Is it sensible to redirect retirement contributions from 401(k) towards becoming a landlord?
"Here are the issues, as I see them - It's not that I don't trust banks, but I just feel like throwing all   of our money into intangible investments is unwise. Banks have virtually nothing to do with this. And intangible assets has a different meaning than you assume. You don't have to like the market, but try to understand it, and dislike it for a good reason. (Which I won't offer here). Do your 401(k) accounts offer company match? When people start with ""we'd like to reduce our deposits"" that's the first thing we need to know. Last - you plan to gain ""a few hundred dollars a month."" I bet it's closer to zero or a loss. I'll return to edit, we have recent posts here that reviewed the expenses to consider, and I'd bet that if you review the numbers, you've ignored some of them. ""A few hundred"" - say it's $300. Or $4000/yr. It would take far less work and risk to simply save $100K in your retirement accounts to produce this sum each year.  The investment may very well be excellent. I'm just offering the flip side, things you might have missed.   Edit - please read the discussion at How much more than my mortgage should I charge for rent? The answers offer a good look at the list of expenses you need to consider. In my opinion, this is one of the most important things. I've seen too many new RE investors ""forget"" about so many expenses, a projected monthly income reverts to annual losses." As a general rule, diversification means carrying sufficient amounts in cash equivalents, stocks, bonds, and real estate.   An emergency fund should have six months income (conservative) or expenses (less conservative) in some kind of cash equivalent (like a savings account).  As you approach retirement, that number should increase.  At retirement, it should be something like five years of expenses.  At that time, it is no longer an emergency fund, it's your everyday expenses.  You can use a pension or social security to offset your effective monthly expenses for the purpose of that fund.  You should five years net expenses after income in cash equivalents after retirement.   The normal diversification ratio for stocks, bonds, and real estate is something like 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate.  You can count the equity in your house as part of the real estate share.  For most people, the house will be sufficient diversification into real estate.   That said, you should not buy a second home as an investment.  Buy the second home if you can afford it and if it makes you happy.  Then consider if you want to keep your first home as an investment or just sell it now.   Look at your overall ownership to determine if you are overweighted into real estate.  Your primary house is not an investment, but it is an ownership.  If 90% of your net worth is real estate, then you are probably underinvested in securities like stocks and bonds.  50% should probably be an upper bound, and 20% real estate would be more diversified.   If your 401k has an employer match, you should almost certainly put enough in it to get the full match.   I prefer a ratio of 70-75% stocks to 25-30% bonds at all ages.  This matches the overall market diversification.  Rebalance to stay in that range regularly, possibly by investing in the underweight security.  Adding real estate to that, my preference would be for real estate to be roughly a quarter of the value of securities.  So around 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate.  A 50% share for real estate is more aggressive but can work.   Along with a house or rental properties, another option for increasing the real estate share is a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT).  These are essentially a mutual fund for real estate.  This takes you out of the business of actively managing properties.   If you really want to manage rentals, make sure that you list all the expenses.  These include:   Also be careful that you are able to handle it if things change.  Perhaps today there is a tremendous shortage of rental properties and the vacancy rate is close to zero.  What happens in a few years when new construction provides more slack?   Some kinds of maintenance can't be done with tenants.  Also, some kinds of maintenance will scare away new tenants.  So just as you are paying out a large amount of money, you also aren't getting rent.  You need to be able to handle the loss of income and the large expense at the same time.   Don't forget the sales value of your current house.  Perhaps you bought when houses were cheaper.  Maybe you'd be better off taking the current equity that you have in that house and putting it into your new house's mortgage.  Yes, the old mortgage payment may be lower than the rent you could get, but the rent over the next thirty years might be less than what you could get for the house if you sold it.  Are you better off with minimal equity in two houses or good equity with one house?   I would feel better about this purchase if you were saying that you were doing this in addition to your 401k.  Doing this instead of your 401k seems sketchy to me.  What will you do if there is another housing crash?  With a little bad luck, you could end up underwater on two mortgages and unable to make payments.  Or perhaps not underwater on the current house, but not getting much back on a sale either.   All that said, maybe it's a good deal.  You have more information about it than we do.  Just...be careful. "With a healthy income its quite possible to contribute too much into 401Ks/IRAs.  For example, if your retired today and had 3 million or so, how much more would you need?  Would an extra million materially change your life?  Would it make you happier if you invested that extra in some rental properties or perhaps a business like a sandwich or ice cream shop where you have more direct control? This kind of discussion is possible as you indicate that you have taken care of your life financially.  It seems at odds with the negative press describing the woefully condition of the standard person's finances.  These articles ignore a very simple fact:  its because of bad behavior.  You, on the contrary, have behaved well and are in the process of reaping rewards.  This is where I feel your ""mental gymnastics"" originates.   Looking to engage in the rental market is no different then buying a franchise.  You are opening a business of your own.  You'll have to educate yourself and are likely to make a few mistakes that will cause you to write checks to solve.  Your goal is to minimize those mistakes.  After all, what do you know about the rental home business?  I am guessing not much.  Educate yourself.  Read and spend some money on taking knowledgeable people out for coffee.   In the end you should understand that although a poor decision may cost you money you cannot really make a bad decision.  Lets say you do buy a rental property, things go south, you sell for a loss, etc....  In the end the ""butchers bill"" is 50K or so.  Will that materially change your life?  Probably not.  The worst case is perhaps you have to work a year or two beyond the anticipated retirement age to make up that money.  No big deal." This is going to seem pretty far off the beaten path, but I hope when you finish reading it you'll see the point... Suppose someone offered you a part time job: Walk their dog once per day for at least 20 minutes, and once per week pick up the dog poo from their lawn. Your compensation is $300/month. Now suppose instead you are given two choices for a job: Your preference probably has more to do with your personality and interests than the finances involved.
I kind of hate piling on with another opinion, but this is too long for a comment. I did what you are thinking of doing, I would at least try renting it for a couple years so long as: The primary risks of renting are mostly related to unexpected costs and bad tenants, you've got a very healthy income, so as long as you maintain a nice emergency fund it doesn't sound like keeping this property as a rental will be too much risk. If the rental market is strong where your house is, then you have a better chance of avoiding bad tenants. I like to keep my rent a little lower than the max I think it could go for, to attract more applications and hopefully find someone who will be a good longer term tenant. Tax-free gains So long as you lived in your house 2 of the last 5 years, you can sell without paying capital gains tax on your profit, so you could try renting it for 2 years and then sell. That was a key for me when I converted my first house to a rental. I liked that flexibility, there's still the typical renting risks associated, but it's not a lifelong commitment. You can get 2 years of increased equity/appreciation tax-free, or you could find you enjoy it and keep it for the long haul. "In asnwer to your questions: As @joetaxpayer said, you really should look into a Solo 401(k). In 2017, this allows you to contribute up to $18k/year and your employer (the LLC) to contribute more, up to $54k/year total (subject to IRS rules). 401(k) usually have ROTH and traditional sides, just like IRA. I believe the employer-contributed funds also see less tax burden for both you and your LLC that if that same money had become salary (payroll taxes, etc.). You might start at irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans and go from there. ROTH vs. pre-tax: You can mix and match within years and between years. Figure out what income you want to have when you retire. Any year you expect to pay lower taxes (low income, kids, deductions, etc.), make ROTH contributions. Any year you expect high taxes (bonus, high wage, taxable capital gains, etc.), make pre-tax payments. I have had a uniformly bad experience with target date funds across multiple 401(k) plans from multiple plan adminstrators. They just don't perform well (a common problem with almost any actively managed fund). You probably don't want to deal with individual stocks in your retirement accounts, so rather pick passively managed index funds that track various markets segments you care about and just sit on them. For example, your high-risk money might be in fast-growing but volatile industries (e.g. tech, aerospace, medical), your medium-risk money might go in ""total market"" or S&P 500 index funds, and your low-risk money might go in treasury notes and bonds. The breakdown is up to you, but as an 18 year old you have a ~50 year horizon and so can afford to wait out anything short of another Great Depression (and maybe even that). So you'd want generally you want more or your money in the high-risk high-return  category, rebalancing to lower risk investments as you age. Diversifying into real estate, foreign investments, etc. might also make sense but I'm no expert on those." "Does your current 401(k) have low fees and good investment choices? If so you might be able to ""roll-in"" your rollover IRA to your 401(k), then do a backdoor Roth IRA contribution. A Roth IRA would be far more useful than a non-deductible traditional IRA." "I would like to buy hubby a beer and talk some sense into him.  Do you have 2 years gross income saved as your retirement balance? That's about where he should be at age 30. I wrote about this in an article Retirement Savings Ratio.  Blowing the 401(k) for anything less than an extreme emergency is downright foolish.  The decision whether to roll it to an IRA or the new account isn't so simple. If you roll it to new plan, yes you can borrow, up to 60 months at a low rate, 4% or so. Taking the cash and then making an IRA deposit just means paying the penalty for nothing, unless you manage it just right, depositing the amount within 60 day, etc. You don't mention what he wants to do with it. You need to sit down and have a long ""money talk.""  Keep in mind, if you oversave, it's easy to retire early, or at 50 just stop saving, spend every new dime. But it's something else to turn 50 and realize you will have to work till you die. I've seen both situations. (I am 48, the Mrs, 54 our multiple is now 13. The target is 20 to retire. The house is not counted as it can't be spent. The mortgage IS counted as it must be paid) Edit - as I read this again, I see the OP asked about opening an IRA in the same year they withdraw the 401(k) and pay tax and penalty. Wow. I also see her user reverted to generic, which means, I think, she's never returned. I hope they made the right decision, to keep the money in retirement accounts. Hubby never even said what he wanted the money for." My answer would be yes. In addition, I'm not sure that anything requires you to roll your current 401(k) into a new one if you don't like the investment options.  Keeping existing funds in your current 401(k) if you like their investment options might make sense for you (though they obviously wouldn't be adding funds once you're no longer an employee). As for the terms of the potential new 401(k), the matching percentage and vesting schedule match what I've seen at past employers.  My current employer offers the same terms, but there's no vesting schedule. Adding to the excellent answers already given, we typically advise members to contribute as much as needed to get a full employer match in their 401K, but not more.  We then redirect any additional savings to a traditional IRA or ROTH IRA (depending on their age, income, and future plans).  Only once they've exhausted the $5000 maximum in their IRA will we look at putting more money into the 401K. The ROTH IRA is a beautiful and powerful vehicle for savings.  The only reason to consider taking money out of the ROTH is in a case of serious catastrophe. If your employer does not offer contribution matching, and you don't like the range of investment options provided by the company 401k, then you probably are better off investing in your own IRA instead.  In an IRA held at a bank or brokerage, you can invest in multiple stocks or funds and move money around within the IRA pretty freely in most cases. If your company is doing well and is actually sharing profit into the 401k, you might consider leaving your 5% contribution to the 401k where it is and put the other 5% you are planning to contribute into a new IRA of your own.  This straddles the risk of you losing money if your company 401k tanks (or profit sharing dries up) and your missing out on profit sharing if it continues to pay well. I don't quite understand your thought process here.  First, in a tax-advantaged retirement account you are NOT allowed to engage in a transaction with yourself.   If you just want to run a business and be able to write off expenses, how is using the self-directed IRA relevant? You can either buy the condo using your tax-advantaged account and rent it out to regular tenants.  Or you buy the condo yourself using your own money and then operate your business so you can deduct business expenses from doing so.  401k's allow you to take a loan out of it, so you can look into that as well. The plan is perfectly valid and legal as tax rules currently stand. There is no limit to the amount you can rollover or convert to Roth. Assuming your 401(k) is traditional pre-tax, you'll have to pay income taxes on the amount you convert above personal exemption + standard deduction, which is currently about $10k/year for single filers. The other caveat is you'll need funds to live off of while your conversion money is seasoning for 5 years in your Roth IRA. If you start the conversion while you are still working, you'll be paying taxes on it in your marginal bracket, which will negate much of the benefit of the pre-tax 401(k). If your living expenses are low, you can convert about $10k/year without federal income taxes, while living off capital gains from a taxable account which have a 0% rate in the 15%  income tax bracket (goes up to about $37k/year). "As long as you're willing to pay the taxes and the penalties, once you're no longer employed you're allowed to do whatever you want. You can always do an ""direct roll-over"" (See IRC Sec. 401(a)(31)(A) which mandates this) and then withdraw from another qualified account, thus creating a withdrawal, if they refuse to just mail you a check (Why would they care? Don't know). The match may have some vesting restrictions, though. Your own contributions - are yours to do with whatever you feel like. That said, just pointing out the obvious - it's a very bad idea. Unless you expect to die before you're 60 and don't want to leave a dime to your heirs, you would probably be better off leaving it in a tax-sheltered account. If the custodian is bad - just roll over elsewhere, there's tons of excellent IRA providers." It is great that you came up with a plan to own a rental home, free and clear, and also move up in home.  It is also really good of you to recognize that curtailing spending has a profound effect on your net worth, many people fail to acknowledge that factoid and prefer to instead blame things outside their control.  Good work there.  Here are some items of your plan that I have comments on. 11mo by aggressively curtailing elective spending How does your spouse feel about this?  They have to be on board, but it is such a short time frame this is very doable. cashing out all corporate stock, This will probably trigger capital gains.  You have to be prepared to pay the tax man, but this is a good source of cash for your plan.  You also have to have an additional amount that will likely be due next April 15th. redirecting all contributions to my current non-matched R401(k) This is fine as well because of the short time frame. withdrawing the principal from a Roth IRA This I kind of hate.  We are so limited in money that we can put into tax favored plans, that taking money out bothers me.  Also it is that much more difficult to save in a ROTH because of the sting of taxes.  I would not do this, but would favor instead to take a few extra months to make your plan happen. buy home #2 How are you going to have a down payment for home #2?  Is your intention to pay off home and save a while, then purchase home #2?  I would do anything to avoid PMI.   Besides I would take some time to live in a paid for house. Overall I would grade your plan a B.  If take a bit longer, and remove the withdrawing from the ROTH, it then becomes an A-.  With a good explanation of how you come up with the down payment for house 2, you could easily move to an A+. Unless you plan to sell your home and live in a box during your retirement I wouldn't consider it an investment that is a viable replacement for a retirement account. Consider this: Even if housing prices DO go way up, you still need a place to live. When you sell that house and try to buy another one to live in, you will find that the other houses went up in price too, negating your gain. The only way this might work is if you buy a much bigger house than you will need later and trade down to pull out some equity, or consider a reverse-mortgage for retirement income. Do not borrow to invest in real estate.  The interest payments will eat up most of your profit (the property management fees might eat up the rest), and you will have significant risk with tenant issues, property value, etc.  Many people have made it work - many also lose everything. Real estate can be a great investment, but you can't even afford a house of your own yet, let alone investment property.  Keep saving up until you have 20% down to buy a house of your own (ideally that you can put on a 15% fixed mortgage), and pay it off as quickly as you can.  Then you can start saving for your first rental property. If that process isn't fast enough for you, you have two options.  Increase your income or reduce your expenses.  There's no shortcut to wealth-building without taking significant risks. At most I would scale back the 401(k) to the 5% match you get, but you should scale that back up once you have enough for a down payment. My observations is that this seems like hardly enough to kill   inflation. Is he right? Or are there better ways to invest? The tax deferral part of the equation isn't what dominates regarding whether your 401k beats 30 years of inflation; it is the return on investment.  If your 401k account tanks due to a prolonged market crash just as you retire, then you might have been better off stashing the money in the bank.  Remember, 401k money at now + 30 years is not a guaranteed return (though many speak as though it were).  There is also the question as to whether fees will eat up some of your return and whether the funds your 401k invests in are good ones. I'm uneasy with the autopilot nature of the typical 401k non-strategy; it's too much the standard thing to do in the U.S., it's too unconscious, and strikes me as Ponzi-like.  It has been a winning strategy for some already, sure, and maybe it will work for the next 30-100 years or more.  I just don't know.  There are also changes in policy or other unknowns that 30 years will bring, so it takes faith I don't have to lock away a large chunk of my savings in something I can't touch without hassle and penalty until then. For that reason, I have contributed very little to my 403b previously, contribute nothing now (though employer does, automatically.  I have no match.) and have built up a sizable cash savings, some of which may be used to start a business or buy a house with a small or no mortgage (thereby guaranteeing at least not paying mortgage interest).  I am open to changing my mind about all this, but am glad I've been able to at least save a chunk to give me some options that I can exercise in the next 5-10 years if I want, instead of having to wait 25 or more. There is a process called a backdoor IRA.   You now have effectively made a Roth IRA contribution in a year where technically you aren't eligible.  You do not have to pay taxes on earnings with a Roth IRA.  You are limited to the normal annual contribution to the IRA (Roth or traditional).   If you don't convert your traditional IRA contribution to a Roth IRA, then you are right.  That gains nothing except enhanced protection in bankruptcy.  Only do this if you are taking advantage of the Roth rollover.   I'm ignoring rolling over a 401k into an IRA, as that doesn't increase the amount you can contribute.  This does.  You can contribute the full $18,000 to the 401k and still make a full contribution to the backdoor IRA.   This is the tax advantaged form of an IRA.  This avoids double taxation.  Let's assume that your investment can go into something with a 5% annual return and you pay a 25% tax rate (doesn't matter as it drops out).  You are going to invest for thirty years and then withdraw.  You initially have $1000 before taxes.   With a regular investment:   You now have $2867.74.   With a pre-tax IRA.   You now have $3241.45 (it is not an accident that this is almost the same as the amount before the capital gains tax in the example without an IRA).   You avoided the $373.72 capital gains tax.  Even though you paid a lot more tax, you paid it out of the gains from investing the original $250 that you would have paid in tax.   This helps you even more if the capital gains tax goes up in the future.  Or if your tax bracket changes.  If you currently are in the 25% bracket but retire in the 15% bracket, these numbers will get even better in your favor.   If you currently are in the 15% bracket and worry that you might retire in the 25% bracket, consider a Roth instead.  It also avoids double taxation but its single taxation is at your current rate rather than your future rate.