|
Xenoborg posted:For long range planing, what do you all use for real rate of return on your portfolio. I see everything from 2% to 8% real return listed, which makes a huge difference over 30+ years. Depends on what the portfolio is made up of and what specific long-range planning I'm doing. Mostly I don't plug in a single number since I'm most concerned about sequence risk, so I'd look based on actual sequences. For a portfolio of solely broad-based US Equities (VTI/VTSAX/ITOT/SCHB/FZROX/etc), I plug in 8% real when I am doing mental rule-of-72 nonsense.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
Xenoborg posted:For long range planing, what do you all use for real rate of return on your portfolio. I see everything from 2% to 8% real return listed, which makes a huge difference over 30+ years. I don't have a specific set assumption - if there's some kind of projections that are needed I'll run a few different assumptions and see what happens in those scenarios. Picking a single number and hanging your plans on a "need" for X% real returns can lead to risk taking or bad decision making or disappointment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 00:08
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:For long range planing, what do you all use for real rate of return on your portfolio. I see everything from 2% to 8% real return listed, which makes a huge difference over 30+ years. 8% is actually conservative, 2% would likely mean you barely beat inflation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 01:17
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:For long range planing, what do you all use for real rate of return on your portfolio. I see everything from 2% to 8% real return listed, which makes a huge difference over 30+ years. IIRC, ~2.9% is the lowest real, inflation and risk-adjusted annual 30 year CAGR in the stock market history, with the average being 7%, and the highest being a little over 10%. So generally I use 3% as my worst case predictions. 7% is the average, and a little over 10% is the highest. I generally plan conservatively assuming 5% (which I don't have data on, but should check what "percentile" of 30 year returns it is in some time), but ensuring that if I'm unlucky I can continue working longer in 3% conditions, and use 10% conditions for noting the earliest possible retirement. jokes posted:8% is actually conservative, 2% would likely mean you barely beat inflation. Since they said "real" returns, I assume they aren't talking about nominal returns, and thus are already factoring out inflation. MegaZeroX fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Jan 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 01:30
|
|
|
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7582221&sid=a15dc287fde6cbcffed54e05087adf07#p7582221 That thread talks about using pre-tax money withdrawn from an HSA to further fund a 401k, assuming that the person can't max their 401k and has qualified medical expenses. How can someone fund their 401k account with money outside of payroll deductions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 02:03
|
|
|
I use 5%, because I am heavier into bonds now than most goons (I am also a bit older maybe, at 49) and I would rather be pleasantly surprised then unpleasantly disappointed by my actual returns over the next 15 or so years. I also only have a 15 year time horizon before I'd like to retire (when I'm 64, perhaps) and sequence of returns risk is starting to be increasingly important, so doing a monte carlo projection is way more valuable than just presuming a specific rate of return. In other words, plug in current savings rates and a retirement date and then simulate a lot of different returns over the next x years and what is the % likelihood that you hit your minimum. Here's a free, fairly simple one: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 02:04
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7582221&sid=a15dc287fde6cbcffed54e05087adf07#p7582221 The OP in question: quote:I might be completely missing the math on this so forgive me if this doesn’t make sense. Each year I have the ability to max my HSA but do not make enough money to max out my 401k or IRA. I currently have around $15,000 in my HSA with around $2,500 of medical claims that I have not reimbursed myself from the HSA. My question is because I do not make enough to max out other tax advantaged accounts does it make sense to pull the $2,500 and invest into an IRA to get a double tax advantage in this tax year? My investment strategy will remain the same I am simply moving money from the HSA to IRA. The OP says they are not currently maxing out their 401k (or IRA) contributions. They're using HSA money withdrawn to cover qualified medical expenses to offset income that they'd otherwise need, and then putting that income into their retirement accounts either by increasing their payroll deduction or by making a contribution to an IRA that they wouldn't have otherwise. This doesn't make sense, because unreimbursed qualified medical expenses are actual expenses that they aren't accounting for. Did they pay those expenses? If they don't withdraw from the HSA, they have to pay them, so there's no "free money to invest" here. It does make sense to use the HSA money to pay for medical expenses in particular if not paying for them from the HSA means paying out of pocket with taxed money and being unable to increase allowed tax-advantaged contributions by that much. Except that HSAs are better places to invest than 401ks and IRAs, because they are tax free on money both in and out. It's better to cover medical expenses out of pocket and reduce contributions to IRA/401k proportionally than it is to pull money out of the HSA just to increase contributions to IRA/401k. Really the question should be: "do you need this money right now y/n" and if it's n, just save the receipts and you can reimburse yourself for those expenses at any time in the future, there's no limit on that. If in some future year you really need $2500, you can make a qualified reimbursement out of the HSA and pay no tax on that cash and that's good! Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Jan 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 02:09
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The OP in question: That OP was talking about moving money from their HSA into an IRA, but the link I linked to was talking about 401ks. Either way, I think I understand now. The key word was increase contribution, not contribute extra. Leperflesh posted:The OP says they are not currently maxing out their 401k (or IRA) contributions. They're using HSA money withdrawn to cover qualified medical expenses to offset income that they'd otherwise need, and then putting that income into their retirement accounts either by increasing their payroll deduction or by making a contribution to an IRA that they wouldn't have otherwise. This doesn't make sense, because unreimbursed qualified medical expenses are actual expenses that they aren't accounting for. Did they pay those expenses? If they don't withdraw from the HSA, they have to pay them, so there's no "free money to invest" here. It does make sense to use the HSA money to pay for medical expenses in particular if not paying for them from the HSA means paying out of pocket with taxed money and being unable to increase allowed tax-advantaged contributions by that much. So I think this OP in particular isn't using HSA money to pay for medical expenses. They are contributing to it and otherwise paying out of pocket. But, they have the receipts to cash out $2500 and wanted to know if it would be advantageous to do that and putting it into a Roth IRA. My question was about putting it back into a 401k. I think the idea is that, if I know I need to spend $1200 a year ($100/month) at minimum on medication, and I'm not able to max out my 401k contribution (but can max HSA and Roth IRA this year), can I just increase my 401k contribution to +1200/year and "pay myself" back 1200/year by withdrawing it from my HSA? Does it make sense to? Currently it's all being paid out of pocket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 02:18
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I use 5%, because I am heavier into bonds now than most goons (I am also a bit older maybe, at 49) and I would rather be pleasantly surprised then unpleasantly disappointed by my actual returns over the next 15 or so years. I also only have a 15 year time horizon before I'd like to retire (when I'm 64, perhaps) and sequence of returns risk is starting to be increasingly important, so doing a monte carlo projection is way more valuable than just presuming a specific rate of return. Ooh, that is a nice calculator. Though I have the minor gripe that because the "historical simulator" just samples years at random, it ends up being more pessimistic for its 10th percentile than it should be and more optimistic for its 90th percentile than it should be. Forcing it to use blocks of 20 years mitigates this a bit, but I really wish there was just an option for it to pick a year before 2023 - the number of years you want to sequence, and run simulations for each starting year. I also wish there was a way to see custom percentiles, such as the 1st percentile, and maybe a 99th percentile. And I wish the graph wasn't only for nominal returns, since real returns are what most people care about anyways. I also don't love that it seems that it only uses data from 1972 onward. I understand that lots of different asset classes can't be measured before then, but there should at least be something for a limited 100% stock allocation with historical data. These are minor gripes though, its neat to have. Edit: Actually, looks like you can choose your own percentiles to report on, and there is a checkbox to make the graph inflation adjusted, which is good. Still has the issue of being too pessimistic. For the regular model, the 1st percentile has negative 25 year real annualized returns, and the block model 1.4% real returns, despite historically the lowest 25 year real returns going back to 1871 being 2.79%. One way to get percentiles that resemble historical percentiles for a 40 year period seems to be to do a parameterized return model following a normal distribution with an expected nominal return of 10% with 9% volatility, and then a long term USD inflation rate of 3% (keeping the volatility at 3%). MegaZeroX fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Jan 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 11:57
|
|
|
I am thinking about opening a 529 / college savings account for my little one. Are there other recommended savings vehicles out there that I don't know about? Just making sure I'm not missing something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 15:01
|
|
|
Sleepytime posted:I am thinking about opening a 529 / college savings account for my little one. Are there other recommended savings vehicles out there that I don't know about? Just making sure I'm not missing something. For children, the 3 tax advantaged accounts are: 1) Custodial Roth IRA - This is like a normal Roth IRA for a child, except you can contribute as a parent. However, all the normal rules apply, meaning that the total put in can't exceed earned income, so this is only really relevant for teenagers who have an earned income, where you can contribute the lesser of what they earned or $7000 (in 2024 dollars) 2) Coverdell ESA - A savings account for single filers with an AGI less than $110,000 and married couples with an AGI less than $220,000 with contribution limits of $2,000 a year (lower limits apply if near the AGI cutoff). The tax advantage is a Roth one. It can be used for most education expenses from K-12 or college. However, if any funds aren't used, you will need to change the beneficiary to a member of your family under the age of 30, since when the current beneficiary turns 30, funds must be distributed and will be subject to a 10% penalty in addition to having income tax apply. 3) 529 accounts - Accounts that vary by state. Each state has their own lifetime contribution limit per beneficiary, but these are generally large enough to not really matter. Options, like a 401k, are limited, and how good they are depends on which state you open an account with, though you can open a 529 from any state that allows it, not just the one you reside in (Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia only sell to in-state residents). 529s act like Roths for tax purposes, but some states allow this to also be deducted from the state income tax, thus making it triple tax advantaged from state tax (though you still need to pay federal tax). 529's are more restricted into what they can be used for. For K-12, the only thing they can be used for is tuition, and only up to 10k a year. For college, they can be used for tuition, room and board, book supplies, computing hardware/software, and certain special needs equipment. Unlike with ESAs, they can't be used for transportation costs or tutoring. However, 529s also allow for a lifetime limit of $10,000 student loan debt repayment (per beneficiary). And, unlike ESAs, the beneficiary can be any age, and changed to be yourself, any descendent, any ancestor, any sibling, any aunt/uncle, nice/nephew, or any 1st cousin. Also unlike ESAs, up to a lifetime $35,000 limit can be rolled over to a Roth IRA, though that counts toward your annual contribution limit, so doing this isn't a way to go beyond the Roth contribution maximum. If you still have money in it after the $35,000 limit, and all education expenses are paid for them and any one else in the family you care about, then like ESAs, if you withdraw it, you would have to take the 10% penalty along with income tax. New York, New Hampshire, Utah, Ohio, Nevada, California, and Illinois are generally the ones that people think are the best, so compare those and see which one works best for your situation. Note that technically states also offer another 529 option where instead of investing you can pay future tuition with current tuition costs, but this can be messy, as some states have various stipulations for this, and also I would personally caution that assuming tuition is going to continue to rise above inflation is far from a safe bet. Note that all 3 of these saving account types count as gifts to the respective recipient for tax purposes, and thus count towards gift tax. There is an annual exclusion limit of $18,000 in 2024 dollars, though if it is spent in a 529, then you can divide the contribution by 5 and split it over the following 5 years instead. Note that if you go beyond the exclusion limit, there is a separate combined gift tax and estate cap lifetime exclusion limit of about 5 million USD (technically higher than that for the next 2 years but that will probably not matter for you), so if it is a possibility you will die with a net worth of, in today's dollars, over $5 million, then keep this in mind. Otherwise, you can safely ignore the gift tax implications of your contributions. MegaZeroX fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Jan 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 16:05
|
|
|
MegaZeroX posted:Ooh, that is a nice calculator. Though I have the minor gripe that because the "historical simulator" just samples years at random, it ends up being more pessimistic for its 10th percentile than it should be and more optimistic for its 90th percentile than it should be. Forcing it to use blocks of 20 years mitigates this a bit, but I really wish there was just an option for it to pick a year before 2023 - the number of years you want to sequence, and run simulations for each starting year. I also wish there was a way to see custom percentiles, such as the 1st percentile, and maybe a 99th percentile. And I wish the graph wasn't only for nominal returns, since real returns are what most people care about anyways. Yeah I'm looking at a 15 year projection for my day-of-retirement amounts and haven't played much with the glidepath/drawdown sims to see how long it'll last given x amount of drawdown etc. But I did note the checkbox for inflation adjusted which is good, and and I think the use of older performance data is a debatable question - it'd be nice to have it as an option as you said, maybe. One other thing that's missing is the tool doesn't let you put in a target retirement fund that changes its asset allocation over time, and in fact I didn't see a way to put in a shifting asset allocation over time either. I'm already nearly 20% bonds and don't plan to go much heavier so I'm kind of OK with my 70/10/20 domestic stocks/intl stocks/bonds allocation being used for the next 15 years of projections but someone who is 100% equities right now and intends to be more like 20%+ bonds by retirement age might have more problems with making the tool build that stuff in. One more comment and it's more of a question but if I am remembering statistics right, you don't presume that if something never happened in the past 100 years, there's a zero percent chance of it happening at any time in the future: in other words, a first percentile result should look worse than any past real world result because we can't assume the "worst case scenario" is included in our actual history. Right? That said I don't actually know how you'd calculate a 1st percentile sequence based on historical values. Anyway the point is it's a free online tool that only takes a few minutes to fill in and I think it's a good idea for folks in this thread to get used to using "percentage chance I hit my target" modeling instead of back of the envelope assumptions that the future of their investments is always a 8% return above inflation or whatever. Most of us aren't satisfied with just hitting our retirement goals in 50% of the possible future timelines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 18:15
|
|
|
MegaZeroX posted:For children, the 3 tax advantaged accounts are: This is an excellent post and everyone who wants to pay for kids' education one day should read it/bookmark it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
So awhile ago I signed up for SoFi's "automated investing." I didn't know too much then so didn't look to closely, but I know more now and I'm trying to figure out what to do. Since it's "automated" the only thing you can do is set what % you want the stocks and bonds mix to be. SFY has a 0.19% expense ratio. I'm guessing I would have been better off with that money in VTI or something. I'm planning on just using a proper brokerage going forward, but I'm not sure what to do with the money already in this automated investing account. I guess just leave it and let it appreciate?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 19:06
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:One more comment and it's more of a question but if I am remembering statistics right, you don't presume that if something never happened in the past 100 years, there's a zero percent chance of it happening at any time in the future: in other words, a first percentile result should look worse than any past real world result because we can't assume the "worst case scenario" is included in our actual history. Right? Sure, but the issue is more of the level it goes below, not the fact that it does below. The 25 year averages are roughly normally distributed around 7%, with the furthest "tail" being 2.79% Here is some data for how many starting years achieve each CAGR over a period of 25 years, using S&P 500 data from 1871 to 2023. Between 2.79% and 3%: 3 Between 3% and 4%: 15 Between 4% and 5%: 15 Between 5% and 6%: 14 Between 6% and 7%: 26 Between 7% and 8%: 18 Between 8% and 9%: 13 Between 9% and 10%: 15 Between 10% and 11%: 7 Between 11% and 11.97%: 3 Note that the mean is 6 to 7, and the occurrences roughly decrease as they get away from there. So 1.5%, which is around if I do 20 year blocks, is already a pretty far outlier from the historical lowest, and the negative 1.5% is a HUGE outlier. Especially since the simulation does 10,000 samples, which would mean that not only are 100/10,000 below any of the 126 historical range to compare with, but they are way below them. And you would expect that at least sometimes the 1st percentile should be above the historical one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 19:10
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:One other thing that's missing is the tool doesn't let you put in a target retirement fund that changes its asset allocation over time, and in fact I didn't see a way to put in a shifting asset allocation over time either. I'm already nearly 20% bonds and don't plan to go much heavier so I'm kind of OK with my 70/10/20 domestic stocks/intl stocks/bonds allocation being used for the next 15 years of projections but someone who is 100% equities right now and intends to be more like 20%+ bonds by retirement age might have more problems with making the tool build that stuff in. Quoting myself because I just noticed that there's a tiny little gear button next to the "asset allocation" label that lets you pick a bunch of different shifting portfolios, including thread-favorite "Bogleheads three funds" and "Bogleheads four funds" portfolios which is great!
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I use 5%, because I am heavier into bonds now than most goons (I am also a bit older maybe, at 49) and I would rather be pleasantly surprised then unpleasantly disappointed by my actual returns over the next 15 or so years. I also only have a 15 year time horizon before I'd like to retire (when I'm 64, perhaps) and sequence of returns risk is starting to be increasingly important, so doing a monte carlo projection is way more valuable than just presuming a specific rate of return. Man this calculator makes me want to go 100% into US equities, but that also seems scary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 19:13
|
|
|
One thing to consider for 529s is most states offer a deduction on your state tax return for contributing to their plan, which has its own immediately realized benefit. The deduction is capped at fairly low amounts (2500-5000), but it’s a perk for using your own states plans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 19:16
|
|
|
MegaZeroX posted:Sure, but the issue is more of the level it goes below, not the fact that it does below. Perhaps the real takeaway is that you should ignore the 1 percentile outcomes in most any monte carlo simulation. They're too unlikely to worry about. But yeah this could be some artifact of how they are dealing with data, one thing I learned when learning about statistics and probabilities is that sometimes a seemingly large and representative sample gets very unrepresentative and weird at the extreme tails. There's a reason why scientists sometimes just summarily throw out extreme outlier data points - although sometimes that's a big mistake, so you have to be careful doing that. From a practical standpoint, the only way your 25 year portfolio hits a 1% percentile outcome would include basically all of the years being terrible, and if you're 5 or 10 years into that terrible scenario and all your investments are plunging into negatives you would probably do projections from that point and say "gently caress I need to save a lot more money now" and do everything you could to adjust to that new reality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 19:28
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Man this calculator makes me want to go 100% into US equities, but that also seems scary. What's your time in market? If you're younger, 100% equities is a pretty normal thing to do, at least for a while, and many posters in this thread have said they're 100% equities. If you feel very nervous about it, try a 10% bond allocation. That doesn't severely depress returns but it does provide some mental health safety factor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 19:29
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Man this calculator makes me want to go 100% into US equities, but that also seems scary. Haha, yeah, I have been playing with it and was struck by exactly the same thing. My results so far (all simulations with 1.5m starting funds, $60,000 inflation adjusted annual withdrawals, 40 year simulation period because I'm an optimist) 100% US total stock market: 82% chance of making it 40 years, median ending funds $31m 70/30 US/International stock market: 86% chance, median ending funds $25m 60/20 US/International stock market, 20% US total bonds: 86% chance, median funds $16m 50/20 US/International stock market 20/10 long/short term treasuries: 91% chance, median ending fund $18m Above but TIPS instead of long term treasuries: 67% chance, median ending $3m (what!? how?) 50/20 US/International stock market 20% long term treasuries, 10% REIT: 84.39% chance, median ending $11m My gut is something has to be up with the TIPS portfolio, though. That doesn't seem right to me. Bremen fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Jan 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 19:43
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:What's your time in market? If you're younger, 100% equities is a pretty normal thing to do, at least for a while, and many posters in this thread have said they're 100% equities. If you feel very nervous about it, try a 10% bond allocation. That doesn't severely depress returns but it does provide some mental health safety factor. I'm 38. Heavier into bonds at the moment because I transitioned my house fund out of cash and into T-bills. Currently 70% equities (60% US, 10% international), 22% bonds (21% US bonds 1% international) and 8% ish cash or cash equivalents).
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 19:49
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Perhaps the real takeaway is that you should ignore the 1 percentile outcomes in most any monte carlo simulation. They're too unlikely to worry about. But yeah this could be some artifact of how they are dealing with data, one thing I learned when learning about statistics and probabilities is that sometimes a seemingly large and representative sample gets very unrepresentative and weird at the extreme tails. There's a reason why scientists sometimes just summarily throw out extreme outlier data points - although sometimes that's a big mistake, so you have to be careful doing that. I think the main thing is they sample a year uniformly at random, when in practice the stock market has correlations. Like, after a 2008 crash, you are going to generally be getting some good growth years after that, while the simulator will happily sample not just bad years, but mediocre years as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 19:51
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:I'm 38. Heavier into bonds at the moment because I transitioned my house fund out of cash and into T-bills. Currently 70% equities (60% US, 10% international), 22% bonds (21% US bonds 1% international) and 8% ish cash or cash equivalents). Yeah when you include that cash your portfolio looks more like something a 50+ year old would have. I'm 70/10/20 domestic stock/international stock/bonds, but I have zero cash in the long-term allocation. Remember that cash underperforms inflation, so it's a portfolio drag and most long-term investing advice has every dollar invested in something that gives at least some kind of inflation-beating long-term return. Retirees have to have a cash allocation to live off of as distributions, and to give them that living during years when investments are down and it'd be suboptimal to be selling investments for cash monthly. But pre-retirement your cash allocation for long term investing is supposed to be at or near zero. Of course you should have an emergency fund in cash or near-cash equivalents, but that's not part of the long-term portfolio. Neither is the money you're saving for your down payment. I have cash but I do not include it at all in my projections. I suggest you re-run your projections without the cash that is intended for near-term or medium-term use such as your house fund. After taking that into account, while there's nothing explicitly wrong with being 22% bonds at age 38, the Vanguard target retirement date fund 2050 VFIFX (decent benchmark if you retire around age 64 so approximately 2050?) is just under 10% bonds https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/profile/vfifx#portfolio-composition  and that'd be a pretty reasonable position for you unless you have something special going on. Which you might! Please don't act on my advice without considering all factors, such as if you intend to retire early, might need to borrow or withdraw early against your retirement funding, may move abroad, or something like that. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Jan 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 20:19
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah when you include that cash your portfolio looks more like something a 50+ year old would have. I'm 70/10/20 domestic stock/international stock/bonds, but I have zero cash in the long-term allocation. Remember that cash underperforms inflation, so it's a portfolio drag and most long-term investing advice has every dollar invested in something that gives at least some kind of inflation-beating long-term return. Retirees have to have a cash allocation to live off of as distributions, and to give them that living during years when investments are down and it'd be suboptimal to be selling investments for cash monthly. But pre-retirement your cash allocation for long term investing is supposed to be at or near zero. Yeah, if I remove the house fund bonds it looks like: Cash 6.76% Intl bonds 0.84% U.S. bonds 5.99% Intl stocks 12.49% U.S. stocks 72.08% Alternatives 1.14% Unclassified 0.70%
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 20:34
|
|
|
NyetscapeNavigator posted:So awhile ago I signed up for SoFi's "automated investing." I didn't know too much then so didn't look to closely, but I know more now and I'm trying to figure out what to do. Since it's "automated" the only thing you can do is set what % you want the stocks and bonds mix to be. Oof. This is basically the robo-advisor version of the financial advisor who puts you in so many funds that you get confused and assume they must know what they are doing. As far as I am concerned, long term investors need only 1-2 funds: a total world stock fund, or a mix of US and international stock funds of your choosing. Bonds are optional but usually recommended. You should certainly have some short term / cashlike funds available as well. You should at least turn off dividend reinvestment on these to redirect the funds to something simpler. If its not too big a tax hit, I would just sell all this off now. It will only be more problematic in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 20:45
|
|
|
There's not a lot of money in there yet, so I think I'll just sell it and start elsewhere. Going through the tax process might be good experience because it's all just theoretical in my head right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 20:52
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Yeah, if I remove the house fund bonds it looks like: seems pretty normal except the 6% cash which IMO should be at or near 0%. I dunno what Alternatives is, is that like gold or REITs or something? That's fine too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 21:00
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:seems pretty normal except the 6% cash which IMO should be at or near 0%. I dunno what Alternatives is, is that like gold or REITs or something? That's fine too. It's just a weird thing that Personal Capital does. VTI and SWTSX have small holdings in random stuff like Real Estate. For some reason Personal Capital splits them out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 21:08
|
|
|
It's correct to split them out, I just didn't recognize the label used. That's fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 21:54
|
|
|
NyetscapeNavigator posted:There's not a lot of money in there yet, so I think I'll just sell it and start elsewhere. Going through the tax process might be good experience because it's all just theoretical in my head right now. It should hopefully be easy to find out what your unrealized short and long term gains are. It might be worth waiting for short term gains to become long term ones if its more than a trivial amount.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 22:04
|
|
|
drk posted:It should hopefully be easy to find out what your unrealized short and long term gains are. It might be worth waiting for short term gains to become long term ones if its more than a trivial amount. Even if you want to wait, might be good to transfer in kind if possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 22:19
|
|
|
Is there a Roth 401k vs Traditional 401k contribution calculator that doesn't suck out there? I tried Fidelity's and I can't make heads or tales of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
daslog posted:Is there a Roth 401k vs Traditional 401k contribution calculator that doesn't suck out there? I tried Fidelity's and I can't make heads or tales of it. Depends on your current and best guess at expected future tax rates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2024 19:38
|
|
|
Considering a career shift that would provide, among other things, the opportunity to invest directly in a major hedge fund. Apparently this isn't an option for most people. Any particular up/down sides to this to be aware of?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2024 20:35
|
|
|
Any product or financial instrument marketed as "uniquely available to the wealthy" is going to be poo poo, 99% of the time What do you like about this hedge fund other than its exclusivity?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 01:51
|
|
|
details of the exact conditions of the access matter a lot. things like can you contribute before tax, do they give you a preferential carry rate, is it an open end fund and if not are you alright with a significant portion of your investments being extra-illiquid? what's they're track record like? alternative funds like hedge funds and private equity can have consistent outperformance over an equity benchmark, but if they're not in the top quartile you're almost certainly losing out to an index fund. it's very hard to determine which funds are in the top performs, i won't pretend to know how to do that kind of research. even in the top quartile there is research indicating that all of the outperformance is basically eaten up by fees. this is where a preferential carry rate for fund employees can be a winner if access to the fund is a stand alone perk without associated sweeteners then it's probably not a net positive for the position
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 02:28
|
|
|
I need some simple advice. I have a personal Fidelity Roth IRA with $6500 invested in FZROX. I picked that because I read it was good (I know). I have another $7k for this year that I'm ready to contribute to it but I'm a bit paralyzed on what to invest that $7k in. Can someone recommend me a "middle-of-the-road" investment that I can just put that money in and get it earning? I don't plan on retiring for another 25 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 04:19
|
|
|
Hughmoris posted:I need some simple advice. I think a lot of other people in here will have more specific advice, but if you really aren't sure VTI is spiritually similar. My understanding, which hopefully I'll be quickly corrected on, is FZROX can't be easily transferred to another broker if you ever needed to do that, but otherwise tracks the same stocks something like VTI does. (edit: normal "I 'm a schlub and have no idea what I'm talking about and this is not financial advice disclaimer here")
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
Hughmoris posted:I need some simple advice. If you're planning to retire in 25 years and don't know much about all the different types of assets or how to balance them for your risk tolerance, check out the Fidelity Freedom Index 2050 target date fund. It's an entire portfolio in a single fund that allocates between domestic and international stocks as well as bonds for you, and rebalances automatically to be more conservative (heavier into bonds) as you get closer to the retirement year. Truly buy and forget, hands off. Again, make sure you're looking at the index version because there's a non-index version with a very similar name that has a much higher expense ratio. Also, only hold a target date fund in a tax advantaged retirement account like your IRA, because they tend to do things for the rebalancing that can run up a tax bill if you hold them in a regular brokerage account. SamDabbers fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Jan 18, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 04:36
|
|
