Should one only pursue a growth investing approach for Roth IRAs
What asset allocation is right for you (at the most basic the percentage if stocks vs bonds; at the advanced level, percentage of growth vs value, international vs domestic etc) is a function of your age, retirement goals, income stability and employment prospects until retirement.  Roth IRA is orthogonal to this.  Now, once you have your allocation worked out there are tactical tax advantage decisions available: interest income, REIT and MLP dividends are taxed at income and not capital gains rate, so the tactical decision is to put these investments in tax advantage accounts like Roth and 401ks.  Conversely, should you decide to buy and hold growth stocks there are tactical advantages to keeping them in a taxable account: you get tax deferment until the year you choose to sell (barring a takeover), you get the lower lt cap gains rate, and you can employ tax loss harvesting. If you are inside of a ROTH IRA you are not getting taxed on any gain.  Dividends, distributions, interest payment, or capital gains are never taxed.  This, of course, assumes you wait until age 59.5 to do ROTH withdrawals on your gains. For me the aggressive approach makes sense since I have a longer time horizon before I need to withdraw the funds.  This style should also match your personality and you should have the patience and appetite to deal with market fluctuations which can be wild in some cases (as we saw in 2008-2009).  Not an easy question to answer since everyone's situation is different and everyone has to make their own decisions.
Is there any benefit to investing in a Roth 401(k) plan, as opposed to a Roth IRA?  They have separate contribution limits, so how much you contribute to one does not change the amount you can contribute to the other.  Which is relevant to your question because you said  the earnings on that account compounded over the next 40 years growing tax-free will be much higher than what I'd save on current taxes on a traditional 401(k).   This is only true if you max out your contribution limits.  If you start with the same amount of money and have the same marginal tax rate in both years, it doesn't matter which one you pick.   Start with $10,000 to invest.  With the traditional, you can invest all $10,000.  With the Roth, you pay taxes on it and then invest it.  Let's assume a tax rate of 25%.  So invest $7500.   Let's assume that you invest either amount long enough to double four times (forty years at 7% return after inflation is about right).  So the traditional has $160,000 and the Roth has $120,000.   Now you withdraw them.  For simplicity's sake, we'll pretend it's all one year.  It's probably over several years, but the math is easier in a single year.  With the Roth, you have $120,000.  With the traditional, you have to pay tax.  Again, let's assume 25%.  So that's $40,000, leaving you with $120,000 from the traditional.  That is the same amount as the Roth!   So it would make sense to  If you can max out both, great.  You do that for forty years and your retirement will be as financially secure as you can make it.  If you can't max them out, the most important thing is the employer match.  That's free money.  Then you may prefer your Roth IRA to the 401k.   Note that you can also roll over your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA.  Then you can withdraw your contributions from the Roth IRA without penalty or additional tax.  Alternate source.   Beyond answering your question, I would still like to reiterate that Roth or traditional does not have a big effect on your investment unless you max them out or you have different tax rates now versus in retirement.  It may change other things.  For example, you can roll over a Roth 401k to a Roth IRA without paying taxes.  And the Roth IRA will act like it was contributed directly.  You have to check with your employer what their rollover rules are.  They may allow it any time or only at employment separation (when you leave the job).   If you do max out your Roth accounts, then they will perform better than the traditional accounts at the same nominal contribution.  This is because they are tax free while your returns in the other accounts will have to pay taxes. But it doesn't matter until you hit the limits.  Until then, you could just invest the tax savings of the traditional as well as the money you could invest in a Roth. "My original plan was to wait for the next economic downturn and invest   in index funds. These funds have historically yielded 6-7% annually   when entered at any given time, but maybe around 8-9% annually when   entered during a recession. These numbers have been adjusted for   inflation. Questions or comments on this strategy? Educate yourself as index funds are merely a strategy that could be applied to various asset classes such as US Large-cap value stocks, Emerging Market stocks, Real Estate Investment Trusts, US Health Care stocks, Short-term bonds, and many other possibilities. Could you be more specific about which funds you meant as there is some great work by Fama and French on the returns of various asset classes over time. What about a Roth IRA? Mutual fund? Roth IRA is a type of account and not an investment in itself, so while I think it is a good idea to have Roth IRA, I would highly advise researching the ins and outs of this before assuming you can invest in one. You do realize that index funds are just a special type of mutual fund, right? It is also worth noting that there are a few kinds of mutual funds: Open-end, exchange-traded and closed-end. Which kind did you mean? What should I do with my money until the market hits another   recession? Economies have recessions, markets have ups and downs. I'd highly consider forming a real strategy rather than think, ""Oh let's toss it into an index fund until I need the money,"" as that seems like a recipe for disaster. Figure out what long-term financial goals do you have in mind, how OK are you with risk as if the market goes down for more than a few years straight, are you OK with seeing those savings be cut in half or worse?" At 19 years old you can and should be investing to see your money grow over the years. Reinvesting the dividends does get to be pretty significant because they compound over many years. Historically this dividend compounding accounts for about half of the total gains from stocks. At 70 years old I am not investing to see my money grow, although that's nice. I am investing to eat. I live on the dividends, and they tend to come in fairly reliably even as the market bounces up and down. For stocks selected with this in mind I get about 4% per year from the dividends. "You seem to be treating your Roth IRA as a sort of savings account for use in emergency situations.  I would use a savings account for savings as withdrawing money from an IRA will have penalties under various circumstances (more than contributions, Roth IRA less than 5 years old, more than $10k for a down payment). Also, you mention folding your IRA into your 401k so that it will ""grow faster"".  However, this will not have that effect.  Imagine you have $30k in an IRA and $100k in a 401k and you are averaging a return of 8% / year on each.  This will be identical to having a single 401k with $130k and an 8% / year return. This is not one of your questions, but employer matches are not counted in the 401k contribution limit.  If your 22% calculation of your salary includes the match to reach the max contribution, you can still contribute more." The 10K in savings and money market is equal to about 1.5 months of income for emergency funds. You should add additional funds to this account over the next few years to let that increase to 3 to 6 months of monthly expenses. This money should be kept secure so that it will be there when you need it. Growth is not the primary function for this account. Investment at this stage should be for retirement. This means take advantage of 401K matching if it is available. You will have to determine if Roth or regular makes the  most sense for you. In general the lower your current tax bracket the more sense Roth makes for you. If you want an IRA again decide which type. Also remember that you have until the tax deadline to make a contribution so you can decide to use a refund to fund the IRA. IRAs and 401Ks are just account types with some rules attached. They can be invested in everything from CD's to individual stocks depending on how aggressive you want to be. 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. I would open a taxable account with the same custodian that manages your Roth IRA (e.g., Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.). Then within the taxable account I would invest the extra money in low cost, broad market index funds that are tax efficient. Unlike in your 401(k) and Roth IRA, you will now have tax implications if your funds produce dividends or realize a capital gain. That is why tax-efficient funds are important to minimize this as much as possible.  The 3-fund portfolio is a popular choice for taxable accounts because of simplicity and the tax efficiency of broad market index funds that are part of the three fund portfolio. The 3-fund portfolio normally consists of Depending on your tax bracket you may want to consider municipal bonds in your taxable instead of taxable bonds if your tax bracket is 25% or higher.  Another option is to forgo bonds altogether in the taxable account and just hold bonds in retirement accounts while keeping tax efficient domestic and international tock funds in your taxable account. Then adjust the bond portion upward in your retirement accounts to account for the additional stocks in your taxable accounts. This will maintain the asset allocation that you've already chosen that is appropriate for your age and goals. Technically, the difference between dividends and growth ought to be that dividends can be reinvested in stocks other than the one that paid them, which is a definite advantage if you actually have a strategy.  Dividend -paying stocks used to be preferred for exactly that reason, back in the days when fewer people were directly playing in the market and more knew what they were doing. Unfortunately,  getting a periodic dividend from a stock whose price is relatively steady isn't as exciting a game as watching your stock's value bounce around and (hopefully)  creep upward on a second-by-second basis. Those who are thinking in gambling terms rather than investment terms -- or who think they can beat the pros at high frequency trading, comment withheld -- want the latter, and have been putting a lot of pressure on companies to operate in the latter mode. That doesn't make it better -- certainly not for the longer-term investors -- just more fashionable. And fashion often means getting stuck with something impractical because everyone else is doing it. On this, I second Scrooge:  Humbug! I'd open the Roth IRA account and fund for 2015 and 2016. For the very long term, I'd learn about index funds, specifically a low cost S&P mutual fund or ETF. "when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money).  growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for  by the growth in the deferred portion.  that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed.  this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account.  the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire.  also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the ""wash sale"" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers.  even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty." You are missing something very significant. The money in a traditional IRA (specifically, a deductible traditional IRA; there is not really any reason to keep a nondeductible traditional IRA anymore) is pre-tax. That means when you pay tax on it when you take it out, you are paying tax on it for the first time. If you take ordinary money to invest it in stocks, and then pay capital gains tax on it when you take it out, that is post-tax money to begin with -- meaning that you have already paid (income) tax on it once. Then you have to pay tax again on the time-value growth of that money (i.e. that growth is earned from money that is already taxed). That means you are effectively paying tax twice on part of that money. If that doesn't make sense to you, and you think that interest, capital gains, etc. is the first time you're paying tax on the money because it's growth, then you have a very simplistic view of money. There's something called time value of money, which means that a certain amount of money is equivalent to a greater amount of money in the future. If you invest $100 now and end up with $150 in the future, that $150 in the future is effectively the same money as the $100 now. Let's consider a few examples. Let's say you have $1000 of pre-tax income you want to invest and withdraw a certain period of time later in retirement. Let's say you have an investment that grows 100% over this period of time. And let's say that your tax rate now and in the future is 25% (and for simplicity, assume that all income is taxed at that rate instead of the tax bracket system). And capital gains tax is 15%. You see a few things: Traditional IRA and Roth IRA are equivalent if the tax rates are the same. This is because, in both cases, you pay tax one time on the money (the only difference between paying tax now and later is the tax rate). It doesn't matter that you're paying tax only on the principal for the Roth and on the principal plus earnings for Traditional, because the principal now is equivalent to the principal plus earnings in the future. And you also see that investing money outside fares worse than both of them. That is because you are paying tax on the money once plus some more. When you compare it against the Roth IRA, the disadvantage is obvious -- in both cases you pay income tax on the principal, but for Roth IRA you pay nothing on the earnings, whereas for the outside stock, you pay some tax on the earnings. What may be less obvious is it is equally disadvantageous compared to a Traditional IRA; Traditional and Roth IRA are equivalent in this comparison. 401(k)s and IRAs have a fundamental tax benefit compared to normal money investment, because they allow money to be taxed only one time. No matter how low the capital gains tax rate it, it is still worse because it is a tax on time-value growth from money that is already taxed. Luke, I'd like to point out some additional benefits of the Roth IRA accounts 1) Going Roth, you can effectively increase the amount of your contribution to your IRA account. In your example, you are assuming that your contribution to Roth IRA is in fact $ 85 ($100 less $ 15 tax paid). In reality, albeit more costly, Roth IRA allows you to contribute full $ 100 ($117.65 less $ 17.65 tax incurred.) Using this method you can in fact grow your tax-free funds to $ 1.006.27 over 30 years. The larger you effective tax rate is, the larger will be the difference between your maximum effective Traditional vs Roth IRA contribution will be. 2) Should you need to access your IRA funds in case of emergency (unqualified event of not buying your first home, nor paying for your college education), Roth IRA account contributions can be withdrawn without incurring the 10% penalty charge, that would be imposed on your unqualified Traditional IRA distribution. 3) As other contributors noted it's hard to believe that lower US tax rates would prevail. Chances are you will be contributing to Traditional 401k later throughout your work life. Having a Roth IRA account would afford you a tax diversification needed to hedge against possible tax rate hikes coming in the future. Considering the gloomy future of the Social Security funding, and ever-growing US national debt, can we really expect for there to not be any tax rate increases in the next 20-40 years?! By the way, as others pointed out your effective tax rate will always be lower than your marginal tax bracket. You're ignoring the fact that you still had the taxes from the $5500 (so $1375) left over when making the traditional IRA contribution.  So yes, the Roth IRA grew without further taxing more than the Traditional IRA did; but you could've just as easily invested that $1375 in the same investments. While you'd owe taxes on them, true, you'd still earn a boatload of money.  That's another $10,607 you've earned, not tax-free, but with gains at the 15% CGR is still $9170.  So you now have $60,627 in the Roth, available tax-free, or you have $60,627 available at a 10% or so average rate (12% if you like, though I think you'll find it's more like 10%).   Say $53351, plus $9170 from the not-sheltered income after taxes, for $62,521 after taxes. So you make about $2000 more by using the traditional IRA for $5500 and then just investing the rest in a long term account.  The math might be slightly worse if you invest in something that has regular dividend taxes due, but if you're careful to use tax-favored investments you should be okay, and even if you don't you'll still end up ahead in the end if you make the same exact investment as your tax-sheltered account. Ultimately the question is: are you paying more in taxes now, or later, comparing now marginal rate to later average rate.  If you are paying more in taxes now, then traditional IRA plus invest the rest unsheltered.  If you're paying more later, then Roth IRA. In a year with no income, the best advice is to convert existing IRA money to Roth. This lets you take advantage of the 'zero' bracket, the combination of your exemption and standard deduction. This adds to $10,300 for a single person.  Other than that, if you are determined to take the money out, just do it. There would be a 10% penalty of the growth, but the original deposit comes out tax free anyway.  Edit - There's a rule that if you sell your entire Roth account (i.e. all Roth accounts, you can't pick one of a few) and have a loss, you can take that loss. (Per Dilip's comment, this strategy is pretty moot, it's not a loss taken against other income as a stock loss would potentially be)) "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."