|
Is anyone else starting to worry that the boomers are going to destroy the prospects for current workers' long-term investment/retirement savings? As they exit the workforce en masse, their financial advisers and target retirement portfolios are going to pretty much complete the lifelong gradual shift from equities into bonds. On the equity side, this means that there's going to be a lot of downward pressure on the price of stocks since the yearly number of new retirees will outnumber the new investors by a pretty hefty margin, placing serious limits on demand. So stocks are a bust. On the fixed income side, the elevated demand for bonds will keep yields incredibly low pretty much in perpetuity. So bonds are a bust. Perpetually low yields will eventually mean higher inflation. So cash is a bust. So what are we to do?
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
Invest in funeral homes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:Is anyone else starting to worry that the boomers are going to destroy the prospects for current workers' long-term investment/retirement savings? A lot of stock ownership is held by institutions or massive funds and not small investors. There is a lot of money flooding in to the markets from outside north america and europe where the boomers exist. A lot of the real growth is happening in those markets as well. The boomers will do anything to maintain the status quo for as long as possible. Many investors already have international diversification and over time that allotment will probably grow and domestic companies looking for growth have shifted their attention away from North America and Europe quite some time ago. cowofwar fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Mar 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:Is anyone else starting to worry that the boomers are going to destroy the prospects for current workers' long-term investment/retirement savings? Well I keep reading about how 70% (I'm making this number up) of baby boomers are woefully underfunded when it comes to retirement savings so it's probably not that big of a deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Bond yields will remain low for a while but it's not due to the above reason. Well yeah, they're depressed in the US because of fed action. But if they stay low for too long while the boomers begin to shift, then they will never rise even if the policymakers demand it. quote:A lot of stock ownership is held by institutions or massive funds and not small investors. Their capital has to come from somewhere. American households are actually the largest investors in US stocks (at something like 22%?), whether through IRAs, 401ks, or individual taxable accounts. After them comes banks and investment firms, then things like pensions. But even pensions and other state-based obligations have to adjust their asset allocations to make sure they can pay their beneficiaries, even if those beneficiaries aren't in direct control of the accounts. quote:There is a lot of money flooding in to the markets from outside north america and europe where the boomers exist. I looked into it, and according to the Treasury Dept this isn't the case. Both in the source of foreign funds, and in their investment selection. In 2010, there was a net inflow of $112.8 billion in purchases of US corporate stocks by foreigners. The breakdown they provided (incomplete): code:Even then, although there was a net inflow of $112.8 billion into stocks from foreigners, they spent $115.0 billion on municipal bonds and $707.9 billion on treasuries at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
If bond yields remain low, then companies get cheap debt which means higher profits. So either bond yields will go up or profits be equivalently increased. Also, for the joke response: invest in commodities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
Since a lot of boomers have gently caress all for retirement savings they're probably going to be banking on equities more so than past retiring generations. Also corporate fundamentals are really strong right now and tons of money is pouring in from Europe. I'm pretty bullish on equities for the next decade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:On the equity side, this means that there's going to be a lot of downward pressure on the price of stocks since the yearly number of new retirees will outnumber the new investors by a pretty hefty margin, placing serious limits on demand. So stocks are a bust. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 06:52
|
|
|
The boomers are a concern, but let's remember that every dollar that they withdraw from their retirement savings is going to be spent. Here in the US, mostly, on goods and services. While withdrawal from markets will affect those markets, expenditure of the money directly into the economy should stimulate the economy to the same degree. Am I wrong?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The boomers are a concern, but let's remember that every dollar that they withdraw from their retirement savings is going to be spent. Here in the US, mostly, on goods and services. While withdrawal from markets will affect those markets, expenditure of the money directly into the economy should stimulate the economy to the same degree. Isn't the main driving force behind equities pricing investor demand, not consumer spending? Rising profits should raise demand for stocks which will theoretically increase their price, but that just brings us back to the question of who exactly will be there to buy them. Is there any level of boomer spending that will convince brokers to tell a 45-year old client that a portfolio of 95% equities makes more sense than 60%? How much foreign capital can pour into our stock market before the SEC is forced to more strictly enforce statutes on foreign ownership of common stock intended to preserve domestic shareholder voting rights? I just don't see where the demand is going to come from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
Quick question, I already invested my roth ira into targeted funds, since my account has low amount of $ in it to buy individual funds. However my traditional IRA, to which I rolled over my ex exploer 401k, has more funds. Question being, for retirement account, why would I want to invest my money anywhere but targeted funds? Since they diversify and vanguards targeted funds have really low expense ration anyway. Is it if I just want to be in control of my allocations and possible get higher yields with different funds? For a lazy investor, who puts money in and forgets about it, targeted funds are the way to go I assume?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
Deadreak posted:Quick question, I already invested my roth ira into targeted funds, since my account has low amount of $ in it to buy individual funds. However my traditional IRA, to which I rolled over my ex exploer 401k, has more funds. Yes, it would be to control your own allocation, chase lower expense ratios or higher yields, choose investments that you feel strongly about for speculative or ethical reasons, or diversify managerial risk (a scandal or incompetence could cause Vanguard's funds perform worse than its competitors or collapse entirely, which happens, albeit rarely).
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
I'm new to investing and I've got a few questions about foreign-earned income. I want to open a target retirement fund but it's possible that I'll live overseas for a while at some point in my career. Do investment companies (ie: Vanguard) tend to charge hefty fees for deposits of foreign currency? How would I handle filing my investment account come tax-time? Would I have to file a return in whatever country I live in at that time, in the USA (as I opened the account there and I assume would be earning returns based on the dollar), or both? Or, generally speaking, would maintaining a US-based retirement account while abroad just be a big headache and I should roll the balance over to an account in the country I'm in at the time?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:Isn't the main driving force behind equities pricing investor demand, not consumer spending? Rising profits should raise demand for stocks which will theoretically increase their price, but that just brings us back to the question of who exactly will be there to buy them. Is there any level of boomer spending that will convince brokers to tell a 45-year old client that a portfolio of 95% equities makes more sense than 60%? How much foreign capital can pour into our stock market before the SEC is forced to more strictly enforce statutes on foreign ownership of common stock intended to preserve domestic shareholder voting rights? Well, if you accept my premise (and I'm not 100% convinced that I do) that most or all of the money pulled from retirement accounts will get spent domestically, then that money should be making everyone who isn't retired (and is therefore providing those goods and services) richer. They'll have more money to put into their retirement accounts! Whereas if I'm understanding you right, you're suggesting that P/Es would decline across the board as the total amount of money in US equities markets shrink. I'm not really sure what that would do but it doesn't sound sustainable to me - low P/Es attract investors, and the money will do whatever it can to get in on it. Unless the entire US economy is shrinking (or the population booming again?), those dollars will be available domestically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Well, if you accept my premise (and I'm not 100% convinced that I do) that most or all of the money pulled from retirement accounts will get spent domestically, then that money should be making everyone who isn't retired (and is therefore providing those goods and services) richer. They'll have more money to put into their retirement accounts! Does anyone know how baby booms in other countries line up with the aging baby boomer crop in the United States? For instance the Arab world currently has an abnormally large amount of younger people that could buy up US equities if they turn prosperous while US equities are cheap. I'm aware many of them won't be buying anything anytime soon, but who knows how economic conditions will be in the Arab world in 10-20 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:Rising profits should raise demand for stocks which will theoretically increase their price, but that just brings us back to the question of who exactly will be there to buy them. I just don't see where the demand is going to come from. You don't need demand for stocks to make money from stocks. When you buy stocks you're buying shares of a company. If the company profits, you profit. Lower stock prices coupled with rising company profits make stocks a great investment. The companies will benefit shareholders either directly through dividends or indirectly through stock buy backs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
Hi, I read the OP and just want to make sure I understand my next steps. --I switched Jobs in September last year. My previous job I had 10% of my income going into their 401K pretax, with a ~5% match. I stopped investing into it when I left. --I started the new job and their 401K blows. Their investment options are crap and their HR dept really doesnt put much effort into helping you out. I havent invested into it yet. --Right now I have let that 401K just float along, but I'd like to restart what I had been doing previously with the new Job. It looks like a Roth IRA is best in my situation since I'm not THAT old yet. (27) --It looks like the process for me would be to make a Roth IRA (vanguard?) & start depositing into it. How does depositing work, is it like a monthly transfer I can schedule from my bank account on payday or something? (500 bucks a month or whatever) If I do this I'll go over that 5K a year limit, should I put 400 a month into a Roth IRA and then put the rest into my company's shitbox 401k? What should I do with my old 401k? sorry for all the questions, just want to make sure I do this right because I want to save but I am also pretty hands off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
BotchedLobotomy posted:
If you do it with Vanguard (and I would assume this is the same for most companies) then they won't allow you to put more into the IRA than the limit. Therefore you could do 500/month if you want and it will just hit 5000 by 10 months and then you won't have a contribution the next two months. You can also deposit as a lump sum or any combination thereof. Just so you know initially you'd have to put in at least $1000 as a lump sum to open up an account. (There are only a few funds with the $1000 minimum, most have $3000). You can rollover your old 401k into a traditional IRA if you want. Whether that would be worth it depends on the fund choices you have in the 401k, but in most cases you would probably have more flexibility and lower expenses with rolling it over. After that you can convert some of that over to Roth if you want, which will require you to pay income taxes on it. The main benefit of that would be if you expect to be in a higher income tax range in the future. You can convert just chunks of it at a time if you don't want to pay the tax bill all at once (this all depends on how close you are to the next tax bracket and how much is in the 401k).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 06:18
|
|
|
So... how long does it take to actually open a Roth account these days? As in business days. I'm trying my hardest to get my wife to open a retirement account. She's only 26, but I think it's important. It's just hard getting her to do it and want to figure out what the point of no return is before it's too late. I know she's going to put this off until the last minute  I use to work for a brokerage actually, doing non stock related stuff, and that last week before taxes were do was so crazy with people wanting to open an account the day before the 15th and people screaming at customer service about why it can't be done so quickly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
Thanks for the explanation.  What happens if I go over the limit? Will I get hosed when I do taxes or will Vanguard be proactive and tell me I cant if I try to make a deposit? My 401k is currently through Fidelity and I think they're doing a pretty fine job. They have a similar setup like vanguard where I'm in the "you retire in X years so you get this ratio" thing which I'm ok with. Should I just leave that 401K alone? In terms of income brackets, I'm an ambitious guy, I'll absolutely be in a higher bracket in the future haha. Knowing that should I empty out the 401k or convert it to something else?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
BotchedLobotomy posted:Thanks for the explanation. You can't go over the limit. They simply won't let you contribute more than $5000 a year. And if you did, or perhaps you were over the income limit, there is always a way of fixing it via reclassifying a portion of it to a traditional. As for the 401k, you can leave it at Fidelity if you want to. I've always preferred to move it out of the 401k because I feel it's easier to track all my retirement/investments in one account. If you are doing a basic rollover to another traditional IRA, it's incredibly simple. You can even leave it at Fidelity. However, if you want to convert it to a Roth, you'll have to do a rollover and pay income taxes on the money you are converting to a Roth. Just to be clear, you aren't "emptying" your 401k. You don't want to literally pull the money from it. You want to roll it over and convert it. If you decide to go that route, Fidelity and Vanguard can walk you through it with ease. Finally, you mentioned your current 401k options are bad. However, your first priority should be maximizing out what they will match. So even if it's just 2% and you have limited options, you should still do it before anything else. Otherwise you are leaving 2% of money your company is offering you on the table. There are a lot of lovely 401k programs, but you almost always want to squeeze every dime you can out of your company.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:So... how long does it take to actually open a Roth account these days? As in business days. I'm trying my hardest to get my wife to open a retirement account. She's only 26, but I think it's important. It's just hard getting her to do it and want to figure out what the point of no return is before it's too late. I can only speak for what I've experienced at Fidelity. But it takes a few days to setup the electonic transfers in a new account. So if the deadline is the 17th of April, I'd want to open an account by the 10th at the latest just to be safe. Worst case scenario is that if she is too late, she can just use it toward 2012. Other than that, the account is setup almost instantaneously if you fill out the forms online. It's the funding of the account that can take a few days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 07:11
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:Good stuff So if I roll over my 401K into a Roth IRA, am I able to put all of it in at once or would I have to do it in 5K disbursements yearly? My 401K is crappy because the match is up to half of 5% paid out end of year and up to the company's "discretion" on if they agree to do it that year or not. I could put the money into their bad funds and then they decide to not match. It sounds like my plan should be to open up a Roth IRA with fidelity to keep things in the same account (is fidelity good with IRAs? Are they good at all compared to competitors?) Then once I have lets say 400 a month into the Roth, any remainder goes into my crummy 401k. I can also roll over my old fidelity 401k into a regular IRA. That sound like the best route?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 09:22
|
|
|
Harry posted:It's incredibly conservative, especially when starting out. You have literally never heard of age% in bonds? Harry posted:24% in bonds? Really? Come on people, the OP is 24. He has 40+ years here, take some loving risk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 09:56
|
|
|
In regards to the debate of bonds/stocks, I think it's worth mentioning that the single most important thing you can do at 24 is to make sure you are funding as much as you can into it annually. Having 5% more allocation in bonds on an account with a few thousand dollars is insignifigant at this time. My focus would be on contributions. When that thing has built up some coin, you can fret more about the precise allocations. Otherwise I'd just find a level between what the target funds allocate at 90/10 and your age in bonds 76/24.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 12:42
|
|
|
BotchedLobotomy posted:So if I roll over my 401K into a Roth IRA, am I able to put all of it in at once or would I have to do it in 5K disbursements yearly? I'm pretty sure a conversion wouldn't count toward your annual contribution. So you could convert your 401k into a Roth IRA and still make your $5000 annual contributions assuming you are not over the income limits for a Roth (and even then I believe you can still do a backdoor Roth). Hopefully someone else can chime in to verify this. BotchedLobotomy posted:It sounds like my plan should be to open up a Roth IRA with fidelity to keep things in the same account (is fidelity good with IRAs? Are they good at all compared to competitors?) Fidelity or Vanguard are the two places I'd recommend. I'm currently at Fidelity and have been happy with their service. Vanguard is popular because they have lower expense ratios on popular funds (particularly target retirement funds). You'd probably get more Vanguard fans here than Fidelity although I don't think they are that different. I wouldn't pick Fidelity just because they currently hold your 401k, rollovers are incredibly easy regardless of which one you use. As for the conversion of your old 401k to a Roth, remember that you will have to pay taxes on that. So if you have $10,000 in that 401k, you will have to pay taxes on that $10,000. This may not be ideal for you if you are currently in a high tax bracket or don't want to fork over some more money to the IRS this year. Otherwise, I think you have a solid plan. Setup a Roth IRA and start making contributions. You can still make contributions for 2011 in fact up to the tax filing deadline. So you could open the Roth, put $5000 in it before April 17th that counts toward 2011, and then another $5000 for this current year. In fact, any contributions you make from now until April 17th I would mark down as 2011 since a Roth is "use it or lose it".
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 13:33
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Well, if you accept my premise (and I'm not 100% convinced that I do) that most or all of the money pulled from retirement accounts will get spent domestically, then that money should be making everyone who isn't retired (and is therefore providing those goods and services) richer. They'll have more money to put into their retirement accounts! I don't really accept that premise either; affluent retirees increasingly prefer experiential travel abroad. But if I did accept your premise, I'd also have to accept that wages aren't very, very sticky, which they undoubtedly are. Leperflesh posted:... the money will do whatever it can to get in on it. I don't really subscribe to the Jurassic Park, "Life will find a way" school of capital markets analysis, but yes, high domestic spending plus lower demand for equities to me says that we'll be heading for a trough in P/E ratios (which are cyclical). I don't think cheaper stocks will create new demand in this environment. A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Does anyone know how baby booms in other countries line up with the aging baby boomer crop in the United States? For instance the Arab world currently has an abnormally large amount of younger people that could buy up US equities if they turn prosperous while US equities are cheap. I'd point you to Japan, which is by all accounts the grayest country on earth. Its demographic profile, specifically its mature population bulge and ratio of new retirees to new working-age citizens, is about 10 years ahead of ours. Take a look a the Nikkei for the last decade to see what happens. Obviously there are other drivers, but I think the demographic issue is a huge one. No one came to the rescue Japan's equities markets. It doesn't mean that they're in the midst of a depression, only that their stock market isn't a reliable place to seek long-term capital appreciation. Nelson posted:You don't need demand for stocks to make money from stocks. When you buy stocks you're buying shares of a company. If the company profits, you profit. Lower stock prices coupled with rising company profits make stocks a great investment. The companies will benefit shareholders either directly through dividends or indirectly through stock buy backs. I think this is a little idealized, especially considering how hoarding cash is quickly becoming the norm for corporate America. Stocks entitle you to a residual claim on earnings, not an absolute one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:I'd point you to Japan, which is by all accounts the grayest country on earth. Its demographic profile, specifically its mature population bulge and ratio of new retirees to new working-age citizens, is about 10 years ahead of ours. Take a look a the Nikkei for the last decade to see what happens. Obviously there are other drivers, but I think the demographic issue is a huge one. No one came to the rescue Japan's equities markets. It doesn't mean that they're in the midst of a depression, only that their stock market isn't a reliable place to seek long-term capital appreciation. That's a really poor comparison considering all the other exogenous factors at play. I can just look at Germany which has a VERY similar population age structure to Japan and point at the performance of DAX for the past 10 years to see that you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Well, if you accept my premise (and I'm not 100% convinced that I do) that most or all of the money pulled from retirement accounts will get spent domestically, then that money should be making everyone who isn't retired (and is therefore providing those goods and services) richer. They'll have more money to put into their retirement accounts! Heh, trickle down economics made real? The problem with making wealthy people more wealthy is that they don't spend the money, typically they invest the money efficiently and extract even more wealth from it. So, if you take a wealthy segment of the population and make them stop creating wealth and start spending the wealth they have stored away then the argument is that economy will expand to supply the 'new' demands of the retired? Except it's doubtful that there will be 'new' demands, just less wealth generation. The baby boomers won't be building newer bigger houses when they retire, the opposite if anything. They'll be looking to downsize as they deal with the insecurity of how long they will live and how much money they have. I guess the up-side is that if you go looking for a McMansion in 15 years they should be cheap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I guess the up-side is that if you go looking for a McMansion in 15 years they should be cheap. Ha. Japan and Germany have plans to start tearing down apartment blocks to replace them with parks and reduce sewer capacity in cities because of all the missing old people they're expecting. shrike82 posted:hat's a really poor comparison considering all the other exogenous factors at play. I can just look at Germany which has a VERY similar population age structure to Japan and point at the performance of DAX for the past 10 years to see that you're wrong. Japan was slower to react to the trend, with their retirement age still at 55 in the late 80s. But you're right, there's exogenous factors, though I've seen plenty of studies that aver that Japan's demographics was the primary cause of their economic malaise, not their banking structure or fiscal policies. Edit: Also, found a letter from a VP of economic research at the San Francisco Fed sounding the alarms over exactly this issue. I should apply for a job there, I guess. He predicts a decline in equities for the next 20 years, but recovering quite nicely thereabouts. Abstract quote:Historical data indicate a strong relationship between the age distribution of the U.S. population and stock market performance. A key demographic trend is the aging of the baby boom generation. As they reach retirement age, they are likely to shift from buying stocks to selling their equity holdings to finance retirement. Statistical models suggest that this shift could be a factor holding down equity valuations over the next two decades. http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2011/el2011-26.html bam thwok fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Mar 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
Beware of confirmation bias. If you are looking for holders of a particular opinion, you are going to find them; this does not validate that opinion. What is the consensus view? (Or: what is the track record of economists in general with these kinds of predictions? I'm betting it's quite poor...)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
Planning on starting a Roth IRA with part of my tax return and trying to get in the habit of paying into it every check. I have a lot of reading to do, but one question I was hoping someone could answer for me quick. Is their any reason to open it with some big company online or something as opposed to just opening it at my local credit union that I've banked with for 10+ years and always been happy with? (I know almost nothing about this stuff)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Beware of confirmation bias. If you are looking for holders of a particular opinion, you are going to find them; this does not validate that opinion. k quote:What is the consensus view? (Or: what is the track record of economists in general with these kinds of predictions? I'm betting it's quite poor...) I can't find anything that says that the boomers aging will be propitious, if that's what you mean.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Beware of confirmation bias. If you are looking for holders of a particular opinion, you are going to find them; this does not validate that opinion. Additionally, there isn't enough methodology information in that article to really evaluate anything about their results. You can fit a model to any data. I think its an interesting factor to look at, but I'm not buying it just yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:I can't find anything that says that the boomers aging will be propitious, if that's what you mean. Not at all. I think the boomers aging is going to be very bad in important ways. But not to the stock market; rather, to the national debt. I think we're going to see taxes rise very significantly when the aged population retires and starts using their enormous voting power to ensure the long-term viability of Medicare and Social Security. But companies, especially health care companies, are going to be making bank, and a lot of money (both the government-provided money and the privately-saved money) is going to be pumping out of savings and into the economy. This will probably have serious effects on the profit margins of banks, too, but I'm not sure exactly what. I'm only not really buying the idea that P/E ratios will decline drastically and there won't be as much total cash invested in securities. I see global productivity continuing to grow, and markets - including the US markets - continuing to grow with them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
Thrawn200 posted:Planning on starting a Roth IRA with part of my tax return and trying to get in the habit of paying into it every check. Companies like Vanguard or even Fidelity typically have much lower fees associated with them. You can buy their funds without any load fees and the expense ratio (what percent you pay them to manage your money) is incredibly low. Half a percent over a couple decades can be considerable. You can check and see what funds your credit union offers and what fees they have. But I imagine you won't find a better deal than Vanguard if you're buying something basic like a target retirement fund.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:Companies like Vanguard or even Fidelity typically have much lower fees associated with them. You can buy their funds without any load fees and the expense ratio (what percent you pay them to manage your money) is incredibly low. Half a percent over a couple decades can be considerable. Thanks much, I know what I need to look at now. Although the Vanguard initial minimum initial contribution of 3k might be a deal breaker for now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
Thrawn200 posted:Thanks much, I know what I need to look at now. I thought the same exact thing up until a few days ago. Then I learned from the thread that if I wanted to, I could still open a Vanguard Roth IRA by buying a "Target retirement account". These are still a Roth IRA but have a $1000 minimum instead of 3k. For my wife and I who are late to starting retirement (27...), and can only really afford 100 each per month into the account it gives us a nice place to at least start saving something. edit: for example, as a 27 year old It suggested I go with the Target 2050: https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0699&FundIntExt=INT
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
Hawkeye posted:I thought the same exact thing up until a few days ago. So glad I came to this thread, heh. 1k is much more in line what I was hoping to start with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
Thrawn200 posted:Thanks much, I know what I need to look at now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 04:30
|
|
