Principal 401(k) managed fund fees, wow. What can I do?
In my opinion, the fee is criminal.  There are ETFs available to the public that have expenses as low as .05%. The index fund VIIIX an institution level fund available to large 401(k) plans charges .02%. I'll pay a total of under 1% over the next 50 years,  Consider that at retirement, the safe withdrawal rate has been thought to be 4%, and today this is considered risky, perhaps too high. Do you think it's fair, in any sense of the word to lose 30% of that withdrawal?  Another angle for you - In my working years, I spent most of those years at either the 25% or 28% federal bracket taxable income. I should spend my retirement at 15% marginal rate. On average, the purpose of my 401(k) was to save me (and my wife) 10-13% in tax from deposit to withdrawal. How long does it take for an annual 1.1% excess fee to negate that 10% savings? If one spends their working life paying that rate, they will lose half their wealth to those managing their money.  PBS aired a show in its Frontline series titled The Retirement Gamble, it offers a sobering look at how such fees are a killer to your wealth. I would even say 1% is not even reasonable in this age.  The short answer is there probably isn't much you can do directly.  However, there are a few things to consider: When you look at managed funds the expense ratios are always high. They have the expense of analyzing the market, deciding where to invest, and then tracking the new investments. The lowest expenses are with the passive investments.  What you have noticed is exactly what you expect. Now if you want to invest in active funds that throw off dividends and capital gains, the 401K is the perfect place to do it, because that income will not be immediately taxable. If the money is in a Roth 401K it is even better because that income will never be taxed. Would anything happen if you bring this issue to the attention of the HR department? Everyone in the company who participates in the 401(k) is affected, so you'd think they'd all be interested in switching to a another 401k provider that will make them more money. "Your employer could consider procuring benefits via a third party administrator, which provides benefits to and bargains collectively on behalf of multiple small companies.  I used to work for a small start-up that did exactly that to improve their benefits across the board, including the 401k.  The fees were still higher than buying a Vanguard index or ETF directly, but much better than the 1% you're talking about.   In the meantime, here's my non-professional advice from personal experience and hindsight: If you're in a low/medium tax bracket and your 401k sucks, you might be better off to pay the tax up front and invest in a taxable account for the flexibility (assuming you're disciplined enough that you don't need the 401k to protect you from yourself).  If you max out a crappy 401k today, you might miss a better opportunity to contribute to a 401k in the future.  Big expenses could pop up at exactly the same time you get better investment options.   Side note: if not enough employees participate in the 401k, the principals won't be able to take full advantage of it themselves.  I think it's called a ""nondiscrimination test"" to ensure that the plan benefits all employees, not just the owners and management.  So voting with your feet might be the best way to spark improvement with your employer.  Good luck!" The expense fees are high, and unfortunate. I would stop short of calling it criminal, however.  What you are paying for with your expenses is the management of the holdings in the fund. The managers of the fund are actively, continuously watching the performance of the holdings, buying and selling inside the fund in an attempt to beat the stock market indexes. Whether or not this is worth the expenses is debatable, but it is indeed possible for a managed fund to beat an index.  Despite the relatively high expenses of these funds, the 401K is still likely your best investment vehicle for retirement. The money you put in is tax deductible immediately, your account grows tax deferred, and anything that your employer kicks in is free money.  Since, in the short term, you have little choice, don't lose a lot of sleep over it.  Just pick the best option you have, and occasionally suggest to your employer that you would appreciate different options in the future. If things don't change, and you have the option in the future to rollover into a cheaper IRA, feel free to take it.
It's not like there's a shortage of fiduciaries out there. If someone wants to pay a brokerage fee rather than a fiduciary fee, I don't see why they should be compelled to. A fiduciary duty is expensive, and will likely raise costs.  If the problem is that people don't know whether advisors are fiduciaries, then it's a disclosure problem. 817/150,000 = .54% Fees are based on balances not deposits, usually. Putting a front loaded fund as an option in a 401(k) should be criminal, not sure it is though.  Ask your HR dept to provide you fee details. If the .54% is correct, it's not bad.  I hope you have money from prior jobs as well, by the way. "You can always ask. The answer is likely to be ""no"" -- the company is probably not set up to be able to tweak that number  on a case by case basis. I'm not sure whether there are regulations which might kick in, as well; these plans are regulated to prevent abuse and that tends to make doing anything unusual difficult. Find another tax-deferred/tax-advantaged investment and route the money there?" Thanks very much.  12b1 is a form that explains how a fund uses that .25-1% fee, right? So that's part of the puzzle im getting at.  I'm not necessarily trying to understand my net fees, but more who pays who and based off of what.   For a quick example, betterment bought me a bunch of vanguard ETFs. That's cool. But vanguard underperformed vs their blackrock and ssga etfs. I get that vanguard has lower fees, but the return was less even taking those into account.  I'm wondering, first what sort of kickback betterment got for buying those funds, inclusive of wholesale deals, education fees etc.  I'm also wondering how this food chain goes up and down the sponsor, manager tree.  I'm sure it's more than just splitting up that 1% Your best bet is to remove the excess contribution. Your broker should have forms to do that. There is a 6% tax on the excess contributions for each year that it remains uncorrected. It would be better to just eat the $25 fee and get rid of any future headaches. "Having worked for a financial company for years, my advice is to stay away from all the ""Freedom Funds"" offered.  They're a new way for Fidelity to justify charging a higher management fee on those particular funds.  That extra 1% or so a year is great for making the company money; it will kill your rate of return over the next 25+ years you're putting money into your retirement account.  All these funds do is change the percentage of your funds in stocks vs. more fixed investments (bonds, etc.) so you have a higher percentage in stocks while you're young and slowly move the percentage more towards fixed as you get older.  If you take a few hours every 5 years to re-balance your portfolio and just slowly shift more money towards fixed investments, you'll achieve the same thing WITHOUT the extra annual fee. So how much difference are we talking here?  Let's do a quick example.  Based on your salary of $70k and a 4% match by your company, you'll have $5,600 a year to put in your 401(k) (your 4% plus matched 4%).  I'll also assume an 8% annual return for both funds.  Here is what that 1% extra service charge will cost you: Fund with a 1% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $60.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $301.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25:  $3,782 Fund with a 2% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $121.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $472.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25:  $6,489 That's a total of $2,707 in extra fees over 25 years on just the investment you make this year!  Next year if you invest the same amount in your 401k that will be another $2,707 paid over 25 years to the management company.  This pattern repeats EACH year you pay the higher management fee.  Trust me, if you invest that money in stock instead of paying it as fees, you'll have a whole lot more money saved when it's time to retire. My advice, pick a percentage you're comfortable with in stocks at your age, maybe 85 - 90%, and pick the stock funds with the lowest management fees (the remaining 10 - 15% should go into a fixed fund).  Make sure you pick at least some of your stock money, I do 20 - 25%, and select a diverse (lots of different countries) international fund. For any retirement money you plan to save above the 4% getting matched by your company, set up a Roth IRA.  That will give you the freedom to invest in any stocks or funds you want.  Find some low-cost index funds (such as VTI for stocks, and BND for bonds) and put your money in those.  Invest the same amount every month, automatically, and your cost average will work itself out through up markets and down. Good luck!" The fee representing the expense ratio is charged as long as you hold the investment. It is deducted daily from the fund assets, and thus reduces the price per share (NAV per share) that is calculated each day after the markets close.  The investment fee is charged only when you make an investment in the fund. So, invest in the fund in one swell foop (all $5500 or $6500 for older people, all invested in a single transaction) rather than make monthly investments into the fund (hold the money in a money-market within your Roth IRA if need be).  But, do check if there are back-end loads or 12b1 fees associated with the fund. The former often disappear after a few years; the latter are another permanent drain on performance. Also, please check whether reinvestment of dividends and capital gains incur the $75 transaction fee. Okay thanks, let's hope it's a relatively painless process to correct my mistake!   Really odd that my 401(k)s are traditional, I was so sure they weren't.  Maybe it's better then to open up a traditional IRA alongside the Roth, use that for rollovers, and just kick a few bucks into the Roth on occasion? "GreenMatt - this is a good question, and a question I have asked about whether to invest in a Roth IRA, or a traditional IRA. This is my take on the picture, I'm not sure about your tax situation and how much you'd have to pay for each conversion you did, whether you have extra money to pay those taxes, etc. In my opinion I don't think it would be a good idea to use your 401(k) principal to pay taxes, but to have the extra money to pay these when rolling over so you don't lose any interest, especially since you're near the ""end"" of your ""snowball"" effect with interest in your retirement account. Here is a resource to consider. Also, another thing to consider that I don't really see much of on here is inflation. If you're going to be in the same tax bracket as you are now, and if whatever you're contributing to your 401(k) or traditional IRA is NOT bumping you down in the 15% bracket, then I would suggest doing a ROTH IRA. I say this because to me, when I retire, I would have rather paid my taxes throughout the years (I'm 23 and in 25% marginal tax bracket) in a ROTH IRA and pay nothing when I'm withdrawing in 30 years, factors people forget to consider are that the Cost of Living is going to be MUCH MUCH higher for me down the road, and the cost of sending a child to school is going to be much higher as well. Since your child is young, consider this site for the cost of a college education for your child. This is comparing the average cost of education for someone attending college in 2015 versus 2033 (a child born IN 2015). While this seems drastic, and there could be a lot of different things that happen by that time, it's a decent illustration. While the website provided certainly isn't validated by the DoE, I have read multiple articles about this, and they are all very similar. Again, other things could happen between now and your child's college career, but if college becomes ""free"" we're paying for it, and if it's not free and raises at historical rates you're paying for it. I also don't really want to comment on what is going to happen with taxes over the years, I'm not sure where you live (I'm in the U.S.), but IMO I believe they either A) won't change or B) will raise slightly. As far as SS goes, I think it's fair and definitely more than reasonable to not expect SS in retirement. I'm definitely not counting on it." Whether or not it's reasonable is a matter of opinion, but there are certainly cheaper options out there. It does seem strange to me that your credit union charges a percentage of your assets rather than a flat fee since they shouldn't have to do any more work based on how much money you have invested. I would look into rolling over your IRA to Vanguard or Fidelity. Neither charge administrative fees, and they offer no-load and no-transaction fee funds with low expenses. If you went with Fidelity directly, you'd be bypassing the middle man (your credit union) and their additional administrative fees. Vanguard tends to offer even cheaper funds. Merrill charges $500 flat fee to (I assume purchase) my untraded or worthless security. In my case, it's an OTC stock whose management used for a microcap scam, which resulted in a class action lawsuit, etc. but the company is still listed on OTC and I'm stuck with 1000s of shares. (No idea about the court decision) Considering the combined accounts you're contributing $100 per month and they want $100 per year to administer them... that's 8.3% of your contributions gone to fees each year.  To me, that's a definite no.  Without getting in to bad mouthing the adviser for even making the suggestion, the scale of your account doesn't warrant a fee that high. Fees are very meaningful to the little fish investors.  There are LOADS of IRA account providers.  With that level of competition, there are several that have very reasonable account minimums, no annual maintenance fees, and a suite of no fee, no load, no commission, low expense ratio funds to choose from.  Schwab, Fidelity and Vanguard come to mind.  I know Schwab is running a big ad campaign right now as it's reduced some of it's already low expense ratios. If I were you, yes I would move the account because you can even get rid of the $10/year/account fee.  But, no, I would not move it to a higher fee situation. In my opinion on a $3,600 account + $1,200 per year in contributions, you don't need advise.  You need a good broad market low fee index fund, and enough discipline to understand that retirement is 25 years away so you keep contributing even when news is bad and the market is going down.  In 10 years maybe talk to an adviser. Using the S&P500 index daily close historical data from calendar year 2016, considering first of the month monthly deposits and a starting balance of $3,600, you would come out at the end of the year with about $5,294.  That's $494 in gain on your total contributions of $4,800.  They'd take $100, that's about 20% of your gain.  Compared to a no fee account with a reasonable expense ratio of 0.1% the fee would be just $5.30.  Bearing in mind also that your $100 per year account will probably be invested in funds that also have an expense ratio fee structure further zapping gains.  Further, you lose the compounding effect of the $100 fee over time which adds up to a significant of retirement funds considering a 25 year period.  If all you did was put that $100 fee in to a 1% savings account each year for 25 years you'd end up with $2,850. (Considering the average 7% return of the S&P you'd have $6,964 on just your $100 per year fees) This is why you should be so vigilant about fees. This situation, wanting desperately to have access to an investment vehicle in a 401K, but it not being available reminds me of two suggestions some make regarding retirement investing: This allows you the maximum flexibility in your retirement investing.  I have never, in almost 30 years of 401K investing, seen a pure cash investment, is was always something that was at its core very short term bonds. The exception is one company that once you had a few thousand in the 401K, you could transfer it to a brokerage account. I have no idea if there was a way to invest in a money market fund via the brokerage, but I guess it was possible. You may have to look and see if the company running the 401K has other investment options that your employer didn't select. Or you will have to see if other 401K custodians have these types of investments. Then push for changes next year. Regarding external IRA/Roth IRA: You can buy a CD with FDIC protection from funds in an IRA/Roth IRA. My credit union with NCUA protection currently has CDs and even bump up CDs, minimum balance is $500, and the periods are from 6 months to 3 years. "How is that possible?? The mutual fund doesn't pay taxes and passes along the tax bill to shareholders via distributions would be the short answer. Your basis likely changed as now you have bought more shares. But I gained absolutely nothing from my dividend, so how is it   taxable? The fund has either realized capital gains, dividends, interest or some other form of income that it has to pass along to shareholders as the fund doesn't pay taxes itself. Did I get screwed the first year because I bought into the fund too   late in the year? Perhaps if you don't notice that your cost basis has changed here so that you'll have lower taxes when you sell your shares.  Is anyone familiar with what causes this kind of situation of   receiving a ""taxable dividend"" that doesn't actually increase the   account balance? Yes, I am rather familiar with this. The point to understand is that the fund doesn't pay taxes itself but passes this along. The shareholders that hold funds in tax-advantaged accounts like 401ks and IRAs still get the distribution but are shielded from paying taxes on those gains at that point at time. Is it because I bought too late in the year?  No, it is because you didn't know the fund would have a distribution of that size that year. Some funds can have negative returns yet still have a capital gains distribution if the fund experiences enough redemptions that the fund had to sell appreciated shares in a security. This is part of the risk in having stock funds in taxable accounts. Or is it because the fund had a negative return that year?  No, it is because you don't understand how mutual funds and taxes work along with what distribution schedule the fund had. Do I wait until after the distribution date this year to buy? I'd likely consider it for taxable accounts yes. However, if you are buying in a tax-advantaged account then there isn't that same issue." I use mint.com for tracking my finances.  It works on mobile phones, tablets, and in a browser.  If you don't mind the initial hassle of putting in the credentials you use to access your account online, you'll find that you're able to build a comprehensive picture of the state of your finances relatively quickly. It does a great job of separating the various types of financial transactions you engage in, and also lets you customize those classifications with tags.  It's ad-supported, so there's no out-of-pocket cost to you, and it doesn't preclude you from using the personal finance software you already have on your phone.