Should you always max out contributions to your 401k?

Question

I am a year out of college, and therefore, i don't have any real retirement/investment plans kicked off.

I was having a discussion with my boss, and he was making a few claims I would like to get some input on.

1. There is no better investment than a 401k. The tax deferral will always come out ahead in the end.
2. Hence, you should always put 15,000(max) into your 401k if you can.

My observations is that this seems like hardly enough to kill inflation. Is he right? Or are there better ways to invest?

BTW, I am already maxing out a roth IRA.

EDIT: my company does 100% matching up to 6%. I would be crazy not to take advantage of this. Thats a given. This question is suppose to concentrate on whether one should be going above and beyond this 6% up to the max contributionss

Answer 1

To be clear, a 401K is a vehicle, you make investments WITHIN it, if you choose poorly such as say putting all your money into company stock when working for the next Enron, you can still get hurt badly. So it is important to have diversity and an appropriate risk level based on your age, tolerance for risk, etc.

That said, as vehicles go it is outstanding, and the 'always max your 401K' is very very common advice for a large number of investing professionals, CFA's, pundits, etc. That said there are a few priorities to consider here.

First priority, if there is some level of company matching, grab that, it's hard to beat that kind of 'return' in almost any other case.

Second, since you never want to tap into a 401K (if you can at all avoid it) before you are ready to retire, you should first be sure you have a good 'emergency fund' set aside in the event you lose your job, or some other major catastrophy happens. Many recommend setting aside at least 6 months of basic living expenses.

Third, if you have any high interest debt (like credit card debt) pay that stuff down as fast as you can. You'll save a ton of interest (it's pretty much the same as investing the money you use to pay it down, and getting a return equal to the interest rate you are paying, with zero risk.. can't be beat. You'll also end up with a lot better cash flow, and the ability to start saving first and spending out of savings, so you earn interest instead of paying it.

Once you have those things out of the way, then it is time to think about fully funding the 401K. and keep in mind, since you don't pay taxes on it, the 'felt effect' to you pocket is about 80% or even less, of what goes into the account, so it's not as painful as you might think, and the hit to your take home may be less than you'd expect.

Contributing as much as you can, as early as you can also lets you benefit from the effect of compounding, and has a far larger affect on the balance than money put into the account closer to retirement. So if you can afford to max it out, I surely would advise you to do so.

Answer 2

I think better advice would be always max out your 401K at least to the level that the company provides a match. For example, my company will match 50% up to 10% of your salary. Good luck finding another investment with a guaranteed immediate 50% return.

Beyond the company match, it is probably good advice to put as much in the 401K as you can afford if you aren't disciplined enough to invest that money on your own. Otherwise it depends on a number of factors as to whether it is better to invest on your own or in the company plan.

Answer 3

A terrific resource is this article. To summarize the points given:

PROS:

• Employer matches your contribution
• Income contributed is pre-tax
• Cheap index funds

CONS:

• withdrawals taxed as ordinary income!
• limited investment options

There is no generic yes or no answer as to whether you ought to max out your 401(k)s. If you are a sophisticated investor, then saving the income for investing could be a better alternative. Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% in the US, so if you buy and hold on to good companies that reinvest their earnings, then the share price keeps going up and you'll save a lot of money that would go in taxes.

If you're not a very good investor, however, then 401(k)s make a lot of sense. If you're going to end up setting up some asset allocation and buying ETFs and rebalancing or having a manager rebalance for you every year or so, then you might as well take the 401(k) option and lower your taxable income.

Point #1 is simply wrong, because companies that reinvest earnings and growing for a long time are essentially creating tax-free gains for you, which is even better than tax-deferred gains. Nonetheless, most people have neither the time nor the interest to research companies and for them, the 401(k) makes more sense.

Answer 4

As long as you're in a lower tax bracket - you would probably be better off paying the taxes now, and investing into the Roth IRA/401K. However, you should be investing for your retirement now, and not later, because of the compounding effect, and also you'll gain the employer matching (if available).

Answer 5

The compound interest argument is a good one. While you are young, it is important to save, since time is on your side for compounding of interest. I think the 401K is a good idea, but not for all of your savings. Think about saving a percentage of your income, but put it in a couple places. Your Roth is also a great thing, since you'll be able to remove money without paying tax again. The 401k (tax deferred) is a good idea if your company matches any of it (FREE MONEY!), and because it lowers your taxable income now, and it's taken out of your check before you see it, so you don't miss it. It's still important to save other money that you can have for ready cash (unexpected dead car, for example, or medical bills, or what have you.)

I find that I don't want to be managing my investments from minute to minute, or doing my own trades (I'd rather do other things), so I have a mix (Roth, 401k, cash savings) of automated contributions for savings, and I think hard before buying new stuff. The point is to save, and if possible, try to save at least 10% of your income.

Answer 6

First, the limit this year is $16,500, $22,000 for age 50 or older. Next, does the company give you any match? If so, how much? Some will match your deposits dollar for dollar up to a certain percent of your pay. If you make $50k and deposit say 6%, that's $3k matched by company, for example. This deposit/match is the first priority. Next, you should understand the expenses in the account. A bad 401(k) with high cost quickly negates any tax deferral benefit. The 401(k) options also may be limited, what are the choices of investments? Is your income high enough that you can save $21,500? One thought is to save enough to drop back out of the 25% bracket, and go Roth after that. This is a good balance for most.

By the way, Fairmark is a great site to see what bracket you are in. If your return is simple, you can just find your standard deduction and exemption numbers and get to your taxable income very simply. The debate of of Roth vs Pretax (for both IRA and 401(k) accounts) can get pretty complex, but I found the majority of earners falling into the "live in the 15% bracket, tops" range.

Answer 7

Rule of thumb: Invest in a tax deferred account only if your marginal tax rate is higher now than it will be in retirement.

If you plan on making more taxable income in retirement than you do right now, then you should invest outside a tax deferred account.

Answer 8

"My observations is that this seems like hardly enough to kill inflation. Is he right? Or are there better ways to invest?"

The tax deferral part of the equation isn't what dominates regarding whether your 401k beats 30 years of inflation; it is the return on investment. If your 401k account tanks due to a prolonged market crash just as you retire, then you might have been better off stashing the money in the bank. Remember, 401k money at now + 30 years is not a guaranteed return (though many speak as though it were). There is also the question as to whether fees will eat up some of your return and whether the funds your 401k invests in are good ones.

I'm uneasy with the autopilot nature of the typical 401k non-strategy; it's too much the standard thing to do in the U.S., it's too unconscious, and strikes me as Ponzi-like. It has been a winning strategy for some already, sure, and maybe it will work for the next 30-100 years or more. I just don't know. There are also changes in policy or other unknowns that 30 years will bring, so it takes faith I don't have to lock away a large chunk of my savings in something I can't touch without hassle and penalty until then.

For that reason, I have contributed very little to my 403b previously, contribute nothing now (though employer does, automatically. I have no match.) and have built up a sizable cash savings, some of which may be used to start a business or buy a house with a small or no mortgage (thereby guaranteeing at least not paying mortgage interest). I am open to changing my mind about all this, but am glad I've been able to at least save a chunk to give me some options that I can exercise in the next 5-10 years if I want, instead of having to wait 25 or more.

Answer 9

While tax deferral is a nice feature, the 401k is not the Holy Grail. I've seen plenty of 401k's where the investment options are horrible: sub-par performance, high fees, limited options.

That's great that you've maxed out your Roth IRA. I commend you for that.

As long as the investment options in your 401k are good, then I would stick with it.

Answer 10

I'd like to correct one slight misconception made by the OP and several answers, which is that you should always automatically max out any contribution to a 401(k) that your employer matches, on the grounds that it's "free money". The employer 401(k) match is a great deal under our current tax system, but it's not actually "free". When you participate in the employer match, you gain something and you lose something: you gain the present expected value of the employer match, but you lose the current value of the additional money that you contributed because of that match. (I'm talking about the costs and benefits of the employer match itself, above and beyond those of your own contributions in the absence of an employer match.) Whether that tradeoff is worth it depends on your time horizon, risk aversion, the interest rate, etc.

To see this, consider an extreme example in which Congress completely removed the contribution limit to 401(k)'s, and you're lucky enough to work for one of the few employers with an unlimited contribution match. In this case, the naive "free money" argument would suggest that you should continue to max out your 401(k) contributions - in other words, divert your entire income into your 401(k). This is obviously ridiculous - you'd starve to death while waiting for your "free money" to arrive.

Answer 11

Definitely not. You are too young. Let me explain:

Your money will be locked up for at least 40 years, and you will have to navigate some really quirky and trap-laden rules in order to get money for simple things. Let's say you want to buy a house. You won't be able to leverage the 401K for that. College Tuition? Limits.

Your money is locked in and you may get some match, but that assumes your smartest decision at your age is to save money for retirement. At your age, you should be investing in your career, and that requires cash at hand. If you want to withdraw early you pay more of a penalty than just the tax rate.

Put differently: investing in your human capital, at a young age, can yield stronger results than just squirreling money. I'd say don't worry until you are 30.

BTW: I'm 24 now. I used to save money in a 401K for a few months, before I understood the rules. Since then, I decided against 401K and just saved the money in a bank. After a few years, I had enough to start my business :) the 401K couldn't give me that opportunity.

Further Explanation:

I am in the NYC area. Many of my friends and I had to decide between living in manhattan or choosing to live in the outer boroughs or NJ. One thing I noticed was that, while the people in manhattan were burning much more money (to the tune of 1500 per month), they were actually much more productive and were promoted more often. Having lived in brooklyn and in manhattan, even though it is less expensive, you actually lose at least an hour a day thanks to the commute (and have to deal with crap like the 6 train). Personally, after moving in, I invested the extra time in myself (i.e. sleeping more, working longer hours, side projects). Now, when all is said and done, the people who decided to invest in themselves in the short term are financially more secure (both job-wise and economically, thanks to a few bonus cycles) than those who decided to save on rent and put it in a 401K.

As far as the traps are concerned, my dad tried to take out a student loan and was denied thanks to a Vanguard quirk which didnt allow more than 50K to be borrowed (even though the account had over 500K to begin with).