IRA contributions in a bear (bad) market: Should I build up cash savings instead?
"You have heard the old adage ""Buy low, sell high"", right? That sounds so obvious that you'd have to wonder why they would ever bother coining such an expression. It should rank up there with ""Don't walk in front of a moving car"" on the Duh scale of advice. Well, your question demonstrates exactly why it isn't quite so obvious in the real world and that people need to be reminded of it.  So, in your example, the stock prices are currently low (relative to what they have been). So per that adage, do you sell or buy when prices are low? Hint: It isn't sell. Yes. Your gut is going to tell you the exact opposite thanks to the fact that our brains are unfortunately wired to make us susceptible to the loss aversion fallacy. When the market has undergone a big drop is the WORST time to stop contributing (buying stocks).  This example might help get your brain and gut to agree a little more easily: If you were talking about any other non-investment commodity, cars for instance.  Your question equates to.. I really need a car, but the prices have been dropping like crazy lately.    Maybe I should wait until the car dealers start raising their prices again before I buy one. Dollar Cost Averaging As littleadv suggested, if you have an automatic payroll deduction for your retirement account, you are getting the benefit of Dollar Cost Averaging. Because you are investing the same amount on a scheduled interval, you are buying more shares when they are cheap and fewer when they are expensive. It is like an automatic buy low strategy is built into the account. The alternative, which you are implying, is a market timing strategy. Under this strategy, instead of investing regularly you try to get in and out of investments right before they go up/drop. There are two MAJOR flaws with this approach:   1) Your brain will work against you (see above) and encourage you to do the exact opposite of what you should be doing.   2) Unless you are clairvoyant, this strategy isn't much better than gambling. If you are lucky it can work, but because of #1, the odds are stacked against you." You should consider dollar cost averaging your investments. Retirement account is perfect for that - it's long term with periodic deposits. Overall, by investing in stocks now for a long term, you'll benefit more because the stocks are at their low(er) point. The first two answers to this are very good, but I feel like there are a couple of points they left out that were a little too long for comments. First off take a look at the expense percentage,the load fees, and the average turnover ratio for the funds in your retirement account (assuming they are mutual funds). Having low expense fees <1% preferably and turnover ratios will help tremendously because those eat into returns whether the value of the fund goes up or down. The load fees (either incoming or outgoing) will lower the amount of money you actually put in and get out of the fund. There are thousands of no-load funds and most that have a backend load for taking the money out have clauses that lower that percentage to zero over several years. It is mostly there to keep people from trying to swing trade with mutual funds and pull their money out too quickly.  The last thing I would suggest is to look at diversifying the holdings in your account. Bond funds have been up this year even though the stock market has done poorly. And they provide interest income that can increase the amount of shares you own even when the value of the bonds might have gone down.
You are already doing everything you can. If your employer does not have a 401(k) you are limited to investing in a Roth or a traditional IRA (Roth is post tax money, traditional IRA gives you a deduction so it is essentially pre tax money).  The contribution limits are the same for both and contributing to either adds to the limit (so you can't duplicate). CNN wrote an article on some other ways to save: One thing you may want to bring up with your employer is that they could set up a SEP-IRA.  This allows them to set a % (up to 25%) that they contribute pre-tax to an IRA for everyone at the company that has worked there at least 3 years.  If you are at a small company, maybe everyone with that kind of seniority would take an equivalent pay cut to get the automatic retirement contribution?  (Note that a SEP-IRA has to apply to everyone equally percentage wise that has worked there for 3 years, and the employer makes the contribution, not you). 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). Your math is correct. As you point out, because of the commutative property of multiplication, Roth and traditional IRAs offer the same terminal wealth if your tax rate is the same when you pull it out as when you put it in.  Roth does lock in your tax rate as of today as you point out, which is why it frequently does not maximize wealth (most of us have a higher tax bracket when we are saving than when we are withdrawing from savings). There are a few other potential considerations/advantages of a Roth: Roth and traditional IRAs have the same maximum contribution amount.  This means the effective amount you can contribute to a Roth is higher ($5,500 after tax instead of before).  If this constraint is binding for you and you don't expect your tax rate to change, Roth is better. Roth IRAs allow you to withdraw your contributed money (not the gains) at any time without any tax or penalty whatsoever.  This can be an advantage to some who would like to use it for something like a down payment instead of keeping it all the way to retirement.  In this sense the Roth is more flexible. As your income becomes high, the deductibility of traditional IRA contributions goes to zero if you have a 401(k) at work (you can still contribute but can't deduct contributions).  At high incomes you also may be disallowed from contributing to a Roth, but because of the backdoor Roth loophole you can make Roth contributions at any income level and preserve the full Roth tax advantage. Which type of account is better for any given person is a complex problem with several unknowns (like future tax rates).  However, because tax rates are generally higher when earning money, for most people who can contribute to them, traditional IRAs maximize your tax savings and therefore wealth. Edit: Note that traditional IRA contributions also reduce your AGI, which is used to compute eligibility for other tax advantages, like the child care tax credit and earned income credit.  AGI is also often used for state income tax calculation. In retirement, traditional IRA distributions may or may not be state taxable, depending on your state and circumstances. There are a couple reasons for having a Traditional or Roth IRA in addition to a 401(k) program in general, starting with the Traditional IRA: With regards to the Roth IRA: Also, both the Traditional and Roth IRA allow you to make a $10,000 withdraw as a first time home buyer for the purposes of buying a home. This is much more difficult with the 401(k) and generally you end up having to take a loan against the 401(k) instead. So even if you can't take advantage of the tax deductions from contributions to a Traditional IRA, there are still good reasons to have one around. Unless you plan on staying with the same company for your entire career (and even if you do, they may have other plans) the Traditional IRA tends to be a much better place to park the funds from the 401(k) than just rolling them over to a new employer.  Also, don't forget that just because you can't take deductions for the income doesn't mean that you might not need the income that savings now will bring you in retirement. If you use a retirement savings calculator is it saying that you need to be saving more than your current monthly 401(k) contributions? Then odds are pretty good that you also need to be adding additional savings and an IRA is a good location to put those assets because of the other benefits that they confer. Also, some people don't have the fiscal discipline to not use the money when it isn't hard to get to (i.e. regular savings or investment account) and as such it also helps to ensure you aren't going to go and spend the money unless you really need it. "Assuming my math is correct and that I'm not missing something about Roth investments, it appears to me that either option will work out exactly the same if you will be in the same tax bracket in retirement. This is true only if your average tax rate in retirement is the same as your current marginal rate. I'm surprised none of the answers mention this since it is the crux of your question!  If you can deduct an IRA against your income taxes, it is almost always better option than the Roth equivalent. Marginal rates should not be compared to average rates or you will form all sorts of inaccurate conclusions. ""If you are in a lower tax rate in retirement traditional is better"" really means, ""if your average tax rate in retirement is lower than your current marginal rate, traditional is better"" - which for the overwhelming majority of Americans is the case. Consider the following. Let's say your intend to contribute $1000 in one year (making $2k) and withdraw it the next that is your only income in that year. Your tax brackets look like: This is quite simplified but for this purpose will illustrate precisely why comparisons like you are making are very misleading. In this case you can put $1000 in and pay no income tax at all (because you deduct it). You then withdraw $1000 the next year. The first $500 you withdraw you pay no taxes on and the next $500 has a tax rate of 15%, for a total tax of of $75. However - this is a tax against your entire withdrawal of $1000, so your average tax rate (this is important! average is different than marginal) is only 7.5% and you are left with $925. In this case you can only contribute $850 to the IRA because you are taxed against the money at your marginal rate (15%). When you withdraw it, you don't pay any taxes and are left with the entire $850 $850. This is less than the above, because you are taxed the whole amount at your previous marginal rate. If however your tax rate in retirement was 30% for everything above $500, only then are the two scenarios equal. Your marginal tax rate in retirement has to be very high relative to your current tax rate for the Roth to ever catch up and be better. If you are able to deduct an IRA contribution, it will almost always be the best option. The average federal income tax rate on middle class families has not changed dramatically enough over the past 50 years to be above normal marginal tax rates - even at the 15% federal tax bracket, your marginal rate is still higher than the highest average tax rate for the past 50 years by at least 3% and normally significantly so. The reason I make this point about middle class marginal rates is that the majority of ""taxes might be higher in retirement!"" is very unlikely to be the case in a meaningful way given the past 50 years. However if you are in the top tax rate you are paying historic low tax rates (by a factor of nearly 3), but also observe you can't do either IRA since you must make $400k/year. The difference for middle class is no where near as noticeable. Keep in mind if you can't deduct, there is no reason to not contribute to the Roth. There are other factors contributing to the traditional/Roth decision. This answer only addresses the specifics in your question." "Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act ""normally"" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a ""losing"" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems." "My 401k allows cash holdings to 100% if desired. I'm not sure why some won't, they are making money on your money after all. If you are looking to the funds vehicles for investing suggestions however, they will never allow cash. I found you must go into ""Invest on my own"" vehicle to make that change.  I have beaten and timed this market several times by sitting with cash on the sidelines. The only time I missed it was when I talked to a fund administrator in 2008 dot com crash and stayed in at this suggestion. I told him I didn't see where the market could go much higher as I had made 12-28% on some funds. He was dead wrong of course and I lost 50% that year.  Now, trust me, in 2017, assets are grossly overvalued. If they won't let you deposit to cash, don't invest and just save your money until the next crash." This is not hypothetical, this is an accurate story. I am a long-term investor. I have a bunch of money that I'd like to invest and I plan on spreading it out over five or six mutual funds and ETFs, roughly according to the Canadian Couch Potato model portfolio (that is, passive mutual funds and ETFs rather than specific stocks). I am concerned that if I invest the full amount and the stock market crashes 30% next month, I will have paid more than I had to. As I am investing for the long term, I expect to more than regain my investment, but I still wouldn't be thrilled with paying 30% more than I had to. Instead, I am investing my money in three stages. I invested the first third earlier this month. I'll invest the next third in a few months, and the final third a few months after that. If the stock market climbs, as I expect is more likely the case, I will have lost out on some potential upside. However, if the stock market crashes next month, I will end up paying a lower average cost as two of my three purchases will occur after the crash. On average, as a long-term investor, I expect the stock market to go up. In the short term, I expect much more fluctuation. Statistically speaking, I'd do better to invest all the money at once as most of the time, the trend is upward. However, I am willing to trade some potential upside for a somewhat reduced risk of downside over the course of the next few months. If we were talking a price difference of 1% as mentioned in the question, I wouldn't care. I expect to see average annual returns far above this. But stock market crashes can cause the loss of 20 to 30% or more, and those are numbers I care about. I'd much rather buy in at 30% less than the current price, after all.