|
nelson posted:You're not going to find a guaranteed investment that will beat 4.875% right now. People keep saying stuff like this but I guess I don't understand because from what I can see there are dividend paying stocks like BKCC or JNK that seem to be paying out well above 5% and have been for years. I don't know, I don't buy stocks for dividends so maybe I'm missing something.
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
poofactory posted:Tax cuts will lead to the US losing its AAA bond rating. http://www.cnbc.com/id/40641123 Good time to invest in commodities if you are a US person. Nice to see that the senate minority can be so myopic that they may actually cause the depression that we're skirting the edge of. It's disingenuous of that article to blame the "Obama Tax Package" when the lovely part of it is the minority compromise. Of course, it's asinine of Moody's to think that that tax package will severely affect the US's ability to collect taxes and pay it's debts.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2010 16:41
|
|
|
For long term purposes is there a reason to be in Vanguard Mutual Funds over Vanguard ETFs? I'm asking this now because the discussion of VGPMX above got me wondering. For example at the moment I am in VAW as part of my IRA portfolio but is there a reason to be in VGPMX instead? The only reason I chose VAW over VGPMX was because of a slightly lower expense ratio and that you have to hold VGPMX for at least a year to not suffer a penalty on withdrawl (I am still in the process of determining my long term strategy and thought I may want to move things around). So, I guess my question has two parts, the general question ETF or MF for an IRA? and the specific VAW or VGPWX? Murgos fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Feb 25, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 17:05
|
|
|
Sophia posted:Your father is not actually that old, and it doesn't sound like he's in a financial position where he'll be able to stop working in the next 10 years. Really? How long do you expect him to live? Do you have any idea what his expenses are? Wouldn't what he has now rolled into tax-exempt muni bonds give him a comfortable 25-30k a year? And when you add in Social Security it seems to me that he should be fairly comfortable without even touching his principle. But even if he were to pull 25 or 30 k out of his principle every year that would be sustainable for 25 years or so. Sounds like a pretty comfy retirement to me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2011 18:21
|
|
|
80k posted:in that case they are fine choices but likely no better than equivalent index funds. I think that was the point of the boggleheads article posted above. Rather, what it said was there is some advantage depending on which TM fund you were attempting to replace. However, the advantages were in all cases less than one percent and in some as low as .01 percent.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2011 18:34
|
|
|
Dr. Jackal posted:sounds odd for a fund to be matching a ETF performance, what fund is this? I think he's saying his fund doesn't match the comparable ETF and as such is wondering why he is invested in the fund. I asked that question here a while back, the answer was pretty much, "Switch to the ETF." So I did.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2011 14:18
|
|
|
So, since May 2nd VT and VTI (Vanguard's Total World Market ETF and Total US Market ETF) are both trending downward pretty steadily. I know you shouldn't try and time the market but isn't that a pretty strong indicator to go to cash (or bonds or something) for a month or so or until they establish an uptrend?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2011 14:45
|
|
|
Invest in funeral homes?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Well, if you accept my premise (and I'm not 100% convinced that I do) that most or all of the money pulled from retirement accounts will get spent domestically, then that money should be making everyone who isn't retired (and is therefore providing those goods and services) richer. They'll have more money to put into their retirement accounts! Heh, trickle down economics made real? The problem with making wealthy people more wealthy is that they don't spend the money, typically they invest the money efficiently and extract even more wealth from it. So, if you take a wealthy segment of the population and make them stop creating wealth and start spending the wealth they have stored away then the argument is that economy will expand to supply the 'new' demands of the retired? Except it's doubtful that there will be 'new' demands, just less wealth generation. The baby boomers won't be building newer bigger houses when they retire, the opposite if anything. They'll be looking to downsize as they deal with the insecurity of how long they will live and how much money they have. I guess the up-side is that if you go looking for a McMansion in 15 years they should be cheap.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Vanguard has a tool that shows you what the difference in expense fees mean on an annual basis. It's pretty convincing. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/tools/costcompare
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
NJ Deac posted:If you are worried about massive deflation and the FDIC failing, the proper investment is guns, ammunition, and canned goods rather than CDs and money market accounts. Actually, if you're worried about massive deflation the proper investment is probably Prozac, because at the rate the world is printing money it's inflation all the way baby.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 13:18
|
|
|
So, in sports they are doing a lot of analysis based on if you replaced player A with a random replacement player. It looks like market funds needs to start publishing their performance vs a random (for a standardized definition of random) collection of stocks. People have been talking about randomly picked stocks outperforming most managed funds for a long time now, has anyone ever actually offered an index of random stocks?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
If enough teachers in a district make a stink about it you can get the approved list of vendors changed. For example my wife's district just added Vanguard and TIAA-CREF. Apparently getting Vanguard took a lot of effort though, above and beyond what they normally have to do to add a vendor. I don't know why.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
70% stocks 60/40 split in VTI and TIAA S&P 500 index fund 10% bonds with again 60/40 split BND and TIAA Bond fund 20% with 80/20 split VNQ and TIAA REIT Probably should do something international but, eh. How about that VNQ? 28% YTD return. It's pretty much all commercial property rents right (only 16% residential)? Owning buildings seems pretty lucrative. So, what do you do when you need to start withdrawing and being on a fixed income? Move everything to high dividend funds and then make up shortfalls by selling? Leave it the way it is and then just sell off evenly every month/quarter to cover expenses? Not that I have to worry about it for 20 years but I should probably think about it. Is there a generally well accepted guide or paper on how to handle that phase of your investment life?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
I have a question that is probably pretty stupid but here goes. Many of the 'lazy investing' approaches advocate putting at least some portion of your savings into a broad non-US market index such as VEU. My question is if it is true that approximately 40% of the US industry earnings come from non-us markets then wouldn't buying additional non-US funds be weighting you too heavily to foreign markets?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
I asked a little while back a question about, "Once it's time to start withdrawing what information is there to help you determine how to go about that?" and didn't get much of a response. So, I've done a bit of looking and started here: http://jlcollinsnh.com/2012/12/07/stocks-part-xiii-withdrawal-rates-how-much-can-i-spend-anyway/ Which led to here: http://www.onefpa.org/journal/Pages/Portfolio%20Success%20Rates%20Where%20to%20Draw%20the%20Line.aspx Which is really kind of interesting. For one thing it really challenges target date funds in that the more bond heavy a portfolio at retirement the harder it was to keep up with inflation. For example the Vanguard Target Retirement 2010 Fund is 60/40 bonds/stocks which from the above article looks like it's going to offer only modest success rates even at a modest 4% plus inflation annual withdrawal where a 25/75 bonds/stocks split would not only have a 100% success rate (success being that your funds have lasted at least 30 years) but that there is a very good possibility that you have an impressive gift to pass your heirs/nest egg to support your next 30 years of retirement/spend lavishly on hookers and blow.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Radbot posted:That dude is amazing. I wonder about that chart though - is it for MMM-style "eternal retirement"? Normally retirement models assume a drawing down of the original principal as one approaches death, but this one talks about being sustainable for 70yrs at a 4% annual withdrawal. That chart has issues. It's basic assumption is that if you (for example) spend 75% of your (annual) income and save 25% of your income then you need 75% of your annual income * 20 in savings so that you can live forever spending exactly as much in the future as you do now by withdrawing 4% annually. It's stupidly over-conservative and/or general.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:It sounds like you're angry at the chart/article because you think they're holding themselves out to be a precise prescription for an invite spectrum of wants and needs. U mad bro? Lol, how dare someone criticize the great MMM! The chart is not useful. For anyone. Despite the article claiming that it's going to answer the question "how can I possibly know when I’ll have enough to retire myself, with a completely different lifestyle?”" it actually does nothing of the sort.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Dessert Rose posted:I guess I don't exist, because I saw that chart and a light bulb went off in my head: if I reduce spending permanently, but don't reduce my income, then not only does my net worth grow faster but it doesn't need to be as high in order for me to achieve FI. Really, you needed someone to hold your hand and tell you that the more you save the faster it grows? That the less you spend the longer your savings will last? Good on yer bro. Here is some non-obvious information that will blow your mind: http://www.onefpa.org/journal/Pages/Portfolio%20Success%20Rates%20Where%20to%20Draw%20the%20Line.aspx Murgos fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Feb 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
MJBuddy posted:I wouldn't quite take that assertion for granted. Outside of the 2000-2001 recession, they're very correlated. REIT's are not 'very correlated' with the US Stock market. In my mind very correlated is > .9 while REITs have been, since Vanguard started selling a REIT index func in 1997, around .6 which is actually pretty uncorrelated. Not as uncorrelated as bonds, where you can expect a correlation of .2 usually, obviously. REITs are actually far less correlated with the US Stock Market than Total International. Heck, as far as I can tell, Small Cap Blend (Vanguard Explorer) is approximately as correlated with the total US Stock Market as Total International and provides MUCH better returns. Personally, I see little value in holding total international (Europe has been far from stable for a very long time now and I don't see it improving at all any time soon) and would rather hold a REIT index for the diversification benefit while still providing solid returns. Murgos fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
trigonsareNOThomo posted:3. Can someone explain whether or not I should be "dollar-cost averaging"? I'm a little fuzzy on what this means and whether it means I should have put money slowly in my IRA over a period of months or not. Just generally confused on this concept. Dollar Cost Averaging is a method for people who lack the ability to commit to get into the market. If you have no problem buying while knowing that the price may go down tomorrow then just go ahead and buy. Over a long time period it's going to make little to no difference. If you are totally worried that the fund you are buying might cost slightly less tomorrow and that possibility causes you to fail to enter the market at all then go ahead and use DCA to mitigate the cost of a likely minute and almost certainly temporary paper loss due to volatility. You are in a fairly aggressive fund though so I doubt if you are that concerned by volatility. Using DCA to enter the market will also cause you to mitigate any rises in the market that occur while you are cautiously getting your toes wet as well. TANSTAAFL and all that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
So, uh, market timing. The Fed has been strongly hinting that interest rates are going to go up this summer. You know, just to check things out, see how it goes. They've done this twice since 2008 and each time brought them back down after six months or so. Each time they have done this the bond market has responded with a dip, as you would expect, which then bounces back once the rates go down again. So, uh, yeah. So, hold and aggressively re-balance? Or just move bond allocations to cash and wait for things to settle and buy back in next winter (unless they say they want to go up more so wait another 6 months/year)? Is it really market timing when you know what's going to happen? I just don't feel like I need to be Johnny on the Spot with bonds, the point of them is to smooth out the curve of your total investment over time. I mean the Fed is basically saying this so that you have plenty of warning to get out of the way, right? I guess the risk of getting out to cash is that something emergent happens in the market and people run to bonds and the fed drops the rate again. But then you just buy with everyone else, right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:You've correctly identified a risk your strategy faces. Now tell us more about how "you know what's going to happen". I know the rate is going up, possibly temporarily. Yes, I think that's pretty clear. For the rest FUD is why you buy bonds so if the bonds themselves are uncertain then why hold them? e: I'm talking about holding cash instead not buying Hot Dog futures. Missing out on a small % of possible profit when you know a move is coming seems silly. Droo posted:My firm reduced the size of new long positions in bonds starting in 2009 because the bond market was clearly at a top. Total US stock CAGR 2009-2014 is 17.65% while Total Bond is 4.53% over the same period. Sounds like they made a good decision. Murgos fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Droo posted:Edit: you also missed the point entirely, which is that people have thought the bond market is at a historic high and about to crash any day now for literally 6 years. I don't think it's going to crash. I think the Fed is going to raise the rate by a point, which will drop the Bond market temporarily by 10%. That the effect of raising the rate 1% will cause the bond market to drop is not arguable. They've done it twice, temporarily, in the last 6 years and have been getting hounded by the senate to get on with it. e: In case you missed it I had rebutted your superfluous point (what the gently caress your firm did with their money) with a superfluous point of my own (that the market went up). Murgos fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:The most current edition has a post-script from 2010 or 2011. It's about 10 pages that just say "everything I wrote is still true". Bernstein is a smart guy and does good work in getting people to buy into passive investing. His crystal ball is no better than anyone else's though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
warderenator posted:ETF vs index mutual fund is mostly a matter of preference; personally I like funds. If you open a taxable account at Vanguard you can buy funds or ETFs. I don't think this is entirely true when considering being able to withdraw your money at short notice. Some Mutual Funds have penalties for withdrawing within 60 days of deposit (I've seen as high as 2% here). ETF's you can buy and sell at will as long as you thought ahead and got an ETF that trades with any frequency.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
fruition posted:I suppose I was thinking they'd have the potential for higher risk/reward, but I need to remember this is for my retirement 40 years from now. Thanks for bringing me down out of the clouds. Over long periods of time back testing shows that a value strategy has out performed a growth strategy. Actually, this is one of the main findings of the Fama-French 3 factors (or later 4 factors) research paper. Value also typically has lower volatility (beta, or risk) than growth. Recently growth has out performed value and it could continue to do so for some time (1984-1999 was a big period for growth stocks) but historically there has always been a 'correction' and value has surged ahead (extend the time line to 1984-2003). Efficient frontier theory also suggests that in some cases reducing volatility of your portfolio also increases return over long time horizons so it's not as simple as more risk = more reward. You have to consider the down turns which are going to inevitably happen. e: 1972 - 2014 graphs and results of returns of 10k invested in large cap value vs large cap growth vs total us market. e2: The hard part with using a strong value strategy is the long periods of under performance. Many people can not sit tight and watch a bull market return 2-3% more for four or five or more years without changing their asset allocation to chase winners. This is, of course, the worst possible thing to do (selling low and buying high) so you also have to consider your personal psychology when making these kind of long term decisions. Murgos fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Apr 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
spinst posted:How much does receiving a pension alter retirement savings percentages? I think that the general consensus is that it doesn't and you shouldn't count on that pension. However, I have seen arguments for using projected pension account (and Social Security) monies in lieu of a portion of the fixed income allocation of your whole retirement portfolio, I.e. use a higher stock allocation than you normally would. I've also seen (more conservative) arguments that you should ignore pensions and SS altogether when planning for retirement and just treat them as a happy bonus if/when they materialize. My wife is due a pension and I guess I treat it (and my SS) in the later camp of I'll believe it when I see it and so have a pretty high savings rate in addition to those (guaranteed) streams. If you want to go the other way you can calculate SS and pension monies using future worth value calculations and treat them as an annuity you are purchasing now that will come due in X years. For example If you log in the Social Security website you can see a projection of what SS benefit you will get when you retire. You can then go to bankrate.com and see how much it would cost to buy an annuity today that would pay the exact same amount starting at the exact same time in the future and then portion out your asset allocation accordingly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:VTIAX is an excellent, A++ choice for an international core holding. There are many roads to Mecca. If those particular funds help him stay the course and sleep comfortably then that's far more important than minimizing funds.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
MJP posted:I'd like to put that extra $15k into something that will have a decent balance between risk and maintaining the principal so that if I need to buy a new car in the next two or three years (or more, hopefully) that would help with the cost. I'd rather keep with ETFs and as such VFICX looks fairly solid. My concern as a newbie - given the likelihood of interest rates going up within the next year or sooner, and VFICX's focus on bonds approaching maturity, would that put a hurt on the 2/3-year performance? Should I be looking at different factors in my research? I've been wondering myself about the effects of interest rate hikes on bond performance lately so I've spent a fair bit of time on it. The answer seems to be that if the fed raises the rates slowly (over many years) and by moderate amounts (quarter point at a time?) there won't be much effect in the bond market as a whole so if you stay very broad you won't see much change at all. Particularly if the market has plenty of time to see the move coming and adjust ahead of time (the fed does seem to be willing to signal way out.) Yes NAV's will go a little down for a period but the fund will still be making dividend payments to offset that. After all bond funds are basically designed as giant smoothing filters that absorb shocks and react slowly to changes. Rates have been this low in the past and have shot up rapidly over short periods of time and the only time to really be concerned is when those changes happen in a rapidly rising inflation period in which case the bonds still show returns, just not as fast as inflation (i.e. the mid-late 70's). Even moderate inflation can erode the real return of bonds over long periods in a rising interest rate environment. From the 40's to the late 60's bonds did okay on paper but when factored in for CPI adjustments were net losers, ie a 2% return doesn't give a lot of breathing room for even moderate inflation. Even so they still don't have the risk of stocks where tomorrow they could plummet 50% or more. If you are worried about rampant inflation (and many are due to unknown long term affects of QE) then you would need to be at least a little in stocks. Even a small allocation to the stock market (30%) can be enough to offset inflation at it's worst. Also, pay attention to the tax implications. e: VVVV Exactly what I am talking about. VFICX returned ~3% CAGR for the last three years despite the price shocks. Price is the wrong thing to look at with bonds. Murgos fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Apr 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
FreelanceSocialist posted:Out of curiosity, what CAGR range do decent ETFs have? Should I expect like 9-10% over 3-5 years? I'm not sure if you're being facetious but anyway, 10.77% CAGR (6.91 real). Since that number out of context is pretty much meaningless I doubt if it's going to help you very much but since your question seems, um, naive I'm going to assume it really doesn't make any difference. Edit: Okay, a little effort so as not to be quite as much a dick. 10.77 CAGR is the CAGR of the S&P 500 (using back filled data to 1871). Since the S&P 500 is ubiquitous and cheap and easy to invest in (Thanks Bogle!) any investment you make that is not the S&P 500 or does not beat the S&P 500 over time is a poor investment (more risk for less return). Since the number of funds (and etf's) that can show that they have beaten the S&P 500 (or total US market) over any reasonable time frame is, uh, not very large then your choices as to 'decent' etfs is pretty small and mostly comes down to cost (or FF factor weighting) unless you are looking for diversification benefits. Murgos fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:This is not necessarily true. There are investments that are less risky than the S&P 500. Sorry, you're right. I should have said something like "equity investment not focused on income or hedging a specific risk or etc..." I'm sure there are more exceptions but for most people the most reward for the least risk in equities is a broad market index fund. Which the S&P is. See CAPM research for the formal definition.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
rizuhbull posted:An annual return of 6-8%? From what? If it's from the investments, isn't that assuming that they do well? That's not a safe return assumption, is it? The US Market has had a real (after inflation) return rate of almost 7% a year for 140 years. That's pretty much what you can call a safe assumption (possibly the only safe assumption) when talking about (equity) investing. Investing in the broad US market is, in essence, a bet that the the US will not suffer catastrophic failure in the intermediate future. If it does, and you live in the US, you will probably have more pressing concerns than your retirement portfolio. Note that you may not get 7%, you may get less during the 20 or 30 years your in the market, or maybe you will get more, 7% is an average. An individual stock can fail, it happens all the time, even to the biggest and the best of them. Whole market sectors can, and will go belly up. The entire US Market though? Eh, I don't see it. Some parts will go down, other parts will go up and in general the market as a whole will most likely increase over time (losers can only go to 0, winners can go up infinitely in theory). The real risks to the whole market are pretty remote. What if it doesn't increase? What if it goes down? Well, it's the whole market, if the whole market is going down then everything is going down so, relatively your still probably doing ok, businesses are still going to make products and sell them and thus make money. Historically, stocks have been an adequate deflation hedge in real terms. rizuhbull posted:Cause if so, why isn't everyone doing it? e: I want to be clear. Buying an individual stock is about the single most risky thing you can do in equity investing. For a very long time, buying individual stocks was almost the only way to interact with the market (unless you had a lot of money to buy into an actively managed fund). It's only within the last few decades that broad market index investing has existed as a thing and even less that small individual investors could partake in it as a reasonable cost. It's the aggregate of thousands of individual stocks performance together that makes index investing so powerful. The law of averages and binomial (risk vs return) distribution if you will. e2: VVVV The market goes up because companies are profit making enterprises and the losers can only go down to 0 (and be removed from the index) while the winners can go up infinitely. A stock price is a best guess estimate of the future earnings of a company. The market would fail if it was only the influx of new outside money propping it up (i.e. a bubble or a ponzi scheme). Suggesting that the entire US economy for 140 years is a ponzi scheme is not reasonable. Murgos fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Apr 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
I want to elaborate on the "The stock market goes up because new money is coming always coming in" idea. It's a common misconception but it's completely wrong because the stock market is a zero sum game. For every stock bought someone had to sell it. For every stock sold someone had to buy it. For every dollar put in there is a dollar taken out. Valuations of stock prices increase (decrease) because of the work done (or not done) by the companies to make a profit and the speculation of the stock purchasers that the value of the company will rise (or fall) to meet the new higher (lower) price. But that new valuation has to be realized by the act of selling the stock which another investor, for what ever reason, has to buy. The price you see on the stock ticker is the last price that someone sold (or bought) the stock for. The net value of the stock market did not change because of the transaction. The only (?) time that I think new money actually could be said to come into the stock market is during an IPO or sale of primary stock. That money goes immediately to the company offering the stock who is under no obligation to pay it back at any time. However the purchasers of the stock are getting ownership of a portion the company and, usually, an expectation of future payments of a portion of the profits of the company (dividends). e: VVV I said that. How much of the growth of the US Market (for example) is due to that effect? e2: I'll answer my own question in 2014 NYSE helped raise ~70 billion in capital via new offerings. In 2014 the market cap of the NYSE rose by ~4 trillion dollars. The effect of offerings on the whole market is trivial. (data according to NYSE press releases via google and nysedata.com) Murgos fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
I make no claims about the intercessions of politics. That said one of the primary purposes of the government (according to the constitution) is to "provide for the general Welfare" which has always meant to provide incentive for economic activity whether via trade agreements or tariffs or what ever means congress deems reasonable. But that's not limited to the market, that's a fact of life of doing business in (or with) the US (or any country). That the effects of that policy (requirement) show up in the market should not be surprising it being representative of the economic output of the country. But that is changes in valuation, it still has to be realized by a sale and purchase and doesn't refute my point.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
e:VVV You're right, that was a brain fart on my part. It's Roth IRA's I was thinking of. Murgos fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Nephzinho posted:I have about $20k that I'm going to be parting with some time in 2017. Is it even worth parking it in VASIX for such a short term or am I better off leaving it in cash in the event I find any short term opportunities that having a liquid buffer would help with? Is it OK if that $20k is only $17k? What about if it's $14k? Sure it could be $23k or $24k but then again maybe it won't.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
First: Most plans don't vest the company contribution immediately you almost certainly can't access it until you have left the company or after N years. Second: The tax advantage of saving 18k pre-tax is pretty high. With that plan and your goals I'm guessing your well compensated so in a higher tax rate. Ie at 28% rate 18k pre-tax = 12.9k post tax so really you're looking at leaving 14k on the table (that can accumulate of the next 30 years) by not taking advantage of the full match. Like people have said if you start early you can probably move most of that to Roth and access it much earlier with no tax hit. Third: Money is fungible. A portion in a savings account that you cant touch for a while doesn't make it not exist. It just means that bucket is for later. Fourth: Retiring in 5 years (or maybe 10) is aggressive, especially starting at 25. I'm guessing you aren't really aware of the implications of this plan or what you will really need to accomplish it or all the little things in life that derail plans like that. Money saved earlier can grow enormously over time I.e. $27,000 put into VFINX 30 years ago (1986) = ~$460,000 today. Finally: Good Luck! Murgos fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
*Puts on turban* *Put's card up to forehead* "Hmmm, what is a young M.D. just out of residency at Boston Medical Center/MassGeneral/etc..."?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
Could be Bay Area. $2000 sq/ft condo is about right for Boston or the Bay Area but too low for NYC. 50% match on 100% is better than most tech though. e: VVV You're right, didn't consider that. Would expect someone to be 27-28 to finish a residency and that would be at the very early end of the scale. So, tech because finance would likely already know this stuff. Murgos fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 17:43
|
|