Withdraw funds with penalty or bear high management fees for 10 years?
I think the main question is whether the 1.5% quarterly fee is so bad that it warrants losing $60,000 immediately. Suppose they pull it out now, so they have 220000 - 60000 = $160,000.  They then invest this in a low-cost index fund, earning say 6% per year on average over 10 years.  The result: Alternatively, they leave the $220,000 in but tell the manager to invest it in the same index fund now.  They earn nothing because the manager's rapacious fees eat up all the gains (4*1.5% = 6%, not perfectly accurate due to compounding but close enough since 6% is only an estimate anyway).  The result: the same $220,000 they started with. This back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests they will actually come out ahead by biting the bullet and taking the money out.  However, I would definitely not advise them to take this major step just based on this simple calculation.  Many other factors are relevant (e.g., taxes when selling the existing investment to buy the index fund, how much of their savings was this $300,000).  Also, I don't know anything about how investment works in Hong Kong, so there could be some wrinkles that modify or invalidate this simple calculation.  But it is a starting point. Based on what you say here, I'd say they should take the earliest opportunity to tell everyone they know never to work with this investment manager.  I would go so far as to say they should look at his credentials (e.g., see what kind of financial advisor certification he has, if any), look up the ethical standards of their issuers, and consider filing a complaint.  This is not because of the performance of the investments -- losing 25% of your money due to market swings is a risk you have to accept -- but because of the exorbitant fees.  Unless Hong Kong has got some crazy kind of investment management market, charging 1.5% quarterly is highway robbery; charging a 25%+ for withdrawal is pillage.  Personally, I would seriously consider withdrawing the money even if the manager's investments had outperformed the market. "Most financial ""advisors"" are actually financial-product salesmen.  Their job is to sweet-talk you into parting with as much money as possible - either in management fees, or in commissions (kickbacks) on high-fee investment products** (which come from fees charged to you, inside the investment.)  This is a scrappy, cutthroat business for the salesmen themselves.  Realistically that is how they feed their family, and I empathize, but I can't afford to buy their product.  I wish they would sell something else. These people prey on people's financial lack of knowledge.  For instance, you put too much importance on ""returns"".  Why?  because the salesman told you that's important.  It's not.  The market goes up and down, that's normal.  The question is how much of your investment is being consumed by fees.  How do you tell that (and generally if you're invested well)?  You compare your money's performance to an index that's relevant to you.  You've heard of  the S&P 500, that's an index, relevant to US investors.  Take 2015. The S&P 500 was $2058.20 on January 2, 2015.  It was $2043.94 on December 31, 2015.  So it was flat;  it dropped 0.7%. If your US investments dropped 0.7%, you broke even.  If you made less, that was lost to the expenses within the investment, or the investment performing worse than the S&P 500 index.  I lost 0.8% in 2015, the extra 0.1% being expenses of the investment. Try 2013: S&P 500 was $1402.43 on December 28, 2012 and $1841.10 on Dec. 27, 2013. That's 31.2% growth.  That's amazing, but it also means 31.2% is holding even with the market.  If your salesman proudly announced that you made 18%... problem! All this to say: when you say the investments performed ""poorly"", don't go by absolute numbers. Find a suitable index and compare to the index.  A lot of markets were down in 2015-16, and that is not your investment's fault.  You want to know if were down compared to your index.   Because that reflects either a lousy funds manager, or high fees.   This may leave you wondering ""where can I invest that is safe and has sensible fees?  I don't know your market, but here we have ""discount brokers"" which allow self-selection of investments, charge no custodial fees, and simply charge by the trade (commonly $10).  Many mutual funds and ETFs are ""index funds"" with very low annual fees, 0.20% (1 in 500) or even less.    How do you pick investments? Look at any of numerous books, starting with John Bogle's classic ""Common Sense on Mutual Funds"" book which is the seminal work on the value of keeping fees low.  If you need the cool, confident professional to hand-hold you through the process, a fee-only advisor is a true financial advisor who actually acts in your best interest.  They honestly recommend what's best for you. But beware: many commission-driven salespeople pretend to be fee-only advisors.  The good advisor will be happy to advise investment types, and let you pick the brand (Fidelity vs Vanguard) and buy it in your own discount brokerage account with a password you don't share. Frankly, finance is not that hard.  But it's made hard by impossibly complex products that don't need to exist, and are designed to confuse people to conceal hidden fees.  Avoid those products.  You just don't need them.  Now, you really need to take a harder look at what this investment is. Like I say, they make these things unnecessarily complex specifically to make them confusing, and I am confused.  Although it doesn't seem like much of a question to me.  1.5% a quarter is 6% a year or 60% in 10 years (to ignore compounding). If the market grows 6% a year on average so growth just pays the fees, they will consume 60% of the $220,000, or $132,000.  As far as the $60,000, for that kind of money it's definitely worth talking to a good lawyer because it sounds like they misrepresented something to get your friend to sign up in the first place.  Put some legal pressure on them, that $60k penalty might get a lot smaller.   ** For instance they'll recommend JAMCX, which has a 5.25% buy-in fee (front-end load) and a 1.23% per year fee (expense ratio). Compare to VIMSX with zero load and a 0.20% fee.  That front-end load is kicked back to your broker as commission, so he literally can't recommend VIMSX - there's no commission! His company would, and should, fire him for doing so." Here's the purely mathematical answer for which fees hurt more. You say taking the money out has an immediate cost of $60,000. We need to calculate the present value of the future fees and compare it against that number. Let's assume that the investment will grow at the same rate either with or without the broker. That's actually a bit generous to the broker, since they're probably investing it in funds that in turn charge unjustifiable fees. We can calculate the present cost of the fees by calculating the difference between: As it turns out, this number doesn't depend on how much we should expect to get as investment returns. Doing the math, the fees cost: 220000 - 220000 * (1-0.015)^40 = $99809 That is, the cost of the fees is comparable to paying nearly $100,000 right now. Nearly half the investment! If there are no other options, I strongly recommend taking the one-time hit and investing elsewhere, preferably in low-cost index funds. Details of the derivation. For simplicity, assume that both fees and growth compound continuously. (The growth does compound continuously. We don't know about the fees, but in any case the distinction isn't very significant.) Fees occur at a (continuous) rate of rf = ln((1-0.015)^4) (which is negative), and growth occurs at rate rg. The OPs current principal is P, and the present value of the fees over time is F. We therefore have the equation P e^((rg+rf)t) = (P-F) e^(rg t) Solving for F, we notice that the e^rg*t components cancel, and we obtain F = P - P e^(rf t) = P - P e^(ln((1-0.015)^4) t) = P - P (1-0.015)^(4t) To me, it depends. How much are their total assets?  Having 10% of your money in something like that isn't crazy.  having it all in?  That IS crazy. Can they reduce their exposure to this account without paying a penalty (say pull out 10%?) The Manager should be taking direction from them.  If they aren't able to get the manager to re-allocate to something more suitable, under your friends direction, they should then pursue whether or not the manager is operating lawfully.
http://www.reddit.com/r/investing/comments/2d15nj/everything_is_on_the_table_property_businesses/cjl7nxp  &gt;Not to brag, but I started with 12k a year ago and I plan on having 1M by next year... I think it's entirely possible with smart trades and a lotttttt of self-education. I made the majority of it on penny stocks so far, but have recently switched primarily to options plays and have had some very bad luck, but mostly good fortune. So, in that vein, in your hypothetical situation, I would pay myself to educate myself and then trade for the 1M and keep all the fees that would be paid to someone for everything that was done.. Then I would take the remainder of the 10 years off and travel around the world :)   RachelTrades,  You are walking into a buzzsaw.  You do not understand the risks you are taking, and your gambles will inevitably result in you losing nearly everything.  Do yourself a favor and discuss your investing process with a professional.  Describe your trades and how you evaluate your positions with this individual and try and hear them when they tell you how badly you are setting yourself up for ruin.  I realize that you have no reason to listen to a random person on the internet, but I hope that you are able to take a moment of honest reflection and save yourself "To answer, I'm going to make a few assumptions. First, the ideal scenario for a pre-tax 401(k) is the deposit goes in at a 25% tax rate (i.e. the employee is in that bracket) but withdrawn at 15%. This may be true for many, but not all. It's to illustrate a point.  The SPY (S&P 500 index ETF) has a cost of .09% per year. If your 401(k) fees are anywhere near 1% per year total, over 10 years you've paid nearly 10% in fees, vs less than 1% for the ETF. Above, I suggest the ideal is that the 401(k) saves you 10% on your taxes, but if you pay 10% over the decade, the benefit is completely negated.  I can add to the above that funds outside the retirement accounts give off dividends which are tax favored, and if you were to sell ETFs held over a year, they receive favorable cap-gains rates.  The ""deposit to get the matching funds"" should always be good advice, it would take many years of high fees to destroy that. But even that seemingly reasonable 1% fee can make any other deposits a bad approach.  Keep in mind, when retired you will have a zero bracket (in 2011, the combined standard deduction and exemption) adding to $9500, as well as a 10% bracket (the next $8500), so having some pretax money to take advantage of those brackets will help. Last, the average person changes jobs now and then. The ability to transfer the funds from the (bad) 401(k) to an IRA where you can control the investments is an option I'd not ignore in the analysis.  I arbitrarily picked 1% to illustrate my thoughts. The same math will show a long time employee will get hurt by even .5%/yr if enough time passes. What are the fees in your 401(k)?   Edit - Study of 401(k) fees - put out by the Dept of Labor. Unfortunately, it's over 10 years old, but it speaks to my point. Back then, even a 2000 participant plan with $60M in assets had 110 basis points (this is 1.1%) in fees on average. Whatever the distribution is, those above this average shouldn't even participate in their plans (except for matching) and those on the other side should look at their expenses. As Radix07 points out below, yes, for those just shy of retirement, the fee has less impact, and of course, they have a better idea if they will retire in a lower bracket. Those who have some catching up to do, may benefit despite the fees." Start with the tax delta. For example, you'd hope to deposit at 25% bracket, but take withdrawals while at a marginal 15%. In this case, you're 10% to the good with the 401(k) and need to look at the fee eating away at this over time. Pay an extra 1%/yr and after 10 years, you're losing money. That's too simple, however. Along the way, you need to consider that the capital gain rate is lower than ordinary income. It's easier to take those gains as you wish to time them, where the 401(k) offers no flexibly for this. Even with low fees, this account is going to turn long term gains to ordinary income. (Note - in 2013, a couple with up to $72,500 in taxable income has a 0% long term cap gain rate. So, if they wish, they can sell and buy back a fund, claim the gain, and raise their cost basis. A tiny effort for the avoidance of tax on the gains each year.) First paragraph, don't forget, there are the standard deduction, exemption, and 10% bracket. While you are in the range to save enough to create he income to fill the low end at withdrawal, there's more value than just the 10% I discussed earlier.  Last, there's a phenomenon I call The Phantom Tax Rate Zone when one's retirement withdrawals trigger the taxation of Social Security.  It further complicates the math and analysis you seek. I think you're missing several key issues here. First for the facts: IRA contributions are $5500 a year maximum (currently, it changes with inflation), i.e.: you cannot deposit $10K in an IRA account in a single year. IRA withdrawals can only be made if you have something liquid in the IRA. You cannot withdraw from Lending Club IRA unless you manage to sell the notes currently held by you there. Roth IRA is funded with after-tax money, and you can withdraw your deposits in Roth IRA any time for any reason. No 10K limit there, only limited by what you deposited. However the main thing you're missing is this: You can withdraw up to $10K from your IRA for first home purchase without penalty. Pay attention: not without tax but without penalty. So what is the point in depositing $10k into IRA just to withdraw it the next year? The math is wrong. $16m grows to $72b over 44 years at 21% return (exact return is (72000/16)^(1/44) - 1 = 0.21067). At one percentage point lower return, i.e. 20%, $16m grows to $50b (16m x 1.21^44 = 49.985b). In that case you would have paid about 30 percent of your gain in fees. Still a lot,  but not severe.  Even the calculation of percent fees is wrong in the article! It's not your money. What does your wife think of this?  You know, the withdrawal is subject to full tax at your marginal rate as well as a 10% penalty. That's quite a price to pay, don't do it. The point is to provide for yourself in retirement, so it makes sense that these withdrawals would be penalized. Tax deferred accounts are usually created for a specific cause. Using them outside of the scope of that cause triggers penalties. You mentioned 401(k) and IRA that have age limitations because they're geared towards retirement. In the US, here are other types, and if you intend to spend money in the related areas, they may be worth considering. Otherwise, you'll hit penalties as well. Examples: HSA - Health Savings Account allows saving pre-tax contributions and gains towards medical expenses. You must have a high deductible health plan to be eligible. Can be used as IRA once retired. 529 plans - allow saving pre-tax gains (and in some states pre-tax contributions) for education expenses for you or a beneficiary. If a beneficiary - contributions are considered a gift. There's a tax benefit in long term investing in a regular taxable brokerage accounts - long term capital gains are taxed at a preferable (lower) rate than short term or ordinary income. The difference may be significant. Long term = 1+ year holding. The condition here is holding an investment for more than a year, and there's no penalty for not satisfying it but there's a reward (lower rates) if you do. I would suggest you to put your money in an FD for a year, and as soon as you get paid the interest, start investing that interest in a SIP(Systematic investment plan). This is your safest option but it will not give you a lot of returns. But  I can guarantee that you will not lose your capital(Unless the economy fails as a whole, which is unlikely).  For example: - you have 500000 rupees. If you put it in a fixed deposit for 1 year, you earn 46500 in interest(At 9% compounded quarterly). With this interest you can invest Rs.3875(46500/12) every month in an SIP for 12 months and also renew your FD, so that you can keep earning that interest.So at the end of 10 years, you will have 5 lacs in your FD and Rs. 4,18,500 in your SIP(Good funds usually make 13-16 % a year). Assuming your fund gives you 14%, you make: -  1.) 46500 at 14% for 9 years - 1,51,215 2.)8 years - 1,32,645 3.) 7 years - 1,16,355 4.) 6 years - 1,02,066 5.) 5 years - 89,531 6.) 4 years - 78,536 7.) 3 years - 68891 8.) 2 years 60,431 9.) 1 year - 53010 Total Maturity Value on SIP = Rs, 8,52,680 Principal on FD =      Rs 5,00,000 Interest earned on 10th year = Rs. 46,500 Total = Rs. 13,99,180(14 lacs). Please note: - Interest rates and rate of return on funds may vary. This figure can only be assumed if these rates stay the same.:). Cheers! "There are (at least) two problems with the argument suggested in the OP. First, the ability to cover the cost, doesn't mean willingness, ease, or no major side effects of doing so. Second is the mitigation of ""upside risk"". It might be true that the most usual loss is small and manageable, but 10% of incidents could be considerably larger and 1% may be very much larger - without limit.  Your own attitude to risk and loss will determine how much these are seen as unlikely+ignore, or worst case situation+avoid." These products are real, but they aren't risk free: 1) The bank could go under in that time.  (Are the investments FDIC insured?) 2) Your money is locked up for 5 years, probably with either no way to get it back out or a stiff penalty for early withdrawal, so you risk having a better investment opportunity come along and not having the liquidity to take advantage of it. 3) If the market does go down and you get 100% of your principal back, the endless ratchet of inflation practically guarantees that $10K will be worth less 5 years from now than it is today, so you risk losing purchasing power even if you're not losing any nominal quantity of money. It's still a fairly low-risk investment option, particularly if it's tied to something that you have reason to believe will increase in value significantly faster than inflation in the next 5 years. If you withdraw the money, regardless of how small the balance is, the IRS will still insist you pay a 10% penalty when you file your taxes (assuming you're under 59 1/2). Your 401K plan provider might have a policy that allows you to avoid the usual automatic withholding. You should check with them. $600 in additional income isn't likely to move your tax bill much, unless you're really close to a boundary in the tax brackets. Rather than withdrawing the money, you can transfer the 401K to your next 401K, or roll it over to an IRA (plenty of no-fee options around). Once in a traditional IRA, you can convert the money to a Roth IRA. You pay the taxes on the amount, but no 10% penalty. Converting to a Roth has eligibility rules. You should double check with your financial institution before doing it. Edit: You can withdraw without the 10% penalty if you leave your job after age 55 (credit to @JoeTaxpayer for the correction). This IRS Page lists the conditions under which the penalty can be avoided. Edit: The original question has been edited to add more background details. Due to OP's investment preferences, I would also recommend that he simply withdraw the funds, pay the taxes and the $60 penalty and put the $500 or so dollars somewhere else. In my opinion, the fee is criminal.  There are ETFs available to the public that have expenses as low as .05%. The index fund VIIIX an institution level fund available to large 401(k) plans charges .02%. I'll pay a total of under 1% over the next 50 years,  Consider that at retirement, the safe withdrawal rate has been thought to be 4%, and today this is considered risky, perhaps too high. Do you think it's fair, in any sense of the word to lose 30% of that withdrawal?  Another angle for you - In my working years, I spent most of those years at either the 25% or 28% federal bracket taxable income. I should spend my retirement at 15% marginal rate. On average, the purpose of my 401(k) was to save me (and my wife) 10-13% in tax from deposit to withdrawal. How long does it take for an annual 1.1% excess fee to negate that 10% savings? If one spends their working life paying that rate, they will lose half their wealth to those managing their money.  PBS aired a show in its Frontline series titled The Retirement Gamble, it offers a sobering look at how such fees are a killer to your wealth. I would stay away from the Actively Managed Funds.  Index funds or the asset allocation funds are your best bet since they have the lowest fees.  What is your risk tolerance?  How old are you? I would suggest reading: Wow this is a bad article.  This is a notional amount....  Eg.  $500M US equity fund in Australia wants to hedge their US exposure.   They buy a $500M forward contract and roll it over quarterly.  Each quarter they settle on the difference (let's say $50 - 500k +/- depending on the way FX moves).  What matters is the amount owed...not the notional value.  Same goes for interest rates. $1B bond fund could short the 10yr to lower interest rate sensitivity...the end value isn't $1B. It's whatever they owe on the difference at settlement.  The issue of swap spreads or settlement/liquidity is so much more important! depends entirely on the scope and where your chokepoints are.   if its a question of ginormeous amounts of data being stored in your spreadsheet and then extracted/joined with a mess of index match functions, that can quickly run up in size, and can be deftly replaced with a powerquery setup.   If it's a computation that requires a few iterative steps or complex nested lookups, but with simple inputs, then a few simply scripted UDFs can lower the complexity (and workload and size) of the workbook.   OP also mentions that the workbook is used for the display. If there is a lot of repeated deletion and adding of formats, sometimes workbook size can be seriously affected by these things cluttering up the sheet, and it can be useful to just clear those outs.   I'd say it makes sense to move away from workbooks and into something more technical if you the organizational support to do so. If one person sits and codes models in python but none of his colleagues can work on it or fix it, and it's not documented correctly, and there's no support structure, then I'd be cautious of transferring something business critical to that structure, rather than optimizing the solution that people are familiar with and can modify themselves.   But if it's a tech-savvy organization that recruits accordingly and has the technical support structures to implement changes and modifications as required by the business, I don't see any problem in using other tools.