which company should i use? why?

9/16/2006 10:12:27 PM

http://www.google.org

9/16/2006 10:19:48 PM

http://www.fool.com

9/16/2006 10:26:15 PM

^ive seen that, but havent spent much time on it....thanks for reminding me of the site

im lookin for a firm that allows plenty of options as for the different funds that the IRA is involved in....which i cannot do with NC SECU....right? isnt it part of their charter that they cannot sell stock, therefore a Roth through them isnt the way to go?

9/16/2006 10:40:01 PM

Ameritrade. Excellent service. Cheap trades. And now maintenece fees.

9/17/2006 9:55:49 AM

I use FirstTrade firsttrade.com

9/17/2006 10:15:37 AM

fidelity.com

$200 to start and no fees

9/17/2006 10:25:47 AM

NC SECU's Roth IRA offers a 5.0% APR, which is okay, but not great. It mostly acts like a savings account, except for the part where you get taxed if you withdraw the interest. The last time I asked, they said that they were working on setting up a separate brokerage business, but that was at least a year ago. If you're already a SECU member, though, it's not a bad way to start.

9/17/2006 1:06:52 PM

Scottrade

9/17/2006 1:08:08 PM

First Investors Corp.

not sure if there is a firm around here though

9/17/2006 1:45:37 PM

^^^no, that's not even ok.

you'd be an idiot to fund an IRA with something with such a low yield at our age.


before we go any further, let's make sure you have a handle on one basic thing: an IRA (Roth or conventional) is not an investment vehicle in and of itself. It's simply an account that you can fund with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc.


Personally, what I'd do is open an account with a discount broker (Scottrade, E-trade, Ameritrade, etc). If you want someone else to choose for you in terms of what you're going to put in your IRA, then you'll need a full service broker.

9/17/2006 2:01:45 PM

Quote :

"you'd be an idiot to fund an IRA with something with such a low yield at our age."

Agreed.

Mine is with UBS. They charge me a $40 yearly fee to manage it. I could probably do it myself, but I already had some other investments with them. Plus, if I go through them I can purchase funds which normally require high minimum investments.

9/17/2006 2:13:35 PM

Im with charles Schwab
they are ok but im sure that there are better ones because schwab will give you low cost (sometimes even free) trades but they have to be on the schwab select list and usually those mutual funds suck
also they dont let you trade with any other investor companies mutual funds like fidelity funds for instance and they have some pretty good funds
also their schwab mutual funds suck ass.
but they are ok as i said
my dad made my investing accounts so choosing schwab was his decision and i had no chance to shop and compare companies.

man im so jewish

9/17/2006 2:49:48 PM

Quote :

" and usually those mutual funds suck"

Quote :

"also their schwab mutual funds suck ass."

there ya go. fixed it for you.

9/17/2006 2:54:41 PM

well you can invest in their mutual funds or stocks but i havent started looking at stocks yet.

9/17/2006 2:58:00 PM

Duke, you're right that the majority of mutual funds suck, but there are some really good ones out there that are going to do well over the long term

Like a Davis fund, or most Marsico-managed funds.

9/17/2006 3:11:19 PM

Quote :

"you'd be an idiot to fund an IRA with something with such a low yield at our age."

Investing isn't a sure thing. You certainly wouldn't be an idiot to take a guarenteed return. You would be a pessimist, however.

9/17/2006 3:18:37 PM

So, if I can get a guarenteed 5% return on my money for life I should take it? WTF kind of logic is that? You'll barely outpace inflation. Get a cd if you want the damn 5% return so bad.

9/17/2006 4:08:54 PM

^^you'd be an idiot for expecting to defy the statistics that much.

9/17/2006 4:30:23 PM

Quote :

"So, if I can get a guarenteed 5% return on my money for life I should take it? WTF kind of logic is that? "

Who said that?

Quote :

"You'll barely outpace inflation. Get a cd if you want the damn 5% return so bad."

You'd maintain your wealth and get modest growth. There are scenarios where each option is better.

9/17/2006 5:45:21 PM

i forgot what im adding to mine right now, maybe only 120 a month (pretty sure its not 120 a week), but im gonna have (supposedly) ~475k when im 65 at the rate i am adding. thats pretty cool considering i hardly miss the contribution. but its only 100k at age 50. crazy curve on those bitches, huh?

9/17/2006 5:48:08 PM

Anybody got an IRA with Vanguard? I have other accounts with them and have been pleased thus far.

9/17/2006 5:57:32 PM

Quote :

"You'd maintain your wealth and get modest growth."

After inflation is factored in, you would only have minimal growth. Even if you didn't count inflation, you would not have anything near what you needed come time for retirement

9/17/2006 6:10:53 PM

isnt inflation around 3

9/17/2006 6:37:42 PM

yep, so 2% growth isn't what I would consider moderate

9/17/2006 6:46:54 PM

i dont know, i failed the hell out of finance class. all i know is that mine makes most of the money in the last quarter

9/17/2006 7:03:08 PM

right now im thinking ill go with ameritrade for the roth

no maintainence fees and no minimum (although the no minimum thing doesnt really apply for what im lookin for)

9/17/2006 7:07:32 PM

I have a Roth IRA through Ameriprise but they are also handling my other investments. My IRA is for my retirement with a fairly aggressive outlook since I won't be touching the money for like 41 years.

9/17/2006 10:17:24 PM

so they just dropped the pension plan at my current job.

which, im not entirely sold on the ramifications of.

i currently had a roth, and a work ira, along with a pension.

now they are going to allow for more % contriubuted and a higher matching, instead of a pension... but allow for pension gains to basically be frozen till retirement.


my question here is, should i keep eating the tax on over funding IRAs or push more investing into other means?

by overinvesting, i mean like 2-3x max contributions/year. its only a couple hundred in fees or whatever, but maybe start diversifying with bullion or something of the like?

9/17/2006 10:25:36 PM

Quote :

"yep, so 2% growth isn't what I would consider moderate"

Whether you like it or not, 5% is a modest return, especially when you hope for 8% longterm in the stock market and could certainly lose money.

I'm not advocating putting all your retirement savings in a money market account. However, it's hard to argue against putting some of it in money market accounts, increasingly as you approach retirement. The market goes up and the market goes down. If you invested money at the end of the 1920s boom, you wouldn't have broken even for almost another 30 years.

9/17/2006 11:23:29 PM

I seriously doubt the op is approaching retirement age. You sound like one of those people who puts all their money into bonds once they retire and then run out of cash by their mid 80s.

9/17/2006 11:55:37 PM

Quote :

"by overinvesting, i mean like 2-3x max contributions/year."

How do you go over the maximum? Multiple accounts? I thought that was an IRS restriction.

9/18/2006 2:27:45 AM

Yes, I was wondering that as well.

9/18/2006 7:46:23 AM

Quote :

"its only a couple hundred in fees or whatever"

i wish i had that problem where i could afford to blow a few hundred bucks a year in fees or whatever

9/18/2006 7:57:14 AM

im supposedly getting 8% on my stuff, so it might not be an IRA if they're doing 5. and im not sure how it works, i literally just started it a month ago or so. its a plan based off the idea of privatizing social security (ie matching a percentage of my fica withholdings). so if my fica withholding was 100 bucks for august, i would be contributing 50 for that month (not out of fica obviously).

9/18/2006 8:11:06 AM

Quote :

"by overinvesting, i mean like 2-3x max contributions/year. its only a couple hundred in fees or whatever, but maybe start diversifying with bullion or something of the like?"

none of that makes any sense whatsoever.

9/18/2006 8:35:55 AM

i diversify by buying stock in bullion cubes.

9/18/2006 8:44:16 AM

beef or chicken?

9/18/2006 8:48:44 AM

both. come on now, you need to be diverse.

9/18/2006 8:51:32 AM

ok, no more serious posts when i had been drinking all day long.

but overfunding your ira only warrants a 6% fee on your amount higher than the allowed maximum.

and for 6-7k per year over, thats really not very significant right now.

the bullion question was probably a bit dumb, but i like to keep a certian percentage of my holdings in raw commodites for stability issues. Oddly enough, i had bought a decent quantity of silver a couple of years ago due to some online poker money loopholes, and its done fairly well, until this summer. Still nearly doubled however.

by percentage, i mean like 7%


im the first to admidt i dont know anything about this stuff. just trying to learn, dont be an ass

[Edited on September 18, 2006 at 9:12 AM. Reason : e]

9/18/2006 9:11:40 AM

Quote :

"im supposedly getting 8% on my stuff, so it might not be an IRA if they're doing 5. and im not sure how it works,"

You are most likely getting 8% because you are investing in mutual funds not some fixed secu ira.

Quote :

"i currently had a roth, and a work ira, along with a pension."

Wtf is a work ira? Do you mean 401K?

[Edited on September 18, 2006 at 10:16 AM. Reason : ]

9/18/2006 10:15:29 AM

Quote :

"ok, no more serious posts when i had been drinking all day long. "

9/18/2006 10:22:35 AM

Quote :

"but overfunding your ira only warrants a 6% fee on your amount higher than the allowed maximum."

6% each year that the excess funds are in the account. compounded over time, that's a lot.

Why not just put the extra into the a brokerage account outside of a retirement account? Or if you have a 401k, up your contributions, the IRS limit is $15k/year.

9/18/2006 11:36:03 AM

The bottom line is, you pay for what you get. No-fees means no-service. I don't care what anyone says, its the truth. If you all you pay is $9.99 per trade, that's all you are getting. If thats okay with you, by all means do it, but ask yourself this question first. "Do I really have the time and knowledge to do the proper research I'll need, to make educated decisions on the trades I want to do?" The answer for the vast majority of the population is "No."

Companies that want to offer you a "select list of funds" usually have behind the scenes deals that they don't readily disclose, with those fund companies. Where is the objectivity in that? When it comes to anything of long-term importance, if you aren't a professional, to do it right the first time, you hire one to help you. Your financial future is one of the most important issues you'll face throughout your life. Simply picking stocks or commodities because you "like" them or think they'll do good, is like picking your NCAA tournament picks based on team colors. It might work out, but it usually doesn't.

9/18/2006 11:36:52 AM

And assuming that paying higher fees means that you're in better hands is like paying $100 for a gucci tshirt and thinking it's higher quality than a $20 one.

The real bottom line is that there is no substitute from educating yourself on personal finance and investing. You're right, your financial future is one of the most important issues in your life, so why not take the time to learn how to do it yourself? It's not rocket surgery. Ultimately no one is going to care about your financial interests more than you.

9/18/2006 11:56:02 AM

Quote :

"6% each year that the excess funds are in the account. compounded over time, that's a lot."

I agree. You should probably contribute to your 401K or work ira or whatever the hell they are calling it over where you work Pilgrims Hoes.

I think torch hit the nail on the head. I, as well as a lot of people on here, could easily manage their entire portfolio, but I am at work from the time the market opens until the time it closes and don't have the time to put in the hours each night into researching different funds and such. Plus, when I am close to retirment and have a portfolio work over a million I would much rather have it in the hands of a professional than my own.

Quote :

"And assuming that paying higher fees means that you're in better hands is like paying $100 for a gucci tshirt and thinking it's higher quality than a $20 one."

Not always. Many high risk funds and nearly all international funds have high expense ratios. It is considered the norm and it is assumed that the potential profits from these funds outweighs their high expenses.

9/18/2006 12:34:48 PM

in 3 to 4 years, traditional IRA's will be obsolete

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/business/yourmoney/17fund.html?ex=1158724800&en=c528ceddae798564&ei=5087%0A

Quote :

"September 17, 2006 Fundamentally The Increasing Charms of the Roth Approach By PAUL J. LIM MOST people rely on a hodgepodge of individual retirement accounts and employer-sponsored savings plans to set aside money for the future. The problem is, I.R.A.'s, 401(k)'s and other retirement plans all come with their own set of complicated rules, and those rules change as Congress tinkers with the nation's tax laws. Recently, the federal government did a lot of tweaking, passing the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act, signed into law by President Bush in May, and the Pension Protection Act, enacted in August. Because both bills touched on a wide range of issues — from the alternative minimum tax to capital gains to traditional guaranteed pensions — many of the smaller rule changes that dealt with I.R.A.'s and 401(k)'s have been somewhat overlooked. Yet in today's self-directed retirement system, it is important to keep tabs on details that can have a big impact on your retirement savings. Unfortunately, some of them are obscure and rather complicated. The tax reconciliation act attracted headlines because it extended the 15 percent maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividend income. But the legislation also included a less ballyhooed provision that makes it possible for many more people to invest in Roth I.R.A.'s. On the face of it, the legislation does away with the income limitations for individuals seeking to convert a traditional I.R.A. into a Roth I.R.A. starting in 2010. While that's more than three years away, this provision actually gives workers and their spouses a back-door entry into investing in Roth I.R.A.'s — no matter how much they earn. To be sure, the new tax law did not do away with the income restrictions that prevent highly paid workers from opening a Roth account directly. This year, for example, single workers who earn $110,000 or more (after adjustments) and married workers earning $160,000 or more cannot make any contributions to a Roth I.R.A. And single filers earning $95,000 to $110,000 a year and joint filers earning $150,000 to $160,000 can make only partial contributions. This might explain why Roth accounts — which are financed with after-tax dollars and allow for tax-free withdrawals at retirement — accounted for just 4 percent of all I.R.A. holdings last year. But in 2010, the new law will lift the income restriction that prevents households with adjusted gross incomes of more than $100,000 from converting traditional I.R.A.'s into Roth accounts. By lifting the income cap, the federal government has in effect lifted all the income barriers for gaining access to Roth accounts — without explicitly saying so. "Who cares about the income limitations for opening a Roth?" asked Rande Spiegelman, a vice president at the Schwab Center for Investment Research in San Francisco. If you don't qualify, he said, "just go out and open a traditional I.R.A. and convert in 2010." Mr. Spiegelman added that "any worker can contribute to an I.R.A." The only question, he said, is, "Do you qualify to earn an upfront tax deduction on your contributions?" Regardless of whether an account is a Roth or a traditional I.R.A., you can contribute up to $4,000 a year through 2007, $5,000 in 2008, and a greater amount indexed to inflation after that. People aged 50 and older can contribute an additional $1,000 a year. If you participate in an employer-sponsored plan, your income will determine whether you qualify for a deduction on your contribution. A single person earning $60,000 or more a year won't qualify, for example. But you can still contribute nondeductible money into a traditional I.R.A. Then, in 2010, you can convert your traditional I.R.A. into a Roth. Since you've already paid taxes on those nondeductible contributions, you probably won't face a huge tax bill at conversion four years from now; you would just be liable for taxes on the investment gains within the I.R.A. Even better, if you convert in 2010, the I.R.S. will let you spread out your tax bill on the converted I.R.A. assets over two years. By comparison, if you qualified for upfront deductions in a traditional I.R.A. and converted it to a Roth, you would have to pay taxes on both the original contributions and the gains. This may seem insanely complicated, but it's not over yet. If you own a mix of deductible and nondeductible I.R.A.'s, the I.R.S. will not let you pick and choose which dollars you want to convert to a Roth. So "the perfect candidate is someone who doesn't already have a traditional deductible I.R.A. of substantial size," said David A. Foster, a founder of Foster & Motley, a financial planning firm in Cincinnati. But Mr. Foster said some households might still consider converting their deductible I.R.A. assets, even if it meant having to pay taxes now rather than at retirement, when withdrawals from a traditional deductible I.R.A. are taxed as ordinary income. That's because Roth I.R.A.'s allow for tax-free withdrawals at retirement, a feature with broad appeal. Wealthier people might favor Roth accounts as an efficient way to pass assets to their heirs. If you name your child as the beneficiary of your Roth, for example, he or she can withdraw the money tax-free. And younger workers who expect to be in a higher bracket at retirement also stand to benefit from tax-free withdrawals. Roth I.R.A.'s should become even more popular in 2008, when some 401(k) participants will be allowed to roll over their employer-sponsored plans directly into a Roth at retirement or when they leave their companies. Under current rules, workers eligible to roll over their 401(k)'s must first move the money into a traditional account — and then convert that account if they want to be in a Roth. But a provision in the Pension Protection Act allows for direct Roth rollovers starting in 2008. In 2008 and 2009, the $100,000 limit on adjusted gross income for Roth conversions will still be in effect. In 2010, anyone eligible to roll over their 401(k)'s will be able to transfer them into a Roth I.R.A. — but they will need to come up with enough cash to pay the income tax due on the transaction. THE Pension Protection Act also changed the rules on inheritance of 401(k) assets. Under current rules, beneficiaries other than one's spouse typically must withdraw all the money from the account shortly after the owner's death. This means heirs lose the tax shelter and have to pay income taxes promptly. But starting in 2007, nonspouse beneficiaries can roll over the 401(k) into an I.R.A. opened expressly for that purpose. They can withdraw the money gradually, over the course of their lives. Finally, retirees who own I.R.A.'s and are charitably minded should take note of a temporary rule change. In 2006 and 2007 only, traditional I.R.A. owners who are 70½ and older can make direct tax-free distributions from their I.R.A.'s to a public charity, up to $100,000 a year. The payments must go directly from the I.R.A. to the charity. Donations to private foundations and donor-advised funds don't qualify. The withdrawals won't be counted as part of your adjusted gross income. "Those who are able to take advantage of this and who don't need their I.R.A. assets to live on should definitely consider it," said Don R. Weigandt, an adviser at JPMorgan Private Bank in Los Angeles. "It's the most efficient way to give to a charity from your I.R.A. during your life." Of course, most Americans will probably need every dime in their retirement accounts to take care of themselves and their families. The recent changes in the rules governing I.R.A.'s and 401(k)'s are certainly no panacea. But they provide a way to stretch savings for a few more years, and that could be the difference between living comfortably and just getting by. Paul J. Lim is a financial writer at U.S. News & World Report. E-mail: fund@nytimes.com."

9/18/2006 12:37:53 PM

Quote :

"The real bottom line is that there is no substitute from educating yourself on personal finance and investing. You're right, your financial future is one of the most important issues in your life, so why not take the time to learn how to do it yourself?"

I'm all for self-education, but you are highly underestimating the time requirement. Plus, it isn't like you are guaranteeing that you are saving yourself money just because you are investing the money yourself. Many people have cost themselves thousands more than they would have ever saved. The same may also be said about investing with an advisor, but I'd be willing to bet on which way the scale would tip on average.

I'll give you an example:

If you accidentally cut yourself on a rusty nail and determined it would be a good idea to get a Tetanus shot, even if you could buy the syringe and vaccine online at a discount, it would probably make more sense to go to urgent care or a nurse than to try and administer the shot yourself. Odds are you don't know enough about it, and trying could end up seriously hurting you. You might get lucky and everything go fine, but is the risk worth taking for what you could potentially save? I'd rather not for a $25 co-pay.

9/18/2006 2:15:25 PM

Quote :

"im supposedly getting 8% on my stuff, so it might not be an IRA if they're doing 5. and im not sure how it works, i literally just started it a month ago or so. "

an IRA could have anything in it. it could be packed full of volatile stocks that earn you (or lose) 40% or something, or it could have bonds with a 5% return.

read again what i posted earlier:

Quote :

"before we go any further, let's make sure you have a handle on one basic thing: an IRA (Roth or conventional) is not an investment vehicle in and of itself. It's simply an account that you can fund with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc"

it's simply an account marked for retirement savings that allows you some priveliges that can be very advantageous, in exchange for playing by certain rules.

Quote :

"6% each year that the excess funds are in the account. compounded over time, that's a lot. Why not just put the extra into the a brokerage account outside of a retirement account? Or if you have a 401k, up your contributions, the IRS limit is $15k/year."

Concur.

9/18/2006 2:57:04 PM