|
Mouse Cadet posted:Yeah I plan to put in 11k. Rebalancing question: I am only buying VINIX with my Roth 401(k) as it's the only decent option, so I'm diversifying via my Roth IRA which I am currently not funding but has 2~3x as much in it already as I will contribute to my 401k this year. I do not want to rebalance too frequently, but my allocations are obviously skewing pretty heavily with the additional purchases of VINIX and nothing else. Would it be best to rebalance quarterly or biannually or simply annually? I'll be very heavily over invested in VINIX&VOO if I don't rebalance for a year, but... Insight is much appreciated!
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:You should be able to fully diversify between ETF's and Vanguard mutual indices with 11k. Or just Target Date it and wait a year or ten. I went with ETF's myself as they're cheaper and easier as I don't have enough for admirals. Rebalancing is more a matter of when your overall percentage allocations stray from your overall strategy. I wouldn't worry being a few points off your overall goal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:You should be able to fully diversify between ETF's and Vanguard mutual indices with 11k. Or just Target Date it and wait a year or ten. I went with ETF's myself as they're cheaper and easier as I don't have enough for admirals. Everyone here is going to be an advocate of just checking once or twice a year how things are doing and rebalancing if things are off by more than a few percent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:Everyone here is going to be an advocate of just checking once or twice a year how things are doing and rebalancing if things are off by more than a few percent. Thanks for telling me to not over think it guys! That's what I usually need lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:Everyone here is going to be an advocate of just checking once or twice a year how things are doing and rebalancing if things are off by more than a few percent. But if you're a noob, just check once a year. It doesn't make a huge amount of difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Mouse Cadet posted:For a Vanguard Roth IRA the minimum for a lot of funds is $3,000. If the maximum contribution is $5,500 per year that makes it pretty limited in what you can buy doesn't it? It also doesn't take into account the fact that you can roll other IRAs into your account - so even if you start an account with 5500, you could roll in much more money from other sources.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
moana posted:I actually read an article that used a 20% banding method - basically, you check a lot (like, every week) and only rebalance if your percentages are out of whack by 20% of their expected value, which isn't going to be a lot of the time. It ended up being the best over a lot of other strategies, including the check once a year method.  The 20% variance from target to actual sounds smart, except if the market tanked (9-2008 style). Thanks Moana!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
ManDingo posted:Does anyone have any good resources on how to find a fiduciary adviser in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area? I've read four pillars but want someone to sit down with me and work some scenarios. The big unknown for me is gauging what kind of income I will need in retirement. I also have a schwab taxable brokerage account under 3rd party management (1% management fees plus all the funds they pick are crazy expensive). I need to move this but it has a bunch of unrealized long term gains and I'm not really sure what my options are. You might try the CFP website. They are more than happy to help you search for a local Certified Financial Planner that should be able to work through scenarios with you. It also never hurts to run any advisor you're considering through the SEC Investment Advisor Search and FINRA Brokercheck sites to see if there is anything unsettling in their history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:Are there any reputable credit unions in your area? I just setup an account yesterday (wife was a member) so I could apply for a mortgage and they only wanted a $5 balance. Yes, there's lots, but they either have a free savings that pays almost nothing for a dividend or they offer a Money Market type savings with a high minimum deposit. Are there any good funds that don't have a high minimum?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
burritonegro posted:Yes, there's lots, but they either have a free savings that pays almost nothing for a dividend or they offer a Money Market type savings with a high minimum deposit. Are there any good funds that don't have a high minimum? Another option could be CapitalOne, they offer a pretty solid rate. I used ING for my savings and bill pay checking account until they were purchased by Cap1, with whom I will not do business.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
I went into my Vanguard account today to check my contributions for this year. I think I'm looking in the right place (My Account->Retirement Contributions) and my 2013 contributions and so-far 2014 contributions show up but 2012 is missing - is this normal? I also recently quit my job and my new gig does not provide a 401k so I would like to do something with it. It's currently at Fidelity and it looks as if I could roll it into a traditional I've also been thinking about opening a normal brokerage account for additional savings. My next big life cost will probably be a house so I've been looking for somewhere to put long-term bulk savings for this. It looks like I can only pull ~20k or so between a traditional Thoughts? EDIT: Fixed stupid typos. Delta-Wye fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
First off, by "traditional roth" I'm assuming you mean "traditional IRA." Roth is post-tax, either 401(k)(NEW!) or IRA. Traditional is pre-tax, either 401(k) or IRA. Traditional roth does not exist. Not saying that to be a jerk or anything, just trying to clarify terminology. Secondly, please don't use an IRA to save for a house. Use an IRA to save for retirement. If your new employer has no 401(k), you'll be needing that retirement money. You can never go back and put money you took out of an IRA back in. Save for a house down payment in a "high-interest" bank account. I guess you can do it with a brokerage account like you're talking about too, but if that takes a big hit and takes years to get back up, it won't work for a short term goal. Unless you have like 600k in your 401k that you're rolling over to wherever, but without more information it's hard to say "yeah go for it, pull 20-40k out of your retirement savings and take a tax hit." Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:The 20% variance from target to actual sounds smart, except if the market tanked (9-2008 style). What would be the problem if the market tanked?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Echo 3 posted:What would be the problem if the market tanked? Data always helps with assumptions, thank you for questioning my logic (or lack there of) so I ran the numbers and now have a much better understanding of market drops. SiGmA_X fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:First off, by "traditional roth" I'm assuming you mean "traditional IRA." Roth is post-tax, either 401(k)(NEW!) or IRA. Traditional is pre-tax, either 401(k) or IRA. Traditional roth does not exist. Not saying that to be a jerk or anything, just trying to clarify terminology. Sorry, I was typing fast and thinking slow. Some of the details are still fuzzy, but I understand the basic differences. I think you are describing someone I am not. To clarify, I am maxing out a roth ira and putting a bunch into my 401(k)/replacement fund strictly for retirement. Looking at most of the retirement savings calculators, I'm more-or-less on schedule and I'd like to stay that way. I was mostly mentioning withdrawing money from the retirement accounts (reviewing my notes, 401(k)s are not penalty free) to point out that I would need to accumulate significant additional savings elsewhere regardless. However, my plans to maybe own a home in the future are nebulous at best. Right now I am living in a pretty urban area with extremely high property value and am not interested in buying anytime soon; it is definitely a long-term goal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
I think I've got an interesting situation here, and apparently I need to provide an answer by Monday (according to my wife's boss). My wife works for a very small company and makes good money; however, she does not get any benefits. That's okay, as I do. We've been fortunate enough to put away 6% of my pretax into 401k, and I've got an employer match over the last two years bumping that up to 10% pretaxed income. We've also fully maxed out our Roth in the last two years, putting us at about $50k or so in savings in 2 years of marriage. My wife was just offered retirement benefits for the first time. Unfortunately, the only option is a "variable annuity" via a "SIMPLE IRA" in which her employer would match 3%. We do have our pick of a variety of funds, Northwestern Mutual, Fidelity, and a couple other small ons. Frankly, I think this annuity thing is bullshit, and the guy with Northwestern Mutual didn't sound any more "with it" than I am, if not less. He said their fees are about 2% across the board, which is obviously high---but we're getting an immediate 100% return (in a goddamned annuity at 25, ugh) and its hard to turn that down. Should I go ahead and have her contribute the 3%? I'd likely go hog wild on the aggressiveness, as we won't really miss the money, but I'm not exactly pumped about an annuity, and I'm not entirely sold on Northwestern... All thoughts are appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Dead Pressed posted:I think I've got an interesting situation here, and apparently I need to provide an answer by Monday (according to my wife's boss). My wife works for a very small company and makes good money; however, she does not get any benefits. That's okay, as I do. We've been fortunate enough to put away 6% of my pretax into 401k, and I've got an employer match over the last two years bumping that up to 10% pretaxed income. We've also fully maxed out our Roth in the last two years, putting us at about $50k or so in savings in 2 years of marriage. Well gut reaction would be no but it would be good to run the math to verify that. (Is the 3% match worth the cost ? ) If it is like most annuity options you will be looking at significant fees/expenses plus no liquidity. You may be better of paying the taxes on that money and investing it after tax, at least you could use that money towards a house or other pre-retirement savings goal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
That kind of sucks, but a 100% match makes up for a lot of bullshit... it certainly makes up for a 2% fee. What are the payout structure and early withdrawal rules for the annuity?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
I don't know offhand, just got all the information today and have yet to fully review. Kind of feels like a bully situation here, with such a quick answer requested.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Dead Pressed posted:I don't know offhand, just got all the information today and have yet to fully review. Kind of feels like a bully situation here, with such a quick answer requested. Dig into the details search for all the upfront and continuing fees, what are the investment options, is there a participation rate or cap on stock funds upside, limits on liquidity etc... then we can help throw those facts into excel. You said it was a small co, any chance she can suggest to them they offer up some low cost index fund options?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
It's a 100% return immediately... are annuities that bad? Are you not able to roll them over at any point? Sort of curious about the whole thing. I'm assuming this is a deferred annuity that starts paying out at 60, so I'm curious what sort of returns they get until then. The Fidelity fees look pretty low from the research I've done. They're a pretty good company. No Wave fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Feb 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
I would put in 3% for the match. The annuity would have to actively try to lose value at a historical level (instead of just stagnate and sneak fees like most do) for this to be a bad deal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
So there's a thread on Reddit where a lot of people are speculating that "the government", in order to deal with the growing deficit/screw people over/etc, will change the rules for Roth IRAs sometime in the nebulous future so that your earnings will be taxed. So essentially you will be taxed twice on your Roth IRA money (once before you put it in, again on the earnings when you take it out). There were a shocking number of replies along the lines of "I know this is going to happen, that's why I don't have a Roth IRA" Thoughts? I think it's just fearmongering but... the government 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
That would make no sense at all. If anything they'd place more regulations making it harder to put money in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
And even if they did that, they would undoubtedly grandfather in existing contributions and existing accounts, lest they be crucified by the AARP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
That's what I'm thinking - if they change the rules, old accounts will be grandfathered in. I was just a little surprised at how many people were like "I know for a fact that this will happen". I think they're the "keep my money in the mattress" sort of people though.Cranbe posted:lest they be crucified by the AARP. Yeah and that was one of their "arguments" - that "kids these days" or whatever aren't smart enough/don't care enough to do anything to change government policies so they would just roll over and let it happen. Or that a new tax on the "wealthy elite IRA holders" won't be met with much resistance from the multitude of poors with no savings. razz fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Feb 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Christ, I hope there isn't an ounce of truth to this at all. My 401k and Roth IRA are basically my only ways of saving for the future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
drat! Theres no way this can be true, right? Like theres no way the social security weve been paying into all our lives that cant survive more than a decade will ever be ended or modified so we dont get payouts, right? I can never see a situation where the government would do such a terrible thing!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
The more realistic risk to Roth IRAs is that we move away from income tax towards a national sales tax in the future, so you end up getting hit by today's income tax rates and hit again when you actually spend the money. I'm still 100% Roth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
razz posted:So there's a thread on Reddit where a lot of people are speculating that "the government", in order to deal with the growing deficit/screw people over/etc, will change the rules for Roth IRAs sometime in the nebulous future so that your earnings will be taxed. So essentially you will be taxed twice on your Roth IRA money (once before you put it in, again on the earnings when you take it out). There were a shocking number of replies along the lines of "I know this is going to happen, that's why I don't have a Roth IRA" There's also the potential that the government will tax all your income and savings 100% to pay for things, and then enslave you in a FEMA camp. Or they could devalue the currency with hyperinflation so all your american dollars are worthless. Or Obama could declare himself King of America, and state that we're all just borrowing his money. Or they could insert government mind control waves in our fluoridated water. Clearly the only solution is to spend all your money on purchasing physical gold, firearms, and bottled water to stock your bunker. I wouldn't recommend structuring your financial plans around crazy worst case scenarios about what the government could potentially do. Subvisual Haze fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Feb 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Also, Obama just created the myRA with is basically Roth IRA, so the government is clearly trying to encourage people towards creating Roth accounts for non-wealthy people (which will be hard to target).
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
My understanding was that it is going to give regular people access to some bond fund that government workers have access to. I've heard the returns of that fund are pretty good (and isn't affected by people moving money around like index funds, so less risk) so I think I'll just shift my bond contributions there once it becomes available. edit: I kinda see it as a potential scam on some poor people though. I've heard that in some states if you have retirement savings you can't qualify for food-stamps so my guess is they'll force people to empty their MyRA accounts before they can get assistance. Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Feb 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:edit: I kinda see it as a potential scam on some poor people though. I've heard that in some states if you have retirement savings you can't qualify for food-stamps so my guess is they'll force people to empty their MyRA accounts before they can get assistance. That's how Kansas is, you can't have more than $3,000 in "assets" or whatever, otherwise you're ineligible. Honestly though having been on food stamps multiple times, they don't check. Some offices will have you show them a bank statement so they can see what's in your checking account but that's it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
razz posted:So there's a thread on Reddit where a lot of people are speculating that "the government", in order to deal with the growing deficit/screw people over/etc The deficit is shrinking, actually http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/30/congratulations-america-your-deficit-fell-37-percent-in-2013/
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Thufir posted:The deficit is shrinking, actually http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/30/congratulations-america-your-deficit-fell-37-percent-in-2013/
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
I think the real rate of interest on government debt loaned out since 2010 has been below 0% anyway. It's like getting a loan for $100 and only having to pay back an inflation adjusted $95 after everything is said and done. It's not hard to understand why someone would do that, I mean if I was a billionaire in some third world country I would definitely loan the US a lot of money because there's a pretty good chance I could lose it all in my home country. Even if we did lose a little to interest I would much rather wealthy people send their money to the USA than to our competitors, imagine what China or "Insert potential threat to United States" could do with that kind of investment. Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Feb 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I went into my Vanguard account today to check my contributions for this year. I think I'm looking in the right place (My Account->Retirement Contributions) and my 2013 contributions and so-far 2014 contributions show up but 2012 is missing - is this normal? The reason you can only see 2013 and 2014 is that those are the only years you can currently contribute for. You can't contribute towards 2012, so they don't show it. If you have had a Roth IRA for at least 5 years, you can withdraw $10k to put on a house. You can also pull out all your contributions at any time, so if you had saved $30k and had $10k earnings in your Roth, you could pull out $30k tax-free, then use the $10k one-time credit to pull the $10k in earnings out tax-free. I couldn't tell you whether the regular IRA and roth IRA $10k limit are shared or not, and you're losing out on growth pulling money out of your Roth, but that is an option available to you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
If I'm currently contributing to my 401K but leave my job in June of this year, will I still be entitled to employer matching funds in my 401K when they are disbursed next January?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:If I'm currently contributing to my 401K but leave my job in June of this year, will I still be entitled to employer matching funds in my 401K when they are disbursed next January? Hahahahhah no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
bam thwok posted:If I'm currently contributing to my 401K but leave my job in June of this year, will I still be entitled to employer matching funds in my 401K when they are disbursed next January? It depends on your company policy. My previous employer made one final contribution for me in January of the year after I left, but many employers (including the recent controversy about AOL changing their policy on 401k matches, require that you be employed at the time the match is disbursed (thus penalizing everyone that left during the year and saving them money).
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 18:40
|
|