Cost Basis in Retirement Accounts Irrelevant?
One thing to keep in mind is that with Roth accounts, there are different withdrawal considerations based on your contributions. For example, you can withdraw Roth IRA contributions whenever you want in the future.  However this really has nothing to do with your cost basis and purely to do with the contribution amount vs balance. Cost basis is irrelevant because the entire distribution is taxed as ordinary income even if the custodian distributes stock or mutual fund shares to you. Such distributions save you the brokerage fees that you would incur had you taken a cash distribution and promptly bought the shares outside the retirement account for yourself but they have no effect on the tax treatment of the distribution: the market value of the shares distributed to you is taxed as ordinary income, and your basis in the newly acquired shares outside the retirement account is the market value of the shares, all prices being as of the date of the distribution.
"EBITDA is in my opinion not a useful measure for an investor looking to buy shares on the stock market. It is more useful for private businesses open to changing their structuring, or looking to sell significant parts of their business. One of the main benefits of reporting Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation & Amortization, is that it presents the company as it would look to a potential buyer. Consider that net income, as a metric, includes interest costs, taxes, and depreciation.  Interest costs are (to put it simply) a result of multiplying a business's debt by its interest rate. If you own a business, and personally guarantee the loan that the company has with the bank, your interest rates might be artificially low. If you have a policy of reaching high debt levels relative to your equity, in order to achieve high 'financial leveraging', your interest cost might be artificially high. Either way, if I bought your business, my debt structure could be completely different, and therefore your interest costs are not particularly relevant to me, a potential buyer. Instead, I should attempt to anticipate what my own interest costs would be, under my plans for your business. Taxes are a result of many factors, including the corporate structure of the business. If you run your business as a sole proprietorship (ie: no corporation), but I want to buy it under my corporation, then my tax rates could look nothing like yours. Or if we operated in multiple jurisdictions. etc. etc. Instead of using your taxes as an estimate for mine, I should anticipate my taxes based on my plans for your business. Depreciation / amortization is a measure that estimates how much of a business's ""fixed assets"" were ""used up"" during the year. ie: how much wear and tear occurred on your fleet of trucks? It is generally calculated as a % of your overall asset value. It is a (very loose) proxy for the cash costs which will ultimately be incurred to make repairs/replacements. D&A is also something which could significantly change if a business changes hands. If the value of your building is much higher now than when you bought it, I will have higher D&A costs than you [because I will be recording a % of total costs higher than yours], and therefore I should forecast my own D&A. Removing these costs from Net Income is not particularly relevant for a casual stock investor, because these costs will not change when you buy shares. Whatever IBM's interest cost is, reflects the debt structuring policy that the company currently has. Therefore when you buy a share in IBM, you should consider the impact that interest has on net income. Similarly for taxes and D&A - they reflect costs to the business that impact the company's ability to pay you a dividend, and therefore you should look at net income, which includes those costs. Why would a business with 'good net income' and 'good EBITDA' report EBITDA? Because EBITDA will always be higher than net income. Why say $10M net income, when you could say $50M EBITDA? The fact is, it's easy to report, and is generally well understood - so why not report it, when it also makes you look better, from a purely ""big number = good"" perspective? I'm not sure that reporting EBITDA implies any sort of manipulative reporting, but it would seem that Warren Buffet feels this is a risk." From the instructions: If you do not need to make any adjustments to the basis or type of   gain or loss (short-term or long-term) reported to you on Form 1099-B   (or substitute statement) or to your gain or loss for any transactions   for which basis has been reported to the IRS (normally reported on   Form 8949 with box A checked), you do not have to include those   transactions on Form 8949. Instead, you can report summary information   for those transactions directly on Schedule D. For more information,   see Exception 1, later. However, in case of ESPP and RSU, it is likely that you actually do need to make adjustments. Since 2014, brokers are no longer required to track basis for these, so you better check that the calculations are correct. If the numbers are right and you just summarized instead of reporting each on a separate line, its probably not an issue. As long as the gains reported are correct, no-one will waste their time on you. If you missed several thousand dollars because of incorrect calculations, some might think you were intentionally trying to hide something by aggregating and may come after you. mhoran answered the headline question, but you asked - Could someone shed some light on and differentiate between a retirement account and alternative savings plans? Retirement accounts can contain nearly anything that one would consider an investment. (yes, there are exception, not the topic for today). So when one says they have an S&P fund or ETF, and some company issued Bonds, etc, these may or may not be held in a retirement account.  In the US, when we say 'retirement account,' it means a bit more than just an account earmarked for that goal. It's an account, 401(k), 403(b), IRA, etc, that has a special tax status. Money can go in pre-tax, and be withdrawn at retirement when you are in a lower tax bracket. The Roth flavor of 401(k) or IRA lets you deposit post-tax money, and 'never' pay tax on it again, if withdrawn under specific conditions.  In 2013, a single earner pays 25% federal tax on taxable earnings over $36K. But a retiree with exactly $46K in gross income (who then has $10K in standard deduction plus exemption) has a tax of $4950, less than 11% average rate on that withdrawal. This is the effect of the deductions, 10% and 15% brackets.  As with your other question, there's a lot to be said about this topic, no one can answer in one post. That said, the second benefit of the retirement account is the mental partitioning. I have retirement money, not to be touched, emergency money used for the broken down car or appliance replacement, and other funds it doesn't feel bad to tap for spending, vacations, etc. Nothing a good spreadsheet can't handle, but a good way to keep things physically separate as well.   (I answered as if you are in US, but the answer works if you rename the retirement accounts, eg, Canada has similar tax structure to the US.) Yes. Of course, you still need to take into the account the trade costs (fees paid to the broker), these are not going anywhere. Basically what it means is that you don't have to worry about long/short holding period within the IRA, they're all the same. It doesn't mean that long term trading is better or worse to have outside the scope of IRA, it just means that the concept doesn't exist inside. Nothing for nothing, everyone is given the opportunity to roll their tax refund into an IRA at tax time. Given the EIC such there is little reason most low income families with children couldn't max out for a few years early on in a target retirement fund. But buying stuff is a much more popular option i guess. I do not know why learning math of money is not given more focus in school rather than other trivial things... You can deduct retirement contributions (above the line even), but not as a business expense. So you can't avoid the SE taxes, sorry. The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph.  While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it?  In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash.  Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to).   Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment.  They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest.  Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population.  It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio.  This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification. I was doing my taxes in the US (called Form 1040) and wanted to find out how to figure out the cost basis for the $3.006 that I received for each Siemens ADR that I hold in July 2013. I found that the cost-basis allocation ratio is as follows: Thus for the original poster the cost-basis is: Hope this helps someone. As these all seem to be US Equity, just getting one broad based US Equity index might offer similar diversification at lower cost. Over 5 years, 20 basis points in fees will only make about 1% difference. However, for longer periods (retirement saving), it is worth it to aim for the lowest fees. For further diversification, you might want to consider other asset classes, such as foreign equity, fixed income, etc. Assuming the stock was worth more at the time she gave it to you than when she bought it, the cost basis would be the amount that she bought it for. You would then pay tax on the increase in value from that time.  Generally it's better to inherit assets than receive them as gifts, since the cost basis of inherited assets is raised to the value at the time of the death of the one leaving the inheritance. You will probably need to find some record of the original amount paid so you can determine the right cost basis. I am using the same logic as the two answers above. I got almost the same result ($46.60 instead of $46.59 per share) using the sold fractional share basis. However, the JCI Qualified Dividend (on the 1099-DIV, not the 1099-B) divided by the number of shares spun off yields a basis per share of only $40.97 That compares to $45.349 in answer two above. It seems that we should get the approximately same basis per share using the same arithmetic, and I do not know why we don't. For my tax files, I plan to use the Adient basis equal to the dividend from the 2016 1099-DIV of JCI (the PLC after the merger). My reasoning is that I cannot use an amount for the Adient basis that is greater than the dividend I paid taxes on. [In case this part of the question comes up again, you can get historical quotes at various websites such as https://finance.yahoo.com/quote, which does show $45.51 as the Adient closing price on 10/31/16.] First: In most cases when you inherit stocks the cost basis is stepped up to the date of the death of the person you inherited them from. So the capital gain/loss is likely reset to zero. The rules vary a bit for joint accounts, but retirement accounts (401k/ROTH) are considered individual accounts by the IRS. The rules on this have changed a lot in recent history, so it may depend on when he died. Update: As JoeTaxpayer pointed out and I confirmed via this site , the gains are NOT stepped up for retirement accounts, so this is a moot point anyway.  Further evidence that retirement accounts can be complicated and seeking professional guidance is a good idea. ...[T]here is no step-up in cost basis   upon the death of the IRA owner. Most   other assets owned by an individual   receive a step-up in cost basis upon   the death of the person, eliminating   all capital gains on those assets up   to that point in time. Second:  Even if you can deduct an investment (capital) loss, you can only deduct it to offset capital gains on another investments. Also you can only do this up to $3k per year, though you can roll over excess capital losses into future years. Bottom line: I really doubt you are going to be able to claim a deduction. However, due to the complexity of the situation and the amount of money involved. I strongly suggest you talk to a qualified tax adviser and not rely solely on information you gather through this site. To sum up: My question came from misunderstanding what cost basis applies to. Now I get it that it applies to stocks as physical entities. Consider a chain of buys of 40 stock A with prices $1-$4-$10-$15 (qty 10 each time) then IRS wants to know exactly which stock I am selling. And when I transfer stocks to different account, that cost basis transfers with them. Cost basis is included in transfers, so that removes ambiguity which stock is being sold on the original account. In the example above, cost basis of 20 stocks moved to a new account would probably be $1 x 10 and $4 x 10, i.e. FIFO also applies to transfers. "The root of the advice Bob is being given is from the premise that the market is temporarily down.    If the market is temporarily down, then the stocks in ""Fund #1"" are on-sale and likely to go up soon (soon is very subjective).     If the market is going to go up soon (again subjective) you are probably better in fictitious Fund #1.    This is the valid logic that is being used by the rep.   I don't think this is manipulative based on costs.    It's really up to Bob whether he agrees with that logic or if he disagrees with that logic and to make his own decision based on that. If this were my account, I would make the decision on where to withdraw based on my target asset allocation. Bob (for good or bad reasons) decided on 2/3 Fund 1 and 1/3 Fund 2. I'd make the withdraw that returns me to my target allocation of 2/3 Fund 1 and 1/3 Fund 2. Depending on performance and contributions, that might be selling Fund 1, selling Fund 2, or selling some of both." may result in more taxes when Fund shares are held in a taxable   account. When the fund manager decides to sell shares of a stock, and those shares have grown in value, that growth is a capital gain. If that fund is part of a taxable account then the investors in the fund will have to declare that income/gain on their tax forms. That could require the investors to have to pay taxes on those gains.  Of course if the investors are holding the fund shares in a IRA or 401K then there are no taxes due in the near term. A higher portfolio turnover rate may indicate higher transaction   costs...  ...These costs, which are not reflected in annual fund operating   expenses or in the previous expense examples, reduce the Fund’s   performance. The annual fund operating expenses are the expenses that they can assume will happen every year. They include salaries, the cost of producing statements, paperwork required by the government, research... It doesn't include transaction costs. Which they can't estimate what they will be in advance. If the fund invests in a particular segment of the market, and there is a disruption in that segment, they may need to make many new investments. If on the other hand last year they made great choices the turnover may be small this year. During the most recent fiscal year, the Fund’s portfolio turnover rate   was 3% of the average value of its portfolio. That may be your best indicator.