|
that one guy posted:I thought Roths were better to use for retirement savings because you don't have to pay tax on what you earn. Our tax bracket will be going up in the future. Right now we're living off only my income, but my wife will be going back to work in the next few years. We are both teachers which means our salary will be going up regularly. We also pay into a teacher retirement fund, which I think means our contributions to a traditional IRA would not be tax deductible? Whether or not you can deduct the IRA while contributing to the teacher retirement fund (is it a 403b?) depends on many factors. Check IRS.gov. It sounds like converting is a good idea. Taxes due depend on your marginal tax bracket. Try not to go into the next tax bracket. 2010 conversions can have tax due split between 2011 and 2012. If you are planning to make more in those years, you may want to opt out of that option and pay taxes due for 2010 tax year.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2010 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
Kreez posted:2 quick questions about TFSAs, I guess this is the right thread? 1) You get the $5000 contribution room regardless of whether or not you have an account open starting from 2009 as long as you are 18 or older. So yes, for 2010 you could contribute $10000 and then another $5000 on Jan 1 2011. It won't always remain at 5000 as it is indexed for inflation. 2) You cannot recontribute the same year that you withdraw money from your TFSA. If you were to take out 6k from your 10k in the summer of 2010, you would not be able to recontribute that 6k until the next year. Your room for 2011 would be 5k + 6k that you withdrew the previous year. Check out this for more info: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/tfsa-celi/menu-eng.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2010 20:34
|
|
|
asmallrabbit posted:1) You get the $5000 contribution room regardless of whether or not you have an account open starting from 2009 as long as you are 18 or older. So yes, for 2010 you could contribute $10000 and then another $5000 on Jan 1 2011. It won't always remain at 5000 as it is indexed for inflation. Cool, thanks. I thought it was strange when I was told your contribution limit starts building up from the time you open an account, and not the time you hit a certain age.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2010 22:27
|
|
|
I've been reading Bernstein's [u]Investor's Manifesto[/b] and he briefly talks about real-estate and how the real dividend on real estate is pretty much zero. Also it is not really an investment since you have to live there, therefore it is a consumption item. Now going along with this, is there a benefit to maybe renting for most/all of my life and using the rest of my income for investment etc...?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2010 02:50
|
|
|
Mongolian Squid posted:I've been reading Bernstein's [u]Investor's Manifesto[/b] and he briefly talks about real-estate and how the real dividend on real estate is pretty much zero. Also it is not really an investment since you have to live there, therefore it is a consumption item. Maybe. Although if you're planning to stay somewhere for a long time (ie. 20 years) buying is probably better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2010 09:31
|
|
|
Mongolian Squid posted:I've been reading Bernstein's [u]Investor's Manifesto[/b] and he briefly talks about real-estate and how the real dividend on real estate is pretty much zero. Also it is not really an investment since you have to live there, therefore it is a consumption item. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/2007_BUYRENT_GRAPHIC.html Eventually it is much better to mortgage a home than to continually rent. The cost of renting steadily increases with the rest of economic inflation, but your mortgage payment stays the same (on a fixed rate loan) and eventually gets paid off completely. Bernstein is correct about real estate dividends being zero, but only on your primary residence and vacation homes you don't rent out. If you want to put the effort into it, rental properties are a great investment - mainly if you own the property outright. You buy the property and it's value grows like any other investment. Then you charge rent. Think of the rent as a huge rear end dividend (dividends are just profit divided among shareholders, and you'd be the only shareholder of the rental property) and the maintenance costs of the house as analogous to the management fees on a mutual fund. When you have to keep up with a mortgage on rental property these things become less apparent, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2010 15:03
|
|
|
shredswithpiks posted:You buy the property and it's value grows like any other investment. Despite real estate and financial investments both having collapsed at the same time recently, I do not believe that real estate increases in value the way stocks do. Real estate price appreciation seems to me much more dependent on speculation than stock price appreciation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2010 20:02
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:Despite real estate and financial investments both having collapsed at the same time recently, I do not believe that real estate increases in value the way stocks do. Real estate price appreciation seems to me much more dependent on speculation than stock price appreciation. The most current edition of Shiller's Irrational Exuberance has an excellent opening chapter discussing real estate and how the returns can be explained.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2010 20:13
|
|
|
80k posted:That sounds ok and is a fair adjustment in equity/bond ratio in response to the greater risk from small-tilting. You might find the Small Value index fund to provide better diversification though, since you are investing in Roth and are not concerned about tax efficiency. Thanks 80K. Should I also go with the large value instead of the large cap index then? I was going to go with the large/small cap index's because they have both value and growth stocks, but since they are heavy on growth stocks I guess it isn't really diversified anyways?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 02:45
|
|
|
ZeroAX posted:Thanks 80K. Should I also go with the large value instead of the large cap index then? I was going to go with the large/small cap index's because they have both value and growth stocks, but since they are heavy on growth stocks I guess it isn't really diversified anyways? That's too much of a personal decision for me to recommend one way or another. You have your entire portfolio in a tax sheltered account, so value tilting is a viable option. But I'd be inclined to leave it at Large Cap Index, Small Value, Total International, and Total Bond.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 04:30
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:Despite real estate and financial investments both having collapsed at the same time recently, I do not believe that real estate increases in value the way stocks do. Real estate price appreciation seems to me much more dependent on speculation than stock price appreciation. I guess it depends on what you mean by "the way stocks do." Real estate may or may not be speculation based - it really depends on which locations are popular this decade. But there's an implication there that stock prices are, in general, less based on speculation than real estate prices. I believe the vast majority of speculation influenced real estate are in a minority of places, and I definitely think stock prices are far more susceptible to speculation swings than real estate. But at that point it's more of a semantics debate, isn't it? The basic idea is that you can buy property that will likely grow in value over the next 10 to 30 years, and collect rent profit on top of that (don't forget your rent price increases with time as well). I'm just saying I think it's analogous enough to paper investments and saying that the "real dividends" are zero is a strange assertion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 04:39
|
|
|
80k posted:Vanguard's Fund Profile > Portfolio & Management. I had already been through the MSCI site for hours trying to piece together the info on their indices. I used the Vanguard FTSE all world fund that was linked and matched up the MSCI indices country lists with the breakdown of the FTSE based fund. I came up with the following split: US: 40.9% Canada: 3.4% EAFE: 41.6% Emerging: 14.1% Does this look right for a current world market cap breakdown? If so, I'm going to pull the trigger on buying the Vanguard ETFs (VWO, VTI, VEA) plus a canadian ETF in these weightings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
EchoBase posted:I had already been through the MSCI site for hours trying to piece together the info on their indices. I used the Vanguard FTSE all world fund that was linked and matched up the MSCI indices country lists with the breakdown of the FTSE based fund. I came up with the following split: Yes that looks exactly right. Still not sure why you want to slice up international into developed/emerging/canada if you are just going to hold market weightings. Unless you want to overweight EM or Canada, why not just get VEU?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 18:16
|
|
|
80k posted:Yes that looks exactly right. Part of it is just because that's the sort of split I've seen in examples. Like you said, though, if I'm not making any decisions regarding weighting, I could go for VEU or even just a whole world fund (if there's one out there...). I went with those choices so that if I did want to personalize the weightings some in the future, I'd have the flexibility. Is there any guidance (along the lines of the bonds/equities split based on your age) for weighting these markets differently, like more emerging markets when you're young? I'm not sure about the US one, it's a total market fund (it says it covers 99.5% of the US market), so I may be doing the opposite of what I'm doing internationally, but the number of market cap segments and then value/growth options are too much for my little startup RRSP. I don't want to be putting $10 in each fund...I'm not sure right now what I want to do with the US but I figure if I decide to up the small cap growth, mid cap value or whatever, I can buy into those funds with the understanding that I already have some exposure in the Total Market Fund. Unless there is a better 'starter fund' for the US...?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 21:26
|
|
|
EchoBase posted:Part of it is just because that's the sort of split I've seen in examples. Like you said, though, if I'm not making any decisions regarding weighting, I could go for VEU or even just a whole world fund (if there's one out there...). I went with those choices so that if I did want to personalize the weightings some in the future, I'd have the flexibility. Is there any guidance (along the lines of the bonds/equities split based on your age) for weighting these markets differently, like more emerging markets when you're young? The main concern is trading commissions. You are overpaying trading commissions by buying 3 components of VEU separately if you are simply going to hold the market weight anyway. You can always split it up later when you build up more funds. In fact, you can get VT (All World ETF, which has the market weight of US/Canada/rest-of-the-world in exactly the proportion you want). If you are indifferent on US vs. International weighting, there is no reason for you to separate the US from the rest of the world. Buying one ETF (VT) and calling it a day would save you on trading commissions. Longterm, how do you want to split your portfolio? As a Canadian investor, it might make sense to split between a Canada ETF and VEU. And then overweight Canada. If you see yourself as a Canadian/US investor, then VTI/Canada-ETF/VEU would be a good 3-ETF portfolio. If you just want to keep it globally weighted, then you can keep VT as a core holding and optionally add VSS (international small cap) and VBR (US small cap value) for a global small/value tilted portfolio. There are many ways to approach. Most important is to pick one that you are comfortable with and then stick with it longterm. Personally, in your position, I think VT/VSS/VBR is a very good equity portfolio. Most Canadians would probably be more comfortable with a VT + Canada ETF (since home country bias is still a prominent approach).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 22:02
|
|
|
How do you guys feel about ShareBuilder? I've seen it mentioned a few times in the stocks trading thread, but I figured it was more of an investment vehicle than a robust trading platform. And I'm now discovering the difference between investing and trading? Would you recommend investing in ShareBuilder only after one has maxed their 401k? Right now I'm matched, but I do not have a Roth. I'm using my extra money for leisure, savings, and ShareBuilder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 23:25
|
|
|
^^^ I'd start getting as much as possible of that taxable account money into a Roth ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 06:52
|
|
|
This is kind of a cross-post from my other thread, but I'd like some opinions on how to properly handle my 401(k). I'm a 28-year old male, had my 401(k) for I think four years now, and I have roughly $6,800 in it right now. I've maxed out my employer's matching (I put in 4%, they put in 2% for a total of 6%). Here are my options (from Principal):  I currently have 100% in international emerging markets (yeah I know, I see the folly of my ways now)  Now I look at all that and see pretty numbers and graphs but I can't make much sense out of it. I see that I've had a 3% return on my investments, which I don't even know if it's good or bad or what, but I like free money so to me it never seemed that bad (first six months had a whopping 30% return though, woo!) Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 15:08
|
|
|
I just started a ROTH IRA account a few days ago. I'm planning on adding $500 per month every month forever into various Mutual Funds within the account. Each fund is completely free to invest into (most have low initial-invest requirements) and have a 90 day penalty. So what I'm planning on is keeping enough in my emergency fund to hang off until 90 days have passed on the first two investments. After that if any emergency comes up I'll just withdraw the investments that are beyond the penalty date. Not to prop at short-term investing (because this fund is actually for my kids' education, 20 years down the line), but within one single day I gained more than my human being Chase savings account ever did. Am I doing things right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 16:40
|
|
|
^^^ Yes and no. Adding $500 per month forever is great. However, long term investing and emergency savings are incompatible goals. And if you want it specifically for the kids' education, have you looked into 529 plans? Furthermore, you should be ignoring yesterday's (or last year's) return on the Roth and only paying attention to the allocation. CornHolio posted:I see that I've had a 3% return on my investments Your lovely fund company has been getting far more than their fair share of this. slap me silly fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Jan 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 16:49
|
|
|
I max out my Roth every year and also contribute an annual 10% to my company's 401(k). I have domestic and international index funds in both (for now). My company offers no match for the 401(k), however. Is there something better I could be doing with all or some of that 10% since I'm missing out on one of the more attractive features of a 401(k)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 17:08
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:^^^ Yes and no. Adding $500 per month forever is great. However, long term investing and emergency savings are incompatible goals. And if you want it specifically for the kids' education, have you looked into 529 plans? When my wife and I decided to do this, we wanted to have a no-penalty for withdrawing account that gave us better returns than our savings account that we had. We wanted to approach the IRA as a type of savings account with the understood risks that are involved. We have all the intentions of keeping the money in there for the long term, but want to have it for the short term if needed. Of course we are not looking at daily returns, but our current savings account was giving us 0.01% interest per quarter. Its garbage and we needed a better option.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
Cornholio, please post the expense ratios for all of those funds. You may need to click on each fund and read the fund profile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
80k posted:Cornholio, please post the expense ratios for all of those funds. You may need to click on each fund and read the fund profile. That'll take some time, I'll try to do it tonight or tomorrow night. I did notice though, this:  Is the model more what mine should look like?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 17:30
|
|
|
NoSleepTillBedtime posted:My company offers no match for the 401(k), however. Is there something better I could be doing with all or some of that 10% since I'm missing out on one of the more attractive features of a 401(k)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 17:39
|
|
|
dv6speed posted:The only attractive feature, as far as I'm concerned, of 401k's are employer matching of funds. You don't have this advantage, so you are really better just to stick to a Roth IRA, and a Traditional IRA in place of the 401k. Pre-tax contributions aren't considered attractive?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 17:42
|
|
|
GOOCHY posted:Pre-tax contributions aren't considered attractive? Edit: The limit is $5000, so yeah if you want more then that you'd want 401k, I just hate the investment options 401k's give. AbsentMindedWelder fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Jan 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 17:45
|
|
|
Cornholio, how much risk can you handle? What percentage loss can you handle? Do you expect to borrow from the 401k account to buy a house anytime in the near to intermediate term future?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
80k posted:Cornholio, Ideally, I wouldn't touch the 401(k) until retirement. I've only been checking it every six months because I prefer to think of it as not even there, but that my retirement will be taken care of. So I'm a long-term, low-risk kind of guy, but I guess according to Principal where I have my funds now is technically high-risk, but with the best long-term returns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
I'm with Fidelity for my 401k and I'm throwing 100% of my contributions at this one fund they have that targets a retirement date. Managed aggressively early on and then more conservatively as retirement approaches. Auto pilot.  I wish every one had an option like this.Edit: For the curious as of today's date: Domestic: 64% Foreign: 25% Bonds: 9% Short term: 2% (percents rounded) Triple Tech fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jan 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 18:05
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:Ideally, I wouldn't touch the 401(k) until retirement. I've only been checking it every six months because I prefer to think of it as not even there, but that my retirement will be taken care of. OK, get the expense ratios. They are easy to find. If you prefer lower risk, cushioning your portfolio with some bonds is a good idea. As a guideline, a few of the financial experts I respect most have the following to say regarding bonds: - Benjamin Graham: equities at a minimum of 25% (so bonds 75%) and a maximum of 75% (so bonds 25%) for the average person. - Peter Bernstein: 60/40 (40% bonds) solution as optimum for the vast majority of investors. - William Bernstein: Little reason to have less than 20% bonds. - David Swensen's optimum plan for the common man has 30% bonds. - Zvi Bodie: 100% TIPS (a kind of bond) and get equity exposure through LEAPS (ok, i had to throw this in there).
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 18:24
|
|
|
So here goes... I'm past the point I really need to start understanding much of this information. I've moved jobs about 8 months ago and am settled in now, and after discovering this forum have decided to take a more active role in my retirement funds. To this point I've let it all just go as advised by company reps. I've ordered a copy of the 4 pillar book but honestly I'm too impatient to get moving. I figure another month at best before I'm willing to go solo with this, and thats 1 more month I could be doing something better. At any rate, my info: I'm 28 years old, living in the midwest making 60k a year. My wife has had a couple major medical emergencies that both come with life-long effects to control(she was unable to finish college, and most likely unable to go back, or get a decent job anytime soon), leaving us to spend a $100-$150 a month to keep them in check, after insurances. Plus random checkups/tests/bloodwork, this had lead me to be very much low-moderate in risk-taking. My current employers default was to invest 100% of 401k into "VANGUARD TARGT RETIREMENT 2045." Its at $2,862.45 currently with an 8% contribution, 4% match, totaling 12%. Earlier reading tells me this may be spending too much money in management overhead? I received a raise lately that has just prompted me to start 4% into a Roth 401k. Currently 0$ until next pay period it starts to grow, unless changed before then. I have the 401k from the place I left at: AIM DEVELOP MKTS A $809.59 AIM GBL SM&MDCP GR A $857.40 AM CENT HERITAGE A $1,839.01 BLKRK GLOBAL GRTH A $942.52 FA ENERGY A $900.87 FA FIFTY A $1,522.27 FA LEV CO STOCK A $1,696.93 Portfolio Total: $8,568.59 I also have around 1.5k in the new companies esop. Totals: $2862.45 401k 8/4=12% contribution $0.0 Roth 401k 4% Contribution $1,478.00 ESOP $8,568.59 Old 401k $11,431.04 Total I also have the certificate for the old companies ESOP sitting in front me, wondering what to do with it. It's current value sits at $5,152. We have some leftover medical bills from the events that caused these that are just killing us on the monthly budget, pretty much to where we've about killed off the savings account, and are about to start falling behind, let alone NOT building it. I was thinking about selling this off, dropping most of it on those bills and using the leftover $500 or so start again on the savings account thats nearly empty now. I'm read what I can about Traditional Roth, Roth 401k, etc. But much of this is jiberish with 1 paragraph blurbs on the websites I've read. I'm hoping the 4 pillars book will make this a bit clearer than mud. Until then, most of my questions are as follows: What to do with the stock certificate from old ESOP? Was starting the 4% into the Roth 401k worth it? or should it have gone elsewhere? Where to put the old companies ESOP? What to do about the possible wasted overhead costs on the Target Vanguard Retirement Account? Post list of other options? Should the 8.5k from the old 401k be rolled anywhere? or its investsments changed? Should I goto a true financial advisor with this much input and this many questions instead of taking years of your guys time? If not, how is it possible to thank you guys for assistance where my dumbass was unable to figure it out alone? edit> Forgot to add the blurb about spending the ESOP on medical. SomeGuyinIL fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jan 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 18:52
|
|
|
SomeGuyinIL posted:What to do about the possible wasted overhead costs on the Target Vanguard Retirement Account? Wasted overhead depends on the fund. Vanguard charges no additional cost and the cost is simply the weighted average of the ER's in each of the funds that it holds. So no issue on cost there. Other funds charge additional ER on top of the weighted average of the funds... these you want to avoid (like Cornholio's choices).
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 18:59
|
|
|
SomeGuyinIL posted:Should I goto a true financial advisor with this much input and this many questions instead of taking years of your guys time? If not, how is it possible to thank you guys for assistance where my dumbass was unable to figure it out alone? Go to http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/index.php Register an account. Read the sticky on how to ask for help. They will take great care of you and likely do you better than many/most financial advisors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
dv6speed posted:The only attractive feature, as far as I'm concerned, of 401k's are employer matching of funds. You don't have this advantage, so you are really better just to stick to a Roth IRA, and a Traditional IRA in place of the 401k. They're nice if you want to put in more than $5k per year towards retirement - especially if you don't think you'll stay at your place of employment forever. I've been contributing to my IRA for 3 years for a grand total of $14k. In 6 months of working, I threw about $22k into my 401k and was then promptly laid off. That $22k is now being rolled over and I'm not constrained anymore by my employer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
80k posted:OK, get the expense ratios. They are easy to find. I can't find them. Are they called something else? Is it any of these? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
80k posted:The main concern is trading commissions. You are overpaying trading commissions by buying 3 components of VEU separately if you are simply going to hold the market weight anyway. You can always split it up later when you build up more funds. I was going for a really basic breakdown to start and was going to branch out later as I don't feel I've researched enough to finalize a plan right now, but I need to do something with the money in my RRSP. I'm not necessarily going to stick to the real world capitalization. With the caveat that I haven't done a lot of sanity checking on this, I was thinking long term of: Canada 5% US 37.5% EAFE 37.5% Emerging 20% And then an 80/20 split of Large/mid to Small cap. VSS was a good suggestion, I was hoping that Vanguard would offer small cap funds based on the MSCI indices so they would fit perfectly with the rest of the Vanguard international funds, but that may never happen. The US creates a little problem in that Vanguard doesn't have an ETF that covers large and mid cap together, so I'd either have to go Large/Mid/Small (VV/VO/VB) or total market plus some extra small cap (VTI/VB). So, my first pass at a personalized allocation gives me 8 funds (2 Canadian, 3 International, 3 US). The weighted MER would be 0.22%, not too bad and half of the MER I'll be paying for the mutual funds my monthly contributions are going into. The brokerage fees are rough. I pay $30, so if I bought into each ETF once per year, I'm looking at $240. My contributions per year is $18k, so that would be a 1.33% fee. I don't know what's reasonable for a one time fee...that's negligable with my 35 year outlook, but if you expect a 1 or 2 year payback in savings over mutual funds, extra earnings, etc, then that 1.33% is bad. To reduce the impact of the brokerage fees, I was thinking of working off a two year cycle of buying the ETFs so I'm moving in double the block sizes of money, something like that. Anyway, this isn't all thought out yet, I may drop some parts (like Canadian small cap, a 1% allocation is probably useless) or combine some parts (like the US large/mid). That would bring the total down to 6 funds. In general, though, how does this plan look? Too much in emerging markets? Too much in small cap? I believe in the emerging market part, the small cap I don't really know. Or is all this just going to amount to nothing with the extra fees?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 23:20
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:I can't find them. Are they called something else? No. You're looking for these tidbits: Expense or Expense Ratio Sales Charge, Redemption Charge, or Load 12B-1 or Management Fee It's in the prospectus. Or you can look up the short name (like PLSAX) on google finance and it should all be there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 23:40
|
|
|
Cornholio, The earlier snapshot you posted with the International fund showed "Expense Ratio: 2.86%"). Why can't you find the same page for the other funds?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
Cornholio's thread got me thinking about my own 401(k) investment lineup, which I chose a bit randomly. I'm 36, with a medium risk tolerance -- I'm all in stocks, but would like a fair amount of diversification, as I value consistent long-term return over trying to catch the big jumps. Current allocations: 20% Fidelity Large-cap Growth (FDGRX), expense ratio 0.94% 20% Spartan 500 Index (FSMKX), expense ratio 0.10% 20% Old Mutual TS&W Mid-cap Value (OTMIX), expense ratio 1.19% 20% Baron Small-cap (BSCFX), expense ratio 1.32% 20% Fidelity Diversified Intl (FDIVX), expense ratio 0.99% I have a few other stock fund choices: American Beacon Large-cap Value (AAGPX), expense ratio 0.97% Fidelity Large-cap Contrafund (FCNTX), expense ratio 1.05% William Blair Mid-Cap Growth (WCGIX), expense ratio 1.23% Wells Fargo Small Cap Value (SSMVX), expense ratio 1.56% SSgA Global Equity ex-US Index Fund Institutional II, expense ratio 0.17% Then there's a bunch of Vanguard targeted retirement funds, three bond funds, and something I hadn't seen before called Brokerage Link, which looks like it will let me transfer the money into a brokerage account (not set up) and invest it in whatever. So, is this totally retarded? Any obvious ways to get a better and/or safer long-term return? Any advice would be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 00:22
|
|
