|
Bit of a convoluted question here. I was a federal employee from June 2010 to April 2013. In going through my old forms I discovered I had a fairly substantial amount of money paid into the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) in addition to the money I had already placed into the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). The rules for this system stipulate that you will only receive a payout at age 65 if you have 5 or more years of Federal service. As I doubt I'll ever return to Federal employment I'd like to distribute this money into my IRA accounts (I have a Roth and a Traditional) so it can earn more interest than the prevailing Treasury rate. It appears all I need to do to accomplish this is to fill out some forms and mail them off. Complicating matters, it appears from my analysis that my contributions were all post-tax while my interest gains are somehow pre-tax  But before I do so I wanted to check that: 1. I don't accidentally incur some penalty or tax by doing this 2. I'm not making a financial mistake by pulling this money out 3. I'm doing this correctly 4. What if anything I need to do to notify Vanguard about this distribution. Has anyone ever had any experience with something like this? Additionally, it appears I can also distribute the money into my TSP account. There's a small sum of money that I've kept in there, but I like the fund selection and flexibility of my Vanguard IRAs better. I'm not losing out on anything by transferring to Vanguard over the TSP am I? This is where I'm getting my info: https://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/fers-information/former-employees/
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Even Vanguard can't match the low ER's of TSP, and the funds available are all you really need, in my opinion. Unless you'd have a trivial amount in your TSP, such that the hassle of another account isn't worth it, I would rollover to TSP. You can always contribute to a Vanguard IRA in the future if you want to diversify beyond what your TSP offers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
Retirement savings account question here: I'm an MD/PhD student at a university with two years remaining in my program. Up to this point, students have not been eligible to enroll in a 401k or any sort of retirement account through the university, but I have been maxing out a Roth IRA every year. As of this coming year, they are now changing the way students are paid and we won't be receiving a W-2 form anymore, but rather a 1099-MISC. We have been told that since we will have no earned income reportable on a W-2, we are ineligible to contribute to Roth IRAs. Is there any loophole or workaround by which I can continue contributing? Really frustrated at this turn of events......
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Get a side job where you earn money and put that amount in your IRA. But for real, it probably doesn't matter for you. You may miss 20k of retirement savings but you'll have stupid silly retirement investing options once your a full doc that utterly destroy layman opportunities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Planeshifter2 posted:I'm an MD/PhD student at a university with two years remaining in my program. Up to this point, students have not been eligible to enroll in a 401k or any sort of retirement account through the university, but I have been maxing out a Roth IRA every year. As of this coming year, they are now changing the way students are paid and we won't be receiving a W-2 form anymore, but rather a 1099-MISC. We have been told that since we will have no earned income reportable on a W-2, we are ineligible to contribute to Roth IRAs. Is there any loophole or workaround by which I can continue contributing? Really frustrated at this turn of events...... Huh, it looks like the graduate student market has carved out there own little corner of tax hell: http://www.gradstudentfinances.org/grad-student-tax-lie-9-if-you-have-an-income-you-can-contribute-to-an-ira/ Normally, a 1099-MISC means you would be considered an independent contractor, have to file self-employment taxes, but would absolutely be allowed to contribute to a Roth IRA. In this case, it's some sort of special non-compensatory wage... This page though, seems to suggest your university has screwed up, unless you truly do not need to do any work to get your (fellowship in this case?) money: http://evolvingpf.com/2012/03/earned-income/
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Planeshifter, contribute anyway, it will be fine. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Planeshifter2 posted:Retirement savings account question here: I may be able to help. I am in a postdoc with the weirdest compensation ever. They are very explicit that we are not an employee, but we are also not self employed. We get a "statement of earnings" that is quite similar to, but not technically, a 1099-misc. Our income is considered a non qualified scholarship/fellowship, which has its own box in my tax prep software and ends up as misc taxable income (which I have to make quarterly estimated payments on bc there's no withholding) but without any self employment tax or FICA tax. And I am fully able to contribute to a Roth IRA. I can't tell for sure if your situation is the same, but I thought I'd share in case it is. Hope this helps! e: just noticed you said they specifically said you won't be able to contribute? drat, might have to go with their advice over mine 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Couple questions: 1) I've got a 401(k) from a job I recently left. I should roll this over into an IRA, right? It's split between traditional 401(k) and Roth 401(k), can I just roll those over into their IRA equivalents? 2) New job doesn't let me contribute to their 401(k) for six months...in the mean time should I just throw an equivalent amount at the IRA? 3) I know Vanguard is the goon favorite, but I'd like to avoid adding to my stable of financial accounts. What's the difference between rolling my 401k over to an IRA at etrade and just investing it in Vanguard target date mutual funds vs having an account with Vanguard itself? 4) I had an ESPP with DRIP at my last employer. It'd be nice to just move that over to etrade, but is there any way to have the cost basis information go with it? I really don't want to be figuring out the ownership period and purchase prices for a whole bunch of fractional shares down the road. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
DNK posted:but you'll have stupid silly retirement investing options once your a full doc that utterly destroy layman opportunities. Why do you say this? My fiancée is a doctor and has not set up her retirement savings plan at all and I have been trying to convince her to save for old age. Right now she is working at a hospital and has a 403(b) option for tax-deferred savings, not a 401(k), but that may change once she switches jobs to private practice
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
SHOAH NUFF posted:Why do you say this? My fiancée is a doctor and has not set up her retirement savings plan at all and I have been trying to convince her to save for old age. Many doctors have a 457(b) and 403(b) available to them, plus an IRA, and sometimes a pension for working at a state hospital. It's very possible for a doctor in a certain position to get 50k+ of tax-preferred space per year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Many doctors have a 457(b) and 403(b) available to them, plus an IRA, and sometimes a pension for working at a state hospital. $71,000 edit: each
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:$71,000 Can you split this up? And this is primarily for those who are getting paid on a 1099, not, a W-2, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:Can you split this up? And this is primarily for those who are getting paid on a 1099, not, a W-2, right? No this is for employees on a W-2, I'll show you how - 1) 403 (b) pre-tax contribution with employer match - some percentage of your income drawn automatically and matched by the hospital where you work 2) 403 (b) Roth contribution unmatched - you're allowed to take $53,000 and subtract the total above and contribute until you hit a total of 53,000 with either pre-tax or post-tax money - I chose to use the Roth structure to have some tax diversity 3) In addition to the $53,000 on your 403 (b) (or 401k) certain "public" employers are allowed to open another $18,000 of pre-tax space for "highly compensated" employees above and beyond the 403 (b) space So if you're maxing your 403 (b) (or 401 (k), but I don't know how many of these are around) AND your 457, you're able to deposit up to $71,000 in pre-tax + Roth money per person, per year. It's the only way I know of to get more tax-advantaged space, but public jobs like these are generally far worse compensation than working as a private practice job on a 1099. EAT FASTER!!!!!! fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Also, if you add in the regular backdoor Roth IRA contribution, you could get to $76,500 of tax-preferred space. But you can't make pre-tax or Roth contributions directly to a 403(b) or 401(k) plan above the $18,000 limit unless you have a profit-sharing plan, usually only in private practice. You can make after-tax contributions, which, if you can do in-service rollovers, acts as a megabackdoor Roth IRA contribution. One thing of note is that some of that $53,000 will be taken up by an employer match. Now, that's free money of course, but it does reduce your Roth space. Unfortunately it's not guaranteed that your 403(b) rules will include the ability to do both after-tax contributions and in-service rollovers to a Roth IRA, in which case you'd be at $18,000 + $18,000 + $5,500 = $41,500. And there's also the question of if you should even use your 457(b) depending on fund choices and distribution rules. Private practice may get you less space, but only if you have access to the mega backdoor Roth, because you won't have a 457(b). If you can't do that, you could actually put away more pre-tax since you could use the entire $53,000 in the 401(k) as pre-tax space under profit-sharing. Chu020 fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Chu020 posted:Also, if you add in the regular backdoor Roth IRA contribution, you could get to $76,500 of tax-preferred space. But you can't make pre-tax or Roth contributions directly to a 403(b) or 401(k) plan above the $18,000 limit unless you have a profit-sharing plan, usually only in private practice. You can make after-tax contributions, which, if you can do in-service rollovers, acts as a megabackdoor Roth IRA contribution. This is v. good analysis. My original claim neglects that your max after-tax 403 contribution is 18, so if your employer match + your pre-tax contribution is less than 35k, you lose the ability to do some of that space.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:This is v. good analysis. My original claim neglects that your max after-tax 403 contribution is 18, so if your employer match + your pre-tax contribution is less than 35k, you lose the ability to do some of that space. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe if your 403(b) plan allows you to make after-tax contributions, you're allowed to make them up to the $53k limit regardless of how much that is. It's a question of how much of that $53k is taken up by employer matching. So for example, if the employer match is $15k, then you'd have $53k - $18k(pre-tax contributions) - $15k(employer match) = $20k of space to fill with after-tax contributions. The problem is that not all 403(b) plans allow after-tax contributions, and not all of those allow in-service rollovers to a Roth IRA. Unless you can move your after-tax contributions to a Roth IRA, you're actually likely better off just investing in a taxable account if you have no other tax-advantaged space available, because your gains on the after-tax contributions would be taxed as ordinary income, rather than the likely lower capital gains rate your taxable holdings would incur.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Chu020 posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe if your 403(b) plan allows you to make after-tax contributions, you're allowed to make them up to the $53k limit regardless of how much that is. It's a question of how much of that $53k is taken up by employer matching. So for example, if the employer match is $15k, then you'd have $53k - $18k(pre-tax contributions) - $15k(employer match) = $20k of space to fill with after-tax contributions. The problem is that not all 403(b) plans allow after-tax contributions, and not all of those allow in-service rollovers to a Roth IRA. Unless you can move your after-tax contributions to a Roth IRA, you're actually likely better off just investing in a taxable account if you have no other tax-advantaged space available, because your gains on the after-tax contributions would be taxed as ordinary income, rather than the likely lower capital gains rate your taxable holdings would incur. My understanding is that you can't actually "fill the space." I went and looked at the fine print in my plan and while my plan allows after-tax contributions, they are at a max of 18,000 a year, but they do specify that the after-tax contributions are "Roth" contributions and do not require tax to be paid on the gains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
I've used a few calculators and looked up the information on Bogleheads but I wanted to get a second opinion. My wife and I are both military. Our taxable income is just over $90k. This year, we'll max out both of our TSPs and IRAs. Right now, all accounts are set to Roth contributions. I am retirement eligible in 5 years, her in 9 years. Our taxable income from pensions would put us in the 15% tax bracket. My question is this: Would it be better for us to switch our Roth TSPs back to Traditional TSPs and sink the extra income we'd save in deferred taxes into a taxable brokerage? From what I can tell, it seems to be yes, provided we'd convert the Traditional TSP into a Roth IRA while in the 15% income tax bracket.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
Is there any particular downside to going with say this: -VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF) 45% -VXUS (Vanguard Total International ETF) 45% -BND (Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF) 10% In a taxable portfolio? I'm trying to get a taxable account going as I have my emergency fund set and am maxing retirement accounts, but I just don't have the 3k sitting around for a lifestrategy fund and especially not individual index mutual funds. ETFs have no minimum purchase, however, so I can just buy a few shares a month. This is quite a bit heavier than I would ordinarily go for international, but I figure I will just rebalance my 401k at the end of each year accordingly to hit my overall target allocation across all vehicles, with is 63% domestic, 27% international, and 10% bonds for now. I've heard time and again that international is the most tax-efficient asset class due to the foreign tax credit. Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Looks good, but bonds aren't efficiently held in taxable, so... maybe consider changing to 100% stock and just holding a little more cash in your savings account. Essentially, take that 10% bonds and put 5/10 into VTI and 5/10 into your savings account. Or whatever. e: to be clear, this is nitpicking and not serious criticism of holding bond funds. My suggestion is merely an alternative strategy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
DNK posted:Looks good, but bonds aren't efficiently held in taxable, so... maybe consider changing to 100% stock and just holding a little more cash in your savings account. You could also consider replacing BND with something like VTEB.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Handsome Wife posted:You could also consider replacing BND with something like VTEB. Any advantage of holding REITs in a taxable account versus with Roth money?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
REITS are the worst to hold in taxable. They're income generators and have no real growth in asset value. Having said that, they generate returns similar to a growth stock... and you pay INCOME taxes on all of it. Yuck. In a retirement / tax-free account, they're a strange way to "diversify". In a taxable account, they're enormously tax inefficient income generators.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
DNK posted:Looks good, but bonds aren't efficiently held in taxable, so... maybe consider changing to 100% stock and just holding a little more cash in your savings account. Hmm, good point on bonds being less tax efficient. I guess I always can just adjust my 401k accordingly as it is split into the different asset classes and will probably always be my largest vehicle...if I have more bonds and domestic in there and less international, so be it, I can figure out the optimal rebalancing at the end of each year with like five minutes of napkin math. I'll probably just go 50/50 on VTI and VXUS at least for now. I'm also going to be pumping a lot more each month into an ally savings fund that's currently intended for house savings than I will be into the taxable account, so I don't see the need to increase savings further. Plus it makes deciding what/how much to buy in the taxable account each month even easier. Thanks for the input! Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
DNK posted:REITS are the worst to hold in taxable. They're income generators and have no real growth in asset value. Having said that, they generate returns similar to a growth stock... and you pay INCOME taxes on all of it. Yuck. Shoot, was worried about this. The REITs we have available to us in our 403(b) are high expense ratio funds. While I see the long-term need to diversify, in the short term we're like 95% stock and it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense (we're very young). We've maxed our tax protected space and now I have after tax money to invest so I'm trying to figure out the best place to invest it. I don't really feel compelled to do munis but that sounds like it might be our best choice. More straight stock indexes would probably also work, but I'm thinking about moving to a different asset class entirely, like farmland or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Our breakdown in the tax advantaged (2/3 Roth and 1/3 pre-tax at this point) is along the lines of - 75% VINIX/VFIAX 15% VFIFX (2050) 7% VGTSX (Global Total) 3% VBMFX (Total Bond) For the next ten years I'm planning for all of our contributions to go 100% VINIX in the tax advantaged space.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:Shoot, was worried about this. The REITs we have available to us in our 403(b) are high expense ratio funds. While I see the long-term need to diversify, in the short term we're like 95% stock and it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense (we're very young). We've maxed our tax protected space and now I have after tax money to invest so I'm trying to figure out the best place to invest it. I don't really feel compelled to do munis but that sounds like it might be our best choice. More straight stock indexes would probably also work, but I'm thinking about moving to a different asset class entirely, like farmland or something. The companies held by REITs are also held by stock index funds, so I think the advice to use them to add diversification is misguided. For instance, this outdated spreadsheet on Bogleheads shows that VTSMX holds about 2% of its funds in REITs, in proportion to their slice of the total US market. When you are already holding a total stock market index, also investing in REITs is essentially overweighting that asset class and trying to "slice" the market. Empirically, people aren't very good at doing that, hence the idea of total stock market funds in the first place. I don't think REITs belong in a retirement account at all. In my mind, there are total market index funds (or some equivalent composition of separate indices), bonds, and maybe international index funds--nothing else belongs in a "dumb money" long term investment account, tax advantaged or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:The companies held by REITs are also held by stock index funds, so I think the advice to use them to add diversification is misguided. For instance, this outdated spreadsheet on Bogleheads shows that VTSMX holds about 2% of its funds in REITs, in proportion to their slice of the total US market. When you are already holding a total stock market index, also investing in REITs is essentially overweighting that asset class and trying to "slice" the market. Empirically, people aren't very good at doing that, hence the idea of total stock market funds in the first place. I don't think REITs belong in a retirement account at all. In my mind, there are total market index funds (or some equivalent composition of separate indices), bonds, and maybe international index funds--nothing else belongs in a "dumb money" long term investment account, tax advantaged or otherwise. Awesome, very much enthusiastic about your perspective. When they came up in the Four Pillars it was sort of a curveball.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:The companies held by REITs are also held by stock index funds, so I think the advice to use them to add diversification is misguided. For instance, this outdated spreadsheet on Bogleheads shows that VTSMX holds about 2% of its funds in REITs, in proportion to their slice of the total US market. When you are already holding a total stock market index, also investing in REITs is essentially overweighting that asset class and trying to "slice" the market. Well... kind of. Total market (VTSMX) has the correct percentage of REITs as represented by the US stock market. But the stock market doesn't weight the US economy completely correctly. For large companies, sure, most are public and the ones that are private (Cargill, Dell, etc.) are outliers. Most real estate is privately held, and if you want to try to capture the actual economic impact of real estate in the US economy, 2% isn't going to do it. That's one reason why some people add an extra weighting of REITs, to try to capture that. Similarly some people add overweighting in small/micro caps since many of them are privately held, and holding extra of the publicly traded ones gets you somewhat closer to small business's impact on the economy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:Hmm, good point on bonds being less tax efficient. I think vanguard has a tax advantaged bond fund and there are always Tex exempt muni funds if you feel you absolutely must hold bonds in a taxable account.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Is there any alternative to personal capital? It's not playing nice with vanguard for 3 months now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Rurutia posted:Is there any alternative to personal capital? It's not playing nice with vanguard for 3 months now. Mint hasn't been working great with Vanguard either for a few weeks.I just use an excel sheet with some ticker links to track my investments because its only 4 funds split among 5 accounts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
I have a sheet like that for my stock allocation calculations, just annoying to have to add on dividend purchases etc every time eugh. We also have a bunch of different index funds for different accounts. But at least it autosyncs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Well... kind of. Total market (VTSMX) has the correct percentage of REITs as represented by the US stock market. But the stock market doesn't weight the US economy completely correctly. For large companies, sure, most are public and the ones that are private (Cargill, Dell, etc.) are outliers. Most real estate is privately held, and if you want to try to capture the actual economic impact of real estate in the US economy, 2% isn't going to do it. That's one reason why some people add an extra weighting of REITs, to try to capture that. Similarly some people add overweighting in small/micro caps since many of them are privately held, and holding extra of the publicly traded ones gets you somewhat closer to small business's impact on the economy. I take your point. Assuming that trying to replicate the total US economy is better than just the publicly traded portion, you could expend a some effort to re-weight your holdings to match the overall balance of different sectors. So, maybe you hold, say, 4% of your portfolio in REITs in addition to a TSM fund to pick up the missing real estate. Is that really enough to matter? And why stop there? Shouldn't you also buy some extra stock in, as an example, construction companies or wholesalers, since they're also very much underrepresented in publicly-traded stocks? When you're messing around with single-digit percentages of your portfolio, I question whether it's really worth it, but I will concede that it's not crazy--if you're dealing with large percentages, where it might matter, I have to think you're overweighting sectors and placing bets on certain sectors. I don't think anyone is going to be hurt because they didn't hold any REITs; conversely, I think you might be hurt if you decide to hold a lot of them. Anyway, I don't disagree with you at all. But I'm a little wary because I've been seeing a lot of retirement investment advice encouraging people to buy lots of REITs lately, and I don't think anyone needs them. Tetraptous fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
I've got some life changes coming up and could use some advice. First, my employer sponsored 401k is going away. We switched to a defined benefit plan (CalPERS) about 8 years ago. I have about $20k from the old 401k that I've been ignoring that I need to move somewhere. I see this as being a supplement to my pension (fingers crossed), and would hope to (semi)retire around 60 and float on that until I can draw my pension at 65. I'm 35, so that's 25-30 years out. Reading up thread, it seems like Roth IRAs and Vanguard Target funds are recommended and I like the later because I want to set-and-forget as much as possible. Since I won't be going through my employer, pre-tax dollars are out, right? My normal annual contributions probably wouldn't push me past the federal standard deduction, so there 's not a front end-benefit to me going traditional over Roth, right? And the Roth will have better tax implications when I go to draw at retirement? I'm also getting married this year, and saving to by a house in the next 3 years or so. I see first time buyers (us) can pull from the Roth but only after 5 years. Where should we be socking away my down payment money? Bride and I are simple rubes who currently have our money in savings accounts that earn us nickles a year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:40
|
|
Boys who love boys
|
Tetraptous posted:I take your point. Assuming that trying to replicate the total US economy is better than just the publicly traded portion, you could expend a some effort to re-weight your holdings to match the overall balance of different sectors. So, maybe you hold, say, 4% of your portfolio in REITs in addition to a TSM fund to pick up the missing real estate. Is that really enough to matter? And why stop there? Shouldn't you also buy some extra stock in, as an example, construction companies or wholesalers, since they're also very much underrepresented in publicly-traded stocks? Single digit percentages covers a large ran from less than one hundredth to almost a tenth. I don't think it's that big of a deal, but I do think most people are either over invested in real estate, normally through owning a home, or under represented because they don't choose to invest in any at all. Just for reference the total value of homes in the US, so ignoring the commercial side, is larger than the martlet cap of the S&P 500 by about 50%.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:I take your point. Assuming that trying to replicate the total US economy is better than just the publicly traded portion, you could expend a some effort to re-weight your holdings to match the overall balance of different sectors. So, maybe you hold, say, 4% of your portfolio in REITs in addition to a TSM fund to pick up the missing real estate. Is that really enough to matter? And why stop there? Shouldn't you also buy some extra stock in, as an example, construction companies or wholesalers, since they're also very much underrepresented in publicly-traded stocks? There are a lot of portfolios that overweight REITs compared to the Total Market. Some are listed at Bogleheads, for example the one David Swenson of Yale endowment fame recommends is 15% in REITs. The reason they are so popular among the retirement set is that they are all about paying out $$ in dividends when the US stock market is paying out 2%, and there is some psychological issue about just being able to use the checks you get sent and not selling your "seed corn", even though only total return matters and who cares if you have to sell some mutual funds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
But if you have some shares and you sell some the you have less shares! Eventually you will run out. Just makes sense. e: dividends have important tax characteristics for large scale corporate investors, so they do have a real purpose in the market. Murgos fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
Hey there. I read the four pillars of investing two years ago. It was a little over my head, but ultimately this is what I came up with for retirement. What do you all think of this? It's time to make my Roth investment for the year. This is the first year that I'm past investing to meet the minimum to get into these accounts and can really start making choices about allocation. 34 male / single VASGX - 40% VTIVX - 20% VTWSX - 20% VFIAX - 20% (employer 401K; will be leaving company in a month so I'll have to see what the new company offers) Blinkman987 fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Blinkman987 posted:Hey there. I read the four pillars of investing two years ago. It was a little over my head, but ultimately this is what I came up with for retirement. What do you all think of this? It's time to make my Roth investment for the year. This is the first year that I'm past investing to meet the minimum to get into these accounts and can really start making choices about allocation. Vanguard World has US and International; the Lifecycle and Target Date funds also has US and International (both bonds and stocks); why not just stick with a TD fund?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:06
|
|