What is the future of 401(k) in terms of stability and reliability?
"My guess is that the point is that yields on bonds and cash equivalents is so low that inflation will cause the inflation-adjusted returns to be negative. There is something to be said for how much inflation can eat out of investment returns. At the same time, I would note the occupation of the person making that post along with what biases this person likely has. ""Entrepreneur, Started & sold several cos, Author 11 books (latest ""Choose Yourself!"") , Angel Inv., JamesAltucher.com"" would to me read as someone that isn't who I'd turn for investment advice when it comes to employer-sponsored plans. Be careful of what you blindly follow as sometimes that is how wolves lead the sheep to slaughter." "The same author wrote in that article “they have a trillion? Really?” But that’s what happens when ten   million dollars compounds at 2% over 200 years. Really? 2% compounded over 200 years produces a return of 52.5X, multiply that by 10M and you have $525 million. The author is off by a factor of nearly 2000 fold. Let's skip this minor math error.  The article is not about 401(k)s. His next line is ""The whole myth of savings is gone."" And the article itself, ""10 Reasons You Have To Quit Your Job In 2014"" is really a manifesto about why working for the man is not the way to succeed long term. And in that regard, he certainly makes good points. I've read this author over the years, and respect his views. 9 of the 10 points he lists are clear and valuable. This one point is a bit ambiguous and falls into the overgeneraluzation ""Our 401(k) have failed us."" But keep in mind, even the self employed need to save, and in fact, have similar options to those working for others. I have a Solo 401(k) for my self employment income.  To be clear, there are good 401(k) accounts and bad. The 401(k) with fees above 1%/yr, and no matching, awful. The 401(k) I have from my job before I retired has an S&P index with .02%/yr cost. (That's $200/$million invested per year.) The 401(k) is not dead." "Let's pretend that the author of that article is not selling anything and is trying to help you succeed in life.  I have nothing against sales, but that author is throwing out a lot of nonsense to sell his stuff and is creating a state of urgency so that people adopt this mindset.  It's clever and it obviously works. From a pure time perspective, most people won't make enough money to run their own business and be as profitable as if they worked for a company.  This is a reality that few want to acknowledge.  If you invested in yourself and your career with the same discipline and urgency as an entrepreneur, most people would be better off at a company when you consider the benefits and the fact that employees have a full 7.5% of social security paid by their employer (entrepreneurs see the full 15% while employees don't).  Why do I start here, because this author isn't telling you that the more people take his advice, the more their earnings will regress to the mean or below.  In fact, most of my entrepreneur friends have to go back to work when their reality fails after they burn through their savings. 401ks are not a perfect system, but there are more 401k millionaires now than ever before this, and people who give the author's advice are always looking to avoid doing what they need to do - save for retirement.  Most people I know sadly realize this in their 50s, when it's too late, and start trying to ""catch up.""  I don't blame the author for this, as he knows his article will appeal to younger people who don't have the wisdom to see that his advice hasn't been great for most.  The reality is that for most people 401ks will provide tax advantaged savings that you can use when you're older; taxes will eat at your earnings, so these accounts really help. Finally, look at the article again especially the part you quote.  He says inflation will carve out what you save, yet inflation is less than 2%.  Where is he getting this from?  In the past decade, we've seen numerous deflationary spirals and the market overall has come back from the fall in 2009.  Again, this isn't ""good enough"" for this author, so buy his stuff to learn how to succeed!  There have been numerous decades (50s,70s) that were much worse for investors than this past one."
You are right; Rollover is a process, and not an account type; the result is a Traditional IRA. There is no such thing as a 'Rollover IRA Account'. Rolling a 401(k) over to a Traditional IRA makes sense if a) you have to, because you leave the employer the 401(k) is with; b) because you Traditional IRA is cheaper or more flexible or in other ways 'better' for you, or c) if your next step is a backdoor rollover to a Roth IRA. Most of the time, it doesn't make sense, because employer 401(k) are often better and cheaper. Of course, for the investment company where you roll it too, it makes a lot of sense, because they get your money, so they recommend it. But that's only good for them, not for you. Of course you can roll into an existing account, if you want to roll. Making a new account has no advantage. I cannot imagine any IRA custodian wouldn't take rollovers; they would shoot themselves in the foot by that. What can happen - and you should consider this - that your IRA only accepts cash, and does not allow to transfer the shares you have in the 401(k). That means you have to sell and then re-buy, and you might lose a lot in fees there. 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. I agree with the others that pulling the money out of your 401(k) is not the best idea due to the taxes and penalties.  But I also think that a 401(k) loan is not a good option either.  Somehow life happens, and the time when you can least afford to repay the loan (just after losing your job) will be the time when you have to repay the loan or pay the taxes and penalties.  There's just too much risk there.  You also lose the compounding gains you'd get from the investment, and it's likely not worth sacrificing your future retirement for this. It's probably worth finding out how close you are to having your house appraise out for a successful re-fi.  Without that information, you're just guessing.  Depending on how close you are, you pile up as much cash as you can over the next few months to try to pay down the mortgage enough to qualify for the re-fi.  As you're doing this, if home values start coming up in your area, you'll have that going for you as well.  It might even be worth suspending your 401(k) contributions for a short while to give you more cash to put towards the re-fi goal. $9000 over 6 months is great, I'd use it for long term savings regardless of the 401(k) situation. There's nothing wrong with a mix of pre and post tax money for retirement. In fact, it's a great way to avoid paying too much tax should your 401(k) withdrawals in retirement push you into a higher bracket. Just invest this as you would your other long term money. A stopped clock is right two times a day.   We may get a market crash similar to the financial crisis or the dot com crash or we may not. What if over the next 10 years rates rise very sluggishly, low inflation, and  low growth more or less continues with maybe one brief and shallow recession. In that case I bet US stocks produce 4-5% returns per year and US bonds produce maybe 1-2% per year.  European and emerging market stocks should have higher returns because they are in an earlier part of the cycle.  I think your baseline has to look something like that.  The last two crashes were caused by the tech bubble and the housing bubble - where is the bubble today? US stocks are expensive, but probably not in bubble territory. Bonds worldwide are unattractive with low or negative yields - negative yields maybe a bubble, but central banks will be the most hurt by negative rates and they are in a strong position to take the pain.   There could be a crash I just don't see how we get there yet - maybe china? "Since this is your emergency fund, you generally want to avoid volatility while keeping pace with inflation.  You really shouldn't be looking for aggressive growth (which means taking on some risk).  That comes from money outside of the emergency fund. The simplest thing to do would be to shop around for a different savings account.  There are some deals out there that are better than ING.  Here is a good list. The ""traditional"" places to keep an emergency fund are Money Market Mutual Funds (not to be confused with Money Market Accounts).  They are considered extremely safe investments.  However, the returns on such a fund is pretty low these days, often lower than a high-yield online savings account. The next step up would be a bond fund (more volatility, slightly better return).  Pick something that relies on Government bonds, not ""high-yield"" (junk) bonds or anything crazy like that. Fidelity Four in One comes pretty close to your ""index of indexes"" request, but it isn't the most stable thing.  You'd probably do better with a safer investment." "To answer, I'm going to make a few assumptions. First, the ideal scenario for a pre-tax 401(k) is the deposit goes in at a 25% tax rate (i.e. the employee is in that bracket) but withdrawn at 15%. This may be true for many, but not all. It's to illustrate a point.  The SPY (S&P 500 index ETF) has a cost of .09% per year. If your 401(k) fees are anywhere near 1% per year total, over 10 years you've paid nearly 10% in fees, vs less than 1% for the ETF. Above, I suggest the ideal is that the 401(k) saves you 10% on your taxes, but if you pay 10% over the decade, the benefit is completely negated.  I can add to the above that funds outside the retirement accounts give off dividends which are tax favored, and if you were to sell ETFs held over a year, they receive favorable cap-gains rates.  The ""deposit to get the matching funds"" should always be good advice, it would take many years of high fees to destroy that. But even that seemingly reasonable 1% fee can make any other deposits a bad approach.  Keep in mind, when retired you will have a zero bracket (in 2011, the combined standard deduction and exemption) adding to $9500, as well as a 10% bracket (the next $8500), so having some pretax money to take advantage of those brackets will help. Last, the average person changes jobs now and then. The ability to transfer the funds from the (bad) 401(k) to an IRA where you can control the investments is an option I'd not ignore in the analysis.  I arbitrarily picked 1% to illustrate my thoughts. The same math will show a long time employee will get hurt by even .5%/yr if enough time passes. What are the fees in your 401(k)?   Edit - Study of 401(k) fees - put out by the Dept of Labor. Unfortunately, it's over 10 years old, but it speaks to my point. Back then, even a 2000 participant plan with $60M in assets had 110 basis points (this is 1.1%) in fees on average. Whatever the distribution is, those above this average shouldn't even participate in their plans (except for matching) and those on the other side should look at their expenses. As Radix07 points out below, yes, for those just shy of retirement, the fee has less impact, and of course, they have a better idea if they will retire in a lower bracket. Those who have some catching up to do, may benefit despite the fees." "True, absolutely safe are only death and taxes.  Apparently [US treasuries](https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield) yield far less than 3,5-4%, but I guess that's as ""100% safe"" as it gets.  However, best I could find while talking to various banks was a reverse convertible bond that yields 3,5% per year, tax excluded. Worst case scenario: 1) I got all my money back and gained 3,5% for one year. 2) after a few years, I find myself with pretty valuable shares and still cashed in the yearly 3,5%.  I was wondering if I got lucky with that, or if there are better things out there and if yes, where I should look. Honestly, in the age of negative interests, I'm more than happy to get enough interest to counter inflation."