|
MJBuddy posted:I looked at Vanguard's Target Retirement Income Fund. It's straight up bonds that are protected from losing money to inflation, because it literally tracks inflation. They're typically called TIPS if you want to Google around about them. They're backed directly by the US government.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
Brian Fellows posted:It's straight up bonds that are protected from losing money to inflation, because it literally tracks inflation. They're typically called TIPS if you want to Google around about them. They're backed directly by the US government. Yeah TIPS are designed protect principle from inflation loss over time, even though it's not entirely accurate since it's linked to CPI.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Ah wasn't sure if it was directly TIPS or securities with variable rate debt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
My wife has an old IRA with about 9k in it that we turned over to a financial advisor a couple years ago. She is now a stay-at-home mom and she hasn't contributed to it since we turned it over. I looked at the latest statement that came in yesterday and noticed that he has it allocated 100% in money markets, where it earned a whopping $0.08 last month. I'd like to do something with it where it'll actually grow at a measurable rate. I was thinking of transferring it to Vanguard so I can adjust the allocations myself, even though I prefer to be as hands-off as possible with my investments - is this a good idea? I've also been reading about Betterment and Wealthfront, would this be a good way to try them out? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
geera posted:I was thinking of transferring it to Vanguard so I can adjust the allocations myself, even though I prefer to be as hands-off as possible with my investments - is this a good idea? Yes, this is a good idea. Feel free to post a little more about your age and the rest of your portfolio if you want allocation advice, but the big thing will be getting that money working for you under your control at Vanguard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:Yes, this is a good idea. Feel free to post a little more about your age and the rest of your portfolio if you want allocation advice, but the big thing will be getting that money working for you under your control at Vanguard. Edit - regarding transferring her IRA to Vanguard - does the Vanguard account have to be in her name, or can I open it in mine and then transfer her IRA to it? geera fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Feb 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
geera posted:My wife has an old IRA with about 9k in it that we turned over to a financial advisor a couple years ago. She is now a stay-at-home mom and she hasn't contributed to it since we turned it over. I looked at the latest statement that came in yesterday and noticed that he has it allocated 100% in money markets, where it earned a whopping $0.08 last month. Hands off and Vanguard work great! Toss it into a Target Date fund and don't touch it till you retire, if you wish. I'd consider doing the same with anything your financial 'advisor' has under management, period. I keep my Roth at Vanguard and it has pretty decent returns with about an hour of work a year. When I was in a Target Date fund, that was zero work per year, but my situation changed and I have to balance against my crappy 401k that basically only has an S&P500 fund, everything else is 60bp+.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Been doing my homework as far as the 4 pillars go and I think I'm ready to do some shifting. I have around 16.5k in a 401k with weak options except for VINIX and 18.5k in a Roth IRA with a flat fee advisor. The options she's investing are all >1% ERs so I want to move that IRA to Vanguard. Here's my plan: Reallocate 401k to 100% VINIX Borrow 2.5k from my emergency fund, (still leaves me with 4 months expenses,) and add it to my 2015 IRA contribution. In the new Vanguard Roth allocate: -5k to VGTSX (International) -3k to VGSIX (REIT) -3k to VIOV (Small Value) -10k to VSCSX (Admiral Short Term Corp Bonds) The allocation is pretty close to 70/30 which I'm shooting for and I meet all the minimums. Two questions, first is having 100% of my 401k in a single fund foolish and second; the purpose of the e-fund loan is to make the minimum for VSCSX, would forgoing that and just placing 7.5k into VBISX for my bond exposure be more logical? A note on my e-fund, it's a bit over-sized because I live with 3 roommates. I pay rent for all of us to the landlord and they pay me, I over-sized it in case they were late on their rents, but I will only be living in this house until June so that risk is somewhat diminished.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
geera posted:My portfolio isn't very complicated. I'm 35 and have been maintaining a 401k w/ employer match for 10 years. I have a Scottrade account that has a few shares of Apple stock in it and a 529 plan for my daughter's college fund (although we're bad about contributing regularly to it). Savings is fine, emergency fund is there plus more that I've been thinking about moving to some kind of investment (IRA or taxable, that's why I've been reading about Betterment/Wealthfront). This IRA of my wife's has just kind of been hanging around off to the side, getting ignored. I'd like to be aggressive with its allocations and maybe start contributing regularly to it again. Now I'm wondering what you've got in your 401k. That's not money market also, is it? To answer your last question, no you cannot combine. You and she may each have a Roth IRA but they will be forever separate and distinct. If you do anything but transfer it to a Vanguard Roth IRA in her name, there will be misery. The easy route is to go to Vanguard's web site and open a Roth IRA for her - then they will handhold you through the process. Crimpanzee posted:Two questions, first is having 100% of my 401k in a single fund foolish and second; the purpose of the e-fund loan is to make the minimum for VSCSX, would forgoing that and just placing 7.5k into VBISX for my bond exposure be more logical? First, having 100% of your 401k in a single fund is fine, just do exactly what you're doing and allocate across all your accounts. Second, VBISX is fine until you meet the minimum for the Admiral class, so don't reduce your emergency fund to a level you're not comfortable with. slap me silly fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Feb 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:What are you paying the advisor for that great service? 1-2% of balance annually? Thankfully this IRA is the only thing of ours that he has under management. Not for long! slap me silly posted:Now I'm wondering what you've got in your 401k. That's not money market also, is it? 34% Small/Mid/Specialty 24% Global/International 23% Large Cap Growth 19% Large Cap Value Voya has a "Solution 2045" fund, but my current rate of return with this mix so far has been better (11.22% vs 5.88% 1-yr, for example). I don't know if I should consider switching to the target date fund so that I don't have to worry about rebalancing, or continue with this current allocation, which seems to be performing well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Recent returns are basically useless and tell you little or nothing about how your retirement is going to be. Besides the basic allocation of the portfolio, you should care about the fees and expense ratios. The 100% stock allocation is okay if you swing that way, although you are getting a little old for that unless you really like variance, so you might consider adding some bonds. But the specific funds you're in could be anywhere from great to terrible - can't know without more information.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:Recent returns are basically useless and tell you little or nothing about how your retirement is going to be. Besides the basic allocation of the portfolio, you should care about the fees and expense ratios. The 100% stock allocation is okay if you swing that way, although you are getting a little old for that unless you really like variance, so you might consider adding some bonds. But the specific funds you're in could be anywhere from great to terrible - can't know without more information. FWIW here are the actual funds: 20% - 0108 Fidelity VIP Eqty-Income Port I 22% - 0572 American Funds Growth Fnd R4 18% - 0429 VY JPMorgan Mid Cap Val Port I 15% - 1217 VY Columbia Sm Cap Val II Pt I 25% - 0818 American Funds Nw Prspctv R4 I guess with 30 years to go before retirement I don't mind staying moderately aggressive with my allocation. I just don't want to get lazy again and forget to rebalance after a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
geera posted:Yeah that's just the quickest return info I could find -- for some reason it only lets me go back 2 years to see my personal rate of return, and shows funds at 1yr, 3yr, and 5yr points. If you want to post all of your fund options we may be able to give some suggestions. That mix isn't horrid but 10-20% of bonds is probably a good idea. Or a mix of REIT and bonds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:Recent returns are basically useless and tell you little or nothing about how your retirement is going to be. Besides the basic allocation of the portfolio, you should care about the fees and expense ratios. The 100% stock allocation is okay if you swing that way, although you are getting a little old for that unless you really like variance, so you might consider adding some bonds. But the specific funds you're in could be anywhere from great to terrible - can't know without more information. On a random note Vanguard also found that the lower cost mutual funds performed the best over time: https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/morningstar.pdf It's another reason to focus on low expense ratio investments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Most of this is target retirement and total stock market funds. I'm 30. The only thing I'm seriously considering is throwing another 5% or so at bonds. Should I be looking at some other option too?code:
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Disclaimer: I am just a regular joe. I don't like bonds right now, personally. I know several will probably disagree with me in this due "timing the market" claims, but I'd stick it out for the time being and reallocate towards bonds a bit in another few to five years. What I'm doing (at 27) is essentially what you've got, but I've placed what would be my additional bond exposure into REITs for the needed diversification (roughly 10%) as I think those have a more profitable long term upside than bonds, and the risk doesn't bother me at this age. I personally am invested more in the international market, too. Would consider dropping a bit of you US shares and picking up more EU or broad world, though I don't think many would fault you there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
Maybe I'm lost as to why you think real estate = not volatile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
I'm finally building up the courage to move away from my 401k's target date fund. I'm with Fidelity, and I have access to their Spartan funds. Am I limiting myself too much by restricting my investments to those? I just have a nagging suspicion that I'm leaving some stones unturned by focusing on low-fee funds. I'm turning 25 in a week, and these are the distributions I was considering: SPTN 500 INDEX INST - 55% SPTN EXT MKT IDX ADV - 11% SPTN INTL INDEX ADV - 24% SPTN US BOND IDX ADV - 10%
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
That's a very diverse and low priced portfolio and there's no reason you should look beyond it unless you're just curious about something (like REITs maybe, since those keep coming up).
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
I have a maxed out 401(k), HSA and am doing backdoor Roths. Step 4) in the OP is to roll around in your money. Are there any better suggestions for funneling money into tax advantaged/retirement accounts? The contribution limit on IRAs of $5500 is really limiting the amount of cash I can plow into my Roth IRA. poo poo, should i buy a house? I have been resisting that because I dont need a house and the eceonomics of it dont make a lot of sense for lifetime wealth accumulation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
nollij posted:I have a maxed out 401(k), HSA and am doing backdoor Roths. Step 4) in the OP is to roll around in your money. Buying a house or condo does make sense in that it fixes your rent indefinitely. Maybe for you, you should save up and buy a condo for cash.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
REITS and Bonds are both tax inefficient and pay dividends, which seems to make people think they're both low risk. I hear a lot of "Instead of bonds I hold REITS" like they're some kind of substitute. I don't think there's anything wrong with REITs, although I don't personally hold any, but I do think it's a mistake to use them as your sole fixed-income holding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:Next up is taxable investing and buying rental property IMO. Check the housebuying thread for details, but, no, this isn't really the case. Your base mortgage payment may be fixed, but structures require maintenance and that cost isn't always predictable, houses are taxed and local property tax rates (plus ad valorum taxes) are not long-term predictable, and for condos/townhomes/etc. your condo association fees/HOA fees can and do go up, sometimes massively if the association finds itself underfunded in the face of a major expense. Houses are illiquid, have huge transaction costs, require maintenance, and the tax advantages (deductibility of interest for example) only apply to owner-lived-in and are not stable. As an asset class, real estate may be worth investing in via REITs. As an investment, individual property is massively risky and the long-term inflation-adjusted performance (over the last 100 years, for example) for residential real estate has been poor. Investment property including residential or commercial property is a risky thing to get into and should not be done without a lot of research and careful consideration of the risks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Check the housebuying thread for details, but, no, this isn't really the case. Your base mortgage payment may be fixed, but structures require maintenance and that cost isn't always predictable, houses are taxed and local property tax rates (plus ad valorum taxes) are not long-term predictable, and for condos/townhomes/etc. your condo association fees/HOA fees can and do go up, sometimes massively if the association finds itself underfunded in the face of a major expense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Houses are illiquid, have huge transaction costs, require maintenance, and the tax advantages (deductibility of interest for example) only apply to owner-lived-in and are not stable. Well gently caress me. I own my condo and am probably going to be moving into a rental house this summer. I had planned to hold onto my condo and rent it out. Will my mortgage interest not be deductible anymore? That ends up being like a $4k swing in my tax bill...
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
That is completely not true, mortgage interest on a rental home is deductible against the rental income received from the property. It would make no sense at all for it to not be, because if you pay $400 in interest on a $800 mortgage payment and receive $1000 in rent, you sure as poo poo aren't getting $1000 "income." I think you may have to eat mortgage interest on a rental unit that stands vacant, but I'm not sure there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
You deduct it as a rental expense instead. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p527/ch01.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
See limitations, though. You need to be careful about exactly how you use the primary & secondary homes in order to retain the deduction. Consult a tax advisor. The main thing is that if you want to deduct mortgage interest as a cost against your earnings, you need to file a schedule C... e.g., you are operating a business. You don't deduct on Schedule A like you would for your primary residence. I did not mean to say that you definitely could not deduct mortgage interest if you rent; only that it's not a certainty that you can, unless you conform to the various rules. SiGmA_X posted:A paid for house costs far less in taxes and maintenance than an lease on an equal house. I do not understand. In what way are property taxes or maintenance costs lower for a home you own outright vs. a home with a mortgage? In the US, as far as I know, all properties are taxed based on an assessed value, and this is not affected by a mortgage. A building's maintenance costs are a factor of its condition, age, materials, local labor prices, etc. and are not affected by the existence of a mortgage or lien.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
He means that in general when someone rents out a house, they will be charging taxes + maintenance + some amount for profit, so if you own a home outright it will in theory be cheaper each month than renting it from someone else. Part of the whole risk is inseparable from return thing. As he states though, having a mortgage on top of taxes plus maintenance, and transaction costs make "owning" not necessarily better if you can't own outright.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:He means that in general when someone rents out a house, they will be charging taxes + maintenance + some amount for profit, so if you own a home outright it will in theory be cheaper each month than renting it from someone else. Part of the whole risk is inseparable from return thing. I had this discussion in the house thread a year or two ago. It's not a given for a bunch of reasons, but the most important is that the cost to a given landlord to cover any mortgage they may have varies wildly depending on how long ago they bought the property and thus how much it cost them; rent control; management costs, if any; and of course, rental pricing is competitive and thus based more on supply & demand than on a straight calculation of costs + fixed profit margin. There are also economies of scale, properties built specifically to be efficient as rental units, different costs for maintenance based on retained vs. piecemeal hired labor, and more. The most important point to take away, though, is that rent is a ceiling while a mortgage is a floor. If you pay (say) $1200 in rent, and the rent goes up, you can move out. At worst maybe you have to wait out the rest of a lease and then move out. You may have to move somewhere cheaper, but you can do so for no more than the cost of packing and shipping your stuff. A mortgage on the other hand is a floor. Even with a fixed interest rate, your other costs can go up: taxes can be raised, maintenance can get more expensive, HOA/association fees can go up. And due to the illiquid nature of a home, and/or your home's current valuation vs. your outstanding loan, you may be unable to sell for months, years, or at all. So the commonly repeated assertion that... SiGmA_X posted:Buying a house or condo does make sense in that it fixes your rent indefinitely. ...is quite misleading. It does "fix" your rent (in the sense of your principle + interest payment) but does no such thing in terms of your housing cost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I do not understand. In what way are property taxes or maintenance costs lower for a home you own outright vs. a home with a mortgage? In the US, as far as I know, all properties are taxed based on an assessed value, and this is not affected by a mortgage. A building's maintenance costs are a factor of its condition, age, materials, local labor prices, etc. and are not affected by the existence of a mortgage or lien. The goal shouldn't be to have a mortgage payment or lease payment for your entire life. Say you outright own a 300k house that would rent for $1600 a month, and pay $3000 a year in taxes, $500 in insurance, and $6000 in maintenance (I like 2%, it's usually excessive but depends). Total cost of ownership would be (rounded) $9k vs $19k in leasing. Obviously things drastically change with a mortgage, and every situation is different. Long term, renting is rarely the best option unless you move a lot or don't make enough money to afford a strong down payment, the mortgage, and maintenance on a house. The 'benefit' of fixed rents (to a degree, no doubt, as maintenance happens and taxes and insurance randomly change) isn't realized until your house is 100% paid for. Leperflesh posted:The most important point to take away, though, is that rent is a ceiling while a mortgage is a floor. If you pay (say) $1200 in rent, and the rent goes up, you can move out. At worst maybe you have to wait out the rest of a lease and then move out. You may have to move somewhere cheaper, but you can do so for no more than the cost of packing and shipping your stuff. Leperflesh posted:...is quite misleading. It does "fix" your rent (in the sense of your principle + interest payment) but does no such thing in terms of your housing cost. Radbot posted:How does the buying vs. renting debate stack up when career mobility comes into play? Sure, it'd be cheaper for me to buy, especially in Denver. But I regularly get emails from recruiters in New Hampshire, Washington state, etc. - how much money are you really saving by tying your career to one city? Owning a home isn't for everyone though, and in some career fields, relocating is very common. It may be best for some people to sock away extra money into taxable accounts, so that when they either get into a job they can stay at for the last decade of their career, or at retirement, they can buy a house. SiGmA_X fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
How does the buying vs. renting debate stack up when career mobility comes into play? Sure, it'd be cheaper for me to buy, especially in Denver. But I regularly get emails from recruiters in New Hampshire, Washington state, etc. - how much money are you really saving by tying your career to one city?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Radbot posted:How does the buying vs. renting debate stack up when career mobility comes into play? Sure, it'd be cheaper for me to buy, especially in Denver. But I regularly get emails from recruiters in New Hampshire, Washington state, etc. - how much money are you really saving by tying your career to one city? It's a huge issue, and there are others. The decision to buy is a major lifestyle choice, far more than a cold calculated financial choice. Do you want career flexibility? If you're unmarried, do you think you might get married in the next decade? How about kids? Do school districts matter to you? During the 1990s, everyone thought housing prices could only go up. That meant it was a no-brainer to buy regardless, because hey, if you had to sell, even after the ~6% transaction cost (seller typically pays both buyer's and seller's agents, typically 5% to 6%, so that's a floor - selling can cost a lot more) you probably made a profit as long as you held for at least two years. Now, however, hopefully we all recognize that house prices can and do fall, and looking overseas we can see cases (like Japan) where a real estate market can remain depressed for decades. Under those conditions, you need a large down payment just to act as insurance to allow you to sell after a fall in property value. In the housebuying thread we typically tell people that if they think there's a decent chance they might want to move in the next 7-10 years, they should probably not buy. Being a landlord is not just free money, either: it's a job, and you have to balance the rental income against the hours you will spend doing that job (or the cost you'll pay to have someone else do it for you). So "well if I can't sell I'll just rent it out and move anyway" is also not a given or always a great idea. Being a landlord of a property in a different city or state can be expensive and difficult. I know it's a long thread but House Buying Megathread: How long are these jerks going to delay my closing?? is a very good thread and well worth reading if you're considering buying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I had this discussion in the house thread a year or two ago. It's not a given for a bunch of reasons, but the most important is that the cost to a given landlord to cover any mortgage they may have varies wildly depending on how long ago they bought the property and thus how much it cost them; rent control; management costs, if any; and of course, rental pricing is competitive and thus based more on supply & demand than on a straight calculation of costs + fixed profit margin. There are also economies of scale, properties built specifically to be efficient as rental units, different costs for maintenance based on retained vs. piecemeal hired labor, and more. Thank you, I always want to tell this to people who say "hurf durf by renting you're just paying someone else's mortgage, taxes, and maintenance therefore renting is throwing money away". Yeah, sure, in a general sense as a renter I probably am paying those things indirectly, but there's more nuance and market forces to it than that and I am getting a different set of benefits from that expense than a owner does by paying their mortgage/taxes/maintenance. I love the floor vs. ceiling comparison, and it's one I've used a lot in the past to make a point. Even so, renting is definitely cheaper at the moment for me right now (apartment vs. house, big difference) than buying a house and the difference is being invested in broad-market ETFs which statistically are going to outperform buying a single residential property. That's a real opportunity cost. Plus my housing expenses are essentially fixed/capped for 12 months at a time, transaction costs of moving are almost-zero, and I generally don't have to concern myself with maintenance, grounds upkeep, etc. That's time, energy, and money that I'm investing in myself and other pursuits. I'm not anti-ownership, eventually I will buy a house, but not until I'm 100% ready to commit to a single location for 10+ years, have at least a 20% down payment (100k+ in my area), and willing to take on the responsibilities and unknowns in exchange for the benefits of ownership. Renting gets unfairly slandered so frequently, but it has a lot of positives too. And frequently people view ownership through rose-tinted glasses, ignoring the downsides. Guinness fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Thanks Leperflesh. I'll check out that thread before I ask more questions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
For context, I am a homeowner. I don't regret the decision. But I'm also 40, married, no kids and won't have them, living in the SF bay area where I have excellent career prospects, and no intentions of moving. I bought in 2009 and am well above water, so I could sell tomorrow for a substantial profit. My advice is not me being bitter about bad property buying decisions. I hope that anyone who aspires to home ownership can get there, but they need to do it with open eyes and a clear understanding of the risks and pitfalls. Far too many people rushed into home ownership without understanding these things in the last 20 years, and a lot of them paid for that exuberance and lack of understanding dearly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
nollij posted:I have a maxed out 401(k), HSA and am doing backdoor Roths. Step 4) in the OP is to roll around in your money. http://www.madfientist.com/after-tax-contributions/
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
MJBuddy posted:Maybe I'm lost as to why you think real estate = not volatile. I didn't say that REITs were less volatile. I acknowledged there was more risk, but that I was purely looking for diversification from going solely stocks, and that the risk didn't bother me at the ripe age of 27. Unsure were you got lost there... You're more than welcome to disagree, but from my perspective the whole point of diversification at a young age isn't to ensure you have a portion of your funds in an incoming generating stream, it's to meter the losses of other investments. As REITs aren't strongly correlated to the stock market, I found them to be a worthy substitute to cash and/or bonds. The fact they pay dividends in addition to market appreciation of the tangible assets is just an additional perk. Dead Pressed fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Dead Pressed posted:As REITs aren't strongly correlated to the stock market, I wouldn't quite take that assertion for granted. Outside of the 2000-2001 recession, they're very correlated. http://vanguardblog.com/2013/01/10/reits-a-word-of-caution/ I'm not saying REITs aren't good options for people, but they're not a functional replacement for bonds. They're much more correlated to stocks than bonds, and much more likely to be positive in that correlation. It may just depend on which types of REITs you're buying, of course, but you didn't provide those details so I'm just responding in the general sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
Gisnep posted:Does your 401k plan allow for the mega-backdoor Roth? You may be able to put an extra $30,000 a year into a Roth IRA. Tried it with Fidelity. No dice through their online account management. I imagine calling them and asking could either get me a "oh yes! We have gotten some requests for that!" Down to "??? What now?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:59
|
|