|
edit: basically you should compare your return to the S&P or an index fund that tries to match the market return.Xandu posted:What sort of return should I be expecting from a mutual fund? The one I've got my money in now has a 10.54% one year annualized return and 5.41% 3-year. That seems decent, but I'm not sure what to compare it to. Uh 5.41% doesn't sound great to me as a good 3 year return. Here is what you would have gotten if you had just invested in Vanguards Total Stock Market Index which is a fund that tries to match the entire market: Total Stock Mkt Idx Inv 1: 27.66% 3: 16.79% 5: 5.80% 10: 8.24% Inception1992: 9.02% To be fair the traditional long-term strategy is to try an capture the entire market. I wouldn't worry about the year to year returns as long as your invested in a diversified portfolio. Basically read The Four Pillars.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
Xandu posted:What sort of return should I be expecting from a mutual fund? The one I've got my money in now has a 10.54% one year annualized return and 5.41% 3-year. That seems decent, but I'm not sure what to compare it to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Xandu posted:What sort of return should I be expecting from a mutual fund? The one I've got my money in now has a 10.54% one year annualized return and 5.41% 3-year. That seems decent, but I'm not sure what to compare it to. Depends on the fund! That said, here's the 3 year on the index:  The reason your fund sucked so bad could be some, none or all of the following!: The holdings of the fund did not perform well over the last 3 years. The fund has high expenses. If purchased through a broker, the broker has high expenses. If you use investment advisor, they could be getting advisory fees on your account. If you can say what the fund is, someone can likely give you more accurate info.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Xandu fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Thanks for the feedback, everyone. It's through my bank, JXGSX. Summary Prospectus quote:JPMorgan Access Growth Fund is an open-end fund incorporated in the USA. The Fund seeks capital appreciation. The Fund invests in a combination of U.S. and international equity, fixed-income and alternative assets, via JPMorgan affiliated and 3rd party mutual funds, ETFs and individual securities. First of all, that fund is p.expensive. Their expense ratio is 1.92% (annual charge for having that fund, based on your assets). You'll see a .25% Fee Waiver listed there on the annual operating expenses, but if you read the fine print, that only came into effect on 3-1-2013 and ends November next year. Adding to the expenses is the fact that if you look at their top 10 holdings, they have some JP Morgan mutual funds in there. So not only are you paying the expenses of the JXGSX fund, you're also partially paying expenses of those mutual funds as well. Ontop of this it looks like they maintain a high cash balance (9%) of which you have no gains and is still assessed the 1.92% annual fee. The actual cash balance is likely higher than 9%, as the fund holds other mutual funds and those probably also have a cash balance themselves. The next thing to consider is that this happened after July 2011:  Going by their Fact Sheet that has International Equity as 31.7% of its overall portfolio and the fact that it's targeted at the financial sector (~66% currently iirc) let's see what we can find out about 2011-2012? Let's take a look at what this baller has to say!  George C.W. Gatch, CEO, Global Funds Management, J.P. Morgan. quote:U.S. Stocks Outperform TL;DR: It's an expensive fund that got poo poo on by the European financial crisis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Secret Sweater posted:So not only are you paying the expenses of the JXGSX fund, you're also partially paying expenses of those mutual funds as well. Transfer everything to a Target Retirement fund at Vanguard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Thanks for the feedback, everyone. It's through my bank, JXGSX. It looks like you are holding what is typically referred to as a "fund of funds." JP Morgan's investment team woke up one day and decided that they wanted to start a new mutual fund but not do any of the legwork to identify and trade individual stocks, bonds, derivatives, etc. So they simply invest your money for you in other ETFs and mutual funds. And of course, who would JP Morgan trust more to manage your money than a bunch of other JP Morgan funds? If you look the fund holdings up online, you'll see that a large portion of the investments are incestuous... though iShares, Vanguard, Eaton Vance, and a number of other fund companies are present inside JXGSX as well. JP Morgan will have negotiated with these outside companies to secure lower management fees, but part of JXGSX's net expenses (1.67%) includes management fees from other companies which JP Morgan passes through to you. Think of it sort of like having all of the downsides of having a financial advisor with none of the upsides. I'm having a tough time gauging the manager's performance because JP Morgan includes no useful measures of risk in their literature or website, and somehow Morningstar has no information on the fund whatsoever. I will say that the manager appears to have been beaten by the Barclays aggregate bond index between 2009 and 12/31/12, which probably isn't a great sign for a fund that ostensibly holds 75% equity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Xandu fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
gvibes posted:I believe funds of funds have to include the expenses of the funds they hold in their own reported expenses. Yes, I worded that incorrectly. If it's holding 2% of its portfolio in ABCDF fund and it has an expense ratio of 1.5%, you wouldn't add 2% of 1.5% to the expense ratio of the main fund, that figure is included. The expense ratio, however, is a best guess of what the managers anticipate the funds and you are paying the expense ratio of the funds included therein. Xandu posted:Thanks for the research! I guess I shouldn't be surprised a bank would want to collect that money for itself rather than invest it in something higher performing that isn't their's. I think some of that fee might be covered under their general asset management fee, but I'm not sure. Ouch, no. If you have an asset management fee, that's very likely independent of the fees associated with the fund (management fees typically range from 1-2% depending on how much money you have invested and if negotiated a lower percent) which would be independent of the fund expenses. So if you had a 1.5% management fee, and 1.92% expense ratio, the fund would need to do 3.42% just to break even). The only situation where a transfer is completely out of your control is if you have no other investment options and don't want to foot the 10% early withdraw fee to liquidate and don't want to roll it over into another investment type independent of its current location (E.G: If this were a 401k and they ONLY had JP Morgan Funds, you could roll it over to an IRA at Vanguard.) I would flat out ask your bank if there is a management fee on your retirement account. They can't outright lie about that kind of thing and you have a right to know exactly what you're paying to invest with them. Fun story: within the last year or 2 they finally made it illegal to charge both an asset based management fee AND an upfront sales charge (which many mutual funds typically charge). I've seen people with managed Oppenheimer(which I have lovingly named Crappenheimer for various reasons) Funds accounts that were paying a 2% annual asset based fee, a $30 flat account fee AND paid an upfront 5.5% sales charge on funds with an average 1.3% expense ratio. Year one you paid out 8.8% just to hold that account. Ouch. Secret Sweater fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Xandu fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I'll see how much work it is to transfer that money out, since it's not totally under my control. But the real reason I asked is because I've got a new job and I should have around $5-600 a month, not including what I put towards my 401k, to put towards retirement. I can afford to take a fairly high level of risk with it. Looking at Vanguard's various funds, would the target retirement 2055 make sense or is there something else I should be looking at? TLDR: Yes it's very reasonable, especially if you are lazy and don't want to spend a lot of time and understand everything. Text: It makes sense for many people. The only reason you would not choose the Vanguard Target Retirement 2055 fund is that it doesn't meet your personal asset allocation. The Target retirement 2055 fund is composed exactly of the following: 1 Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares 62.8% 2 Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund Investor Shares 27.1% 3 Vanguard Total Bond Market II Index Fund Investor Shares* 10.1% If you want to never have to touch anything and want your mutual fund to automatically become more conservative as you grow older and are currently fine with the above allocation, Target Retirement 2055 is easy for you. Otherwise, What i'd do is buy a combination of the above that meets your asset allocation. For example, I currently have no real reason to select bonds, and want an extremely aggressive portfolio. Hence, my composition is literally 70% Total Stock Market, and 30% Total International Stock Market. I rebalance once an year. Furthermore, if you are investing a lot of money (> 50,000), you may be able to get lower fees by directly investing in admiral funds. For example, the Vanguard 2055 Fund has a .18% fee, which is pretty low. But, through Admiral funds, I can get similar investments for a .08% average fee. Generally, the more you invest, the more you can save money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Thanks for the research! I guess I shouldn't be surprised a bank would want to collect that money for itself rather than invest it in something higher performing that isn't their's. I think some of that fee might be covered under their general asset management fee, but I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
I have a newer 2012 vehicle with about $15,000 in equity that I own free and clear. Penfed is offering 1.74% refinancing for 60 months. I currently max out my Roth IRA every year and contribute ~$7,000 per year towards my 401k. Both Roth IRA and 401k are invested similarly to the Vanguard Target Retirement 2050 fund (approx. VTSMX 63%, VGTSX 27%, VBMFX 10%). Looking to retire in the 35-40 years time-frame. If I refinanced my vehicle, the total interest paid over 60 months at 1.74% APR is $672.83. However, that $15,000 with an assumed rate of return of 5% over 5 years is approximately $4,000. I have 6 months emergency savings, no large future purchases planned, no outstanding debt, and good-to-excellent credit. Federal marginal income tax bracket is 25% and state is 5.3%. 1) Just how dumb is this idea? 5% assumed rate of return in particular. 2) Would it be wise to take out the auto loan and immediately put it towards my 401k? (via maxing out my contribution amount on my next few paychecks, up to the yearly limit of $17,500) 3) Is there a different type of investment I should look at for this money? 4) What else am I overlooking?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
Not a terrible idea, but keep in mind you might have to get comprehensive insurance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
Already have comp/collision/etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
My buddy says he's got some Vanguard funds in his Roth IRA at USAA. How is that possible? I don't know much but I thought having an IRA with USAA meant you could purchase USAA funds, having a Roth IRA at Vanguard meant you could purchase Vanguard funds, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:My buddy says he's got some Vanguard funds in his Roth IRA at USAA. How is that possible? I don't know much but I thought having an IRA with USAA meant you could purchase USAA funds, having a Roth IRA at Vanguard meant you could purchase Vanguard funds, etc. Most of these funds are available on the open market. Meaning that you can invest in some Vanguard funds through any broker, as he is likely doing. Some do, I believe, remain only for customers of that particular brokerage (can you invest in Vanguard's Target Retirement Date funds from other places? I don't know). I briefly had a Sharebuilder account and could buy funds from any of a number of issuers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
How does the Schwab 2050 Target Fund (SWNRX) compare to the Vanguard (VFIFX)? I have accounts open with Schwab (taxable) and Edward Jones (Roth IRA), I'm considering moving the EJ stuff over to Schwab, but should i just go with Vanguard for everything? My goal is to move my Roth IRA into a target fund. My EJ guy is a long time family friend and he'll give me a hard time, maybe i can invest in a target fund with him, but i don't feel like paying him to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
bathhouse posted:How does the Schwab 2050 Target Fund (SWNRX) compare to the Vanguard (VFIFX)? If you have enough money that minimums are not an issue, I think Schwab's normal index funds are really cheap, so you could pick up total stock market, total international, and total bond market in roughly target fund proportions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Schwab is quite a bit more expensive. Yeah he can use Schwab's ETF Portfolio builder to get almost exactly the same allocation as the 2050 target fund . And it saves a lot of money in expenses. And if he wants it to act like a target fund he can just buy a bit more of their fixed income ETF in 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:My buddy says he's got some Vanguard funds in his Roth IRA at USAA. How is that possible? I don't know much but I thought having an IRA with USAA meant you could purchase USAA funds, having a Roth IRA at Vanguard meant you could purchase Vanguard funds, etc. This is what's called a Selling Agreement. USAA reps are able to sell Vanguard funds to their clients, Vanguard is able to make money off the fund expenses from the investment. It's good for both companies because Vanguard still sells their product and potentially gains clients that they wouldn't have otherwise. USAA is able to be more competitive by offering more investments to clients. The follow-up question is, what benefit is there to going to USAA instead of directly to Vanguard? That just depends on what the broker is offering, which varies. Typically it's going to be access to a multitude of funds so you don't have to go to multiple fund companies, consolidated statements, ability to gain access to funds with high fund minimums because the broker can invest millions in a fund through all of their investors etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
Removing the IRA accounts from Mint was a good idea. Instead I just replaced them with cash accounts that represent the principal of our contributions. The less I'm concerned about daily, weekly, monthly returns the better. The only thing I'm going to miss is the Market Place Morning report 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
I'm not going to explicitly identify the company, but everything in this is public info so it shouldn't be incredibly hard to figure out if somebody's really that interested. Backstory: I'll (most likely) be starting a job soon with a company that offers an ESPP. It's a pretty simple ESPP, 5% discount on shares purchased on two days a year, with a minimum 6 month holding period. The strength of the stock is roughly as reproachable as Apple was a year ago, so basically it will keep going up until it doesn't. As of right now it's paying a 1.89% dividend, the ESPP takes that to close enough to 2%. My income will be enough that I won't be out on the street if I max this at 10%. For the last 18 months I've been working overseas and making enough that money has definitely not been an object, but instead of saving like I should have I've lived the kind of lifestyle someone consistently making that money would have. Question: If I want to force myself to save for the fairly short-term (3-5 years), and we assume me keeping the job and the company not taking are constants, is this the best way to save? It'll be painless in that I won't see or miss the money, but the return is decent but not great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
Hashtag Banterzone posted:Yeah he can use Schwab's ETF Portfolio builder to get almost exactly the same allocation as the 2050 target fund . And it saves a lot of money in expenses. And Schwab just launched their ETF OneSource (http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/accounts_products/investment/etfs/schwab_etf_onesource) which offers a bunch of ETFs commission free. A quick look at the list shows the expense ratios of the Schwab ETFs are mostly under .10% and some under 0.05% ! kaishek posted:Most of these funds are available on the open market. Meaning that you can invest in some Vanguard funds through any broker, as he is likely doing. Some do, I believe, remain only for customers of that particular brokerage (can you invest in Vanguard's Target Retirement Date funds from other places? I don't know). I briefly had a Sharebuilder account and could buy funds from any of a number of issuers. I have a Vanguard Target date fund in my Schwab IRA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Pudgygiant posted:Question: The trouble with ESPP's is that if you throw too much into it your income diversification is basically nil, i.e. your investment income, salary, health benefits, et al are tied to the performance of the same organization. There are schools of though in investing which say that historically the proper diversification of your assets is a much stronger predictor of growth than the individual performance of a stock. So that in mind, this thread usually recommends that investment priority be ordered as: 1) 401K until match 2) Roth IRA if eligible to max 3) 401K to max 4) Other tax-advantaged vehicles in no particular order as needed: 4a) Life insurance/annuities 4b) 529 education savings 4c) HSA 5) Taxable brokerage account ESPPs probably fall somewhere between 3-4, assuming a well diversified 401K and ROTH.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
I think this is the right thread to ask this question. I have two stocks that I have held forever (over a decade, at least) that have been enrolled in DRIP, with dividends getting reinvested continuously. Obviously this creates a nightmare for calculating basis should I ever wish to sell. I think that money would probably be better off in a Roth IRA - it amounts to about $2500 total across both stocks. I will be, I think, in the 15% tax bracket this year - do I correctly interpret that I therefore don't have to pay capital gains tax, and thus would not need to determine basis? It occurs to me that I could save myself a lot of hassle by simply selling it all off in one fell swoop. I would owe short-term cap gains on the stuff purchased with dividends in the past year, but I have the records to figure that out. Everything else would have a 0% rate? I could then dump the money into a Roth and be happy. Does this check out?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
kaishek posted:I think this is the right thread to ask this question. I have two stocks that I have held forever (over a decade, at least) that have been enrolled in DRIP, with dividends getting reinvested continuously. Obviously this creates a nightmare for calculating basis should I ever wish to sell. I think that money would probably be better off in a Roth IRA - it amounts to about $2500 total across both stocks. I believe you may have to report it on your income tax return regardless of whether you owe any taxes on it. Most brokers that I have experience with should be able to tell you the basis, and break down your long-term vs. short-term capital gains. In fact they will report this to you at the end of the year on a 1099-B form. From that point I think all you would need to do is enter two lines on a tax form detailing the short term and long term gains when you file your return, with the acquisition date being listed as "various". This would probably be a better question for the "Income Tax Questions Megathread", as there are several tax professionals that frequent that thread to answer your question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
flowinprose posted:I believe you may have to report it on your income tax return regardless of whether you owe any taxes on it. Most brokers that I have experience with should be able to tell you the basis, and break down your long-term vs. short-term capital gains. In fact they will report this to you at the end of the year on a 1099-B form. From that point I think all you would need to do is enter two lines on a tax form detailing the short term and long term gains when you file your return, with the acquisition date being listed as "various". I will cross-post there - the issue is that these stocks are owned directly through the companies, not through brokers. So no past data. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
kaishek posted:I will cross-post there - the issue is that these stocks are owned directly through the companies, not through brokers. So no past data. Thanks! I believe they will still be required to give you a 1099-B form at the end of the year in which you sell the stock. I'm not certain that it is required to list the basis on the 1099-B, though, for purchases prior to 2011. The people in tax thread will probably know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
One of my coworkers was just telling me that my contribution plan was bad so I thought I'd check with you guys. I'm 24 and make around 75k. I currently have a Roth 401k through work and a Roth IRA on the side. I max out the IRA each year and do about 8% contributions to the 401k. Should I be using a traditional 401k and maxing that out first?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
UncleGuito posted:I'm 24 and make around 75k. I currently have a Roth 401k through work and a Roth IRA on the side. I max out the IRA each year and do about 8% contributions to the 401k. Should I be using a traditional 401k and maxing that out first? Same advice in the op: 1) Contribute to 401(k) up to employer match 2) Max out Roth IRA ($5,500 this year) 3) Max out 401(k) ($17,500 limit this year) 4) If you were able to finish Step 3, you will end up rich in all likelihood. Start a taxable savings account, or go out and blow some money at a strip club or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
UncleGuito posted:One of my coworkers was just telling me that my contribution plan was bad so I thought I'd check with you guys. There is nothing wrong with your current setup, it's the generally accepted right order. They were probably saying you should do traditional 401k instead of Roth, but there is no clear answer to that as it depends on what your tax situation is now, and what you think it will be in 40 years (aka a guess).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
Forwarding from the Newbie thread. I felt like this actually does need to be answered, because there are some very strong and to me, possibly unwise opinions here.PRADA SLUT posted:When you're planning on retiring, it's completely asinine to presume a 10% annual return on your money. Some years you will get that, and even if that's the gain you receive over 40 years. You don't want to end up completely short of what you were planning your nest egg to be because you thought you would be hitting "the average" return of the entire S&P since 1926. Already answered. Real vs. Nominal gains. I already said that inflation hasn't been taken into account. quote:Also, while index funds have their place, it's terrible advice to just "pick the fund with the lowest expense ratio" and call it a day. Lower expense funds lack professional management and diversification. Their expense ratio is low because nobody actively manages them. These might be fine if you're younger and have the mental fortitude to accept volatility (like in 2008 when the S&P when down 38%), but it's by far the be-all end-all if investment advice. I'm not saying you should eliminate index funds from your life, but for some reason people tend to look at them like the holy grail of investment advice just because they're cheap. You still need to diversify, even if you're in index funds as your sole source of equity. This is a strawman. First, I didn't say that you should pick the fund with the lowest expense ratios. I said that expense ratios are important to consider. There is a significant amount of evidence that use of active management leads to lower gains. In fact, if you historically take most funds that are actively managed, you will note that almost all (except like 4-5) underperform the S&P 500. I admitted that sometimes you may wish to use more than one fund, but seriously, the Target Retirement fund from Vanguard (or from any other company with a decently low expense ratio) is already considered one of the most diverse options. But, don't take my word for advice. Look at the OP of this thread, and read Four Pillars or a Random Walk Down Wall Street. If you're too lazy to do that, hear them speak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0LSG2omvEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnCxlIQjT-s quote:This is completely misguided and partially flat out wrong. Quite frankly, it does. See the videos above. Diversification has to do with trying to imitate economies, as economies have been known to do well over time. An index fund or combination of them can do that. This is seriously why so many people invest in simple index funds and never do anything. quote:You shouldn't be in a taxable account if you plan on retiring with $5.3 million. That's $265,000 a year in income (projecting 20 years of draw), and you'll get hosed on income taxes. Putting it in a tax-free account is a far better option if you plan on that level of income at retirement. Even inflation-adjusted, you're looking at the equivalent of around $1.7 million. I agree that things shouldn't be in a taxable account, if possible. But money that has already been taxed and that has already been given as hard cash often cannot go into anything except a taxable account. As I admitted in the post, there are certainly options available for investing in an account with tax-free gains and that you should try to invest in them if at all possible. quote:Again, I'm not saying it's wrong to go into index funds at that age, and I'd probably suggest the same thing for most people, but the reason for doing so should be more than "it's cheap lol". You would still adjust your portfolio annually to take into account your reduced level of acceptable risk as you age, or even switch to professional managed accounts. It's dumb as all hell to just sit in a single index fund for 40 years until you retire. Strawman. By the way, the Target Retirement Funds do in fact automatically adjust portfolios to match reduced acceptable risk. I don't invest in these only because it doesn't perfectly match my asset allocation, but I think they are a good choice for most people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:The trouble with ESPP's is that if you throw too much into it your income diversification is basically nil, i.e. your investment income, salary, health benefits, et al are tied to the performance of the same organization. There are schools of though in investing which say that historically the proper diversification of your assets is a much stronger predictor of growth than the individual performance of a stock. If there is a good discount on ESPP purchases, it can be worthwhile to buy it, hold it for the minimum period, and sell then. 5% in two windows isn't great and you probably wouldn't want to risk a ton in case the something affects the stock and your job as bam thwok went into, but a guaranteed 5% every 6 months independent of the movement of the stock is better than you'll get elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
After doing more research as everyone suggested here's my current plan. Fixed Income 33% Intermediate-Term Bond Index Admiral Shares VBILX Short-Term Bond Index Admiral Shares VBIRX Total Bond Market Index Admiral Shares VBTLX High-Yield Tax-Exempt VWAHX Real Estate 11.5% REIT Index Fund Admiral Shares VGSLX Health Care 2.3% Health Care VGHCX Domestic Large 25% Vanguard Large-Cap Index Fund Admiral Shares VLCAX Vanguard 500 Index Fund Admiral Shares VFIAX Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Admiral VTSAX Domestic Small 9.6% Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund Admiral Shares VSMAX International 15.3% Vanguard Tax-Managed International Fund Admiral VTMGX Vanguard Developed Markets Index Fund Admiral VDMAX Emerging Markets 2.3% Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund VEIEX
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
That's pretty good. Couple of small questions: Why so many funds? There sounds like there's a reason for this (ie. limitations based on certain accounts), but it still does seem like a lot. I have some concerns over how you separate your categories. The Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund isn't considered just Domestic Large, as an example. It encompasses both large and small stocks and is generally an entire diversified picture of the stock market. Also, why invest specifically in Health Care? Your other funds should already account for the Health Care industry, so what's the reason for paying extra money (in terms of expense ratios) just to be in Health Care?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
We opened a fund with Vanguard a few days ago for general investing. We put 4k into it just to start...we will add more as time goes by. My husband threw it into the Target Retirement 2050 account. I am wondering if that is ok since it is not a retirement account but a taxable account. If it is not, we can change it to something else...any suggestions? We have the 401k almost maxxed and the TIRA's for both are as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
ntan1 posted:That's pretty good. Couple of small questions: I may have over diversified. If I'm investing in large cap and small cap, I probably don't need a total market index fund. Two international funds probably isn't needed either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Amethyste posted:We opened a fund with Vanguard a few days ago for general investing. We put 4k into it just to start...we will add more as time goes by. My husband threw it into the Target Retirement 2050 account. Its perfectly fine, the retirement in the name just means its a blend that suited to approximately that date of retirement. Later dates will have a larger percentage of large risk/ward investments, while closer dates will have more stable but less potentially profitable ones. Either way, the Vanguard Target Retirement 20XX series are considered goods hands off choices. Also congratulations, if your maxing 2 401ks and 2 IRAs and still have money left over for taxable investments, you win finance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
If you want a target retirement-type asset allocation, and have both taxable and non-taxable accounts, I would recommend rolling your own and putting the total bond market component in a tax advantaged account.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 01:34
|
|