|
For those that advocate index fund portfolios, is there any reason why you wouldn't simply select all 2x or 3x or 100x (I guess they don't exist... yet) bull funds instead of just the regular indexes?
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2008 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
"[panic posted:"] And I don't know what risk you are talking about that isn't already inherent in index investing. You are either going to make or lose double your investment. I thought the point of long term index investing is that it is the most efficient and best suited to give you good returns. If that is the case, why wouldn't you want double the action?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2008 04:23
|
|
|
Interesting, thanks for the info. I knew that actual 2x performance wasn't realistic, but I didn't realize they were structured in a way that totally kills the long term performance. I wonder if there was a way to adjust these funds to be more long-term friendly, as opposed to for day trading?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2008 13:35
|
|
|
kys posted:I've looked up Vanguards S&P 500 compared to the USAA S&P. FSMKX is only .10%, but the minimum is $10,000.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2008 21:01
|
|
|
Don Wrigley posted:Scottrade?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2009 17:33
|
|
|
mcsuede posted:Looking to increase the relative aggression in my Roth, looking for opinions on: PRLAX RYVFX FLVCX JORNX edit: FICDX abagofcheetos fucked around with this message at 22:51 on May 12, 2009 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2009 14:50
|
|
|
mcsuede posted:Using AmericanFunds for a brokerage in this particular case so even though I like your suggestions of RYVFX or JORNX and may go into them in another one of my brokerage retirement accounts, really looking for advice on the AmerFunds options.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2009 02:32
|
|
|
Often funds with front loads have them waived for 401k plans. For instance, I have CVGRX in my 401k plan, which should have a 4.75% load, but I do not have to pay it to invest in the fund. Look into it.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2009 18:56
|
|
|
My employer currently has a 401k that I have been contributing to. For next year they will be offering a Roth 401k, which I will solely contribute to. Would I then be able to cash out my old 401k and roll it into a Roth IRA, or do you have to not be contributing to any 401k play in order to roll over? Would it be possible for me to roll the 401k into the Roth 401k? These are questions I'll probably find out in a month I'm just trying to do some planning in my head.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2009 17:59
|
|
|
Hmm, the Q&A we were sent seems to suggest that they are going to match in the Roth, not separately in the regular 401k. Looks like I'll just have to wait and give them a call once I'm able to enroll. I'm just hoping to get all my retirement accounts to Roth as soon as I can.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2009 01:43
|
|
|
So I was looking up some mutual fund or index or I forget what exactly and Google gave me a link to this site: http://www.altruistfa.com/ Now I'm not trying to plug using their services, but what I will plug is their investment suggestions: http://www.altruistfa.com/dfavanguard.htm This is a really impressive list of super low cost funds for pretty much all segments you would want. edit: holy balls http://www.altruistfa.com/readingroomarticles.htm abagofcheetos fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Dec 7, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2009 21:15
|
|
|
Those ratios make me so happy my 401k is through Fidelity.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2010 15:53
|
|
|
80k, I would probably take that bet with you on FAIRX, that fund just seems unstoppable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2010 03:20
|
|
|
Ravarek posted:People said the same thing about Ken Heebner's CGM Focus Fund, before it crashed and burned last year. Besides, even though CGMFX underperformed the last two years it still ended the decade providing over 200% greater returns than VIGRX (and there was a time when it was near 500%).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
80k posted:Also... one thing to watch out for, regarding FAIRX, is asset base. It is not the same fund as it was earlier in the decade. Probably still a very good fund but asset bloat could become a problem. Don Wrigley posted:Don't you see the inherent problem with this? When it was providing these great returns, nobody knew about it, only after an actively managed fund provides these big returns do people start jumping on the bandwagon...and that's when they could stop providing the big returns.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
Not to really derail this thread much more because it is a really great resource, Don Wrigley: I hear what you are saying, I know that it's remarkable performance is the only reason people know about CGMFX, and that performance chasing probably burned a lot of people on it. The past ten years could have very well been an amazing string of luck by Heebner, or it could be that his hunches and ideas on trading are simply that good; there is no way of truly knowing. But I feel given how he does things and his past efforts, that there is the potential for him to have good years again down the road. Will he? I have no idea. 80k: Yeah duke was kind of annoying, he really did think he had it all figured out. I'd rub it in his face if I were you too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
Also, if you hold the fund for a significant period of time (which I would assume she will be doing since it is an IRA) that 5.75% has less and less of an impact on the total ER you have paid them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2010 00:57
|
|
|
80k posted:That is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is the longer you hold it, the more that 5.75% amount you paid has compounded. It is a substantial amount of money thrown away that provides you no benefit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2010 21:13
|
|
|
Google is annoying and for some reason doesn't list mutual fund dividends on the actual page. However, if you search the web for MUTF:VFINX it will display the yield in the information box.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2010 01:26
|
|
|
Vanguard ETFs are now free to trade with a Vanguard brokerage account. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/commissions-05042010
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2010 15:45
|
|
|
Vanguard ETFs have recently been made commission free at Vanguard, so I would say yes it would make sense.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2010 00:20
|
|
|
ETFs will actually be cheaper, expense ratio wise, until you are eligible for Admiral shares for the mutual funds. Switching between the two will be cake, you will be able to do everything nice and simple on their website. I opened a brokerage account there when they announced the new fees (in addition to my previous mutual fund account) and the experience has been pretty painless.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 02:32
|
|
|
If you have online access (which you should to avoid the $10 yearly fee) you can do all transfers and account setup online. I don't know what money amounts you are dealing with, but if you are eligible for Admiral shares they have lower expenses than the ETFs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 00:31
|
|
|
I hope Vanguard adds more ETFs soon. I understand why they would only offer what they have mutual funds of, but something like PGX from Vanguard would be great.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2010 21:20
|
|
|
Strict 9 posted:It's a prime example of why I think finding a reliable market timing system and applying that to at least some of your portfolio is a good idea, as discussed a few pages back. The only problem is now that bonds look like they are a bubble I don't really have options other than equities (no thx) or money market. Oh well.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2010 22:48
|
|
|
flowinprose posted:You're assuming that the market went up in the first year (which is the only year which will make any difference). If the market went down X% in the first year, then your final value will be equivalently lower.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2010 20:03
|
|
|
flowinprose posted:No, and I don't understand how you could construe anything I said in that manner?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2010 22:38
|
|
|
Nifty posted:What about if you have a market moving sideways? If you have average returns of 0 +/- 3% per week. Thats when the benefit of DCA comes in. A volatile sidways trending market (the past decade) really shows off the benefit of DCA as opposed a consistent upward trend (the 90s).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 04:17
|
|
|
flowinprose posted:Despite Bernanke's best efforts, inflation (in the U.S.) is currently almost non-existant, so what happens if he fails and we see long-term deflation in the U.S. similar to what Japan has seen over the last 30 years? 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2010 01:24
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:Doesn't the CPI by its very nature measure the things which are skyrocketing? It would seem that no, it doesn't. It uses some goofy basket of goods formula that is dominated by housing (medical care only counts 6%). Besides, according to the CPI figures, in the 12 months ending October food has only increased 1.4%  Cheesemaster200 posted:In fact, I can explain almost all of those increases through causes not related to inflation. If something costs more now than it did before that literally the definition of inflation. That is like saying the cause of inflation is not related to inflation. Whats better about that graph, if rare earth elements were included their percentage increases would be in the 100s.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2010 06:06
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I think there's an argument to be made that certain demographics (old people, young people, poor people) have been hit harder by commodity price swings and changes in medical/education costs because of their spending patterns, but that's not enough reason to dismiss the overall CPI. For example, consider the fact that wages, which are a larger input than commodities in most US businesses, have been largely stagnant. Capital costs are also relatively low and rent has stagnated or dropped in the last few years. Changes in commodity prices or specific sectors like education or healthcare only tell part of the story and don't necessarily imply inflation in the context of the economy as a whole. Well I wouldn't say I am totally trashing the CPI, I just have issues with a figure that is so readily changed and modified over time. I agree with many of your points. We are in a strange time for pricing. The price to purchase a house is down, but literally everything else you would do to a house, from the energy costs to putting in new plumbing, is up. Prices for big rear end LCDs are way down, but gasoline is significant higher. Wages (other than government) have stagnated, but it costs more to feed your family. I still personally feel inflation is being under reported by a fair margin, but I am definitely aware and sympathetic to the deinflation argument.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2010 18:05
|
|
|
80k, not that any bets or whatever were made, but FAIRX had ~6% in distributions SPY had ~2%
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2010 23:53
|
|
|
Brendas Baby Daddy posted:I'm opening up a Roth IRA. I was planning on doing it through Vanguard and picking from their funds. However, I see that I can also choose my own stocks, bonds, etc to invest in and not use their funds. Is there any reason why I shouldn't do this (other than possibly losing all my money because I don't know what I'm doing)? You can trade Vanguard ETFs for free with their brokerage, and all of the ETFs are based off their mutual funds.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
gvibes posted:In the past, "growth" stocks have underperformed the market as a whole. If I remember right, "value" and "growth" seem to alternate between underperforming/overperforming.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2011 04:29
|
|
|
80k posted:It is also the reason the world economy came crashing to its knees and almost went over a cliff in '08. How anyone can say leverage=good anymore is beyond me. bbbbut the banks and my finance textbook said so!
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
I have said before here that the CPI is worthless and inaccurate. I believe I have been criticized for it. Consult the following: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-ma...dget-talksaides Pay very close attention to how this unfolds. I am sure most if not all of you have something in your portfolio that is linked to this wonderful instrument of measuring "inflation".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
TraderStav posted:Assuming you are 100% vested, you will take it with you and likely roll it over into an IRA at another custodian. Otherwise, you'll take your vested portion. It's your money. There is little benefit to keep the 401k after your company stops contributing to it. You will have limited fund choices and potentially other fees and restrictions. At the same time, if your 401k is good you don't have to transfer out of it. My 401k was with Fidelity and had fine choices, so I haven't bothered to roll it over. However, if you have a crappy run 401k through some small brokerage only offering funds with expense ratios > 2% then yes, get that money out of there ASAP. Sometimes your 401k will have funds and fund classes you could not otherwise have access to.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
Yeah, but 401ks are the only other way to get tax sheltering other than an IRA. Even if the plan is bad, you still get the tax shelter benefit and after you leave that job you can just roll it over wherever you want. I would contend 5-10 (or more) years of lovely expense ratios + the tax benefit is greater than better expense ratios in a taxable account for that same period. I suppose some quick math could be done to figure out the length of time at job cutoff for the 401k to make sense, but I have a feeling it would be a pretty decent length of time.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
Yeah but if you are making enough that you don't qualify for a Roth, why would you necessarily want to pay your taxes now, instead of later? Unless you think you are going to make even more money later? I guess it would be a speculative play on taxes going up in general, though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2011 19:13
|
|