|
Motronic posted:Uhhhh....you pay BOTH of those things when you take an early distribution.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Even in a Roth? I know Roth you can withdraw contributions early with no penalties or fees, but what about the earnings? You can withdraw contributions you made to your Roth IRA anytime, tax- and penalty-free. However, you may have to pay taxes and penalties on earnings in your Roth IRA. Withdrawals from a Roth IRA you've had less than five years. If you take a distribution of Roth IRA earnings before you reach age 59½ and before the account is five years old, the earnings may be subject to taxes and penalties. You may be able to avoid penalties (but not taxes) in the following situations: You use the withdrawal (up to a $10,000 lifetime maximum) to pay for a first-time home purchase. You use the withdrawal to pay for qualified education expenses. You're at least age 59½. You become disabled or pass away. You use the withdrawal to pay for unreimbursed medical expenses or health insurance if you’re unemployed. The distribution is made in substantially equal periodic payments.1 Withdrawals from a Roth IRA you've had more than five years. If you’re under age 59½ and your Roth IRA has been open five years or more,1 your earnings will not be subject to taxes if you meet one of the following conditions: You use the withdrawal (up to a $10,000 lifetime maximum) to pay for a first-time home purchase. You're at least age 59½. You become disabled or pass away. You use the withdrawal to pay for unreimbursed medical expenses or health insurance if you’re unemployed. The distribution is made in substantially equal periodic payments.1
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
There are a number of mutual funds that only invest in ‘clean’ sources of income. I.e. no alcohol or guns or etc...
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
the ol Ex-ATF ETF
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Currently invested in ESSP via eTrade and divesting quarterly when long term capital gains kicks in. The dividend is paying into my individual eTrade brokerage account and sitting there. Is there anything low cost I can do to have it auto invest in some conservative holding for modest long term compounding? ($200/year in distributions and will double annually for the next 2-3 years if I continue to be bullish and have other investments diluting my risk). Or should I just transfer it to vanguard and roll it in with my primary savings/investments there?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:the ol Ex-ATF ETF They are usually named some variation on “Social Choice” or similar. I’m sure that if you look around and your conscious is stronger than your desire for low fees you can find one tailor made for your concerns. Be it guns or no animal testing or etc... E: for example vftsx describes itself as: Some individuals choose investments based on social and personal beliefs. For this type of investor, we have offered Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund since 2000. This low-cost fund seeks to track a benchmark of large- and mid-capitalization stocks that have been screened for certain social, human rights, and environmental criteria. In addition to stock market volatility, one of the fund’s other key risks is that this socially conscious approach may produce returns that diverge from those of the broad market.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
KaiserKarl posted:Currently invested in ESSP via eTrade and divesting quarterly when long term capital gains kicks in. The dividend is paying into my individual eTrade brokerage account and sitting there. Is there anything low cost I can do to have it auto invest in some conservative holding for modest long term compounding? ($200/year in distributions and will double annually for the next 2-3 years if I continue to be bullish and have other investments diluting my risk). Or should I just transfer it to vanguard and roll it in with my primary savings/investments there? ETrade has a selection of commission-free ETFs: https://www.etrade.wallst.com/v1/fu...gramFlag:EQU:1; Perhaps one of those would be a good choice, and you won't be getting beat up on trading fees to do it quarterly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
My company changed HR providers, and with that, 401k providers. They don't seem to be moving the money over to the new 401k, so I tried rolling it over to my IRA. The old HR company (trinet) is going to deny the rollover unless I can provide documentation that I don't work for my company any more. I guess they can keep sucking down $15/quarter in fees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
SeaWolf posted:So long term what do we think of David Hogg demanding that everyone with money invested with Vanguard divest themselves because GUNS? https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/986338651218108417?s=20 Judging by this he looked at a spreadsheet of the top holders of a gun company’s stock and drew names out of a hat. His research into this issue and Vanguard as a company is as shallow as that, so I don’t think it warrants any serious thought
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
At the end of the day, they are in the index and Vanguard’s buggest funds have to own indexes, thus Vanguard is going to own them even if they start selling baby seeking missiles to toddlers tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
kid's kind of an idiot but hey, he's got his cause and he's 18 years old so naturally he is going to be kind of an idiot about it
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Honestly if I wanted to invest according to my morals, I don't know what I would invest in. I mean, buying government bonds also indirectly supports weapons companies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
They offer socially conscious funds or something like that. But when I look at the Vanguard one it invests in companies like Alphabet which definitely makes stuff for militaries. And I bet Johnson and Johnson murders like 5 million rats a year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
I think we're finally growing up to be the villians in a cheesy 80s movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Yeah I'm not paying extra fees to own actively managed funds just to avoid owning a few shares of fortune 500 companies that make guns. It's not like my ownership of those shares actually gives money to the gun manufacturers, so the there's like four levels of indirectness here: whoever bought shares at IPO --> being in an index --> index fund buys shares from them --> I own some shares of the index fund. More importantly, Vanguard could not divest itself of the shares even if it wanted to, without entirely eliminating S&P500 index funds and that's just not something it can do. No amount of individual investor pressure is going to change that. I like Hogg but he does not understand how this works and would be well advised to pursue a different tack. e. For my own part, I don't think individual investor behavior has the slightest effect on social policy like this. Institutional investors have a little more power to e.g. affect the composition of the boards of companies, but no set of institutional investors can do anything more to a gun company to drive it out of business than just not buy its stock, but see: index investing for the problem with that. It's not like a gun company with a given amount of annual sales, costs, revenue, etc. is going to suddenly stop making guns entirely because its stock went down 20% or something. If the idea is to get gun companies to stop lobbying (directly or by proxy using the NRA), well, LOL. Every company will lobby for its interests. The only reasonable approaches to gun control are social (convince owners and customers), political (convince voters and politicians), and legal (convince judges and juries). Shareholder activism just isn't particularly helpful here. I feel the same way about poo poo like buying big oil companies or Monsanto or big tobacco etc. I'm certainly not buying individual shares in those companies, but I'm not going to cripple my retirement investments by refusing to do any index investing just to avoid indirectly owning shares in them. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Apr 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
it would be smarter if he encouraged people to invest in socially-conscious index funds but yeah he doesn't really get how it works
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
Motronic posted:ETrade has a selection of commission-free ETFs: https://www.etrade.wallst.com/v1/fu...gramFlag:EQU:1; Perfecto, thank you!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
I feel like if you want to exert some influence over gun manufacturers instead of just having a cause and feeling good about yourself, you'd want to actually do the opposite and encourage ownership of those companies. Then you can actually influence management to go in a different direction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
Eyes Only posted:I feel like if you want to exert some influence over gun manufacturers instead of just having a cause and feeling good about yourself, you'd want to actually do the opposite and encourage ownership of those companies. Then you can actually influence management to go in a different direction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Vanguard already said they plan to exert some influence on the gun companies or at least talk to them. Hogg didn't think people were going to just divest everything. He's actually just talking to Vanguard and Blackrock. It's the same thing when he convinced the sponsors to leave the Laura Ingraham show. It's not like he expected people to stop watching her show. He's talking to the corporations. Shame works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
I hope he's getting a basic financial education as part of these talks so he doesn't embarrass himself like that again. The general public's financial literacy is probably low enough that he's going to get a pass and a pat on the back though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
I got laid off, got my 401k to take care of now... looking for a new job but haven't had to deal with a roll over before.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:I think we're finally growing up to be the villians in a cheesy 80s movie. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Vanguard already said they plan to exert some influence on the gun companies or at least talk to them. Hogg didn't think people were going to just divest everything. He's actually just talking to Vanguard and Blackrock. It's the same thing when he convinced the sponsors to leave the Laura Ingraham show. It's not like he expected people to stop watching her show. He's talking to the corporations. Shame works. Then why is the hashtag he created #BoycottVangaurd?  And unless he has a longer blog post somewhere he hasn’t made any demands other than those on Twitter to boycott Vanguard and Blacrock because they are “investors in the gun companies”
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
This thread is amazing. There’s no law of nature that says Vanguard has to own X, that you have to own Y, or that you get to pocket a profit while having zero skin in the game. It’s a bunch of people making a bunch of decisions. Rationalize it however you like, decide how much you care and where you draw the line. But don’t pretend like you’re completely removed from everything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:This thread is amazing. There’s no law of nature that says Vanguard has to own X, that you have to own Y, or that you get to pocket a profit while having zero skin in the game. It’s a bunch of people making a bunch of decisions. Rationalize it however you like, decide how much you care and where you draw the line. But don’t pretend like you’re completely removed from everything. No, it's not a law of nature, it's a law of index-based mutual fund investing, which are the fundamental way to avoid handing over stupid amounts of money to parasites running actively managed funds while still investing in stocks. If you think we ought to stop using index funds that's nice, but it's dumb to do that solely on the basis of not wanting to own the shares of gun companies. The only alternative available to normal people right this moment is to take on a huge drag on their retirement accounts to avoid broad market-index-based funds. That includes S&P500 funds, and I assume also broader funds (Russel 1000, 2000, 5000), small cap index funds, etc. You're telling someone in their thirties to give up tens of thousands of dollars in retirement if they actually managed to convince Vanguard etc. to stop offering these funds, because now they have to invest in actively-managed funds with much, much higher ERs. Vanguard has decided to put pressure on the gun manufacturers I guess, and that's cool. Those manufacturers are undoubtedly fully aware that Vanguard can't and won't actually do jack or poo poo financially, though, so the actual effect is probably going to be minimal. And meanwhile, a whole lot of people probably got the completely false impression that Vanguard, specifically, is responsible for supporting gun manufacturers, when in fact literally everyone on Earth with an S&P500 (or broader index) mutual fund in their portfolio is doing exactly the same thing. People who understood what Hogg was actually talking about, on the other hand, will have just lowered their opinion of him to some degree, because his call for a boycott of Vanguard on this basis shows he probably does not actually understand what he's asking for. It's not that big of a deal, really, but it speaks to a more general lack of financial literacy, particularly the sort of financial literacy that ought to be taught to high-schoolers. I really like Hogg, I like what he's doing, I love the amount of impact he's having, but this particular line of advocacy is unfortunate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
carbon offsets, but for 401k gains in problematic companies
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
hot take: guns are rad
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:This thread is amazing. There’s no law of nature that says Vanguard has to own X, that you have to own Y, or that you get to pocket a profit while having zero skin in the game. It’s a bunch of people making a bunch of decisions. Rationalize it however you like, decide how much you care and where you draw the line. But don’t pretend like you’re completely removed from everything. I know I am profiting from merchants of death, but the only thing I can see that I can reasonably do is change my habits on the demand side of things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 01:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:You're telling someone in their thirties to give up tens of thousands of dollars in retirement if they actually managed to convince Vanguard etc. to stop offering these funds, because now they have to invest in actively-managed funds with much, much higher ERs. I’m not telling anyone to do anything with their investments. I’m disputing the idea that you can invest in the companies of the world without being involved in that world. quote:Vanguard has decided to put pressure on the gun manufacturers I guess, and that's cool. Those manufacturers are undoubtedly fully aware that Vanguard can't and won't actually do jack or poo poo financially, though, so the actual effect is probably going to be minimal. Who knows. Maybe they’ll decide to waive expenses on their "socially conscious" funds. They seem to have some creative financial minds over there, they might come up with something. quote:People who understood what Hogg was actually talking about, on the other hand, will have just lowered their opinion of him to some degree, because his call for a boycott of Vanguard on this basis shows he probably does not actually understand what he's asking for. No doubt Mr Hogg is dismayed at the loss of all those people who were just waiting to see how he’d interact with everyone’s favorite purveyor of index funds before lending their full-throated support. No, wait, that’s exactly zero people. CopperHound posted:I literally have no idea how to invest in a smart socially responsible way. Even looking at the top holdings of VFTSX... A lot of them have blood on their hands in one way or another. I have no idea either! It could well be out of reach for anyone spending less than full time hours on their investing. And yeah there’s lots you can do outside of your retirement portfolio to bring some good in the world. Probably won’t be hard to more than make up for the handful of shares most of us own in the lovely companies of the world. I’m not really going anywhere with all this. I hold cap-weighted broad market funds too and I hope to profit from those holdings. I guess I wanted to push against the idea that there’s no humanity on the other side of the coin, and I feel like we’re not reminded of that often enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 02:58
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:I literally have no idea how to invest in a smart socially responsible way. Even looking at the top holdings of VFTSX... A lot of them have blood on their hands in one way or another. Just put it all in an Ally savings account
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
What is a sane home price to investments / income ratio? For instance if I had an income of 140k, 100k down, and a savings of 900-1M where should I draw the line on home prices. I have decided that 400k is about my mental limit but a bit more than that would get me closer to where I want to live.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 03:15
|
|
|
Ropes4u posted:savings of 900-1M CopperHound fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Apr 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 04:50
|
|
|
Ropes4u posted:What is a sane home price to investments / income ratio? Conventional wisdom is that you shouldn't spend more than 40% of your gross income on all debts combined (housing, student loans, auto loans). You shouldn't spend more than 32% of your gross income on total housing expenses (mortgage, insurance, taxes), and no more than 28% of your gross income should be going to the payment itself. Note that lots of people exceed these numbers, especially in High Cost of Living areas, but these percentages are pretty much the standard for what's "safe" in the US. Going just by your income it wouldn't be unreasonable to go as high as $500k, and since that would be a $100k down payment you're looking very good in your low-$400k range. A $450k house with 20% down at 4.5% would still be a mortgage payment under $1900/mo, and you make more than 5 times that. You could pay an extra $1300/mo in principle and still be "fine" going by those numbers (and you'd pay off your house in ~12 years) (don't actually do that). You're in a great position financially.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 06:09
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:This puts you in a category where most guidelines don't apply. People generally advise a payment to income ratio limit of ~30%. When you start talking about anything costing more than 200k the veins in my wife’s head start to throb. Tricky Ed posted:Conventional wisdom is that you shouldn't spend more than 40% of your gross income on all debts combined (housing, student loans, auto loans). You shouldn't spend more than 32% of your gross income on total housing expenses (mortgage, insurance, taxes), and no more than 28% of your gross income should be going to the payment itself. Note that lots of people exceed these numbers, especially in High Cost of Living areas, but these percentages are pretty much the standard for what's "safe" in the US. Colorado really did go insane the last couple of years and it looks like we will have to adjust to +300k for a decent house. My finances are the result of a steady savings rate and low cost vanguard index funds, as frequently suggested here it’s the idiot proof method.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 11:58
|
|
|
Ropes4u posted:My finances are the result of a steady savings rate and low cost vanguard index funds, as frequently suggested here it’s the idiot proof method. What you're describing is the "straightforward" method; to describe it as "idiot proof" is to underrate the ingenuity and self-deception of huge, sweaty hordes of goons - some of whom are notorious alumni of this very forum (and sometimes thread!) - to continue to make their way through the world spending beyond their means and failing to save a copper penny while digging themselves deeper into debt.  Congratulations on your substantial commitment to planning for the future, and not simply dumping the whole pot on a huge house. The best way to become a multi-millionaire is to not start feeling (or spending!) like a millionaire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 13:10
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:
BUY 'EM OUT, BOYS! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 13:21
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:What you're describing is the "straightforward" method; to describe it as "idiot proof" is to underrate the ingenuity and self-deception of huge, sweaty hordes of goons - some of whom are notorious alumni of this very forum (and sometimes thread!) - to continue to make their way through the world spending beyond their means and failing to save a copper penny while digging themselves deeper into debt. True. I try not to think of how much better off I would be had I started at 20 instead of late 20s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 13:38
|
|
|
Ropes4u posted:True. I try not to think of how much better off I would be had I started at 20 instead of late 20s. You're doing quite well sir. When I recently heard the stats of the typical debt vs. savings vs. retirement most folks in the US are holding, I felt quite good that I was saving for retirement and emergencies at all. Ropes4u posted:When you start talking about anything costing more than 200k the veins in my wife’s head start to throb. Wow anything around $200k boggles my mind. I live in the greater Seattle area where apartments are going for $300k+, and the average home price is above $800k. And these aren't 3000sq/ft homes, most of these around the $600-800k pricing are 12-1500 sq/ft older homes that need work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
Ropes4u posted:What is a sane home price to investments / income ratio? I'm at 700k+ in investments and 60k in salary, and was looking at up to 400 for my area for a nice 3/2. I ended up in a contract for a place at 307k and am putting down 20%, which is a lot more "doable", but I like having the piece of mind of knowing that I could buy off the entire house for less than half my investments if the worst came to worst. There was a big psychological difference in having a loan of 246k vs 300k for me, so I get where you are coming from.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 18:12
|
|
