Comparing IRA vs 401K's rate-of-return with dollar cost averaging
"Google Docs spreadsheets have a function for filling in stock and fund prices.  You can use that data to graph (fund1 / fund2) over some time period. Syntax: =GoogleFinance(""symbol"", ""attribute"", ""start_date"", ""num_days|end_date"", ""interval"") where: This analysis won’t include dividends or distributions. Yahoo provides adjusted data, if you want to include that." The number you are trying to calculate is called the Internal Rate of Return (IRR).  Google Spreadsheets (and excel) both have an XIRR function that can do this for you fairly simply. Setup a spreadsheet with 1 column for dates, 1 column for investment. Mark your investments as negative numbers (payment to invest).  All investments will be negative. Mark your last row with today's date and today's valuation (positive). All withdrawals will be positive, so you are pretending to withdrawal your entire account for the purpose of calculation. Do not record dividends or other interim returns unless you are actually withdrawing money. The XIRR function will calculate your internal rate of return with irregularly timed investments. Links: Article explaining XIRR function (sample spreadsheet in google docs to modify)
If you define dollar cost cost averaging as investing a specific dollar amount over a certain fixed time frame then it does not work statistically better than any other strategy for getting that money in the market.  (IE Aunt Ruth wants to invest $60,000 in the stock market and does it $5000 a month for a year.) It will work better on some markets and worse on others, but on average it won't be any better. Dollar cost averaging of this form is effectively a bet that gains will occur at the end of the time period rather than the beginning, sometimes this bet will pay off, other times it won't. A regular investment contribution of what you can afford over an indefinite time period (IE 401k contribution) is NOT Dollar Cost Averaging but it is an effective investment strategy. I believe that the Wikipedia article is attempting to draw a difference between dollar cost averaging as a result of investing when money becomes available (i.e. 401k contributions from your paycheck) and spreading out a lump sum investment. For the former you want to continuously invest as the money becomes available following your predetermined plan for allocation. For the later it may be reasonable to consider the market as you decide how and the timing for investing. "This is actually (to me) an interesting point to note.  While the answer is ""that's what Congress wrote,"" there are implications to note. First, for many, the goal of tax deferral is to shift 25% or 28% income to 15% income at retirement. With long term gains at 15%, simply investing long term post tax can accomplish a similar goal, where all gain is taxed at 15%.  Looking at this from another angle, an IRA (or 401(k) for that matter) effectively turns long term gains into ordinary income.  It's a good observation, and shouldn't be ignored." I  found that  an application already exists which does virtually everything I want to do with a reasonable interface.  Its called My Personal Index.  It has allowed me  to look at my asset allocation all in one place. I'll have to enter: The features which solve my problems above include:  Note - This is related to an earlier post I made regarding dollar cost averaging and determining rate of returns.   (I finally got off my duff and did something about it) I question the reliability of the information you received.  Of course, it's possible the former 401(k) provider happened to charge lower expense ratios on its index funds than other available funds and lower the new provider's fees.  There are many many many financial institutions and fees are not fixed between them.  I think the information you received is simply an assumptive justification for the difference in fees. that's just it, though - they are splitting up the 1%! and in most cases, especially vanguard, they are splitting up far less.  ETFs don't have 12b-1 fees. explaining why you're experiencing different returns for ETFs will almost certainly involve something other than their expense. again, this is especially true for vanguard. they have the cheapest ETFs around (though i think schwab beats them on a few now).  i can only guess at the full compensation structure. betterment likely earns money on cash reserves and  securities hypothecation (i guess?). they also charge a small fee from what i understand. finance is very slim these days.  i guess i'm wondering what your ultimate question is. if it's the inter corporate compensation structure, above is my best guess. if it's about performance, then we need to compare the ETFs you are looking at. if it's about the fees on funds, i think we covered that!  as an advisor, it's my experience that very specific inquiries about fees have a deeper concern. people hear a lot about being overcharged so cost is a very standard place for clients to initially look when trying to compare performance of portfolios or securities. "Assuming my math is correct and that I'm not missing something about Roth investments, it appears to me that either option will work out exactly the same if you will be in the same tax bracket in retirement. This is true only if your average tax rate in retirement is the same as your current marginal rate. I'm surprised none of the answers mention this since it is the crux of your question!  If you can deduct an IRA against your income taxes, it is almost always better option than the Roth equivalent. Marginal rates should not be compared to average rates or you will form all sorts of inaccurate conclusions. ""If you are in a lower tax rate in retirement traditional is better"" really means, ""if your average tax rate in retirement is lower than your current marginal rate, traditional is better"" - which for the overwhelming majority of Americans is the case. Consider the following. Let's say your intend to contribute $1000 in one year (making $2k) and withdraw it the next that is your only income in that year. Your tax brackets look like: This is quite simplified but for this purpose will illustrate precisely why comparisons like you are making are very misleading. In this case you can put $1000 in and pay no income tax at all (because you deduct it). You then withdraw $1000 the next year. The first $500 you withdraw you pay no taxes on and the next $500 has a tax rate of 15%, for a total tax of of $75. However - this is a tax against your entire withdrawal of $1000, so your average tax rate (this is important! average is different than marginal) is only 7.5% and you are left with $925. In this case you can only contribute $850 to the IRA because you are taxed against the money at your marginal rate (15%). When you withdraw it, you don't pay any taxes and are left with the entire $850 $850. This is less than the above, because you are taxed the whole amount at your previous marginal rate. If however your tax rate in retirement was 30% for everything above $500, only then are the two scenarios equal. Your marginal tax rate in retirement has to be very high relative to your current tax rate for the Roth to ever catch up and be better. If you are able to deduct an IRA contribution, it will almost always be the best option. The average federal income tax rate on middle class families has not changed dramatically enough over the past 50 years to be above normal marginal tax rates - even at the 15% federal tax bracket, your marginal rate is still higher than the highest average tax rate for the past 50 years by at least 3% and normally significantly so. The reason I make this point about middle class marginal rates is that the majority of ""taxes might be higher in retirement!"" is very unlikely to be the case in a meaningful way given the past 50 years. However if you are in the top tax rate you are paying historic low tax rates (by a factor of nearly 3), but also observe you can't do either IRA since you must make $400k/year. The difference for middle class is no where near as noticeable. Keep in mind if you can't deduct, there is no reason to not contribute to the Roth. There are other factors contributing to the traditional/Roth decision. This answer only addresses the specifics in your question." See the Moneychimp site. From 1934 to 2006, the S&P returned an 'average' 12.81%. But the CAGR was 11.26%.  I wrote an article Average Return vs Compound Annual Growth to address this issue.  Interesting that over time only a few funds have managed to get anywhere near this return, but the low cost indexer can get the long term CAGR minus .05% or so, if they wish. The expense fees are high, and unfortunate. I would stop short of calling it criminal, however.  What you are paying for with your expenses is the management of the holdings in the fund. The managers of the fund are actively, continuously watching the performance of the holdings, buying and selling inside the fund in an attempt to beat the stock market indexes. Whether or not this is worth the expenses is debatable, but it is indeed possible for a managed fund to beat an index.  Despite the relatively high expenses of these funds, the 401K is still likely your best investment vehicle for retirement. The money you put in is tax deductible immediately, your account grows tax deferred, and anything that your employer kicks in is free money.  Since, in the short term, you have little choice, don't lose a lot of sleep over it.  Just pick the best option you have, and occasionally suggest to your employer that you would appreciate different options in the future. If things don't change, and you have the option in the future to rollover into a cheaper IRA, feel free to take it. "To keep it simple, I will keep the focus between a Trad IRA and a normal Taxable account (Roth's and 401(k) add more complications that make another problem).  I will also assume, based on the question, that you aren't able to deduct the IRA contributions. Also, a Roth is better in every way than a non-deductible Trad IRA so the ""backdoor Roth"" mentioned in other answers is probably the way to go and this is more of an academic exercise.  Ok, so why bother with the IRA if you're taxed anyway?  Because you aren't taxed as you go! With a normal non-tax-advantaged account you have to pay taxes every year on any realized capital gains and dividends (including fund distributions). Because of the compounding nature of savings, delaying paying taxes is in your best interest.  Simple example:  Taxable Account: IRA Account: Now, this is a very simplified example. If you're more tax-conscious (i.e. more buy-and-holding), you can delay paying some of the long-term cap gains in the taxable account, but any short-term cap gains (including distributions from the underlying funds) will be at your marginal income tax rate.  A few other observations: EDIT: I set up a spreadsheet where each year I deposited $1000 for 35 years. Each year, the balance in the IRA account grows by 5%, but the taxable only by 5%*(1-0.15) = 4.25% due to the effect of taxes. At the end of 35 years, my simulation assumes you pay 15% on all the gains in the IRA, which would likely not be the case, but easier than forecasting through retirement and demonstrates what I'm trying to show. Here's plot showing the balance in the various accounts, the blue is the IRA account, orange the taxable account, and grey is the effective balance of the IRA, after paying taxes on the gains:   And here's a plot of the advantage of the IRA (after paying taxes on the gains), vs the taxable account:  Whether that's worth it to you or anyone depends on some the assumptions in the simulation, especially effective tax rates, and growth rates, as well as any personal issues. Some people may be less likely to raid an IRA account, for example, than a normal account. Conversely, if you have a project coming up, you may need something a bit more liquid than an IRA." Dollar cost averaging is a method of regularly investing money as it is available.  For example, $100 from each paycheck.  It has been shown to bet better, on average, than collecting the money and investing it all at once.  It is not intended to be used when you have the entire amount up front.  See this link. Dollar cost averaging a lump sum would only be beneficial if the market was just as likely to go up as is to go down.  Since, over time, the market (historically) has always gone up, your best bet is to invest all of your money right away.  Anything else is just trying to time the market. Littleadv has given you excellent general advice, but to my mind, the most important part of it all and the path which I will strongly recommend you follow, is the suggestion to look into a mutual fund. I would add even more strongly,  go to a mutual fund company directly    and make an investment with them directly instead of making the    investment through a brokerage account.  Pick an index fund with low expenses, e.g. there are S&P 500 index funds available with  expenses that are a fraction of 1%. (However, many also require minimum investments on the order of $2500 or $3000 except for IRA accounts).  At this time, your goal should be to reduce expenses as much as possible because expenses, whether they be in brokerage fees which may be directly visible to you or mutual fund expenses which are invisible to you, are what will eat away at your return far more than the difference between the returns of various investments. As I commented, there's confusion on withholding. The 20% pertains to 401(k) accounts, not IRAs. I think you understood much of what I say, in general. Unfortunately, I didn't follow Patches math.  What I gleen from your summary is a 1% match to the 10% invested, but a .8% expense. The ETF VOO has a .05% annual fee, a bit better than SPY.  A quick few calculations show that the 10% bonus does offset a long run of the .75% excess expense compared to external investing. After decades, the 401(k) appears to still be a bit ahead. Not the dramatic delta suggested in the prior answer, but enough to stay with the 401(k) in this situation. The tiny match still makes the difference. Edit - the question you linked to. The 401(k) had no match, and an awful 1.2% annual expense. This combination is deadly for the younger investor. Always an exception to offer - a 25% marginal rate earner close to retiring at 15%. The 401(k) deposit saves him 25, but can soon be withdrawn at 15, it's worth a a few years of that fee to make this happen. For the young person who is planning a quick exit from the company, same deal. That doesn't sound like dollar cost averaging. That sounds like a form of day trading. Dollar cost averaging is how most people add money to their 401K, or how they add money to some IRA accounts. You are proposing a form of day trading.