|
enraged_camel posted:What's a good discount broker to start an IRA at? schwab
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2008 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
enraged_camel posted:So. Schwab so you will have a broader choice of funds than just the Vanguard family (though they are available through Schwab if you wish).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2008 00:45
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Nice. That't not Vanguard's fault. You can thank the wonderful world of investment regulation and compliance for that. Also, can anyone explain to me why the Dow Jones consistently outperforms the S&P?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2008 13:42
|
|
|
80k posted:The prevailing wisdom amongst many well-respected financial advisors and writers is that having only 10% bonds (or less) should be the exception and not the norm. I don't like target retirement funds, but for the opposite reason. Agreeed. People continually overweight themselves in equities stating that you are supposed to have more equity exposure when you are young. Well, technically yes, you should have more exposure, because as you reach retirement age, your equity exposure should be lessened as much as possible. But then you get these 90% equity portfolios because people think that their age is some sort license to throw all the benefits of diversification out the window. Hopefully this market cycle teaches some people how bad this practice is.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2008 22:53
|
|
|
swenblack posted:Keep in mind though, that most people's portfolio contains cash or cash equivalents. My emergency fund and housing fund are both in a money market account that is essentially cash and short term government bonds. ~90% of my retirement accounts are in equities, but that's only 50% of my total portfolio. Not a terrible allocation right now. And yes, I know all about the presence of cash equivalents in most people's portfolios. My experience tells me that yours is definitely to the high side. Most people just keep just enough in there to keep operations smooth (periodic withdrawals or maintenance fees).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2008 02:16
|
|
|
daspope posted:What sort of protection do retirement accounts require? If you are actually looking for protection, Prudential has a line of particularly attractive variable annuities. You can throw a rider on (highest daily living benefit), that will value the portfolio off its highest historical value. So say you were holding the Nasdaq pre-2000, it'd be valued at the top of the bubble. There is an additional rider that will also guarantee a yearly return of 5%, I think it was 5%. Completely destroys the downside risk for the layman. Prudential is able to pay everything out because its payouts are annuitized, and they know that if you hold your money long enough, the 5% return guarantee is essentially meaningless in the face of market performance. There are some costs, namely liquidity. The money is locked up, and the minimum buy in is 25k. 80k and Ravarek, I highly recommend you check this line out (I believe its Apex and something else). We love these things so much we are using them in some qualified accounts.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2008 04:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
Ravarek posted:You don't need to use a financial planner unless you have a great deal of wealth; a financial planner won't really be able to do anything for you besides take your money. Don't let some rear end in a top hat charge you a 1%+ fee for something you could easily do yourself. Also adding, if you are a smaller client, the advisor is less likely to deliver anything resembling service to you. Its industry practice to rank your clients based on how much you like doing business with them and smaller accounts typically end up in the lower rankings. Lower rankings mean the advisor is less likely to do things like waive transaction fees, or give you access to better products (some of the better products, require a large buy-in anyways). If you call to ask the guy enough questions and take up enough of his time, he will even decide that cost > revenue, and fire you as a client (that goes for large clients as well). Other no-no's include second guessing the advisors recommendations and then holding him responsible when the portfolio tanks because you chose to ignore his advice. I think 50k of investable assets is the bare minimum at which an advisor starts being effective. That said, most people haven't got the wherewithal to set up, execute, and stick to a good portfolio allocation. For the guy with a small account, and not a lot of market knowledge, he can pay certain advisors flat rates to set up a portfolio for you, and evaluate financial products for that portfolio that you will buy through a 3rd party instead of through the advisor (meaning there are no commissions involved). I'd rather see someone shell out $250 to a NAPFA guy for that service, than see them try to do it themselves, and absolutely butcher their account in the process. Its my experience that clients, if you leave them to their own devices, will blow their account and deviate from their allocations absolutely stupid-eyed over dollar signs. LactoseO.D.'d fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Sep 28, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2008 17:50
|
|