Have you ever been dissatisfied with your 401k investment choices? Or thought that maybe you could do better investing on your own but don't want to miss out on the tax savings from a 401k? Maybe you can have the best of
both worlds. A 401k is an important, and advantageous, retirement tool, but it doesn't have to be your only option for retirement savings. The following is not meant to discourage you from using a 401k for retirement savings in any way, only to suggest that it may not be the only strategy worth considering.
Every article written about the best practices of saving for retirement, and probably every financial advisor, will encourage you to try to save the maximum amount possible in your 401k, up to the legal limit. The annual contribution limit for a 401k is currently $24,500, with a limit of $32,500 allowed for those over 50. At face value that certainly seems like good advice - everyone strives to have a financially comfortable retirement, so if you have the ability to save that much, why wouldn't you? But the better question might be, if you're going to save that much, does it need to be saved exclusively within a 401k? Is that really more advantageous than investing on your own with after-tax money? The answer is that there are definite advantages to using a 401k, but using it exclusively may not be an automatic slam-dunk.
A 401k is an excellent method of saving and provides many benefits: the money is saved pre-tax, it never crosses through your hands if it is automatically taken from your paycheck (eliminating the temptation to spend it), and best
of all, most companies will provide matching funds based on your contributions, up to a certain percent of your salary. The money grows tax free and your employer gives you free money. What's not to like? The question is not whether or not you should contribute to a 401k - you absolutely should, at the very least, up to the amount of a company match - but should you automatically contribute all the way up to the legal limits?
Let's look at an example comparing two separate couples (all age 50) using the following assumptions:
• Couple #1 has a 401k balance of $1M (for the sake of round numbers) and plans to contribute $32.5k/year pre-tax
for the next 10 years. They will also get a $4k/year company match. They expect to earn a 5% return.
• Couple #2 also has $1M in a 401k, also earning 5%, but instead of contributing $32.5k/year pre-tax to their 401k
for the next 10 years, they will contribute $4k/year pre-tax (and get a $4k/year company match), and will then invest $25,080/year in after-tax money ($28.5k pre-tax, with a 12% tax rate) to a personal investment account.
After 10 years:
• Couple #1 will have $2,087,988 in their 401k.
• Couple #2 will have $1,729,518 in their 401k, and $315,454 in an investment account, totaling $2,044,972.
That's $43,016 less than couple #1, after paying $34,200 in taxes.
Let's dig a little deeper.
Both couples have now decided to retire, have no other income, and will need to take $50k/year from savings to pay expenses. They are both entitled to the Federal standard income tax deduction of $32,200/year (once they turn 65,
that will increase to $35,400 per couple).
After 10 years of withdrawals:
• Couple #1 has a 401k balance of $2,717,134, and they have paid $17,690 in taxes on the 401k distributions.
• Couple #2 used their investment account to pay their expenses before touching their 401k. Their investment balance of $315,454 was able to provide 7.25 years of $50k withdrawals before running out. No tax was owed since they have no other income and the annual interest was offset by their Federal tax deduction. They used their 401k, now having a balance of $2,433,605, to cover the remaining withdrawals for the next 2.75 years, resulting in a 401k balance of $2,667,201. They paid $3,254 in taxes on the 401k distributions.
So, after 20 years, couple #2 has $49,933 less in savings, and pays $19,764 more in taxes than couple #1.
Let's consider two more factors:
• 401k plans typically charge fees that can average ~.45%/year (according to a TD Ameritrade study). Let's be optimistic and use .35%. Couple #1 had a larger average balance over 20 years, which could result in them paying ~$1,000 more in fees than couple #2. Not a huge difference, but it counts.
• Couple #2 had more options for how to invest their after-tax savings. If they earned only 1% more on that money, or 6%/year rather than 5%, that could earn another $42,000, delaying/lowering 401k distributions for an extra year, and saving another $1,600 in taxes on those distributions.
These two factors would narrow the overall difference between the two couples to only $5,333 - couple #2 had $49,933 less in total savings, gains $42,000 in additional interest, gains $1,600 in lower taxes, and pays $1,000 less in 401k fees. $5k is not insignificant, but over a span of twenty years, it is also not the jaw dropping difference you might expect, and is, at the very least, comparable, which is the point.
Summary -
• Couple # 1 paid ~$14.4k more in taxes on their withdrawals, but ~$23k less in total taxes.
• Couple # 1 paid ~$1k more in 401k fees.
• Couple # 1 had less flexibility when choosing their investments, and less access to their savings (if needed) since they would incur a 10% penalty on any withdrawals before age 59 1/2.
• If couple #2 had earned 6% on their after-tax savings rather than the 5% that was assumed, that would have given them another $42k over 20 years, delayed 401k distributions an extra year, and saved another $1.6k in taxes on 401k distributions. This extra flexibility could virtually eliminate the difference in savings strategies between the two couples.
This exercise is in no way meant to encourage only saving enough in a 401k to get an employer match. The purpose is simply to illustrate that maxing out your 401k contributions may not be the slam-dunk that it is often portrayed as. There may be other savings strategies that could work out just as well.
There is one last factor to consider. When you automatically save with a 401k, the money never passes through your hands. If you decide to invest the same money after-tax, you will have to behave with the same regularity and discipline in terms of saving a precise amount, and carefully choosing your investments. This brings a behavioral issue into the equation. If you will be tempted in any way to not save and invest consistently, and not touch those investments for any reason until retirement, stick with a 401k. If you can promise yourself that you have the ability to buy and hold without the temptation to alter your overall investing style, then you may have an opportunity to end up with a slight advantage by saving (partially) outside of a 401k. This may be easier said than done, but at the very least, it's food for thought.