|
Valicious posted:I sometimes mix up “we” and “I” and “him” since we make decisions as a team, but I’m the one doing all the research. His job is as my caregiver, and I’ll lose medicaid (meaning he’ll lose his job) if I have total assets over $2000. That includes property, money in the bank, IRA, insurance policies, etc Would an ABLE account help you sidestep that ridiculous limit? Is your spouse paid as 1099 or w-2?
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
Tezzeract posted:The governance part of ESG should protect shareholder value the most. Do you want to buy into a cult-like company where the board just writes blank checks to management or a company with diverse opinions and checks and balances? No, the first question is whether you are actually paying for quality. You are making several key assumptions that I don't think necessarily hold up. 1) The metrics used to evaluate companies in terms of ESG are accurate and the people evaluating the companies are performing fair and accurate evaluations. 2) ESG scores are actually correlated to better outcomes for stakeholders, the environment, etc. versus similar companies that are not rated well in ESG metrics. 3) The resulting selection of companies has a relatively favorable impact in terms of externalities compared to a normal index fund.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
Valicious posted:I sometimes mix up “we” and “I” and “him” since we make decisions as a team, but I’m the one doing all the research. His job is as my caregiver, and I’ll lose medicaid (meaning he’ll lose his job) if I have total assets over $2000. That includes property, money in the bank, IRA, insurance policies, etc This is a hell of a lot more complicated than most investment questions and it would probably have benefitted you to explain the situation from the start. Is your partner's only job as your caregiver? Before you start pulling the trigger on alt energy companies, you need to answer the following questions: 1) Why do you think that alternative energy companies will grow in the future? 1b) Why is this unique knowledge that is not priced in already? 2) What makes a "good" alternative energy investment and how will you recognize it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
These "ESG" companies are still publicly traded for-profit corporations. What can you realistically expect from them given the incentive structure that implies? It sucks that the mere possibility of retirement is tied in any way to the
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
I've never invested before, outside my 401k, & the Gamestop stonks fiasco inspired me to really start investing for my future. From reading on this thread it seems like investing in Index Funds through an IRA is the safest way to start doing so. I signed up for Vanguard & want to invest in their index funds. Having difficulty in trying the find the one to start. VFIAX covers the S&P 500, which would make it one of the more volatile ones, correct? Would it be wiser to start with one that covers bonds as well? My goal is really to just invest in the index fund & never look at it. When starting off is it better to invest in a fund built around stocks or one that is more balanced between stocks & bonds? This is a new world for me, so any help is greatly appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:25
|
|
|
Palmtree Panic posted:My goal is really to just invest in the index fund & never look at it. When starting off is it better to invest in a fund built around stocks or one that is more balanced between stocks & bonds? Grats on starting to save for the future! Sounds like a target date fund would be ideal given you'd like to be hands-off. Figure out the approximate year you plan to retire and buy the target date fund closest to it. Better yet, set up an automatic contribution and doubly forget about it. It's easy mode. SamDabbers fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
If you have regular income, try to figure out how much you can afford to invest every month and use Vanguard's auto-invest feature to be truly hands off. efb
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
Partner, not spouse. I’m just super careful on that as the legal part of that would create problems. Yes, being my full-time caregiver is his only job. (Besides the sole-proprietorship, though he doesn’t take a paycheck through that) We don’t have any shared assets to make things complicated with the aforementioned $2000 asset limit. I think alternative energy companies will grow because we need to make drastic changes because of climate change and it seems like more people are recognizing this. I’m really just trying to do more research on this. Tortilla Maker posted:Financially, last year was a good year with VFTAX returning 21.29% vs 20.68% with VTSAX. Is there an equivalent to a target-date fund? The more I think about it, the more auto rebalancing appeals to me. Are those 10-year numbers an average over those years? It’s heard to argue with that if so. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:This is a hell of a lot more complicated than most investment questions and it would probably have benefitted you to explain the situation from the start. Is your partner's only job as your caregiver?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
drainpipe posted:If you have regular income, try to figure out how much you can afford to invest every month and use Vanguard's auto-invest feature to be truly hands off. Automatic contributions are the best, especially combined with auto rebalancing either through a target date fund or some other mechanism. This thread taught me a lot about what I should be doing and I now have my 401k, HSA, and Roth IRA set up on autopilot. The only one I have to manually rebalance is the Roth IRA which I do once a year. I watched my friends obsess about GME and Dogecoin, laughing in index fund the whole time. More than a few lost money on GME buying in when it was high.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
I turn 36 this year and am currently rocking this allocation in my Vanguard Roth IRA: 55% VTSAX (US TSM) 35% VTIAX (Intl TSM) 10% VBILX (US intermediate bonds) Where I don't have a single US TSM fund available (401k, HSA) I roughly replicate it like this: 35% US Large Blend (S&P 500) 20% US Small/Medium (extended market index) 35% International TSM 10% US Bonds I plan on mostly following the glide path for a 2050 target date fund to retire around 65. If I find myself in the fortunate position to retire early and decide to do that, then I'll shift to a more conservative allocation at that point. Anything stand out as unreasonable with this setup? The Vanguard portfolio checker recommends I get some international bonds in the mix, which I will probably do as I increase my bond allocation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
SamDabbers posted:I turn 36 this year and am currently rocking this allocation in my Vanguard Roth IRA: That's an enormous tilt toward small/medium in your US equities allocation. SP500 and Extended should be in an 80/20 ratio unless you specifically want the tilt, so you'd want 45% US Large Blend (S&P 500) 10% US Small/Medium (extended market index) 35% International TSM 10% US Bonds
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:That's an enormous tilt toward small/medium in your US equities allocation. SP500 and Extended should be in an 80/20 ratio unless you specifically want the tilt, so you'd want Thanks! Good catch
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:The IRS receives information from other sources about your income and how much you contributed, and the recurring annual tax on excess contributions has no time limit. It is in your interest to report truthfully and correct the error promptly. Thanks for the details  Vanguard took care of it for me today. Kind of pissed off at the arcane rules around this/myself for loving it up but what can ya do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
So I currently make $45k a year. I've had my current job for roughly three years that has a Vanguard 401k account that matches 100% contributions that I put in. Initially I put in 4% toward it and gave just under $12,000 saved up. Seeing this thread I've decided to up it to 10%. I'm 31 years old, did I make this change too late?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
runawayturtles posted:This is closer to my wife's situation than mine exactly, but if my 401k/Roth IRA are in target retirement funds, is there still a good way to start my taxable account in a tax-efficient way? Or is the main option to switch my 401k/Roth IRA out of the target retirement fund so it can be bond-heavy, and make the taxable account all stocks? H110Hawk posted:That's the general way, but you can also adjust the target date closer to now to weight it heavier in bonds. I keep thinking about this post and reply. Could someone speak to why you would swap your tax advantaged accounts into bonds when opening a taxable account?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 00:21
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:So I currently make $45k a year. I've had my current job for roughly three years that has a Vanguard 401k account that matches 100% contributions that I put in. Initially I put in 4% toward it and gave just under $12,000 saved up. Seeing this thread I've decided to up it to 10%. You are a little bit behind per the Fidelity roadmap, but 100% match will help you catch up fast. The fact that you've been saving at all and thought about this change at 31 (vs 41, or worse, 51) puts you far, far ahead of many Americans. Cassius Belli fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Feb 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 00:21
|
|
|
angryrobots posted:I keep thinking about this post and reply. Could someone speak to why you would swap your tax advantaged accounts into bonds when opening a taxable account? Bond funds are very much not tax efficient. So when you look at things from an overall portfolio perspective you're probalby better off keeping your least tax efficient holdings in tax advantaged accounts. There are exceptions of course, but this is the general logic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 00:24
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:So I currently make $45k a year. I've had my current job for roughly three years that has a Vanguard 401k account that matches 100% contributions that I put in. Initially I put in 4% toward it and gave just under $12,000 saved up. Seeing this thread I've decided to up it to 10%. like the guy upthread posted, the best time to start saving for retirement is 10 years ago, the second best time is right now
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 00:27
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:So I currently make $45k a year. I've had my current job for roughly three years that has a Vanguard 401k account that matches 100% contributions that I put in. Initially I put in 4% toward it and gave just under $12,000 saved up. Seeing this thread I've decided to up it to 10%. Assuming you keep this job at this salary and never get another raise for the next 34 years, and that your investments return an average of 6% per year, that 10% plus match at will leave your 401k with a bit over $1 million. You're doing fine for your age. What's the max your employer will match? If you can squeeze more free money out of them, it might be worth skimping on luxuries for a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 00:35
|
|
|
Valicious posted:It might be a better idea to directly invest in alternative energy companies directly, as I think that’s going to grow a lot as a market. I don’t think we (general we) have a whole lot of choice of actions that wouldn’t lead to it growing as a market. Ill look into VTIVX more, the auto-balancing sounds very appealing to me. What does bps stand for? Kyoon already addressed this, but I think it's important to restate it to make sure it's clear. The current price of a stock is made up of the "current value" of the company + speculation on the "future value" of the company. Because people are already speculating on that future growth, it's already "priced in" to the current price. When investing in a stock (hoping the stock price will go up), it's not future growth that's important, it's the difference between that growth and the "future value" already baked into the price. A company could double it's profits in the next five years, but if the market expected it to triple it's profits, the stock price could still drop over that time. It's very common to see a company announce record earnings, just for the stock to immediately drop in price because those record earnings didn't meet expectations. All of this to say, "I think this product/company/industry/market is going to grow in the future" is insufficient reason to invest in something. You could be correct in your belief and still lose out on the investment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 00:54
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:So I currently make $45k a year. I've had my current job for roughly three years that has a Vanguard 401k account that matches 100% contributions that I put in. Initially I put in 4% toward it and gave just under $12,000 saved up. Seeing this thread I've decided to up it to 10%. Never too late, good for you! That's a real nice match as well, you're going to rake in a lot of free money. You're locking in a 100% rate of return with that match. Just to put in perspective, average 401(k) balance in your 30s is something like 40k, so you're maybe a hair behind right now. But look at it this way - if you put in $4.5k/year of your own money every year, and your company keeps that match policy, by the end of the decade you'll be sitting on pretty close to $120k, assuming 5% growth. That puts you well above 40s averages (about $100k). So you're still going to be able to put yourself in a good spot relative to many. And that's assuming you don't get a new job or have any wage increases. edit: dublish made my post, but better because they projected out to retirement, and more succinct KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Feb 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Bond funds are very much not tax efficient. So when you look at things from an overall portfolio perspective you're probalby better off keeping your least tax efficient holdings in tax advantaged accounts. How much of a factor is time horizon in this sort of portfolio balancing? Is it assumed that someone who has maxed out tax advantaged accounts is in a position to desire a mix of stable investments? Or it really doesn't matter?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 01:08
|
|
|
Ref the ESG Chat: What's the LGBTQ version of greenwashing?  All this poo poo is just another way to make more money off of you, in exchange for you maybe feeling slightly better about yourself. Guess what, you're not going to change anything by investing in an ESG or related fund. This is your ONE CHANCE to gain some small benefit from the terrible engine of Capitalism that has and will otherwise continue to gently caress you over until the day you die. Maximize your expected return (Within your risk tolerance) Your increased financial health and stability will then allow you to make an actual difference out in the real world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
dublish posted:Assuming you keep this job at this salary and never get another raise for the next 34 years, and that your investments return an average of 6% per year, that 10% plus match at will leave your 401k with a bit over $1 million. You're doing fine for your age. Yeah, I didn't check what it's up to. Maybe it only goes up to 4%  then I'll be in trouble.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 02:12
|
|
|
angryrobots posted:How much of a factor is time horizon in this sort of portfolio balancing? Is it assumed that someone who has maxed out tax advantaged accounts is in a position to desire a mix of stable investments? Or it really doesn't matter? If you're going to need the money sooner than you can withdraw it penalty free from your IRA/401k then it would matter, otherwise it shouldn't for long term retirement savings. The reason bonds are inefficient is by definition they pay out out periodically, a taxable event. This means all other things being equal, say you have $100k trad ira, $100k roth ira, and $100k taxable, and a 33/33/33% blend, you should put your Bonds somewhere that isn't taxable so those taxes are either deferred (Trad) or not paid (Roth.) You would put your international in the Taxable. Maybe you get a tax credit for foreign taxes paid. Now let's do it where the math doesn't line up well. You have $100k in your Roth Ira and $300k in your Taxable Brokerage. Same blend. You would put the first 33% * $400k = $132k. You would put 100% of your Roth IRA in Bonds, and $32k remainder in your taxable brokerage. Then you would buy $132k in International and $132k in Total Market in your taxable brokerage. It's optimal for your situation. Let's say the bond pays $1000 in interest in the year. (Whatever.) In the first example you owe $0, ever, on those bonds. If you do the second one, you owe taxes on the portion that came up in your taxable brokerage, so ($1000 * 32/132) = $242.42 * tax rate (22%?) = $53. Even if you "don't sell" - those are realized gains. There are minor ways to optimize this further, but you get the idea. A lot of the easy button stuff goes away when you become rich enough to afford taxable investing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 02:23
|
|
|
I can’t overstate how thankful I am to everyone in this thread. I’m really trying to turn our financial situation around, and I’m so worried 34 is just too late. You all have pretty much convinced me to skip the ESG funds. The only thing giving me pause is the numbers Tortilla Maker posted. Tortilla Maker posted:Financially, last year was a good year with VFTAX returning 21.29% vs 20.68% with VTSAX.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 02:23
|
|
|
Valicious posted:I can’t overstate how thankful I am to everyone in this thread. I’m really trying to turn our financial situation around, and I’m so worried 34 is just too late. I hope this thread helps you both be able to plan for the future. I assume you've talked to attorneys about the whole caregiver + partner thing, given the power dynamic there. If not, please do. I am not inferring anything untoward, but sometimes the law sees things differently than you intend, and if you're unconscious you want your partner covered. That being said, you skipped the ABLE question - would this help you or no? I believe it's specifically there to provide a loophole in our dumb means tested social services setup for permanently/100% disabled people. https://www.irs.gov/government-entities/federal-state-local-governments/able-accounts-tax-benefit-for-people-with-disabilities
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 02:29
|
|
|
angryrobots posted:How much of a factor is time horizon in this sort of portfolio balancing? Is it assumed that someone who has maxed out tax advantaged accounts is in a position to desire a mix of stable investments? Or it really doesn't matter? It might help to know that I'm being a bit disingenuous when I talk about just starting my taxable account, not because it's not true, but because I procrastinated so much getting to this point that I have a ton of cash to invest once it's open. So, that's really why I asked about it... this sort of tax-efficient balancing is of more interest to me right now than to someone who is starting (properly) from zero and can slowly rebalance over time. That said, even if you're starting from zero, it seems useful to take this stuff into account and start the taxable account off on the right foot with international stocks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 02:41
|
|
|
H110Hawk posted:I hope this thread helps you both be able to plan for the future. I assume you've talked to attorneys about the whole caregiver + partner thing, given the power dynamic there. If not, please do. I am not inferring anything untoward, but sometimes the law sees things differently than you intend, and if you're unconscious you want your partner covered. I meant to respond to the ABLE post, but I got caught up in trying to absorb so much of the other retirement stuff. We haven’t spoken to an attorney yet. I use the word “partner” in some contexts because saying “roommate” implies the situation is temporary to most people I think. Saying “platonic friend and roommate for the rest of our lives” each time is a bit wordy. I do need to fill out a Medical power of attorney though. I’ve read too many horror stories about wishes being ignored. He’s been my caregiver for 12 years already, and it’s great to have the person you rely on each day also be your best friend. I’ll read through that ABLE link. I don’t work, and my SSI each month is my only source of income. (But that’s not taxed) Would ABLE still apply? A quick read of that page leaves me still puzzled.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 02:50
|
|
|
Valicious posted:I meant to respond to the ABLE post, but I got caught up in trying to absorb so much of the other retirement stuff. We haven’t spoken to an attorney yet. I use the word “partner” in some contexts because saying “roommate” implies the situation is temporary to most people I think. Saying “platonic friend and roommate for the rest of our lives” each time is a bit wordy. I do need to fill out a Medical power of attorney though. I’ve read too many horror stories about wishes being ignored. He’s been my caregiver for 12 years already, and it’s great to have the person you rely on each day also be your best friend. I don't know re: able/ssi. Might only apply if you had some form of income (such as getting paid to poo poo post on these forums.  )And yes, I assumed when you said "partner" you meant "sexual partner" not "lifelong platonic friend and roommate who is paid to be your caregiver." Sorry, wasn't trying to dig into your life more than absolutely necessary. Either way, get thee an attorney and make sure your butts are collectively covered for however you want to be covered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 02:57
|
|
|
Valicious posted:The only thing giving me pause is the numbers Tortilla Maker posted. If we look inside each one, we have the following top five holdings with weights: VFTAX 1. Apple Inc. 7.60% 2. Microsoft Corp. 5.90% 3. Amazon.com Inc. 4.90% 4. Alphabet Inc. 3.70% 5. Facebook Inc. 2.30% VTSAX 1. Apple Inc. 5.30% 2. Microsoft Corp. 4.40% 3. Amazon.com Inc. 3.60% 4. Alphabet Inc. 2.70% 5. Facebook Inc. 1.70% I'm willing to bet that most of that over performance compared to the market cap weighted fund comes from being overweight the big tech giants, which have had an incredible decade. Unfortunately you don't have a time machine to go and buy those returns with! Best to stick with a well diversified* portfolio, because none of us can predict from where future returns will come. *Definitions of diversified may vary (EG: Sector, International Developed/Emerging, Fixed income, Dimensions of Risk, etc. We're getting into portfolio theory now!) e: #6 is Tesla for both lol Nofeed fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Feb 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 03:00
|
|
|
H110Hawk posted:If you're going to need the money sooner than you can withdraw it penalty free from your IRA/401k then it would matter, otherwise it shouldn't for long term retirement savings. The reason bonds are inefficient is by definition they pay out out periodically, a taxable event. This means all other things being equal, say you have $100k trad ira, $100k roth ira, and $100k taxable, and a 33/33/33% blend, you should put your Bonds somewhere that isn't taxable so those taxes are either deferred (Trad) or not paid (Roth.) You would put your international in the Taxable. Maybe you get a tax credit for foreign taxes paid. I feel like this general topic comes up a lot and a while ago there was more of a, well, "it's complicated" answer. As you mentioned, that math above definitely does NOT line up well for bonds -- but one particular reason is not tax related. Total bond funds are very low volatility and generally negatively correlated with stock indexes in the absence of a major deleveraging event market-wide. The reason that even a 2060 target date fund includes them is not because they're expected to outperform stocks on a 40-year timeline, but because they impact risk-adjusted return through lowering portfolio volatility. It's essentially sizing your bet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion. But if you have, say, a Roth IRA as 100% bonds, then you are losing the utility of that bet size! Because you can't rebalance from the Roth into the Trad or Taxable (without withdrawing principal over an unknown time horizon, which could be bad). So, if you choose to have bonds, it's probably a good idea to keep at least some of them in the same account as the account(s) with stocks, or it may be painful to slush money around (if you even can). Bogleheads wiki basically just mentions this only in passing, from https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Tax-efficient_fund_placement#Step_5:_Place_tax_efficient_funds_last, but its implications are large: quote:Regular rebalancing of your stock/bond ratio is particularly easy if you have enough room in your tax-advantaged accounts to hold some of your tax-efficient stock fund, because the stocks and bonds can be exchanged without tax consequence. Tax-wise, bogleheads also notes, via https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Tax-efficient_fund_placement#Criticisms_of_this_tax_placement_strategy, that: quote:When interest rates are low, bonds are more tax-efficient.[6] If bonds are tax-efficient now, and then yields rise to make them less tax-efficient, you can go from bonds in taxable to bonds in tax-advantaged with little, no, or negative tax cost; therefore, it is reasonable to hold bonds in a taxable account now and switch later if appropriate. In contrast, switching from stocks to bonds in taxable will result in a significant tax cost.[7] So, what do yields look like now? 30-day SEC yields: BND, 1.13% https://investor.vanguard.com/etf/profile/bnd VTI, 1.38% https://investor.vanguard.com/etf/profile/overview/vti Stocks are paying more in dividends than bonds! They have been for a year. It probably won't stay that way, but, who knows exactly when or by how much BND's yield will change? I see no particular reason to allocate extra tax-advantaged space for bonds in 2021. That may change if yields rise... a lot. When the 3-fund portfolio became really popularized, 10-year treasury note yields were something like 5-6x what they are today. Even a scant 10 years ago when the bogleheads wiki was created, the yield was ~4x that of today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 03:35
|
|
|
Nofeed posted:If we look inside each one, we have the following top five holdings with weights: Yeahhhh, I'm kind of in the same place, mentally; I'm looking at some Charles Schwab products that include Tesla, but I'd rather not, if I can make an informed decision. I did purchase a Vanguard STAR Fund directly through them this week, so that I have some Vanguard things going in addition to my 401k (which doesn't offer them). Has anyone specifically gone with their STAR or had anything to say about their mutual funds? Red fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Feb 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 03:40
|
|
|
it costs twice what a 2040 target date fund costs in return for similar five year returns, what's not to love?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 03:45
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:it costs twice what a 2040 target date fund costs in return for similar five year returns, what's not to love? Interesting! That fund never really came up searching through their options, or at least, never stuck out to me. STAR seems to have better short-term gains, so we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 03:58
|
|
|
can I ask why you're so enamored of STAR?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 04:07
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:can I ask why you're so enamored of STAR? Reading through a lot of articles, STAR consistently came up as well-rounded and reliable. I hadn't bought direct through Vanguard before, so I wanted to start with a simple fund (with a lower minimum) at first before adding more. Any suggestions to supplement?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 04:15
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Yeah, I didn't check what it's up to. Maybe it only goes up to 4% Trouble? Money in a tax advantaged account is money in a tax advantaged account. With only 14% instead of 20% going into your 401k, you're still looking at over $750 thousand for retirement. That's still a good chunk of change, and that assumes you only ever make $45k a year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 04:21
|
|
|
Nofeed posted:What's the LGBTQ version of greenwashing? Pinkwashing
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
Red posted:Reading through a lot of articles, STAR consistently came up as well-rounded and reliable. I hadn't bought direct through Vanguard before, so I wanted to start with a simple fund (with a lower minimum) at first before adding more. "Well-rounded" and "reliable" sound like nonsense words that don't actually mean anything. How do they differ in well-roundedness and reliability vs VTSAX/VTI, or target-date funds? As a good example of what might be convincing, pmchem (or whomever it was but I think it was pmchem) put some effort behind "Why '750' might be better than '500' from a large-ish cap index fund perspective," but that was a lot of effort and you probably don't need to go that deep.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 05:13
|
|
