and my wife. Just as you and @Alex B describe, I maintain my asset allocation across the combination of all accounts. I also maintain a spreadsheet to track the targets, deviations from the targets, amounts required to get back in balance, and overall performance. I (mostly) don't use mutual funds. I have selected, for each category, 1 or 2 ETFs. Choosing index ETFs with low expense ratios and a brokerage with cheap or free trades keeps expenses low. (My broker offers free ETF trades if you buy off their list as long as you aren't short-term trading; this is great for rebalancing for free 2 or 3 times a year.) Using ETFs also solves the minimum balance problem -- but watch out for commissions. If you pay $10 to buy $500 worth of an ETF, that's an immediate 2% loss; trade a couple of times a year and that ETF has to gain 5% just to break even. One issue that comes up is managing cash and avoiding transaction fees. Say your IRA has all the growth stock funds and your Roth has the bonds. Stocks do well and bonds do poorly, so you sell off some stocks, which creates a bunch of cash in your IRA. Now you want to buy some bonds but you don't have enough cash in your Roth, so you buy the bonds in your IRA. Not a problem at first but if you don't manage it you can end up with small amounts of various funds spread across all of your accounts. If you're not careful you can end up paying two commissions (in two different accounts) to sell off / purchase enough of a category to get back to your targets. Another problem I had is that only one account (401k) is receiving deposits on a regular basis, and that's all going into an S&P 500 index fund. This makes it so that my allocation is off by a fair amount every quarter or so -- too much in large cap equities, not enough of everything else. My solution to this going forward is to ""over-rebalance"" a couple of times a year: sell enough SPY from my other accounts so that I'm under-allocated in large caps by the amount I expect to add to my 401k over the next 3 months. (So that in six months at my next rebalancing I'm only 3 months over-allocated to large caps -- plus or minus whatever gains/losses there are.)" "I may be missing something here, but I don't think this is a disadvantage. The fact that the employer contribution will be taxed is the same as it would be if it were a match in a traditional account, so the amount you lose to taxes on it is a wash. The employer contribution is only smaller if you can't afford to contribute as much to the Roth because it's post-tax, and therefore your contribution is under the cap for the match. If you're contributing the maximum the employer will match or higher, then I don't think there's any disadvantage on the match portion. First, the 5% cap on employer contributions is calculated on the gross, even in a Roth account. Second, the taxing of the amount contributed to a Roth does not reduce the dollar amount that goes into the Roth account, it just reduces your net pay. So if your contribution is $100 to a Traditional account, your gross pay is reduced by $100 and your Traditional account gains $100. In the Roth, your gross pay is still taxed as though that $100 were included, but the $100 is put into the Roth. The tax portion of that ""after tax"" money does not reduce the amount of the contribution." The reason your 401k match is always counted as pre-tax whether you are contributing to a traditional 401k or a Roth is that the money is contributed by the employer and is not counted as income, and that contribution is not taxed as income. Should you wish to pay taxes on it and convert it to a Roth, you can do that, though perhaps not until you change jobs. If markets are efficient (which they aren't, but anyways...), the frequency of DCA investments shouldn't yield any meaningful difference in return.  The one possible item to note is that if you're able to invest more frequently, you'll have more money exposed to the effects of compounding for longer, which *may* increase return. However, there are also transaction costs to consider, which may render something like *continuous* DCA-ing ineffective.   That same compounding effect also negates the potential benefits of DCA altogether, making it more logical to lump sum your investments.   You may be conflating DCA with simply making additional cash every week that's available for investment. If that's the case, again, lump sum as early as possible should yield the best results...  (this isn't financial advice, read the sidebar disclaimers) I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter much unless something in your life changes in retirement. And since many retirement planners assume a default income target of 80 percent of pre-retirement income, I figure many people's tax bracket isn't moving much. The most interesting reason I know to Go Roth in a 401k is limits. You can only contribute like $17k, whether Roth or not. In a traditional contribution, some of the 17k you put in goes to taxes when taken out, but in a Roth contribution you pay taxes up front. So if you have more than $17k to invest, Roth lets you sneak some more into the system. "If the difference in performance is worth it, consider ""borrowing"" from your 401k to put into the Roth.  You pay it back, but you can stretch it out over time, and the interest charged is actually yours, because you borrowed from yourself. But you can only borrow half of the account and you have to pay it back before you can do another loan." Your question is very widely scoped, making it difficult to reply to, but I can provide my thoughts on at least the following part of the question: I have a 401k plan with T. Rowe Price, should I use them for other investments too? Using your employer's decision, on which 401k provider they've chosen, as a basis for making your own decision on a broker for investing $100k when you don't even know what kind of investments you want seems relatively unwise to me, even if one of your focuses is simplicity.  That is, unless your $100k is tax-advantaged (e.g. an IRA or other 401k) and your drive for simplicity means you'd be happy to add $100k to any of your existing 401k investments.  In which case you should look into whether you can roll the $100k over into your employer's 401k program. For the rest of my answer, I'll assume the $100k is NOT tax-advantaged. I assume you're suggesting this idea because of some perceived bundling of the relationship and ease of dealing with one company & website?  Yes, they may be able to combine both accounts into a single login, and you may be able to interact with both accounts with the same basic interface, but that's about where the sharing will end.  And even those benefits aren't guaranteed.  For example, I still have a separate site to manage my money in my employer's 401k @ Fidelity than I do for my brokerage/banking accounts @ Fidelity.  The investment options aren't the same for the two types of accounts, so the interface for making and monitoring investments isn't either. And you won't be able to co-mingle funds between the 401k and non-tax-advantaged money anyway, so you'll have two different accounts to deal with even if you have a single provider.  Given that you'll have two different accounts, you might as well pick a broker/provider for the $100k that gives you the best investment options, lowest fees, and best UI experience for your chosen type/goal of investments. I would strongly recommend figuring out how you want to invest the $100k before trying to figure out which provider to use as a broker for doing the investment. The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph.  While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it?  In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash.  Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to).   Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment.  They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest.  Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population.  It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio.  This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification. "When we talk about compounding, we usually think about interest payments. If you have a deposit in a savings account that is earning compound interest, then each time an interest payment is made to your account, your deposit gets larger, and the amount of your next interest payment is larger than the last. There are compound interest formulas that you can use to calculate your future earnings using the interest rate and the compounding interval.  However, your mutual fund is not earning interest, so you have to think of it differently. When you own a stock (and your mutual fund is simply a collection of stocks), the value of the stock (hopefully) grows. Let's say, for example, that you have $1000 invested, and the value goes up 10% the first year. The total value of your investment has increased by $100, and your total investment is worth $1100. If it grows by another 10% the following year, your investment is then $1210, having gained $110.  In this way, your investment grows in a similar way to compound interest. As your investment pays off, it causes the value of the investment to grow, allowing for even higher earnings in the future. So in that sense, it is compounding. However, because it is not earning a fixed, predictable amount of interest as a savings account would, you can't use the compound interest formula to calculate precisely how much you will have in the future, as there is no fixed compounding interval.  If you want to use the formula to estimate how much you might have in the future, you have to make an assumption on the growth of your investment, and that growth assumption will have a time period associated with it. For example, you might assume a growth rate of 10% per year. Or you might assume a growth rate of 1% per month. This is what you could use in a compound interest formula for your mutual fund investment.  By reinvesting your dividends and capital gains (and not taking them out in cash), you are maximizing your ""compounding"" by allowing those earnings to cause your investment to grow." "There are a couple of misconceptions I think are present here: Firstly, when people say ""interest"", usually that implies a lower-risk investment, like a government bond or a money market fund. Some interest-earning investments can be higher risk (like junk bonds offered by near-bankrupt companies), but for the most part, stocks are higher risk. With higher risk comes higher reward, but obviously also the chance for a bad year. A ""bad year"" can mean your fund actually goes down in value, because the companies you are invested in do poorly. So calling all value increases ""interest"" is not the correct way to think about things. Secondly, remember that ""Roth IRA fund"" doesn't really tell you what's ""inside"" it. You could set up your fund to include only low-risk interest earning investments, or higher risk foreign stocks. From what you've said, your fund is a ""target retirement date""-type fund. This typically means that it is a mix of stocks and bonds, weighted higher to bonds if you are older (on the theory of minimizing risk near retirement), and higher to stocks if you are younger (on the theory of accepting risk for higher average returns when you have time to overcome losses). What this means is that assuming you're young and the fund you have is typical, you probably have ~50%+ of your money invested in stocks. Stocks don't pay interest, they give you value in two ways: they pay you dividends, and the companies that they are a share of increase in value (remember that a stock is literally a small % ownership of the company). So the value increase you see as the increase due to the increase in the mutual fund's share price, is part of the total ""interest"" amount you were expecting. Finally, if you are reading about ""standard growth"" of an account using a given amount of contributions, someone somewhere is making an assumption about how much ""growth"" actually happens. Either you entered a number in the calculator (""How much do you expect growth to be per year?"") or it made an assumption by default (probably something like 7% growth per year - I haven't checked the math on your number to see what the growth rate they used was). These types of assumptions can be helpful for general retirement planning, but they are not ""rules"" that your investments are required by law to follow. If you invest in something with risk, your return may be less than expected." The math works out so that the 401k is still a better deal in the long term over a taxable account because of the tax-deferred growth. Let's assume you invest in an S&P 500 index fund in either a taxable investment account or a 401k and the difference in fees is .5%. I used an online calculator and a hypothetical 1k/year investment over 30 years with 4.5% tax-deferred growth vs 5% taxable and a 25% tax bracket. After 30 years the tax-deferred 401k account will have $67k and the taxable account will have $58k. The math isn't perfect -- I'm sure I'm missing some intricacies with dividends/capital gains distributions and that you'll then pay income tax on the 401k upon retirement as you drawn down, but it still seems pretty clear that the 401k will win in the long run, especially if you invest more than the 1k/year used in my example. But yeah, .84% expenses on an index fund is robbery. Can you bring that to the attention of the HR department? Maybe they'll want to look for a lower-fee provider and it's in their best interest too, if they also participate. Yes, I have done this and did not feel a change in cash flow - but I didn't do it a the age of 23.  I did it at a time when it was comfortable to do so.  I should have done it sooner and I strongly encourage you to do so.   Another consideration:  Is your companies program a good one?  if it is not among the best at providing good funds with low fees then you should consider only putting 6% into your employer account to get the match.  Above that dollar amount start your own ROTH IRA at the brokerage of your choice and invest the rest there.  The fee difference can be considerable amounting to theoretically much higher returns over a long time period. If you choose to do the max , You would not want to max out before the end of the year.  Calculate your deferral very carefully to make sure you at least put in 6% deferral on every paycheck to the end of the year.  Otherwise you may miss out on your company match.  It is wise to consider a ROTH but it is extremely tough to know if it will be good for you or not.  It all depends on what kind of taxes (payroll, VAT, etc) you pay now and what you will pay in the future.  On the other hand the potential for tax-free capital accumulation is very nice so it seems you should trend toward Roth. Investing requires capital, and the fastest way to get the capital is to develop good saving habits. Investing is an ongoing process to help you accumulate wealth, so to take advantage of compounding, the earlier you start, the better.  I can suggest a few pointers to get you started on the investing journey. Godspeed! :) "I was going to ask, ""Do you feel lucky, punk?"" but then it occurred to me that the film this quote came from, Dirty Harry, starring Clint Eastwood, is 43 years old.  And yet, the question remains. The stock market, as measured by the S&P has returned 9.67%  compounded over the last 100 years. But with a standard deviation just under 20%, there are years when you'll do better and years you'll lose. And I'd not ignore the last decade which was pretty bad, a loss for the decade.  There are clearly two schools of thought. One says that no one ever lost sleep over not having a mortgage payment. The other school states that at the very beginning, you have a long investing horizon, and the chances are very good that the 30 years to come will bring a return north of 6%. The two decades prior to the last were so good that these past 30 years were still pretty good, 11.39% compounded.  There is no right or wrong here. My gut says fund your retirement accounts to the maximum. Build your emergency fund. You see, if you pay down your mortgage, but lose your job, you'll still need to make those payments. Once you build your security, think of the mortgage as the cash side of your investing, i.e. focus less on the relatively low rate of return (4.3%) and more on the eventual result, once paid, your cash flow goes up nicely.   Edit - in light of the extra information you provided, your profile reads that you have a high risk tolerance. Low overhead, no dependents, and secure employment combine to lead me to this conclusion. At 23, I'd not be investing at 4.3%. I'd learn how to invest in a way I was comfortable with, and take it from there.  Disclosure (Updated) - I am older, and am semi-retired. I still have some time left on the mortgage, but it doesn't bother me, not at 3.5%. I also have a 16 year old to put through college but her college account i fully funded."