|
Chin Strap posted:What gvibes said. If you can afford to do without your first paychecks to do it, it would be prudent only in the sense that it allows you to guarantee company matching for the year in case you lose your job. No, most likely you will guarantee you will NOT get the full matching even if you stay for the year. The vast majority of 401k plans perform the matching on a per pay period basis. So you need to contribute every pay period to get the full matching. if you fund it all in the first portion of the year, max out the limit and stop contributing, you miss out on the matching for the remainder of the year. So the idea of dumping it all in the beginning is very often a terrible idea.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
Pissingintowind posted:Haha, I don't make anywhere near that much money. I really am not a fan of the 401(k) system... I only want to add enough to get my company match, but it looks like that will be hard to figure out. Like I said, do not do this unless you know for sure how the matching works. Doing 100% sometimes and 0% othertimes will gently caress up your matching for most 401k matching programs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 01:25
|
|
|
80k posted:No, most likely you will guarantee you will NOT get the full matching even if you stay for the year. The vast majority of 401k plans perform the matching on a per pay period basis. So you need to contribute every pay period to get the full matching. if you fund it all in the first portion of the year, max out the limit and stop contributing, you miss out on the matching for the remainder of the year. So the idea of dumping it all in the beginning is very often a terrible idea. My bad. My company works the way I described and I thought most did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 01:25
|
|
|
Brendas Baby Daddy posted:I'm opening up a Roth IRA. I was planning on doing it through Vanguard and picking from their funds. However, I see that I can also choose my own stocks, bonds, etc to invest in and not use their funds. Is there any reason why I shouldn't do this (other than possibly losing all my money because I don't know what I'm doing)? You can trade Vanguard ETFs for free with their brokerage, and all of the ETFs are based off their mutual funds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
Brendas Baby Daddy posted:I'm opening up a Roth IRA. I was planning on doing it through Vanguard and picking from their funds. However, I see that I can also choose my own stocks, bonds, etc to invest in and not use their funds. Is there any reason why I shouldn't do this (other than possibly losing all my money because I don't know what I'm doing)? 80k posted:No, most likely you will guarantee you will NOT get the full matching even if you stay for the year. The vast majority of 401k plans perform the matching on a per pay period basis. So you need to contribute every pay period to get the full matching. if you fund it all in the first portion of the year, max out the limit and stop contributing, you miss out on the matching for the remainder of the year. So the idea of dumping it all in the beginning is very often a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 02:26
|
|
|
80k posted:No, most likely you will guarantee you will NOT get the full matching even if you stay for the year. The vast majority of 401k plans perform the matching on a per pay period basis. So you need to contribute every pay period to get the full matching. if you fund it all in the first portion of the year, max out the limit and stop contributing, you miss out on the matching for the remainder of the year. So the idea of dumping it all in the beginning is very often a terrible idea. Just an FYI my company does match by pay period and if you max out mid-year will stop contributions. However at the end of the year if you lost matching because of this, they do make a true-up contribution. I would assume this varies by plan and is not legally mandated anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 02:39
|
|
|
alreadybeen posted:Just an FYI my company does match by pay period and if you max out mid-year will stop contributions. However at the end of the year if you lost matching because of this, they do make a true-up contribution. I would assume this varies by plan and is not legally mandated anywhere. My company did this a few years back as well, to my surprise. And then they changed the plan documents so that they would not have to do it in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
I'd like some help choosing the asset allocation and deciding if I should re-balance my retirement accounts. Right now I have a Roth IRA with Vanguard, which I maxed out last year investing in VFFVX (2055 target date fund). I also participated in my company's 401k plan for the first time last year starting in June, and I intend to contribute enough of my pre-tax income this year to get company match, and then some. The company will make a discretionary contribution of up to 100% of 4% of salary deferred. The current balance of that account is: AmerFunds EuroPacific Gr Fund $812.51 Fidelity Growth Company Fund $242.41 Invesco Mid Cap Core Equity Fd $415.21 Lord Abbett Developing Gr Fnd $743.56 Oppenheimer Rising Dividnds Fd $207.31 Sel Indxd Eqty Fd (Northrn Tr) $995.53 Sel MCG II Fd (TRP/Frontier) $439.39 Total Return Fund (PIMCO) $177.56 RidgeWorth High Income Fund $204.16 And my elections as they currently stand for the available funds, which I changed about a month ago: SAGIC Diversified Bond (60513) 0% Total Return Fund (PIMCO) 0% RidgeWorth High Income Fund 5% Select Fndmntl Val Fd (Wellington) 0% Select Indexed Eqty Fd (Northrn Tr) 0% Oppenheimer Rising Dividends Fund 5% American Funds Growth Fund of America 0% Fidelity Growth Company Fund 15% Perkins Mid Cap Value Fund 0% Invesco Mid Cap Core Equity Fund 10% Select Mid Cap Gr Eq II Fd (TRP/Frontier)10% Invesco Van Kampen Small Cap Value Fund 0% Lord Abbett Developing Growth Fund 40% American Funds EuroPacific Growth Fund 15% Payroll deducts $221 twice a month, so I'll be contributing almost the same amount to the Roth and 401k. Now, with the company match coming around, I want to make sure that the current allocation makes sense, both in the 401k portfolio itself and in terms of diversification between the Roth and the 401k. Anyone have any ideas? Am I grossly overweight anywhere (for a 24 year old with a very long term investment horizon and medium-high risk tolerance)? Should I re-balance the 401k right now and leave the investment selections as they are? Do my choices suck? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
My first comment is that you have way too many funds considering the amount you have invested. You seem way growth-weighted - why?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
What are the expense ratios on any of those? Do you have any reason to believe anything you are doing is correct? I would suggest doing some reading and simplifying way down until you have some idea about what it is you are holding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
gvibes posted:My first comment is that you have way too many funds considering the amount you have invested. You seem way growth-weighted - why? Probably should have mentioned this in my post, but our 401k provider changed mid-way through the year, and what had been a simple target date retirement fund like the one I've got with Vanguard got remapped to a bunch of different, shittier funds. As for the new elections, shortly after the changeover I decided to consolidate the number of funds and weight the portfolio towards growth and overseas stocks because I felt the Vanguard fund was overweight in US Value, and I wanted better exposure. Chin Strap posted:What are the expense ratios on any of those? Do you have any reason to believe anything you are doing is correct? Harsh. During the changeover we were assured that all the funds available under the new provider would have comparable expense ratios, and I took that at face value. I figured that even with really expensive funds it would still be worthwhile for the company match. That in mind, as I mentioned above I chose to reallocate my elections to the asset classes I thought were deficient in the Vanguard fund. The alternative I had strongly considered was just dumping everything in the 401k into the index fund and trying not worry about the low growth/international exposure. bam thwok fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Jan 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 00:54
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:Harsh. During the changeover we were assured that all the funds available under the new provider would have comparable expense ratios, and I took that at face value. I figured that even with really expensive funds it would still be worthwhile for the company match. Sorry I was too curt. Posting from my phone at the time. But still, a random smattering of checking what you want to invest in seems like a lot of high fee active managed stuff. What I would do is shove it a cheap ER index if one exists in that list, and use your IRA to correct for that for the sort of asset allocation you want. EDIT: If you are worried about your asset class exposures (not enough international, whatever), you don't have to necessarily do the TR fund in your IRA. You can just get whatever funds help make your total asset allocation correct, and if you can't afford the fund minimums get the ETF equivalents. Chin Strap fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Jan 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:Sorry I was too curt. Posting from my phone at the time. No worries. I guess I had always been confident in the set-it-and-forget it approach to the Roth with a low cost target date fund in it (largely due to this thread), and figured I just had to balance the rest of my portfolio around it. I also thought that I could tolerate both high expense and high risk in the 401k, since most of the downside potential would be offset by the employer match. Did I really have it completely backwards?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:No worries. I guess I had always been confident in the set-it-and-forget it approach to the Roth with a low cost target date fund in it (largely due to this thread), and figured I just had to balance the rest of my portfolio around it. I also thought that I could tolerate both high expense and high risk in the 401k, since most of the downside potential would be offset by the employer match. Did I really have it completely backwards? High risk is fine, but high fines usually shouldn't be. Sure some of it is offset, but it shouldn't have to be. I'm not saying don't do the 401k up to matching, definitely do it, I am just saying I would be inclined to put it all in whatever cheap index fund they have. It is just then your total asset balance will shift more, so you need to consider what you hold in the Roth to balance that back to whatever you were happy with in the TR fund.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:As for the new elections, shortly after the changeover I decided to consolidate the number of funds and weight the portfolio towards growth and overseas stocks because I felt the Vanguard fund was overweight in US Value, and I wanted better exposure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
If I want to max my 401(k) and I get an employers' match that is up to 6% of my $70,000 salary, do I want to contribute $16,500 - ($70,000 * 0.06) = $12,300, or $16,500 to hit $16,500 + ($70,000 * 0.06) = $20,700 total for the year? Basically, do employers' matches count towards the 401(k) yearly limit?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 04:22
|
|
|
gvibes posted:In the past, "growth" stocks have underperformed the market as a whole. If I remember right, "value" and "growth" seem to alternate between underperforming/overperforming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 04:29
|
|
|
Pissingintowind posted:If I want to max my 401(k) and I get an employers' match that is up to 6% of my $70,000 salary, do I want to contribute $16,500 - ($70,000 * 0.06) = $12,300, or $16,500 to hit $16,500 + ($70,000 * 0.06) = $20,700 total for the year? 16,500. Employer matches don't count to that limit. However it counts towards the much higher 49,000 limit that includes pre-tax, after tax, and employee match limits, but most people don't do anything like that and stop at 16,500 deductible limit. abagofcheetos posted:If I remember right, "value" and "growth" seem to alternate between underperforming/overperforming. In the long run (going by history only) value stocks have outperformed growth at the cost of increased volatility. Pretty standard risk reward tradeoff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 04:45
|
|
|
My own question: if you like your 401k does it make sense to do after tax contribution there before having to start holding taxable accounts? Mine is a selection of good Vanguard indexes that I would be buying anyway. What are the rules on after tax 401k withdrawals? Is it like a Roth where you can take out your initial contribution penalty free?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:In the long run (going by history only) value stocks have outperformed growth at the cost of increased volatility. Pretty standard risk reward tradeoff. Except that according to SG Equity Research, between 1950 and 2007 value had higher returns and slightly lower volatility than growth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:My own question: if you like your 401k does it make sense to do after tax contribution there before having to start holding taxable accounts? Mine is a selection of good Vanguard indexes that I would be buying anyway. What are the rules on after tax 401k withdrawals? Is it like a Roth where you can take out your initial contribution penalty free? If you are talking about a Roth 401(k), then I am pretty sure that you cannot withdraw like you would from a Roth IRA. As a 22 year old that expects to be in a higher tax bracket later in life, I would want a Roth 401(k) and Roth IRA, correct?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:My own question: if you like your 401k does it make sense to do after tax contribution there before having to start holding taxable accounts? Mine is a selection of good Vanguard indexes that I would be buying anyway. What are the rules on after tax 401k withdrawals? Is it like a Roth where you can take out your initial contribution penalty free? Frankly there isn't much reason to do a 401k post tax, especially if you're already maxing the pretax side out and can just do a Roth IRA. Diversifying your money for tax strategy would be wise, so it might actually be beneficial to have money that wasn't sheltered (or, again, was in a Roth IRA) so you could later draw it down from multiple sources. If it's all in the 401k, it's all subject to income taxes, so you might be better off to simply have a non sheltered portfolio that's structured in a way to maximize tax efficiencies. As for withdraws, you're better off than if you did a withdrawal from a pretax 401k, but it is a mess to keep things organized and you will likely incur some taxes no matter what you do. In a Roth you can cleanly draw out your contributions tax free no question, but for 401ks you need to pay taxes on a fraction of the withdrawal that's prorated based on the amounts of pretax and gain vs. total. Since the actual contribution amounts (hopefully) dwindle to a very small percentage of the total, you'll end up paying income taxes on a very large chunk of any withdrawal you make.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 05:37
|
|
|
My understanding is that Roth IRAs are superior to Roth 401(k)s in every way except for the maximum contribution limit and the maximum income limit if that applies to you. Is this correct?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 06:01
|
|
|
spf3million posted:My understanding is that Roth IRAs are superior to Roth 401(k)s in every way except for the maximum contribution limit and the maximum income limit if that applies to you. Is this correct? Pretty much. You can get matching into Roth 401ks, so that might give them an edge. However, if you can do that you can presumably also get it for a trad 401k, so it's not like you'd lose anything by doing a Roth IRA anyway. Especially now that everyone can do the non-deductible IRA backdoor, there's no reason not to get money into a Roth IRA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 06:13
|
|
|
I'm a relative newbie to the retirement fund scene (just over a year of saving so far.) So I just want to get some opinions so far on what I got going on with my 403(b):.jpg) (praying I didn't leave in any private data...) Unfortunately, I didn't sign up for electronic reports, so I don't have any detailed online about the return on each asset...which is stupid. They already have the info, so why can't they just show it to me? But nope, since I just barely signed up for the electronic reports I have to wait till my next quarterly statement. At any rate, as you can see, I don't have employer matching yet (not till I'm here for three years.) I just want to know if my allocations look good, bad, or loving tarded. And a quick question: I don't plan on staying in the non-profit sector forever, so can a 403(b) be rolled into a 401(k)/IRA/Roth IRA, or when I finally go to the for-profit sector, will this account just stay at its last balance, accruing interest, and forcing me to "start over" on another retirement account?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:At any rate, as you can see, I don't have employer matching yet (not till I'm here for three years.) I just want to know if my allocations look good, bad, or loving tarded. First, regarding allocation, without knowing your time horizon/age we can't really say for sure. One thing that I do notice is that your investments have drifted from your contribution allocations quite a bit: you're contributing 50% to equities, but you're holding 67%. For the amounts you're talking about it's not a huge deal, but you need to keep an eye on those things in general. That said, you've (in general) got either a risk conservative portfolio for someone in their 30s or an average-ish risk portfolio for someone in their 40s. If that isn't what you want, then you need to adjust the amounts. Let us know how old you are and what you're looking for and we can go from there. Finally, when you leave the company, you can roll the account into an IRA if you wish, or leave it alone. It's generally recommended to roll it into an IRA simply because then you can shop it around and get the best rates/investment options, but it's up to you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2011 04:57
|
|
|
T0MSERV0 posted:First, regarding allocation, without knowing your time horizon/age we can't really say for sure. One thing that I do notice is that your investments have drifted from your contribution allocations quite a bit: you're contributing 50% to equities, but you're holding 67%. For the amounts you're talking about it's not a huge deal, but you need to keep an eye on those things in general. I guess I don't really understand your first point...so in other words somehow, despite me saying "ok, 50% of what I put in in going to equities!" it worked itself out to 67%? I do know that at some point this year I adjusted them from what I initially put it as, though drat if I can remember what it was initially... And I'm 28 right now...so I should be able to do a little more risk-heavy portfolio, if I gather what you're saying? What investments are considered more "risky"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:I guess I don't really understand your first point...so in other words somehow, despite me saying "ok, 50% of what I put in in going to equities!" it worked itself out to 67%? I do know that at some point this year I adjusted them from what I initially put it as, though drat if I can remember what it was initially... The price of those stocks go up and down all the time (hopefully trending up over time). So if you don't keep an eye on it, you can get actual percentages that are different than your goal. You can fix that, and I believe that's called rebalancing. DrBouvenstein posted:And I'm 28 right now...so I should be able to do a little more risk-heavy portfolio, if I gather what you're saying? What investments are considered more "risky"? Most people around these parts recommend William J. Bernstein's "The Four Pillars of Investing: Lessons for Building a Winning Portfolio". Jack Bogle (founder of Vanguard) has some good books too. But the choice of how risky should really depend on your age and your circumstances/goals, not just your age.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2011 06:54
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:I guess I don't really understand your first point...so in other words somehow, despite me saying "ok, 50% of what I put in in going to equities!" it worked itself out to 67%? I do know that at some point this year I adjusted them from what I initially put it as, though drat if I can remember what it was initially... The change you made is likely part of it, but as gp2k says, your prices have moved (up about 10% based on your allocation), and thus you're over/under weighted. However, since you did change your allocations recently, this doesn't matter so much, and nearly all retirement accounts have an option to rebalance somewhere (if they don't do it automatically). Once you figure out what your allocation should be, you can rebalance to that allocation if you wish. Don't go crazy with rebalancing, though - the general rule is if an asset is more than 5% off where you want it, rebalance. Asset classes dictate risk, and you are rewarded for owning high risk assets with higher potential returns. The 4 broad classes you've got available (that we can see) are Equities (stocks), Fixed Income (bonds), Real Estate, and Guaranteed (cash). Cash has virtually zero risk, so there is next to no reward: you won't loose anything you invest (thus, guaranteed), but you won't make any great gains, either. Bonds are next, and they are more risky, but not the most. They tend to return less than equities, but more than cash. Stocks are the most risky, and thus can return the greatest rewards. Real Estate is an oddball in this instance, but can be lumped in with equities for risk estimation. When you are young and have a long time to invest the money (and since this is a retirement account, by definition this money is for retirement, and is thus a ways away), you should put more money into higher risk instruments like stocks and less into less risky ones. This allows you to take advantage of growth in the areas that do the fastest growing, and hopefully allows you to make some money. As time goes on and you have less time before you'll need the money, you can switch to lower risk investments to "bank" your gains and to help ensure that the portfolio doesn't plummet to zero in a recession. gp2k is right about the 4 pillars: it's a quick book, and full of the basics of investing. If you've got more specific questions, put them out and we'll be happy to answer them, but starting with that book will cover a lot of ground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2011 12:48
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:And I'm 28 right now...so I should be able to do a little more risk-heavy portfolio, if I gather what you're saying? What investments are considered more "risky"? In addition to what other goons have responded, there's a more technical definition for "risk" by asset class, namely the volatility of returns measured through standard deviation. Assets with high standard deviations tend to also have high rates of return, and vice versa. They're considered more "risky" because the rate of return earned in any given year is difficult to predict, so if you have short-term goals where you know the amount of money you'll need, these investments would be less reliable for delivering that amount. This is why it is recommended that people with long-term goals invest in riskier assets and gradually lower the volatility of their portfolio by shifting asset allocations as they approach retirement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2011 15:50
|
|
|
I am hoping to get some advice from you guys. I am opening a 401K through Prudential with my company for the first time. I am 22 with a base salary of 42K and with bonuses plus overtime putting me ~52K a year. There is a Company contribution of $.50 per $1.00 contributed by each employee on a bi-weekly basis, up to 6% of compensation. There is no vesting period, it begins 100% vested. I plan on contributing 10% to my 401K and maxing out a Roth IRA account every year. From my rough math at my base salary putting 10% into my 401K I will be saving 5,460 yearly including the company contribution. My question comes from which funds to pick. I know everyone says you need to diversify yourself. For example in the OP it says 45% intl equity/40% US equity/15% fixed income. It the booklet from Prudential it recommends for an aggressive investor, 20% International stock, 28% Large Cap Stock Growth, 28% Large Cap Stock Value, 12% Small/Mid Cap Stock Growth, and 12% Small/Mid Cap Value. I have complied the list of the Funds that are offered and the category they fit in which I will post below. How do I pick which to go with? Do I look at their average annual returns? Do I look at the 1yr, 3yr, 5yr, 10yr? Do I look at the Gross Expense Ratio? The Net Expense Ratio? The Inception Date? If I do go with the recommended 28% in Large Cap Stock Value and I have two different funds in that category do I split it 14% and 14%? Do I just use one fund at 28%? As you can see I have a lot of questions and no answers. I am not expecting anyone to answer all of these for me (that would be awesome). I just hope people can point me in the right direction and make recommendations if they see any Funds that they particularly like. Thanks The Funds Options: Stable Value: Guaranteed Income Fund Fixed Income Domestic: Core Bond/PIM Fund Core Plus Bond/PIMCO Fund Balanced Target Date: Retirement Goal 2050 Fund Retirement Goal 2040 Fund Retiemental Goal Income Fund Balanced Value: Vanguard Wellington Fund Large Cap Stock – Value: American Century Equity Income (Investor Shares) Fidelity Advisor Equity Income Large Cap Stock - Blend: Dryden S&P 500 Index Fund Victory Diversified Stock Fund Large Cap Stock – Growth: Calvert Social Investment Fund (CSIF) Equity Portfolio Large Cap Growth / Jennison Fund T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth (Advisor Shares) Mid Cap Stock – Value: Franklin Balance Sheet Investment Mid Cap Value / Integrity Fund Mid Cap Stock – Blend: Invesco U.S. Mid Cap Value Portfolio (A Share) Mid Cap Stock – Growth: Mid Cap Growth/Artisan Partners Thornburg Core Growth Fund (R3 Shares) Small Cap Stock – Value: Small Cap Value/TS&W Fund Small Cap Stock – Blend: Small Cap Blend/WHV Fund Small Cap Stock – Growth: Ivy Small Cap Growth (Y Shares) Global Stock – Value: American Funds Capital World G/I R3 Global Stock – Growth: SA/OFII Global Strategy International Stock – Blend: Thornburg Core Growth Fund (R3 Shares) Other – Special Equity: Cohen & Steers Realty Income Fund (I Shares)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
DaRealAce posted:How do I pick which to go with? Do I look at their average annual returns? Do I look at the 1yr, 3yr, 5yr, 10yr? Do I look at the Gross Expense Ratio? The Net Expense Ratio? The Inception Date? If I do go with the recommended 28% in Large Cap Stock Value and I have two different funds in that category do I split it 14% and 14%? Do I just use one fund at 28%? As you can see I have a lot of questions and no answers. I am not expecting anyone to answer all of these for me (that would be awesome). I just hope people can point me in the right direction and make recommendations if they see any Funds that they particularly like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
I went ahead and scanned them in so you can see the important info. Hopefully this will help. Ignore my chicken scratch at the bottom please. Click here for the full 1275x1650 image.  Click here for the full 1275x1650 image.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
.62 ER for a simple S&P index is disgusting but still your best bet. I'm not sure about the math of investing more than the match amount though, because really those funds aren't good and a taxable account might be better off for everything above the match.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 21:29
|
|
|
DaRealAce posted:I went ahead and scanned them in so you can see the important info. Hopefully this will help. Ignore my chicken scratch at the bottom please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 21:50
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Thanks for these. Another option would be the Wellington fund. Probably treat as 2/3 large value and 1/3 corporate bond for asset allocation purposes. I'm sorry for my extremely limited understanding but can you please elaborate on "Probably treat as 2/3 large value and 1/3 corporate bond for asset allocation purposes."
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
with those choices, i would do 100% Wellington (a very fine balanced fund at reasonable costs). And then invest in international stocks and maybe additional bonds or TIPS at your own Vanguard IRA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
Whoops missed the Wellington. Yeah that is the way to go. DaRealAce, he is speaking towards asset allocation. By determining how much of your total retirement savings you have in different assets, like equities (stock mutual funds) vs bonds etc, you determine how risky your portfolio is and also how much return potential you can make. More risk = more potential return. You should do some reading up on this. I like Boglehead's Guide to Investing for something easy to read.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 22:08
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:Whoops missed the Wellington. Yeah that is the way to go. Awesome. I will read Boglehead's guide over this weekend. I see from your comments that I should only invest as much as the company match (6%). I also see mentions of opening a taxable account for the rest of the money I would like to put away in addition to the 401k and the Roth IRA. How would I go about doing this? Is it a different type of Vanguard account where I just select what Funds I would like to invest into? Thanks again, you all have been a ton of help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
DaRealAce posted:Awesome. I will read Boglehead's guide over this weekend. I see from your comments that I should only invest as much as the company match (6%). I also see mentions of opening a taxable account for the rest of the money I would like to put away in addition to the 401k and the Roth IRA. How would I go about doing this? Is it a different type of Vanguard account where I just select what Funds I would like to invest into?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 23:27
|
|