|
QuarkJets posted:But the money that comes out of a Traditional account all gets taxed, even the money that came from compounding, whereas all of the compounded money in a Roth comes out tax-free. So if the tax rate is the same pre and post retirement, your net income should be the same regardless of whether you put that money in a Traditional or Roth account You're correct. baquerd is wrong. Also, Roth 401(k) contributions can be withdrawn after 5 years. You probably shouldn't do it, but the flexibility is convenient if poo poo hits the fan.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
Dik Hz posted:You're correct. baquerd is wrong. Yeah, that'll teach me to post this late. One thing to mention is that due to the tax-free nature of the Roth withdrawals, if you don't have any traditional IRA/401k savings by the time you're drawing down, you're losing out on being able to withdraw from them to fill the lower tax brackets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:But the money that comes out of a Traditional account all gets taxed, even the money that came from compounding, whereas all of the compounded money in a Roth comes out tax-free. So if the tax rate is the same pre and post retirement, your net income should be the same regardless of whether you put that money in a Traditional or Roth account EXAMPLE ATTEMPT 3: Not necessarily, because your savings come out of your top income tax bracket and your retirement spending starts at the bottom and works its way up. Let's say Mr. Example make $54290/year, saving $10,000/year pretax. He's comfortably in the 25% income tax bracket. For handwaving purposes he gets inflation raises but never really gets ahead in his career, but he does adjust his savings accordingly. In Case 1, Mr. Example saves $10,000/year in conventional savings (IRA+401K) for twenty years. He beats inflation by 5% every year, then retires and lives for ten more years, withdrawing so that he dies within $200 of broke. He retires with $620000 and a little extra money for a nice celebratory dinner. He gets to withdraw his effective pre-retirement income exactly, $44290, on which he pays the same $5216 he always has, for a total of $39074/year in spendable cash. In Case 2, Mr. Example saves $7,500/year in Roth savings (Roth IRA + Roth 401K), gets the same return and follows the same rules. He retires with $465000 and the same celebratory dinner (plus or minus about ten bucks). While he pays no income taxes, he can only withdraw about $33210/year, so his lifestyle drops a little over $5850/year by following the all-Roth plan. Like Baquerd says, you want to balance your accounts a little so you can fill out the lower tax brackets with money taken from the top. Cassius Belli fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:
Edit....they were talking Roth Ira,and you jumped to 401k....nmy original post below or targeted at the assumption you're still talking Roth Ira... No. Contributions can be withdrawn at any time free of any penalty. Per cnnmoney, Google, Wikipedia. You may withdraw your contributions to a Roth IRA penalty-free at any time for any reason, but you'll be penalized for withdrawing any investment earnings before age 59 ½, unless it's for a qualifying reason. This is why a lot of people, including myself, recommend utilizing a Roth as a faux emergency fund when starting out. If you need the money you can pull it out, if not, it has effectively been utilized as retirement contributions. Dead Pressed fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
One more thing to consider re: Roth vs traditional is that if you are able to max out the annual limit, you can effectively put more into a Roth than a traditional. The limit on dollar amount is the same but Roth contributions are post tax which are worth more than pre tax dollars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Isn't the end goal to have your Traditional funds be in the 10% bracket and your Roth funds to be beyond that? The goal, or whatever, would be to take your Traditional + taxable income to ~30k/yr and for your Roth to be everything beyond that. Lifestyle-wise, it's better to put your already-taxed dollars in when you're paying low taxes anyways. My understanding from a pure numbers perspective: if you're planning on a retirement income greater than your current income, go Roth. Now, Roth has other benefits. The greatest being that the contributions to a Roth are able to be withdrawn without penalty or tax for any reason. This makes it a "safe" investment if you're just starting because it means your money isn't firewalled if you need it. For argument's sake, if you put it in a Traditional, you could still withdraw it, but at a 10% penalty after it gets taxed. Pre-Tax contributions for IRAs are phased out at some moderately high income level (71k in 2015). This means if you want pre-tax funds available in an IRA, you need to do it before you hit that point OR couple it with a 401k which does not have an income restriction. Coupling is the easiest, with up to 18k (in 2015) of pre-tax capable of being contributed. So your profile mid/late in your career, making -- say -- 71k exactly, could look like 5.5k into Roth IRA 18k into Traditional 401k Additionally, you can contribute to a Roth 401k which has the same contribution limits as the normal 401k. The goal of mine, with this schedule, is the same as everyone else's: 1) get employer match on 401k 2) life goal planning (aka liquid savings) 3) max Roth IRA ("safe" semi-liquid savings + retirement) 4) max 401k ("hard" retirement savings) The #4 part is where fiddling with traditional vs Roth really comes into play for maximizing retirement-age take-home. Roth IRA is a no-brainer because of the laws surrounding it. Mostly, traditional 401k is superior to Roth 401k because you need something like 800k of traditional funds* in order to break out of the (future) 10% tax bracket @ 6% disbursement. The benefit to Roth funds is that you can... spice your retirement income with large influxes of cash without incurring a steeper tax burden. So their use-cases: in short, Traditional funds are used for steady-state disbursement and Roth funds are used for anything above that steady-state. Now, leveraging your current tax burden vs future tax burden is also a consideration, but it's mostly a wash unless you're going to be making six figures for a decent time of your life. *: ...with Traditional 401k being your only taxable income. Social Security payments are considered taxable income. Are you going to be working/getting paid (for fun, maybe) in retirement? That's also taxable income. The picture gets complicated. Regardless, you need to have a rather large Traditional 401k balance AND be making BANK in retirement to be kicking yourself about not doing Roth conversions earlier. e2: There are also limitations on 401k's that require them to be transferred to an IRA -- traditional IRAs have minimum required distributions once you get older. Roth IRAs don't. Why's this important? You're taking the money out of tax-advantaged space. Rolling Traditional into Roth is an income event which incurs tax penalties. If you have an extremely large Traditional balance, are nearing the MRD age, and want to keep your investments in tax-advantaged space, you should space end-of-year IRA rollovers out so that you eat as little tax as possible. This is mostly important for estate planning: Roth IRAs have far less legal bullshit attached to them with regards to how to distribute them after you die. E t c. The easy, in-your-youth answer to Traditional vs Roth is Roth IRA first, Traditional 401k next, and when you're clipping $500k in Traditional 401k start contemplating Roth 401k and 401k-to-IRA-to-RothIRA rollovers. DNK fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
On a side the importance of picking ETFs below: iShares Russel 3000 ETF:  iShares S&P 500 index:  Russell 3000 performs better to the tune of $10,000 for a $10000 starting investment since the base index is much broader and therefore tracks a wider ranger of equity at all possible capitalization levels. It's also the reason while robo-advisors love broad US stock ETFs like Vanguard's VTI for their portfolio strategy, including small and mid-cap stocks in the mix helps get you bigger returns over a longer investment window. On the flip side the Russell index method is much more accurate IMO since it correctly captures a larger range of possible US equity in a more complete, transparent fashion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Hi goons, I am going to rebalance around the end of the year, or just after the end of the year probably. I am out of balance now by a fair bit because I am only contributing to VINIX via my 401k and I am not funding my IRA ATM. For calculation purposes, I VINIX up into VOO. My target allocation is as follows:pre:Domestic Large Cap VOO 0.441 Domestic Extended VXF 0.189 Intl Total Stock VXUS 0.270 Domestic Bonds BND 0.080 International Bonds BNDX 0.020 Thanks in advance for the input!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:Hi goons, I am going to rebalance around the end of the year, or just after the end of the year probably. I am out of balance now by a fair bit because I am only contributing to VINIX via my 401k and I am not funding my IRA ATM. For calculation purposes, I VINIX up into VOO. My target allocation is as follows: -Wider market funds like VTI are better in the long run since the inclusion of small/mid cap stocks leads to a slightly better gain -US equities are overpriced right now IMO due to the safe harbor effect, gutsy investors with more risk tolerance should weight more towards developed or emerging markets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
etalian posted:-Wider market funds like VTI are better in the long run since the inclusion of small/mid cap stocks leads to a slightly better gain - That is precisely why he has VXF also; and - That is market-timing thinking and a retirement portfolio isn't the place for that. As stock/bond fraction is the most important decision, I would make sure you're happy with 90/10. I have a 25-30 year horizon, I am not risk averse either, and my allocation is more like 70/30. slap me silly fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:EXAMPLE ATTEMPT 3: That boils down to what I already said: if you expect to have a lower effective tax rate in retirement, then go Traditional, otherwise go Roth. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 11:17 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That boils down to what I already said: if you expect to have a lower effective tax rate in retirement, then go Traditional, otherwise go Roth. That's not quite correct, though, or maybe I misread your post. You go traditional when you expect your future effective rate to be lower than your current marginal rate, e.g. if you expect tax rates to increase significantly or to have more money in the future than you do now, or if you're in any number of specialized tax situations for a year. We may be vigorously agreeing with each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
DNK posted:The easy, in-your-youth answer to Traditional vs Roth is Roth IRA first, Traditional 401k next, and when you're clipping $500k in Traditional 401k start contemplating Roth 401k and 401k-to-IRA-to-RothIRA rollovers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
what about using high yield preferred stocks ETFs for retirement accounts? US preferred stock ETFs are paying a 5-7% dividend but on the flip side seems like a foolish thing since it's concentrated in financial stocks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:The federal government is going to be very hard-up for cash in the next couple decades. I'd rather pay a larger chunk of the tax up front when I know what I'm going to pay than wait and see what the government does in the future. I don't see any realistic way income taxes can go down from here. For that reason, I Roth my 401k. The match is traditional, of course. This gives me the 50-50% Roth/traditional balance I'm aiming for. YMMV This used to be my thinking when I first started putting money away into a 401k. Since then, I've realized a few things: 1) Every penny I save pre-tax instead of post-tax saves at my current rate (28%) whereas when I go to pull it out it will be spread out over all income tax brackets 2) My AGI will be much lower in the future because I'll only pull out what I need rather than what I make. 3) Pre-tax caps very quickly while there are ways to contribute significantly more in a Roth fashion (google: mega roth backdoor). So every bit of pretax you can get is precious. 4) The government needs to generate new revenue, but that won't necessarily mean a higher income tax. Lots of inflation takes care of their debt issue and there's also chance they embrace a federal VAT similar to what most (all?) of Europe does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:- That is precisely why he has VXF also; and I just prefer broad ETFs like VTI since it's easier to set and manage asset type allocations instead of keeping track of small/mid cap allocations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Vilgan posted:This used to be my thinking when I first started putting money away into a 401k. Since then, I've realized a few things:
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Not to mention for higher income you don't get any sort of tax deduction for a traditional IRA. Most of the attractive nature of the traditional IRA is being to escape taxes in the here and now, while the Roth IRA is option to potentially escape higher future taxes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
etalian posted:what about using high yield preferred stocks ETFs for retirement accounts? They are also very long term (some forever), so very interest rate sensitive. I am about 1/2 way through Four Pillars, and the one thing I read that surprised me (that I never knew), is that the "Bond" allocation should be "short" Bonds (5 year term, 10 at most, not counting TIPS). And that "long" bonds should never be considered for long term buy and hold. He mentioned the reward "never" warrants the risk for them. Is this because of inflation vs long bond rates?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
PowerBuilder3 posted:They are also very long term (some forever), so very interest rate sensitive. Not exactly. Inflation is, of course, the risk, but generally speaking, there is no reason someone should expect the return not to compensate for that risk. At least, that should be the default conclusion. However, research into the long-term return of bonds show a different story. It has been a long time since I read four pillars, but I have read several other books on market history, and the reason why you should stick with short, investment grade or higher credit quality is because: - Extending duration has generally not been worth the additional volatility from a portfolio optimization point of view. Why is this the case? It could be that the market for long-term treasuries are less concerned with inflationary risks than they are with matching liabilities, i.e. pension funds etc. there may be little need for the ordinary investor to be part of this market. - Credit risk has also not provided an adequate return for the risk. Portfolio optimization is particularly hurt because of the call risk in corporate bonds that hurt its diversification benefit when rates fall. That is just one of many reasons why credit risk, even at investment grade level, is rewarded for investors only on the short side. This is another reason why Bernstein recommends staying short for bonds. Also, I believe he also recommends avoiding high yield bonds entirely, which I strongly agree with. Of course, during a deflationary crisis, like what we recently went through, long-term treasuries perform exceptionally, but for the most part, duration actually increases correlation with stocks, because they both behave poorly during inflation. This makes short-term bonds possibly a better diversifier than long-term bonds despite the fact that occasionally, long-term bonds become exceptional diversifiers. Keep in mind, there are plenty of smart people in the field of finance that strongly believe in the diversification of long-term treasuries, including David Swensen. Bernstein is all about portfolio optimization, so he tends to keep bond investing simple due to the role he believes they should play in a portfolio, which is reducing volatility. For that reason, he keeps bonds short and high quality, and probably avoids other complexities that might be detrimental (i.e. prepayment/extension risk in mortgage backed securities). 80k fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
PowerBuilder3 posted:They are also very long term (some forever), so very interest rate sensitive. It's about inflation but more importantly interest rate fluctuation over time. Basically longer maturity means more risk to interest rate fluctuations, while a intermediate type bonds have less time exposure hence less overall investment risk. Also for things like emerging market government bonds, you can have political or social stability in a 30 year window which also adds risk to the bond principle. So basically lower maturity means lower chance of things going wrong whether it's political or financial upheavals. On a side note despite the tempting yield preferred stocks seems to be fool's gold, as Four Pillars always reiterates there is no good return without high risk. etalian fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
Risk seems like a catch-all term though. It's easy enough to push money into a growth-style ETF and comfortably expect your 30-year outcome to be better than a value-style ETF. Where's the risk? I guess you're risking not being alive in 30 years and other intangible things related to time/instability (global nuclear warfare, climate change, etc). Now, a portfolio that uses safer assets to mitigate seasons of loss for that growth-based portfolio will outperform the pure growth fund. Luckily, there are ETFs for that! Mostly, they're the "retirement age 2055" things. Basically this entire post has been an exercise showing how "risk" is a semantic term that's really talking about short-term valuation. In my opinion, it would be "risky" to not put considerable weight in "risky" funds in a long-term portfolio. There's not a whole lot of intrinsic risk to risky stocks when you're betting on a long horizon. Extrinsic factors like a complete collapse of the economy would indeed point towards safer assets like guns and ammo. But you don't invest with firearms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
DNK posted:Risk seems like a catch-all term though. It's easy enough to push money into a growth-style ETF and comfortably expect your 30-year outcome to be better than a value-style ETF. In the case of bonds there are risks such as bond defaults, which basically crater the value of the investment. On a side note it's interesting how smart money money does investments, below the latest makeup of Harvard's endowment fund:  Looks like a decrease in commodity type investments, bonds while slightly increasing VC/real estate allocations. Calpers allocation below:  note recently calpers decided to reduce its hedge fund allocation given the high management costs. etalian fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
I don't have any particular incentives at my current employer (state gov't) to use any particular investment firm for my retirement, and I currently have a Roth IRA at American, an old 401k at vanguard, and some ESOP money I have to do something with, and I'd like to consolidate all of this along with some shorter term investments meant to help me buy a house at one company. Does anyone have any experience or opinions to share on either Motif or Wealthfront? Is Motif a gimmick, or is it an efficient way to invest in trends that I think are going places? It seems hard to find any advice that wasn't obviously paid for online on this kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
I have my Roth IRA account set up at TD Ameritrade and I can't move it from there due to some compliance issues with my job. They charge $24 a trade for Vanguard mutual funds because they aren't on their approved list of "no fee funds". I can get around this by establishing a automatic buy plan that waives all commissions after the 1st one. I know it doesn't matter too much but is there a big difference between buying it on a monthly basis vs a quarterly basis? I current add $458 a month so I can either invest all of that monthly or let it accumulate and do it quarterly. I was going to just purchase Vanguard retirement funds for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
The Bramble posted:I don't have any particular incentives at my current employer (state gov't) to use any particular investment firm for my retirement, and I currently have a Roth IRA at American, an old 401k at vanguard, and some ESOP money I have to do something with, and I'd like to consolidate all of this along with some shorter term investments meant to help me buy a house at one company. Does anyone have any experience or opinions to share on either Motif or Wealthfront? Is Motif a gimmick, or is it an efficient way to invest in trends that I think are going places? It seems hard to find any advice that wasn't obviously paid for online on this kind of thing. Motif is 100% marketing, no actual value. It actually reduces your diversification of assets which is a net negative. As for a good place, I think Vanguard and Betterment are good possibilities. Wealthfront seems decent as well, but I haven't read as much about it. Personally, I like to just throw everything in Vanguard because I know they'll be here in 20 years whereas I'm less comfortable about Betterment/Wealthfront being around 20 years from now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Motif is a super dumb gimmick. Thank you for checking in before sending your money to Motif.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Betterment has been coming up a lot as I've been researching and googling, and they seem to have a better fee structure for my level of funds than Wealthfront does. Anyone with first hand experience?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Christ Pseudoscientist posted:I know it doesn't matter too much but is there a big difference between buying it on a monthly basis vs a quarterly basis? I current add $458 a month so I can either invest all of that monthly or let it accumulate and do it quarterly. I was going to just purchase Vanguard retirement funds for the foreseeable future. Since the market is expected to go up on average, it's best to put your money in the market as early as possible. Otherwise you'd miss out on 1-2 months of potential growth by investing quarterly. Sometimes you'd avoid 1-2 months of potential losses, but more often you'd miss out on growth. The difference in return probably isn't too significant, but if there's no extra charge for monthly investing then I'd do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Christ Pseudoscientist posted:I know it doesn't matter too much but is there a big difference between buying it on a monthly basis vs a quarterly basis? I current add $458 a month so I can either invest all of that monthly or let it accumulate and do it quarterly. I was going to just purchase Vanguard retirement funds for the foreseeable future. If you have $X today and are trying to decide whether to invest it today or some day in the near future, you are trying to time the market. don't bother, just invest it when you get it unless you're saving money on transaction fees by investing quarterly instead of monthly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:Motif is a super dumb gimmick. Thank you for checking in before sending your money to Motif. Motif is fine for play money or if you want to get a free $100 for investing with them ($150 - $50 in trade commissions, offer available to Mint.com members). Try to time the dip bottoms with $1000 on a 3X Bull ETF just like you'd go to Vegas and put it all on black.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Vilgan posted:Motif is 100% marketing, no actual value. It actually reduces your diversification of assets which is a net negative. At least for Wealthfront all your stocks are actually held by Apex Clearinghouse, which stores and manages stock ownership for most of the online brokerages. So even if wealthfront went under you wouldn't lose anything since all the real ownership is in the Apex account. The robo-advisor is a decent concept since it's all based around things like low cost ETF index investing and also modern portfolio theory. I lean towards Betterment since it has the most polished interface/tracking options and also a much faster system to clear incoming payments compared to Wealthfront, plus being slightly cheaper 0.15% ER for high balance accounts. The other nice thing about places like Wealthfront is the monthly ER payments also include all trades and commission for things like dividend reinvestment/additional account investments. Motif on the other hand is a hilariously bad concept, basically you pick random themes like High Tech, Extra high dividend yield or Solar power which include only a tiny subset of 20-40 target companies. It's basically trying to do stock picking cleverness instead of using ETF index funds which reflect the value of thousands of unique companies. The other big Pro of ETF index is it's much easier, no stock research bullshit instead you focus on things like asset allocation to match your risk tolerance. etalian fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
etalian posted:At least for Wealthfront all your stocks are actually held by Apex Clearinghouse, which stores and manages stock ownership for most of the online brokerages. So even if wealthfront went under you wouldn't lose anything since all the real ownership is in the Apex account. My concern isn't fraud, my concern is them going under and having a bad time trying to get my money moved over. The nightmare scenario would be having them return my funds to me by liquidating everything and forcing a bunch of capital gains in a year where I still had income. It is slightly more work for them to transfer stuff in kind to avoid that, but if a company goes under - are they are for sure going to prioritize doing right by their old customers over the quickest/easiest way out? edit> I've heard of companies doing that to discourage people from leaving, essentially trapping the money with them. Other companies charge like $1000 to do an in kind transfer which is what Betterment used to charge until there was an outcry. While $1000 isn't the end of the world, I'm a lot happier to just manage my own allocations at Vanguard and keep the ER in my own wallet. YMMV Vilgan fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Vilgan posted:My concern isn't fraud, my concern is them going under and having a bad time trying to get my money moved over. The nightmare scenario would be having them return my funds to me by liquidating everything and forcing a bunch of capital gains in a year where I still had income. It is slightly more work for them to transfer stuff in kind to avoid that, but if a company goes under - are they are for sure going to prioritize doing right by their old customers over the quickest/easiest way out? Everything is held in the Apex clearinghouse account, for brokerages when you move over cash it's actually held in a stable money market type fund until it gets converted to stocks. So all your shares and money is held by a trusted third party. Accounts also have SPIC insurance against fraud and mismanagement to the tune of $500,000. Trusted custodians like Fidelity, Charles Schwab or Betterment are also trusted custodians which means they have to adhere to a wide variety of government regulations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Crabby Abby posted:Since the market is expected to go up on average, it's best to put your money in the market as early as possible. Otherwise you'd miss out on 1-2 months of potential growth by investing quarterly. Sometimes you'd avoid 1-2 months of potential losses, but more often you'd miss out on growth. The difference in return probably isn't too significant, but if there's no extra charge for monthly investing then I'd do that. Mr. Glass posted:If you have $X today and are trying to decide whether to invest it today or some day in the near future, you are trying to time the market. don't bother, just invest it when you get it unless you're saving money on transaction fees by investing quarterly instead of monthly. Makes sense. I just wasn't sure if there was more of a science behind dollar cost averaging but I'm sure I am just overthinking things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
etalian posted:Everything is held in the Apex clearinghouse account, for brokerages when you move over cash it's actually held in a stable money market type fund until it gets converted to stocks. I'm not sure you read what I wrote. My concern is not fraud, that is covered by SPIC insurance. My concern is being able to transfer "in kind" when you want. I don't care if Apex holds it in stocks. My issue isn't that Wealthfront is going to run away with the stocks. My concern is that they'll die and Apex will convert my stocks into a check and send it to me which will result in a GIGANTIC tax bill at a time when I'm in a high tax bracket. Likewise, trusted custodians can charge exorbitant fees if you want to transfer in kind and many do as a way to discourage people from leaving. Betterment used to do this until it was getting bad PR for it. There are regulations in place to make sure they don't steal, but there aren't many regulations in place to make sure that they don't screw you over on taxes. This is a sneaky way that a lot of companies force you to stay with them even when you'd prefer to move your cash elsewhere. Betterment link that caused them to (for now) remove the fee: http://www.mymoneyblog.com/betterment-outgoing-acat-account-transfer-fee.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Christ Pseudoscientist posted:Makes sense. I just wasn't sure if there was more of a science behind dollar cost averaging but I'm sure I am just overthinking things. Vanguard did a white paper study and found while dollar cost average did reduce some short term risk, in the long run it had a worse return compared to a lump sum investment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Here's another take recommending against dollar cost averaging:jlcollinsnh posted:. . .
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
The vanguard white paper on DCA is here if anything wants to read the whole thing: https://pressroom.vanguard.com/content/nonindexed/7.23.2012_Dollar-cost_Averaging.pdf 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
im the unlabeled axes
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 14:01
|
|
