|
This is a great thread, and I'll be coming back asking for more thorough advice, but for the moment I wanted to ask about a specific thing I have been investing in via my 401k that has not been mentioned in this thread yet: a "completion fund". Specifically, in my main (currently contributing to) 401k (through Fidelity) I have ~25% in VINIX, "Vanguard Institutional Index Fund Institutional Shares", which is an index fund that tracks the S&P 500 and has an expense ratio of just 0.05%. I also have ~20% in VIEIX, "Vanguard Extended Market Index Fund Institutional Shares", which is also an index fund: quote:...designed to track the performance of the Standard & Poor's Completion Index, a broadly diversified index of stocks of small and medium-size U.S. companies. The Standard & Poor's Completion Index contains all of the U.S. common stocks regularly traded on the New York and American Stock Exchanges, and the Nasdaq over-the-counter market, except those stocks included in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index So the idea I guess is that it 'completes' the total US Market, if you also hold S&P 500. VIEIX has an expense ratio of 0.09% so it costs a tiny bit more than VINIX. Without going into my asset allocation (having just read this thread I conclude I am in too many funds (8 in my main 401k and another 6 in an old 401k to which I no longer contribute), I'm interested in opinions on VIEIX specifically, and funds that track the S&P "completion" index more generally. E.g. why wouldn't someone just get a total market index that tracks all of the US exchanges? Presumably to overweight or underweight the S&P500... but why do that?
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2010 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
var1ety posted:Well, a naive look at VFINX (S&P 500) compared to VEXMX (Extended market) has VEXMX returning 49% compared to 23% for VFINX for the past year, so over-weighting during that time period would have yielded extra returns. I don't, and won't, try to do this kind of market timing; I'll lose in the long run. That said: what weighting ratio are you going with, between your S&P 500 fund and VEXMX?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2010 20:48
|
|
|
var1ety posted:For my domestic equity I am holding 80% S&P 500, 20% VEXMX. Great, OK. Thanks: I think I am still overweight VEXMX then, although not outrageously so.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2010 22:19
|
|
|
Does that 69% include your contributions you made during this year? If you just compare year-over-year balances, it does, so that would make the number very deceptive. And yes, stock market classes that plunged in late '08 are the ones that recovered the most in '09; for many of us, this simply means we had a year or two of extra-cheap shares to buy with our constant, steady additions to our retirement accounts, so it's quite nice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2010 23:04
|
|
|
Does he have the actual certificates in-hand? Or are the shares held by a broker or something?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2010 09:08
|
|
|
Is it possible to file for my 2009 taxes in February, as soon as I get my W-2s and 1099s back, and then use my tax refund to fund a Roth IRA that would 'count' for 2009? Or is this a chicken-and-egg problem where I really have to fund it before I file? Second, is that April deadline for 2009 IRA funding, actually "April, or whenever you file your 2009 taxes, whichever comes first"?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2010 00:28
|
|
|
flowinprose posted:Maybe you missed the part of the 1040 instructions where it actually states you can have your refund directly deposited into a Roth IRA for the same tax year as the return (as long as you can verify that the refund will be deposited by the deadline of the return). Oh nice! Yeah I hadn't looked at the 1040 this year yet (I bought a house and will file for the new homebuyer tax credit... and, my wife became a small business this year, so I'm debating whether to get a tax adviser for the first time in my life to avoid making any costly mistakes).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2010 02:14
|
|
|
Never fall in love with a stock. This isn't the stock thread so I won't go too much further than that, but this is advice coming from someone who did pretty well until he stayed with a company for emotional reasons instead of a cold, rational assessment of the likely future performance of the stock.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
Doesn't the market take an upcoming dividend into account when it prices a given security? I always thought that meant that the share price would drop by an appropriate amount when the dividend is issued, so that if you immediately re-invest, you're effectively buying discounted shares on that day anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2010 21:19
|
|
|
Oh, of course. That makes sense, I had missed that detail somehow. Thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 01:40
|
|
|
Yeah, in your wildest dreams you can't expect 19% returns on retirement savings. It's made sense to make contributions thus far, because of your employer's matching (that's free money and it's more than 19%), but as soon as you lose that option, my opinion is that you should focus on paying down that debt with as much of your income as you can afford. You're young enough that you can wait a year or two without making retirement contributions and then pile back into it with a vengeance once the card debt is gone, and make up the difference. It is important to stay disciplined, though, pay off the cards fast, and get back into retirement saving within a year or two.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 04:57
|
|
|
Yes, the only reason I recommended stopping the contributions was because Morris was going to be losing the matching when he leaves his job. If you have employer matching, that's 'free money' and almost always worth taking. You're getting 20%, plus tax advantage, which is obviously better than the 15% you're paying on your credit card debts. (Note: not always, though, if the only way to get the matching is by risking your own money in a terrible plan with no reasonable options; say, one which requires you to put all the money into a single-company stock.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
That's interesting, and I hadn't looked at it that way. I guess a lot depends on those starting assumptions; what is your top marginal tax rate, and what rate do you expect to be paying when you retire (but do you still only consider top marginal rate, or total average rate, for the retirement 'income' from a 401(k)?). There is also the calculation of when you expect to retire, because the more years you have till retirement, the more years of compounding returns the 401(k) gets. I'm not really sure how to factor that into the comparison. Edit: thinking more about this: if you are thinking of paying down credit card debt as a tax-free investment, don't you need to consider that when you spent that 'negative money' in the first place, it was effectively untaxed income, too (you pay no income tax on money you spend as debt)? And the money that pays interest on that card is also post-tax. Whereas with a 401(k), the money you put in is pre-tax, and then you pay (income) tax on both the principal and the accrued earnings (employer matching plus earnings). Oh, and, presumably paying CC debts today means you're using uninflated dollars, compared to the tax you pay many years from now on the 401(k), which (assuming inflation) you pay with cheaper dollars. Right? I'm getting a headache. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Mar 15, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 22:23
|
|
|
An IRA is not a good spot for emergency savings, because (even if the market performs well this year) you pay penalties for withdrawing money. Also, I'm not sure it's fair to say the market is "low", and your retirement savings is not the place to speculate on the market.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2010 17:47
|
|
|
Fair enough, and that sounds like a decent solution. It was the stock market comment that put me off, though. The Dow set a new 52-week high today. That's not to say it won't go higher, just that someone asserting that the market is currently low, and therefore now is a good time to shove your retirement savings into it, is perhaps not well-enough informed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2010 20:38
|
|
|
Be sure to keep in mind that your "investment plan" means all of your investments; not just what happens to be in a given investment vehicle (like an IRA or a 401(k)). E.g., I bought a house. I'm now very heavily invested in real estate, even if I own no real estate stocks in my 401(k), and I should keep that in mind when I balance my 401(k).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2010 19:31
|
|
|
Since your employer doesn't match, doing a separate IRA first makes sense because you have the most control over it. Once that is maxed, though, the 401(k) is at least tax-advantaged; so if it has relatively good investment options, it might make a better second-place than just putting money directly into a brokerage account and investing in funds or whatever. It depends on whether the 401(k)'s tax advantage is in the "right" direction for you (that is, which side of the investment you'd pay less tax on, your earnings today, vs. the withdrawals when you retire). If your student loan is quite low interest (federally subsidised?) then I think your plan makes sense. If it is higher interest (private loan?) then I think paying off the debt faster is the smart move, because dollars invested won't make as much in earnings+tax savings as you'll be paying in interest in the interim. (Of course, this assumes that after you pay off your loan, you'll increase your dollars invested so that the total going to investments+debt is the same.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2010 00:57
|
|
|
As far as I know, for Americans, your tax-advantaged retirement plans are: IRAs (traditional and/or Roth), and employer retirement plans (401(k)s and their cousins). There's more complicated stuff like trusts and things I think? But mostly that's what there is. 7% isn't great. Not awful, but not great. And I assume it's a variable rate that will rise with interest rates (which are currently as low as they can go, more or less, so the only thing they can do in the future is go up). So I'd say, certainly max your IRA/Roth contribution each year (because you can't 'go back' and fill in that money later, so it's an opportunity cost to not contribute) and then put every dollar beyond that into the loan to pay it off as fast as you can. You might manage 7% on a retirement plan, but you might not, and either way it's uncertain, whereas you'll definitely get 7% (on not paying interest) for every dollar you put into the loan.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2010 21:03
|
|
|
Enjoy your youth! Congratulations, you are going to retire a wealthy man. Go have fun. (Sorry, that's not terribly helpful! But I think you've got the right idea, more or less. One could argue about the exact ratios to put in stock funds vs. other investments, but in the long run you've got no debt, plenty of money, maxxing out your tax advantaged retirement options, and in great position to buy a house whenever you want. You could easily spend ten grand on a backpacking trip across Europe or something and be in good shape afterward. You're in your 20s, young and strong and full of vigor and (I imagine, you didn't say) not tied down by kids and family yet... it's time to sow some wild oats and enjoy yourself.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2010 04:49
|
|
|
You should also consider that you only get to contribute $5000 a year, forever. So if you have 30 years before you retire, that's 30x$5k=150k. If you withdraw money, you don't get to just put it back; putting money in counts towards your annual limit. So in this respect, a Roth IRA is not just a tax-advantaged savings account. Yes, you can use it as an emergency fund, but you're robbing your future retired self of tax-free income when you do.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2010 09:45
|
|
|
If you want to retire early and have bajillions of dollars to live on for forty or more years, $5k a year (or whatever, maybe assume the max will increase to keep up with inflation) is not going to get you there, even with the most wildly optimistic estimates of earnings. So, no, I don't think it's that big of an issue: put the max you can into tax-advantaged plans, and then put three or four or five times that much into more liquid investments. By the time you're fifty (or whatever) you'll have your $7.5 million or whatever ready to withdraw right away, and your comparatively small Roth IRA can wait till you're old enough to withdraw without penalty.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2010 18:44
|
|
|
I think I get the gist of it. Your uncle was a shareholder in Rambus and then Rambus got involved in some corporate litigation, which I assume caused the stock to plunge (huge corporate lawsuits take many years to resolve and if the chance of a company-ruining judgment was out there, that tends to have a big negative impact on a stock). Most reasonable investors would swallow their losses by selling their stock at whatever they could get from it and move on. It would appear that instead, your uncle obsessed over the progress of the case, held his stock, and at some point even started buying options (that is, paying cash money for the opportunity to sell his stock at a given price, regardless of the market price, on a given day; this is leverage, because it allows you to 'double-down' on a particular bet). This was of course incredibly stupid, because it is a very bad idea to bet on the outcome of corporate litigation, and your uncle was already (I assume) looking at huge on-paper losses. It looks like he feels the outcome of the case was unfair (presumably he wanted Rambus to 'win', which would allow the stock to recover). Years ago, when I first started learning about investing in stocks, I was given some very excellent advice that I really took to heart (I don't remember by whom); Don't fall in love with your investments. It was very timely because at the time I was buying stock in companies whose products I really liked (AMD, Meade (telescopes), Marvel (comics), etc.). Falling in love with a security means you make emotional decisions about that investment instead of cold, clear-eyed assessments. It's fine to root for your favorite team, but we are very irrational about who we root for, often gravitating towards underdogs, and becoming loyal to a team that perennially loses... that kind of thing. I'm making a lot of assumptions and between-the-line reading from your uncle's letters, but what does seem to be clear to me is that he fell in love with Rambus and couldn't detach himself from it. If he'd given up when the litigation first started (ten years ago?) he'd have had a decade to rebuild his portfolio and recover from the losses. Instead he seems to have put more and more money into a terrible gamble because he was sure that any day now, 'justice would prevail' and his beloved company would recover, making all his thousands of lost dollars re-appear. His behavior was probably facilitated by a like-minded echo-chamber of obsessives in some tiny forum online somewhere (investorvillage Rambus subform), which is a shame, but I suspect rather increasingly common.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2010 19:02
|
|
|
I'm interested in second opinions on changing my 401(k) allocations and balances, which I haven't touched in a long time. Here is my current 401(k): pre:Symbol Fund Balance (%) Allocation Expenses and management fees VIIIX VANG INST INDEX PLUS 28.31% 30% 0.02% VIEIX VANG EXT MKT IDX INS 20.42% 20% 0.04% ARTVX ARTISAN SM CAP VALUE 14.72% 20% 0.96% JMVAX PERKINS MID CP VAL I 10.91% 10% 0.78% FGCKX FID GROWTH CO K 10.48% 10% 0.65% TCMMX TCM SM MID CAP GRTH 8.52% 10% 0.80% ? VANGUARD TARGET 2040 6.63% 0% ? Total: 100% 88.73% Domestic Stock 1.94% Foreign Stock 0.02% Bonds 2.57% Short-Term 6.63% Unknown 0.12% Other I picked most of these things about five years ago or so, based more or less entirely on previous performance and low fees. When I first started working here I just dumped everything into the Vanguard 2040, but moved my allocations out of it after a year. I left the balance there, though. I have a broad range of choices in my 401(k). Target funds: Vanguard Target (2005 through 2050), plus "Vanguard Target Retirement Income Trust I" Index funds: -stock SPARTAN INTL INDEX VANG EXT MKT IDX INS VANG INST INDEX PLUS -bond VANG TOT BD MK IS PL CORE OPTIONS & <mycompany's> COMMON STK FD -Stock Investments FID LOW PRICED STK K DODGE & COX STOCK FID GROWTH CO K FID DISCIPLND EQ K FID CONTRAFUND K FID WORLDWIDE <mycompany's> COMMON STK FD DODGE & COX INTL STK ARTISAN INTL ARTISAN SM CAP VALUE LZRD EMRG MKTS EQ IS PERKINS MID CP VAL I TCM SM MID CAP GRTH -Blended Fund Investments FID BALANCED K -Bond Investments PIM TOTAL RT INST GALLIARD STABLE VAL Other: "Brokeragelink" I'm 35, looking to retire in 30 years. I am married with no kids (and no plans for kids), my wife has a very modest retirement which is unlikely to see a lot of contributions in the near or medium future. I bought a house in December, so I'm now making a major investment into real estate, so I want to avoid real estate in my 401(k). I feel that I'm fairly tolerant of risk, but my current investment is far too heavily weighted towards domestic stocks. I also want to move more heavily into international stocks. I seem to have a ton of options. This "Brokeragelink" thing seems like it allows me to invest in almost anything on the market, which is amazing, but I need to investigate whether there are fees involved (I suspect there are), and given the range of funds available, I'm not sure I need to bother with that. What I am interested in hearing is opinions on the current funds I'm in, and any standouts among the ones I'm able to move into within the plan. (By the way, although the company I work for is great, I feel just being employed by them is more than enough exposure to their performance; I'm not going to buy company stock with my retirement plan.) I figure after reallocating, I want something like: 25% bonds 50% domestic stocks 25% foreign stocks Of domestic stocks, I want a broad spread between small, medium, and large caps, but given I have 30 years before retirement, I feel less inclined towards blue chips and would rather favor small and mid-cap value and growth. Of bonds, I'd like to go less for low-yield treasuries and more for a broader range of corporate and government bonds. I can look up symbols for any of the listed options if they are unclear. Oh yeah: my company matches 50% of my contributions up to 6% of my salary, so I am and always have been contributing 6% of my salary to maximize that match, and I'm not likely to change that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2010 19:36
|
|
|
Right. Studies (which I am too lazy to google and link to) have shown that, overall, people who try to time the market with their retirement portfolio tend to underperform those who pick a diversified portfolio and just leave it be. When the market is down, you are buying cheaper shares. Unless you're going to retire very soon (like in the next 5-10 years?), you are probably better off just buying those cheap shares, and getting the benefit when the market recovers of dollar-cost averaging. Also, no feedback at all on my funds questions?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2010 19:35
|
|
|
slap me silly, yeah, I figured folks might not comment for exactly those reasons. I guess I just have to do more homework and then make a decision. As to market timing: I view it as added risk (of underperforming the market) with added potential rewards (potentially outperforming the market), just like all investing. The difference for me is that this is my retirement money. I absolutely can't afford to make a blunder somewhere and piss away half my retirement money. If I want to play on the market and try to beat it and get rich, I need to do that with money I can afford to risk; hence, I have my retirement fund that is sacrosanct, and I have a stock broker account with cash in it that is "play money". (Or I would, if I hadn't just bought a house...) But people's situations are different. If you're younger than me, or your retirement portfolio is larger (so you feel you can shoulder more risk), or whatever, then go ahead; learn as much as you can, and then make educated guesses (the best anyone can do). Just be aware that a lot of very smart and well-educated people underperform - sometimes disastrously - despite all their market saavy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2010 17:49
|
|
|
Are you trying to be diversified? It seems like you're heavily into industrial, energy, and consumer products, but you're lacking anything in a wide swath of sectors (tech, financial, healthcare, services, utilities, etc.) Does all your income have to be from dividends? You could get income from bonds, CDs, etc. as well...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2010 21:37
|
|
|
If I might be so bold; if Droo has a million dollars to invest, he can afford better, more personalized advice than he's likely to find in even this very excellent thread on an internet comedy website. Particularly with his combative attitude. A financial adviser can be paid to ignore it. That said, he asked for specific stocks. Specifically, quote:# A real estate income-type company like O. I am waiting awhile before buying to see if commercial real estate gets nailed like everyone claims it will, and I'm not in a hurry. For "a dividend paying bank stock", I'd suggest that with financial reform laws pending and a lot of fallout from the financial crisis still floating down, nobody would be wise to pick a particular bank out as being especially solid. The same thing applies to real estate, only more so. Staple American names... pepsi and macdonalds are very solid (americans aren't going to stop buying burgers or sugar water, no matter the financial climate) but I'd guess they're both solidly international companies now, with profits that are tied to international growth and performance. So... maybe Kellogg? They pay a regular 37.5 cent dividend 4 times a year and, looking at 10 years of history, that number has steadily climbed from 25 cents 10 years ago without a missed dividend. At $50 a share, their P/E is at 15. Their competetor, General Mills, is a better value at $35 a share and now paying 28 cent dividends, but its history is spottier (a missed dividend in '06). They just had a 2:1 split on June 9, so maybe that is a factor to consider. P/E at 15.6. Kraft is in the same business and another solid American food brand. It's trading at $29, paying 4x 29 cent dividends a year, P/E at 16.6. Getting out of food and into consumer & industrial goods, how about 3M? They've increased their dividend to 4x53 cents in 2010, trading at $82 with a P/E of 16.3. I don't think they've missed a dividend, or lowered the dividend, since they started paying them in the late 80s. How do you feel about Intel? They're tech, obviously, but they're sure as poo poo not going anywhere, they have gobs of money and are paying 15.75 cent dividends this year, stock is at $21, P/E 12.73. I dunno. It seems like there's plenty of choices out there. Not sure what criteria to use to pick, beyond "well known, pays dividends, isn't going away". I know nothing about bond funds, so I won't hazard a guess there.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2010 08:20
|
|
|
You'll be making about $16k a year, before taxes. After putting $5k into your Roth, you've got what, less than $10k over? I suggest you build up a $10k nest egg, maybe open a Vanguard account and put $5k of it into a Vanguard index fund, and keep the rest as your cash emergency fund.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2010 00:12
|
|
|
/\/\sure thing! Brian Fellows, "minimum" means that's the smallest amount you're allowed to put in to a given fund. So yeah, you can't put in less than that. If you have only enough to buy one fund, you can buy one of those "target 2040" or whatever funds, which are actually a mix of asset classes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2010 00:38
|
|
|
You don't even need to speak to a human being. You can do it entirely on the web, and Vanguard's web site makes it very easy. Just go to their website, click "open an account", and pick the "open a new account" option. You can pick an IRA (Roth or Traditional), transfer funds electronically to fund the account, and then pick investment options. They'll mail you whatever tax forms you need each year as well. It's really ridiculously easy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
Investing on margin is squarely outside retirement and long-term investing, in my opinion. You wouldn't use your retirement fund to buy options, either. Look to the stock investing thread, and only use money you can afford to lose (read up on margin calls). Long term and retirement savings is about your nest egg, and how to protect it and nurture it and help it grow without putting it into undue risk.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 19:07
|
|
|
That is an interesting line of argument. However, I don't think the point of asset allocation is to get your total retirement savings exposed to a certain percentage of equities over a certain number of years, per se; as I understand it, the idea is to manage exposure of your total current savings to risk, with your risk tolerance starting out high, and dropping as you get older, until a few years before retirement when your risk tolerance is nearly zero. Exposing your money to leveraged equities means more risk. If you feel comfortable with higher risk, then cool beans, but I don't think the argument you put forth is what gets you there; instead, you should simply consider the various personal factors that determine how much risk you can tolerate today, and allocate your savings accordingly.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2010 02:57
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but: if you are leveraged in long positions and the market is falling, won't you get margin calls?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2010 03:16
|
|
|
Thanks for the really detailed explanations. I knew about options and stocks, but didn't consider commodities, futures, or (in particular) leveraged ETFs.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2010 07:39
|
|
|
80k posted:Also known as MYR: Mortgage Your Retirement I've just read the entire thing, over the weekend. It's an amazing and startling display of remarkable intelligence and remarkable hubris. When Market Timer starts waxing philosophical and doing a lot of the really in-depth self-examination (beginning in 2008), is where the thread really warmed up I think, at least for me. There is a valuable lesson there, but it's not really about the dangers of leverage; it's about the dangers of believing yourself to be capable of dispassionate rational decision-making in the face of enormous potential, and real, losses.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2010 22:06
|
|
|
Actually, moana, that really makes me wonder. We've all talked up Vanguard in this thread because of their excellent expense ratios (among other reasons). Why does Vanguard offer such low expense ratios? Are they simply paying their fund managers less? Do they manage based on a formula? Are they performing as well as other, more expensive funds? I'm interested in a discussion on this topic, because I may (finally) be ready to invest beyond my (matched) 401(k) this year, so a Vanguard Roth is the obvious next choice for me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2010 19:41
|
|
|
I would say the only caveat to that is, if you have so much debt you are in danger of defaulting and thereby incurring fees along with penalty interest rates. In that case, yes, pay debts first. Otherwise, yeah, employer matching is free money, and you should at a minimum set your 401k contributions to a level that gets the maximum matching your employer offers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
Eggplant Wizard posted:Thanks for the huge and detailed answer You're getting great answers, but I have a quick question (since you're a grad student): Got any student loans? If so, how much, and are they federal subsidised, federal unsubsidised, or non-federal (private bank) student loans? Because all this investment advice is based on certain assumptions about what will earn you the best return, but it may be that the best return you can earn is by paying off loans instead. Worth asking about, anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2010 03:00
|
|
|
Yeah, federal subsidized loans accrue interest while you are in school, which the government pays on your behalf. After you get out, you can delay for like six months or so, but then you have to start paying the interest. The interest rate itself is set at some fairly low value by the government, and it gets adjusted annually (I think in July). Even so, as soon as you start owing interest, you're looking at something like a 5% guaranteed return on your money for paying that debt. So definitely plan to pay it all off rapidly. If you can invest for retirement and still save to pay those debts, then you're in good shape.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2010 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
The Spartan 500 seems OK expense-wise. It's just an S&P500 index fund. Vanguard's S&P 500 index, VFINX, has an expense ratio of .18% (not sure what the management fee is, if there is one). So it compares favorably there. Otherwise I agree the Fidelity funds aren't as good as Vanguard's offerings, but if Corn gets employer matching he absolutely should max that in his Fidelity 401(k) account regardless.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2011 21:26
|
|