Do my 401k/Roth accounts benefit from compounding?
You buy a share of something for $100.  It goes up by 10% over a year, and you now have $110 in value.  It goes up by 10% next year and you now have $121.  That original $10 increase was compounded even though you're not earning interest because the gains are measured as a percentage.  If, instead, you'd only invested the second year you'd have less value.  Assuming the markets average a positive gain (above inflation) you see greater gains the earlier you're invested. During the course of the year, the S&P individual stocks will have some dividends. Not every last stock but a good number of them. Enough that the average dividend for the S&P has been about 2% recently.  So if the S&P index goes up, say 10%, an S&P fund should go up closer to 12%. For a fund holder, you'd normally see a declared dividend and cap gain distribution toward the end of each year. When you hold shares in a 401(k), dividends are reinvested into the fund, usually with no involvement from the members. You might be confusing two different things. An advantage of investing over a long term is the compounding of returns.  Those returns can be interest, dividends, or capital gains.  The mix between them depends on what you invest it and how you invest in it.  This advantage applies whether your investment is in a taxable brokerage account or in a tax-advantaged 401K or IRA.  So, start investing early so that you have longer for this compounding of returns to happen. The second thing is the tax deferral you get from 401(k) or IRAs.  If you invest in a ordinary taxable account, then you have to pay taxes on your interest and dividends for the year in which they occur.  You also have to pay taxes on any capital gains which you realize during the year.  These yearly tax payments are then money that you don't get the benefit of compounding on.  With 401(k) and IRAs, you don't have to pay taxes during these intermediate years. "Sure, stocks don't pay interest. I just looked up the word ""compound"" in a couple of dictionaries and the relevant definition in all of them just mentioned interest and not growth in the value of stock. So it may be technically inaccurate to talk about ""compound growth"" of a stock. I'll yield to someone more knowledgeable about the technical language of finance to answer that part. But regardless of whether the word strictly applies, the concept certainly does. Suppose you put $1000 into a mutual fund and the fund grows by 10%. You now have $1100. The next year the fund grows by 15%. So you gain 15% of what? Of your original $1000? No, of your present balance, $1100. The effect is the same as compound interest. There is the fundamental difference that interest is normally a fixed rate: you get such-and-such percent a year as spelled out in a contract. But change in the value of a stock depends on many factors, none of them guaranteed."
"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." Be sure to consider the difference between Roth 401K and standard 401K. The Roth 401K is taxed as income then put into your account. So the money you put into the Roth 401K is taxed as income for the current year, however, any interest you accumulate over the years is not taxed when you withdraw the money.  So to break it down: You may also want to look into Self Directed 401K, which can be either standard or Roth. Check if your employer supports this type of account. But if you're self employed or 1099 it may be a good option. "Good question.  And it depends a bit on your current plan, your future income, and the plan you are moving too. Mostly you want to roll out of your existing 401K.  There will likely be a fee, and your investment choices are limited.  You will want to do a direct transfer, and going with a quality company such as Fidelity or Vanguard.  Both of those have zero fees for accounts and pretty good customer service. However, if your future income is likely to be high there is something else to consider.  If you are over the limits do a ROTH, and are considering doing a ""Backdoor ROTH"" a key success for this strategy is keeping your roll over IRA balance low (or zero).   So you may want to either leave the 401K where it is, or roll it to your new 401K plan.  In that case you will have to call the two 401K custodians, and select the best choice as far as fees and fund choice." I currently do not have an IRA (other than a rollover IRA from my 401k from a previous employer) The source is irrelevant. You have an IRA.  The reason to keep contributing is that at some point, you might transfer the pretax dollars into a 401(k) and the post tax dollars can be converted to Roth.  Other than the above, investing in a standard brokerage account (a non-retirement account) has its positives. Gains can see long term cap gain treatment, and the assets see a step-up in basis when you die. Back in the late 80's I had a co-worked do exactly this. In those days you could only do things quarterly: change the percentage, change the investment mix, make a withdrawal.. There were no Roth 401K accounts, but contributions could be pre-tax or post-tax. Long term employees were matched 100% up to 8%, newer employees were only matched 50% up to 8% (resulting in 4% match). Every quarter this employee put in 8%, and then pulled out the previous quarters contribution. The company match continued to grow.  Was it smart? He still ended up with 8% going into the 401K. In those pre-Enron days the law allowed companies to limit the company match to 100% company stock which meant that employees retirement was at risk. Of course by the early 2000's the stock that was purchased for $6 a share was worth $80 a share... Now what about the IRS: Since I make designated Roth contributions from after-tax income, can I make tax-free withdrawals from my designated Roth account at any   time? No, the same restrictions on withdrawals that apply to pre-tax   elective contributions also apply to designated Roth contributions. If   your plan permits distributions from accounts because of hardship, you   may choose to receive a hardship distribution from your designated   Roth account. The hardship distribution will consist of a pro-rata   share of earnings and basis and the earnings portion will be included   in gross income unless you have had the designated Roth account for 5   years and are either disabled or over age 59 ½. Regarding getting just contributions: What happens if I take a distribution from my designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period? If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before   the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified   distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the   nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or   contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not   included in gross income. The basis portion of the distribution is   determined by multiplying the amount of the nonqualified distribution   by the ratio of designated Roth contributions to the total designated   Roth account balance. For example, if a nonqualified distribution of   $5,000 is made from your designated Roth account when the account   consists of $9,400 of designated Roth contributions and $600 of   earnings, the distribution consists of $4,700 of designated Roth   contributions (that are not includible in your gross income) and $300   of earnings (that are includible in your gross income). See Q&As regarding Rollovers of Designated Roth Contributions, for   additional rules for rolling over both qualified and nonqualified   distributions from designated Roth accounts. "Welcome to the 'what should otherwise be a simple choice turns into a huge analysis' debate. If the choice were actually simple, we've have one 'golden answer' here and close others as duplicate. But, new questions continue to bring up different scenarios that impact the choice.  4 years ago, I wrote an article in which I discussed The Density of Your IRA. In that article, I acknowledge that, with no other tax favored savings, you can pack more value into the Roth.  In hindsight, I failed to add some key points. First, let's go back to what I'd describe as my main thesis: A retired couple hits the top of the 15% bracket with an income of   $96,700. (I include just the standard deduction and exemptions.) The   tax on this gross sum is $10,452.50 for an 'average' rate of 10.8%. The tax, paid or avoided, upon deposit, is one's marginal rate. But,   at retirement, the withdrawals first go through the zero bracket (i.e.   the STD deduction and exemptions), then 10%, then 15%. The above is the simplest snapshot. I am retired, and our return this year included Sch A, itemized deductions. Property tax, mort interest, insurance, donations added up fast, and from a gross income (IRA withdrawal) well into the 25% bracket, the effective/average rate was reported as 7.3%. If we had saved in Roth accounts, it would have been subject to 25%.  I'd suggest that it's this phenomenon, the ""save at marginal 25%, but withdraw at average sub-11%"" effect that account for much of the resulting tax savings that the IRA provides.  The way you are asking this, you've been focusing on one aspect, I believe. The 'density' issue. That assumes the investor has no 401(k) option. If I were building a spreadsheet to address this, I'd be sure to consider the fact that in a taxable account, long term gains are taxed at 15% for higher earners (I take the liberty to ignore  that wealthier taxpayers will pay a maximum 20% tax on long-term capital gains. This higher rate applies when your adjusted gross income falls into the top 39.6% tax bracket.) And those in the 10 or 15% bracket pay 0%. With median household income at $56K in 2016, and the 15% bracket top at $76K, this suggests that most people (gov data shows $75K is 80th percentile) have an effective unlimited Roth. So long as they invest in a way that avoids short term gains, they can rebalance often enough to realize LT gains and pay zero tax.  It's likely the $80K+ earner does have access to a 401(k) or other higher deposit account. If they don't, I'd still favor pretax IRAs, with $11K for the couple still 10% or so of their earnings. It would be a shame to lose that zero bracket of that first $20K withdrawal at retirement. Again working backwards, the $78K withdrawal would take nearly $2M in pretax savings to generate. All in today's dollars." "I separate them out, simply because they're for different purposes, with different goals and time-frames, and combining them may mask hidden problems in either the retirement account or the regular account. Consider an example: A young investor has been working on their retirement planning for a few years now, and has a modest amount of retirement savings (say $15,000) allocated carefully according to one of the usually recommended schemes. A majority exposure to large cap U.S. stocks, with smaller exposures to small cap, international and bond markets. Years before however, they mad an essentially emotional investment in a struggling manufacturer of niche personal computers, which then enjoyed something of a renaissance and a staggering growth in shareholder value. Lets say their current holdings in this company now represent $50,000. Combining them, their portfolio is dominated by large cap U.S. equities to such an extent that the only way to rebalance their portfolio is to pour money into bonds and the international market for years on end. This utterly changes the risk profile of their retirement account. At the same time, if we switch the account balances, the investor might be reassured that their asset allocation is fine and diversified, even though the assets they have access to before retirement are entirely in a single risky stock. In neither case is the investor well served by combining their funds when figuring out their allocation - especially as the ""goal"" allocations may very well be different." This situation, wanting desperately to have access to an investment vehicle in a 401K, but it not being available reminds me of two suggestions some make regarding retirement investing: This allows you the maximum flexibility in your retirement investing.  I have never, in almost 30 years of 401K investing, seen a pure cash investment, is was always something that was at its core very short term bonds. The exception is one company that once you had a few thousand in the 401K, you could transfer it to a brokerage account. I have no idea if there was a way to invest in a money market fund via the brokerage, but I guess it was possible. You may have to look and see if the company running the 401K has other investment options that your employer didn't select. Or you will have to see if other 401K custodians have these types of investments. Then push for changes next year. Regarding external IRA/Roth IRA: You can buy a CD with FDIC protection from funds in an IRA/Roth IRA. My credit union with NCUA protection currently has CDs and even bump up CDs, minimum balance is $500, and the periods are from 6 months to 3 years.