Shouldn't a Roth IRA accumulate more than 1 cent of interest per month?
The term 'interest' tends to be used loosely when discussing valuation of stocks.  Especially when referring to IRAs which are generally the purvey of common-folk who aren't in the finance industry.  Often it is used colloquially to include: Using this definition (which is what I'm guessing your IRA Calculator is doing), your stock would have increased in value by a total of $26 over the course of 10 months.  Still not terribly good (only a couple percent increase), but certainly not a couple cents. "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." "Unfortunately for investors, returns for equity-based investments are not linear - you'll see (semi-random) rises and dips as you look at the charted per-share price.  Without knowing what the investments are in the target date retirement fund that you've invested in, you could see a wide range of returns (including losses!) for any given period of time. However, over the long term (usually 10+ years), you'll see the ""average"" return for your fund as your gains and losses accumulate/compound over that period." Terminology aside.  Your gains for this year in a mutual fund do seem low.  These are things that can be quickly, and precisely answered through a conversation with your broker. You can request info on the performance of the fund you are invested in from the broker.  They are required to disclose this information to you.   They can give you the performance of the fund overall, as well as break down for you the specific stocks and bonds that make up the fund, and how they are performing. Talk about what kind of fund it is.  If your projected retirement date is far in the future your fund should probably be on the aggressive side.  Ask what the historic average is for the fund you're in.  Ask about more aggressive funds, or less if you prefer a lower average but more stable performance.  Your broker should be able to adequately, and in most cases accurately, set your expectation. Also ask about fees.  Good brokerages charge reasonable fees, that are typically based on the gains the fund makes, not your total investment.  Make sure you understand what you are paying. Even without knowing the management fees, your growth this year should be of concern.  It is exceptionally low, in a year that showed good gains in many market sectors.  Speak with your broker and decide if you will stick with this fund or have your IRA invest in a different fund. Finally JW8 makes a great point, in that your fund may perform well or poorly over any given short term, but long term your average should fall within the expected range for the type of fund you're invested in (though, not guaranteed). MOST importantly, actually talk to your broker.  Get real answers, since they are as easy to come by as posting on stack.
A Roth IRA is just an account wrapper.  Inside a Roth IRA you can have a plain 0.1% savings account, or a brokerage account, or an annuity or whatever.  There's no rate of return for a Roth IRA. That particular calculator seems to assume you'll be wrapping a brokerage account in a Roth IRA and investing in the stock market.  Over a long period 6% is probably a reasonable rate of return considering the S&P 500 has returned about 7% over the last decade. Inflation is not applicable in the said example. You are better off paying 300 every month as the balance when invested will return you income. "Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By ""growth rate"" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s * rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s*(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s*(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing  10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps." I don't understand the logic of converting a cost of funds of 4% to a monthly % and then subtracting that number from an annual one (the 1.5%).  Unfortunately without seeing the case I really can't help you...there was likely much you have left out from above. Well, I was about to ask a similar question. Unless you get into stocks/mutual funds it seems like returns on less risky items such as CDs (certificate of deposit) are terrible. I don't think it is a good use of folks time to ask what a Roth IRA is.  We were considering buying a new car (~$20000 with zero down and 0.9% interest rate) but we drive maybe 6000 miles per year. We would be paying ~$550/month to park something in our garage. Our current car is sexless but absolutely reliable.  I am now looking elsewhere and may either invest the money in our house (i.e., refinishing upstairs) or paying down our debt. We have a home loan - $132,000 at 3.5% - and a student loan - $12,675 @ 3.375%.  Depending on the loan rate on your car, I would pay that down first. Alternatively, find a fee-only broker and drop around $500 for them to come up with a financial plan for you. They will probably recommend a Roth IRA with a specific mutual fund in mind. You'll need $2500 or so to open the Roth, contributions from there should be such that you can start/stop them on demand without fees. You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA. It has everything to do with post-tax earnings.  You can only contribute into a Roth IRA up to either $5500 or your taxable compensation (wages, salaries, self-employment income, commissions, etc.), whichever is less. So your contributions have already been taxed as income (either withheld or when you file your 1040 next year). Importantly, this means that you can't contribute gifts, previous savings, unearned income, or under-the-table earnings that you don't report* into a Roth (of course, this only is a factor if you report less than $5500 in income since money is fungible). *Note: I mention this for completeness, not as a recommendation, unreported income can get you into hot water, just ask Mr. Capone... No matter what, you owe taxes on the gains, known as capital gains. How much, depends on how long you invested it for. In your example, each month is treated separately - each month you contribute starts a new clock on that set of investments. If you hold it for longer than a year, the taxes are treated as long-term, and less than a year is short-term. Short term taxes are at your marginal rate, and long term taxes are different, usually 15%. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc400/tc409 10% seems to be a little bit too optimistic, but 5%-8% annually on average is doable. 1% is way too little, you're doing something wrong, unless you mean real return (i.e.: after adjustment for inflation), and even then it's not too high. At any given year it may be easy or difficult, but the point is that we're talking about long term averages. For example, if you look at the DJI for the last 30 years, you'll see a rise of 1300% (give or take), which annually is ~40%. In the last 3 years the rise is even steeper, but in the last week - it is negative. So it depends on your time line and the way you manage your investments. You've got to balance between stocks and bonds and cash, but even if you park your money in cash you can get more than 1% right now (Capitol One on-line savings is 1.15%), and that's with the lowest rates ever, so getting 1% over time does mean that you're doing something wrong IMHO. The simplest way is just to compute how much money you'd have to have invested elsewhere to provide a comparable return. For example, if you assume a safe interest rate of 2.3% per year, you would need to have about $520,000 to get $1,000/month. "This may be more of a comment than an answer, but it's too long for a comment. Perhaps the Stackexchange Gods will forgive my impudence. That said: Even with the tax penalties, it can be to your advantage to put money into a ""retirement"" account and withdraw it before retirement. The trick is: Is the amount of the tax penalty more than the benefit of untaxed compound growth? For example, just to make up some numbers: Suppose you have $1000 of gross income to invest. You are considering whether to invest in an ordinary, non-tax favored account, or a classic IRA. Either way you will get 10% returns. Your tax rate, both when you put the money in and when you take it out, is 15%. There is a 10% tax penalty for early withdrawal. With an ordinary account you will pay 15% tax off the top, so you are only investing $850. Then each year 15% of your returns are paid in taxes, so your net return is 8.5%. But when you withdraw the money there are no additional taxes. With an IRA you do not pay any taxes up front, so you can invest the entire $1000. You collect 10% each year with no taxes. When you withdraw, you pay 15% plus the 10% penalty equals 25%. So after 5 years, the ordinary account would yield $850 x 1.085^5 = $1504. The IRA would yield $1000 x 1.1^5 x 0.75 = $1208. The tax penalty hurts. You are better to use the ordinary account. But if you could leave your money in for 25 years, then the ordinary account would yield $850 x 1.085^25 = $7687. The IRA would yield $1000 x 1.1^25 x 0.75 = $8126. The IRA, even with the tax penalty, is better. Of course my numbers are just made up. What your tax bracket is, what returns you get, and how long you think you might leave the money in the investment, all vary." One thing to keep in mind is that with Roth accounts, there are different withdrawal considerations based on your contributions. For example, you can withdraw Roth IRA contributions whenever you want in the future.  However this really has nothing to do with your cost basis and purely to do with the contribution amount vs balance. "There's a bit of confusion here.  Michael's article you linked is focused on the issue of post-tax 401(k) deposits. For those new to this, it sounds like we are talking about Roth 401(k) money. Not so. The Roth IRA was introduced in 1998, and the Roth 401(k) in 2006. Before '06, people had the ability to deposit more to their 401(k) than the pretax limit of $15,000 into the account as ""after tax"" deposits. My understanding is that these funds were analogous to the non-deducted IRA deposits for those outside the income limits.  Michael goes on the point out that now, with the addition of Roth 401(k) and Roth IRAs, there are folk with pre and post Tax 401(k) funds and trying to crack them for transfer to Traditional IRA and Roth IRA may be problematic.  Aside from a recent thread here, there are separate accounts for the Roth 401(k) and Traditional 401(k), and it's possible for the traditional to contain post tax money, which, given the recent introduction of the Roth 401(k) conversion, should be easily addressable." "You could put in in a Money Market Fund. These are designed to always be $1 per share, and not lose money. Of course, it still, very rarely, happens and is called ""breaking the buck"" when they do.  Sounds like the high yield savings is the way to go. The rates will be the same as what you can get from a Money Market Fund, but you also have the added advantage that the account is FDIC insured. BTW, using a Roth as an emergency fund is a terrible idea. It is true that, since you already paid taxes on your contributions, you can withdraw those contributions without incurring penalties. However, you have to file paperwork to do it, and since it's not common, the IRA custodian is likely to screw it up. Plus, you have to keep track of what were contributions, and what was investment returns, to not run afoul of the penalties. And it will take time to do it, which you may not have in an emergency. Considering you're only looking at getting 1% interest anyway, there's no reason to use a Roth account as an emergency fund. You can set those same automatic deposits into a savings account." You can take out the contributions to your Roth tax and penalty free.  That's the good thing. Anything above the amount you contributed that you withdraw early will cost you ordinary income tax (which is higher than capital gains tax) plus a 10 percent penalty on that amount. So if you have $15,000 in the account and $5,000 is gains and you withdraw $11,000, then you owe tax and penalty on $1,000.  The penalty is 10% and your taxes (high taxes!) are added to that.  Pretty bad deal. If you kept it in a normal account and paid capital gains tax, you just pay 15% (or whatever) on your gains and you get to offset income tax with your losses via tax loss harvesting. So back to your question: your idea works even better than you suggested if you only withdraw up to the amount that you contributed (you pay no tax!).  Take out any of the gains and you will be penalized more than you would if you just paid capital gains on them.  Leave those in until you are old enough to take them out penalty and tax free. To me, contributing to a Roth, making a bunch of gains on it, and withdrawing only the contribution part whenever you want seems to make good sense.