Allocating IRA money, clarification needed
There was a time that a rule of thumb stated your stock allocation should be 100-your age. That rule suggests that you are at 65%stock/35% bond/cash. If you are comfortable having this money 100% invested, the best advice would be dollar cost averaging, anything more specific would suggest market timing. You're saying that you're thinking of keeping 35% in cash? If you expect the market to plummet in the next few months and then head up again, this would be a smart strategy. Hold on to a bunch of cash, then when the market hits bottom buy, then as it goes back up collect your profits. In practice, the long-term trend of the market has been up for as long as there has been a stock market. Bear markets tend to be relatively short, usually just a few months or at most a year or two before the market gets back to where it was. If you are smart enough to predict when there will be a decline and how long it will last, you're smarter than 99% of the professionals, never mind the amateurs. Personally, I keep only trivial amounts of cash. Let's see, right now about 2% of my assets. If you're more active in managing your retirement accounts -- if you really watch the market on a monthly basis or more frequently and adjust your assets according -- it would make sense to keep a larger cash reserve and use it when the market goes down. But for the average person, I think it would be a big mistake to keep anywhere near 35% of your assets in cash. In the long run, you'll probably lose out on a lot of potential growth. You'll likely see several more scary market events before your autumn years. Ahhh, everyone has an opinion on this so here is mine :) If you are constrained to picking canned mutual fund products then I would target something with decent yield for two points. The third is to keep some in cash for an 'event'.   I would say 65/35 at this point so invest 65% and have some liquidity for an 'opportunity'.  Because the next crisis is right around the corner. But stay invested.
I would definitely recommend putting some of this in an IRA. You can't put all $30K in an IRA immediately though, as the contribution limit is $5500/year for 2014, but until April 15 you can still contribute $5500 for 2013 as well. At your income level I would absolutely recommend a Roth IRA, as your income will very likely be higher in retirement, given that your income will almost certainly rise after you get your Ph.D. Your suggested asset allocation (70% stocks, 30% bonds) sounds appropriate; if anything you might want to go even higher on stocks assuming you won't mind seeing the value drop significantly. If you don't want to put a lot of energy into investment choices, I suggest a target retirement date fund. As far as I am aware, Vanguard offers the lowest expenses for these types of funds, e.g. this 2050 fund. You must file as married for 2013 if you were married as of December 31, 2013. It is true that the Roth IRA contribution phaseout for Married Filing Separately is 0 - $10K. But you can still do backdoor Roth IRA contribution (contribute to a Traditional IRA, then convert it to a Roth IRA; assuming you do not have any pre-tax IRAs, this is identical to a Roth IRA contribution). But you already made a Roth IRA contribution for 2013, and did not do the backdoor. Let's assume that you want to turn it into a backdoor Roth IRA contribution, and that you don't have any pre-tax IRAs. There are two ways to do this: Withdraw the Roth IRA you contributed (including earnings). Then, do a normal backdoor Roth IRA contribution (contribute to a Traditional IRA, then immediately convert it to Roth IRA). The earnings you had in the Roth IRA that you withdrew will be treated as normal income and taxed. The conversion will not be taxable because all of the Traditional IRA was non-deductible when you converted. Re-characterize your original Roth IRA contribution as a Traditional IRA contribution, then convert it to Roth IRA. It will be treated as if you made a Traditional IRA contribution originally, and then waited until now to convert. The earnings in the IRA up till now will be taxed on conversion. So in both cases, you will need to pay income tax on the earnings in the account up to now. The difference between the two is in the amount of money in the IRA now. With the first way, you can only contribute $5500 now. With the second way, you will keep the same amount of money you have in the IRA now. You can only contribute up to 5% of your salary? Odd. Usually 401(k) contributions are limited to some dollar amount in the vicinity of $15,000 or so a year. Normal retirement guidelines suggest that putting away 10-15% of your salary is enough that you probably won't need to worry much when you retire. 5% isn't likely to be enough, employer match or no. I'd try to contribute 10-15% of my salary. I think you're reading the rules wrong. I'm almost certain. It's definitely worth checking. If you're not, you should seriously consider supplementing this saving with a Roth IRA or just an after-tax account.  So. If you're with Fidelity and don't know what to do, look for a target date fund with a date near your retirement (e.g. Target Retirement 2040) and put 100% in there until you have a better idea of what going on. All Fidelity funds have pretty miserable expense ratios, even their token S&P500 index fund from another provider, so you might as let them do some leg work and pick your asset allocation for you. Alternatively, look for the Fidelity retirement planner tools on their website to suggest an asset allocation. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, as you're saving for retirement you'll want to have N% of your portfolio in bonds and the rest in stocks, where N is your age in years. Your stocks should probably be split about 70% US and 30% rest-of-world, give or take, and your US stocks should be split about 64% large-cap, 28% mid-cap and 8% small-cap (that's basically how the US stock market is split). The main restrictions you see with IRA's involve contributions, and not the actual investments themselves. I would be indifferent to having a single investment across multiple accounts. It might be a bit trickier to manage, especially if your strategy involves some specific asset allocation. Other than account management though, there's no big issue. I remember reading in an earlier version of Pub 590 (or possibly the Instructions for Form 8606) that timely contributions for Year X to an IRA are deemed to have been made on January 1 of Year X regardless of when they were actually made, but I don't seem to be able to find it now in current versions of Pubs 590a or 590b and so cannot include a citation of chapter and verse. Be that as it may, the calculations on on Form 8606 Part I effectively track basis on an annual basis rather than on a daily basis, and so the fact that the Traditional IRA has a zero balance (and basis 0 too) at some time during the year doesn't matter in the least.  In detail (though you didn't ask for it) Note that the whole $6500 that you put in remains non-deductible in its entirety, but you owe taxes on only $93,900 of that $100K that you rolled over into a Roth IRA and not on the whole $100K as you were assuming would have been the case. So, in effect, of that $6500 nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, you did really get to deduct $6100 from your taxable income for 2016, and make only a $400 nondeductible contribution, exactly equal to your basis in your Traditional IRA as per the Form 8606 calculations.  I can only assume that the software package that you are using reproduces the above calculations exactly and does what the IRS says you must do on Form 8606 rather than what you get by tracking the basis on a daily basis. IRS regulations and instructions are not necessarily the same as what the tax law says; they are interpretations of the tax law based on what the IRS understands the tax law to say. People have challenged various specific IRS regulations and interpretations as being different from what the law says in Tax Court and been successful in some cases and failed in others. If you believe that tracking basis on a daily basis is what the law says (instead of just being reasonable and rational: reasonableness and rationality are not required either of Congress in the laws that they write or the IRS regulations that interpret the laws), you should take up the matter with the IRS or the Tax Court. The first problem with your analysis is that you are not comparing equivalent contributions. The deductible Traditional IRA contribution is in terms of pre-tax money, whereas the Roth IRA contribution is in terms of post-tax money. A certain nominal amount of pre-tax money is equivalent to a smaller nominal amount of post-tax money, because taxes are taken out of it. For a fair comparison, you need to start with the same amount of pre-tax money being taken out of your wages. If you start with $1000 being taken out of your pre-tax wages, the deductible Traditional IRA contribution will be $1000, but your Roth IRA contribution will be $750, because 25% of it went to paying taxes. If you go through the calculation, you will see that after you withdraw it (and 25% taxes are paid in the Traditional case), you will be left with the exact same amount of money in your hand at the end in both cases. Even though you see that you end up with the same amount of money, you may still be confused because you paid different nominal amounts in taxes. That's the second problem with your analysis -- you are comparing the nominal amounts of taxes paid at different times. You are missing the time value of money. Would you rather pay $1000 of taxes today or $1001 of taxes in 10 years? Of course you would rather the latter, even though it is a higher nominal amount. A given amount of money now has the same value to you now as a bigger amount of money later. If I invest a given amount of money now, and it grows in to a bigger amount of money later, then that bigger amount of money later has the same value as the original contribution now. So the 25% tax on the contribution now is equivalent to the 25% tax on the total value later, even though the latter is a much bigger nominal amount. Another way to think about it is that you could have taken that 25% tax you paid now, and instead invest it, let it grow, and pay that result (which will still be 25% of the total later) in taxes later. You get to keep the remaining 75% of your investment either way. You are simply investing on behalf of the government the part of the money you would have paid them, and paying them the result of investing that portion of the money later. You're correct about the 401(k). Your employer's contributions don't count toward the $18k limit. You're incorrect about the IRAs though. You can contribute a maximum of $5500 total across IRA and Roth IRA, not $5500 to each. There are also limits once you reach higher levels of income. from IRS.gov: Retirement Topics - IRA Contribution Limits: For 2015, 2016, and 2017, your total contributions to all of your traditional and Roth IRAs cannot be more than: "What you're describing is a non-deductible traditional IRA.  That is what happens when your employer 401K or your high income disqualifies gou from using a traditional IRA the normal way.   Yes, non-deductible traditional IRAs are stupid.**   Now let's be clear on the mechanism behind the difference.  There's an axiom of tax law that the same money can't be taxed twice.  This is baked so deep into tax law that it often isn't even specified particularly.  The IRS is not allowed to impose tax on money already taxed, i.e. The original contribution on an ND Trad IRA.  So this is not a new kind of IRA, it is simply a Trad IRA with an asterisk.  **But then, some say so are deductible traditional IRAs when compared to the Roth.   The real power of an ND Trad IRA is that it can be converted to Roth at all income levels.  This is called the ""Roth Backdoor"".  It combines three factors. Contribute to an ND Trad IRA, stick it in a money market/sweep fund, and a week later convert to Roth, pay taxes on the 17 cents of growth in the sweep fund since the rest was already taxed.  The net effect is to work the same as a Roth contribution - not tax deductible, becomes a Roth, and is not taxed on distribution.   If you already have traditional IRA money that you contributed that wasn't taxed, this really screws things up.  Because you can't segment or LIFO your IRA money, the IRS considers it one huge bucket, and requires you draw in proportion. EEK! Suppose you contribute $5000 to an IRA in a non-deductible mode.  But you also have a different IRA funded with pretax money that now has $45,000.   As far as IRS is concerned, you have one $50,000 IRA and only $5000 (10%) is post-tax.   You convert $5000 to Roth and IRS says 90% of that money is taxable, since it's the same pool of money.  You owe taxes on all of it less the $500 fraction that was pre-taxed, and $4500 of already-taxed IRA remains in the account.  The math gets totally out-of-hand after just a couple of conversions.   Your best bet is to convert the whole shebang at one time -- and to avoid a monstrous tax hit, do this in a gap year."