What threshold to move from SEP to Solo401k?
I think this article explains it pretty well: Contributions to a SEP are limited to   20% of your business  income (which is   business income minus half of your   self-employment tax), up to a maximum   of $45,000. With a solo 401(k), on the   other hand, you can contribute up to   $15,500 plus 20% of your business   income (defined the same way as   above), with a maximum contribution of   $45,000 in 2007. You can make an extra   $5,000 catch-up contribution if you're   50 or older
I'll offer another answer, using different figures. Let's assume 6% is the rate of return you can expect.  You are age 25, and plan to retire at age 65.  If you have $0 and want $1M at retirement, you will need to put away $524.20/month, or $6,290.40/year, which is 15% of $41,936.  So $41,936 is what you'd need to make per year in order to get to your target. You can calculate your own figures with a financial calculator:  480 months as your term (or, adjust this to your time horizon in months), .486755% as your interest (or, take your assumed interest rate + 1 to the 1/12th power and subtract 1 to convert to a monthly interest rate), 0 as your PV, and $1M as your FV; then solve for PMT. "You're getting great wisdom and options. Establishing your actionable path will require the details that only you know, such as how much is actually in each paycheck (and how much tax is withheld), how much do you spend each month (and yearly expenses too), how much spending can you actually cut or replace, how comfortable are you with considering (or not considering) unexpected/emergency spending. You mentioned you were cash-poor, but only you know what your current account balances are, which will affect your actions and priorities. Btw, interestingly, your ""increase 401k contributions by 2% each year"" will need to end before hitting the $18K contribution limit. I took some time and added the details you posted into a cash-flow program to see your scenario over the next few years. There isn't a ""401k loan"" activity in this program yet, so I build the scenario from other simple activities. You seem financially minded enough to continue modeling on your own. I'm posting the more difficult one for you (borrow from 401k), but you'll have to input your actual balances, paycheck and spending. My spending assumptions must be low, and I entered $70K as ""take-home,"" so the model looks like you've got lots of cash. If you choose to play with it, then consider modeling some other scenarios from the advice in the other posts. Here's the ""Borrow $6500 from 401k"" scenario model at Whatll.Be: https://whatll.be/d1x1ndp26i/2 To me, it's all about trying the scenarios and see which one seems to work with all of the details. The trick is knowing what scenarios to try, and how to model them. Full disclosure: I needed to do similar planning, so I wrote Whatll.Be and I now share it with other people. It's in beta, so I'm testing it with scenarios like yours. (Notice most of the extra activity occurs on 2018-Jan-01)" "I agree that you should CONSIDER a shares based dividend income SIPP, however unless you've done self executed trading before, enough to understand and be comfortable with it and know what you're getting into, I would strongly suggest that as you are now near retirement, you have to appreciate that as well as the usual risks associated with markets and their constituent stocks and shares going down as well as up, there is an additional risk that you will achieve sub optimal performance because you are new to the game. I took up self executed trading in 2008 (oh yes, what a great time to learn) and whilst I might have chosen a better time to get into it, and despite being quite successful over all, I have to say it's the hardest thing I've ever done! The biggest reason it'll be hard is emotionally, because this pension pot is all the money you've got to live off until you die right? So, even though you may choose safe quality stocks, when the world economy goes wrong it goes wrong, and your pension pot will still plummet, somewhat at least. Unless you ""beat the market"", something you should not expect to do if you haven't done it before, taking the rather abysmal FTSE100 as a benchmark (all quality stocks, right? LOL) from last Aprils highs to this months lows, and projecting that performance forwards to the end of March, assuming you get reasonable dividends and draw out £1000 per month, your pot could be worth £164K after one year. Where as with normal / stable / long term market performance (i.e. no horrible devaluation of the market) it could be worth £198K! Going forwards from those 2 hypothetical positions, assuming total market stability for the rest of your life and the same reasonable dividend payouts, this one year of devaluation at the start of your pensions life is enough to reduce the time your pension pot can afford to pay out £1000 per month from 36 years to 24 years. Even if every year after that devaluation is an extra 1% higher return it could still only improve to 30 years. Normally of course, any stocks and shares investment is a long term investment and long term the income should be good, but pensions usually diversify into less and less risky investments as they get close to maturity, holding a certain amount of cash and bonds as well, so in my view a SIPP with stocks and shares should be AT MOST just a part of your strategy, and if you can't watch your pension pot payout term shrink from 26 years to 24 years hold your nerve, then maybe a SIPP with stocks and shares should be a smaller part! When you're dependent on your SIPP for income a market crash could cause you to make bad decisions and lose even more income. All that said now, even with all the new taxes and loss of tax deductible costs, etc, I think your property idea might not be a bad one. It's just diversification at the end of the day, and that's rarely a bad thing. I really DON'T think you should consider it to be a magic bullet though, it's not impossible to get a 10% yield from a property, but usually you won't. I assume you've never done buy to let before, so I would encourage you to set up a spread sheet and model it carefully. If you are realistic then you should find that you have to find really REALLY exceptional properties to get that sort of return, and you won't find them all the time. When you do your spread sheet, make sure you take into account all the one off buying costs, build a ledger effectively, so that you can plot all your costs, income and on going balance, and then see what payouts your model can afford over a reasonable number of years (say 10). Take the sum of those payouts and compare them against the sum you put in to find the whole thing. You must include budget for periodic minor and less frequent larger renovations (your tenants WON'T respect your property like you would, I promise you), land lord insurance (don't omit it unless you maintain capability to access a decent reserve (at least 10-20K say, I mean it, it's happened to me, it cost me 10K once to fix up a place after the damage and negligence of a tenant, and it definitely could have been worse) but I don't really recommend you insuring yourself like this, and taking on the inherent risk), budget for plumber and electrician call out, or for appropriate schemes which include boiler maintenance, etc (basically more insurance). Also consider estate agent fees, which will be either finders fees and/or 10% management fees if you don't manage them yourself. If you manage it yourself, fine, but consider the possibility that at some point someone might have to do that for you... either temporarily or permanently. Budget for a couple of months of vacancy every couple of years is probably prudent. Don't forget you have to pay utilities and council tax when its vacant. For leaseholds don't forget ground rent. You can get a better return on investment by taking out a mortgage (because you make money out of the underlying ROI and the mortgage APR) (this is usually the only way you can approach 10% yield) but don't forget to include the cost of mortgage fees, valuation fees, legal fees, etc, every 2 years (or however long)... and repeat your model to make sure it is viable when interest rates go up a few percent." You are correct. The 65 is actually a longer test. The 66 requires you have the 7 first so you don't have strategy or product analysis questions. I have heard some say the 65 is harder because you are registering with the state as an investment advisor so don't need the 7. Regardless the biggest thing is know Uniform Securities Act inside and out. Well, from what I have heard, the pass is 60%.  Evidently, I am going to try to get a lot better but since I am still new to Finance, trying to put all the pieces together can be a bit of a challenge.  More studying would help that I assume. "Doing what you suggest may actually be helpful. Today, you have wealth of 145k and debt of 140k, for net wealth of 5k. Your interest incurred is $671/month and your interest earned is $211, for a total loss of $460/month, just below the 491 $/month you are saving, so your total saving is $31/month currently. However, even though in total, you have more money each month than the month before, you are getting more debt and thus more interest to pay each month. Your interest earned is increasing much slower. That $31/month you are currently able to save? By the time you hit 51, that has become $0/month and is still dropping. By 60? Your debt has overtaken your retirement savings - that $5 net worth you have now is gone. If you were to withdraw money from your retirement to pay off your debt (with the $32k penalties) you would have wealth of 70k and debt of 97k, for a net wealth of -27k (i.e. net debt). Obviously, the above is not good. However, you reduce your monthly interest paid to $465, while also reducing your interest earned to $102. This is a total loss of $365/month, so you are saving $126/month.  Note that in this case, your $491 monthly repayment is higher than the interest you have to pay on the account, this means that each month, your interest payment becomes lower, thus you pay off more and more each month. Your balance would be getting better each month (and at a faster rate each month. Your net wealth would be back in positives and above your wealth on your current trajectory before you hit 62. By 65, you will have $9000 of net wealth if you use your retirement savings now, as opposed to $9000 net debt if you don't. And just adding a few things on to the end 1) This is just the maths of it, and does not take into account your behaviour. If having that debt accruing is helping to motivate you to give up on luxuries, then this analysis does not apply. I am assuming that the $491/month is literally all you can save, and that no matter what changes, you will always deposit that $491. If you do not think you can continue to deposit that $491 if you stop seeing such high interest accruing, then do not do this. 2) I am assuming your interest earned on your IRA is 1.75%. If this is not the case, then please let me know, and I can adjust my numbers accordingly. From http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/28/obama-state-of-the-union-myra-savings-plan/4992743/ 3) I'm assuming all numbers you mentioned are accurate, and will stay constant (interest rates may not) 4) This is not professional, financial advice. I am just a person on the internet.  5) This goes without saying (and will probably go down as well as ""let them eat cake"" did), but saving more money each month will be a more powerful, risk free way to get out of this problem. Work a 2nd job, cut costs however you can. 6) Sorry if you were looking for something more motivational or sugar coated.  7) Best of luck, feel free to ask any questions. Graph below in red is your current trajectory, and blue is if you withdraw from your retirement to pay off your debt." "The Roth/Traditional decision is complex, but can be broken down into a set of simple rules.  Ideally, you want to choose to tax your money at the lowest possible rate. This specifically refers to your marginal rate, the rate you last $100 was taxed or next $100 of income with be taxed. That, in itself, is another issue, answered with questions here discussing marginal rates.  My suggestion has been that if you are in the 15% bracket, use Roth. And continue to do so until you hit 25%. At that point, begin to shift to the traditional, pre-tax 401(k) or IRA. (My article The 15% solution, goes into detail on this, although it references the 2013 tax rates. I need to re-edit). If you are already in the 25% bracket, I'd suggest just going pre-tax. Given the ability to convert, it's not as if there are 2 points in time (deposit and withdrawal) but you can decide every year if your situation changes. It's not uncommon to get married, have a baby, buy a house, and find you just dropped back down to 15% marginal rate when you were solidly 25% prior.  Let me explain why you should go 100% pretax if already at 25%.  A single person hits the top of the 15% bracket (in 2017) at $37,950 taxable. Add the standard deduction and exemption, and you are at $48,350. The tax on this is $5226, less than 10% average, despite the next $100 being taxed at 25%. It would take over $1M to have an account large enough to withdraw $40K/yr.  If you blow through that number, you hit 25%, I agree, but why pay 25% now, for sure, to avoid 'maybe' hitting 25% later? You have decades of opportunities for conversion, and even more when the funds are transferred to IRAs if you have a job change. (And the conversion discussion has multiple layers when the IRA is involved) Say you are 'too' successful. You are hitting $2M before age 55. If you retire post-55, you can withdraw from the 401(k) penalty free. But, you have 15 years before you'd start to take SS benefits. 15 years to use conversions, even if pushing into 25%, to reduce the impact of SS taxation.  My advice is not a set-and-forget solution. It's an annual evaluation of the plan for the coming year.  Further notes on my choice of ""15% Solution"" - This is the 2017 tax table for singles -  I note that median individual income is ~$30K which puts that median single at ~20K taxable. This is where the analysis begins. This earner might have upward mobility, to reach the 25% bracket and begin to save pre-tax. The goal would be to have a mix of pre/post tax money, so that over the course of their life, the 25% bracket was avoided, perhaps completely.  In general, my writing tend towards the second highest quintile, the 60-80% slice of the population. The numbers might appear arbitrary, but, in the end, the discussion has to start someplace. The concept I described here is best implemented by the single or couple who is still at 15%, but soon pushing higher than the 15/25 line. This enables them to start by saving in the Roth, and slowly shifting towards pre-tax. The final mix at retirement depends on that timing as well as their opportunities for conversions along the way.  Part of my focus on that line is that the differential is greatest in bracket shifts between 15 and 25%. Much of the benefit in the whole IRA/401 discussion is in that shift, depositing at 25%, yet withdrawing at 15%. The 28% couple might wish to avoid the 33% bracket at retirement, but that level of income impacts far fewer people, and fewer still that are either reading these boards or my other writing." "There are some assumptions which can be made in terms of the flexibility you have - I will start with the least flexible assumption and then move to more flexible assumptions. If you must put down a number 1, your go-to for this(""Change the start period to 1""), is pretty good, and it's used frequently for other divide-by-zero calculations like kda in a video game. The problem I have with '1' is that it doesn't allow you to handle various scales.  Some problems are dealt with in thousands, some in fractions, and some in hundreds of millions. Therefore, you should change the start period to the smallest significantly measurable number you could reasonably have. Here, that would take your example 0 and 896 and give you an increase of 89,500%. It's not a great result, but it's the best you can hope for if you have to put down a number,  and it allows you to keep some of the ""meaning in the change."" If you absolutely must put something This is the assumption that most answers have taken - you can put down a symbol, a number with a notation, empty space, etc, but there is going to be a label somewhere called 'Growth' that will exist. I generally agree with what I've seen, particularly the answers from Benjamin Cuninghma and Nath. For the sake of preservation - those answers can be summarized as putting 'N/A' or '-', possibly with a footnote and asterisk. If you can avoid the measurement entirely The root of your question is ""What do my manager and investors expect to see?"" I think it's valuable to dig even further to ""What do my manager and investors really want to know?"". They want to know the state of their investment. Growth is often a good measurement of that state, but in cases where you are starting from zero or negative, it just doesn't tell you the right information. In these situations, you should avoid % growth, and instead talk in absolute terms which mention the time frame or starting state. For example:" the SP500 is all in the US, though.  if you plan to buy and hold long index, you will probably be fine. i would recommend to diversify into different assets for a number of reasons. but if you invest without an advisor, you need to stick to a savings and investment plan without question. if you start thinking about what sector you think the next big break is going to be, or if you should be buying in right now, or if now is a good time to sell, it is more likely than not you will be doing yourself a great disservice. Two ways to solve this.  Look at the answer. If the answer says 3 months, then using ceiling for similar questions. You have to act according to the exam conventions, not according to own feelings. Whether or not the answer is reasonable and applicable in real life is out of the question.  Ask yourself, did the investment double after 14 years 2 months? i.e. FV >= 2PV. Does a person who ran 99.72 meters in a 100-meter dash counted as touching the finish line? Here's the issue with LTC and, really, underwritten insurance in general; no one has a crystal ball.   Based on today's available rates where's the sweet spot to buy LTC? Probably right around the mid-60s, because you probably won't pay much in before you start gutting the carrier (assuming you can make it through underwriting in your mid-60s). The issue is, what happens when some life event changes your underwriting status?  Would you rather buy prematurely or be excluded entirely?  Those are generally your two options when it comes to individual LTC.  The underwriting eligibility window on LTC is very  narrow.  There's a very very small space between the best possible underwriting and being flatly declined.   Look for an LTC agent in your area.  Likely someone in your circle of friends and family will know a reputable/knowledgeable insurance agent who can run up some quotes at various underwriting classes.  Try to avoid looking at quotes for your age + 10 years to see what the quote will look like 10 years from now.  10 years from now the rate tables will be significantly different. Whether or not you should buy LTC now rather than waiting will depend on a whole host of other criteria.  Personally, if I was 50 and my biggest health concern was improving my run time and LTC is on my mind, I'd just pick up a policy now while I will likely be in a preferred underwriting class rather than waiting and hoping my health doesn't betray me. Obviously I'm a stranger on the internet and none of this is actual advice.  You should find an agent local to you and talk about your options and situation. I don't know too much about the kelly criterion, but going by the other answers it sounds like it could be quite risky depending how you use it. I have been taught the first thing you do in trading is protect your existing capital and any profits you have made, and for this reason I prefer and use Position Sizing (PS). The concept with PS is that you only risk a small % of your capital on every trade, usually not more than 1%, however if you want to be very aggressive then not more than 2%. I use 1% of my capital for every trade. So if you are trading with an account of $40,000 and your risk R on every trade is 1%, then R = $400. As an example, say you decide to buy a stock at $10 and you work out your initial stop to be at $9.50, then our maximum risk R of $400 is divided by the stop distance of $0.50 to get your PS = $400/$0.50 = 800 shares. If the price then drops after your purchase, your maximum loss (subject to no slippage) would be $400.  If the price moves up you would raise your stop until your potential loss becomes smaller and smaller and then becomes a gain once your stop moves above your initial purchase price. The aim is to make your gains be larger than your losses. So if your average loss is kept to 1R or less then you should aim to get your average gains to 2R, 3R or more. This would be considered a good trading system where you will make regular profits even with a win ratio of 50%. I'm NMLS with a bank, won't name it, but you can buy and sell points up to .5 if I remember right.  Might be 1% but it's the difference between 1300 and 1700 if I remember right for monthly payments. Thanks! Your earlier comment had me panicked there!  I have worked about 1700 question over the last week from the Qbank, and was hoping that it would with a couple mock exams, would be sufficient for level 1. My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year.  Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below:  This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change. This way you could capture the majority of the uptrend (which could go on for years) before changing from the high growth/aggressive option to the balanced option. If you where after more control over your superannuation assets another option open to you is to start a SMSF, however I would recommend having at least $300K to $400K in assets before starting a SMSF, or else the annual costs would be too high as a percentage of your total super assets.