|
Febtober posted:I guess I'm looking for something "easy" to invest in myself. I currently have a Roth IRA set up with Vanguard with about $12k in it that's maxed out for the year. I'm also contributing 3% (the maximum my company matches) into a 401k from work, although it's worth mentioning that I don't really plan on being there long enough to get the full vesting from it. You could just go ahead and put it in index stocks similar to whatever you have your IRA, but in a plain old vanguard investment account. No tax bonuses, but the same investment growth, so the money will be available for you in 5-10 years when you're thinking about buying a house or something. edit: general advice would also suggest having an "emergency fund" of the money - 3 months living expenses is the standard - available in something like a money market account, where you can easily withdraw it if necessary. You're right that money in the checking account does nothing - even 3% interest, which seems to be what money market accounts are doing lately, is better than nothing. onefish fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Aug 11, 2008 |
#
¿
Aug 11, 2008 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
My main question here is whether my portfolio is balanced - I still don't quite understand the principles there. I've gathered "save a lot" and "go for index funds," but the finer points elude me. Thanks for any advice anyone can give. I'm 25, and make ~$37000/year, but I'm debt-free and live pretty cheaply so can still save a lot. No upcoming major purchases. I contribute to employer match in a 401k (Vanguard Target Retirement 2050, ~$250 total ($125 of which is mine)/month). Maxing out a Roth IRA, also in Vanguard Target Retirement 2050. Still have some money to save/invest, so I keep at least $5000 in a money market savings account for emergencies, and have been splitting the rest equally between these funds (non-retirement): Vanguard 500 Index Fund Vanguard Extended Market Index Fund Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund Is this balanced? Domestic and international, large cap and small, but all stocks and maybe too heavy on international? I really don't know. If it's not balanced, what else should I be looking at? (I've gathered from some advice there should be an REIT in there?) (note, I've "lost" a bunch of money so far, since I invested large amounts of my total savings in those funds right before the crash, but I know I'm not going to be taking the money out for many years, so no worries yet) onefish fucked around with this message at 05:00 on May 4, 2009 |
|
#
¿
May 4, 2009 04:58
|
|
|
dot smain posted:Also, I personally like to stay away from keep all my eggs under one house (seems like you have a bunch of Vanguard funds). Would you be able to tell me what the reason for this is? All my investments are in Vanguard (have a checking and money market savings account at Bank of America, but that's it), and I'm not sure exactly why I should go to the hassle of setting up more elsewhere if I can be market-diversified within Vanguard. I tried to google for this info, but I'm not hitting the right searchwords if the accepted argument is somewhere out there. Thanks! edit: thanks for the explanations! onefish fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Aug 27, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2009 22:44
|
|
|
Crosspost from stock thread, possibly fits better here: Okay, so I'm trying to do my reading to learn all this and so on, but I'm still at the very beginning. So, a quick question: I'm maxing a Roth IRA and contributing to the employer match in a 401k, both going into Vanguard Target Retirement funds. Money in there stays there. But I also have some other money/income left over that has been going into a few different Vanguard index funds, some US, some international, plus a bit in an REIT index, in a personal, non-retirement account. That money is my "just make it bigger" money - I'm relatively young and could be risky with it, I have no major purchases coming up, but I just don't know enough to be targeting individual stocks rather than index funds. Question is: given that I don't need the money for a purchase or anything, and am not yet ready to switch any of it to individual stocks, I should leave it in the funds, rather than trying to time the market or anything, yes? Even though, yeah, the market does seem kind of like it's nearing a top. Thanks for any thoughts.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Yes, as long as you keep investing through future down years, you should do fine. When your time horizon is measured in decades, and the biggest determinant of the size of your savings is earnings over the course of your career, market fluctuations in any given year mean little. Thanks. I'm trying to do the best I can with my investments because my salary is pretty low -- I'm in a media field -- but I'm also relatively low on expenses, so I think I'm doing okay savings-wise.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2011 20:58
|
|
|
80k posted:The REITs are a bad choice in a non-retirement account, due to its tax treatment. Other than that, the US and international index funds are fine, as long as your time horizon is long. I'd overweight international holdings in your non-retirement account to compensate for the low international allocation in the target retirement funds. Thank you. I am really glad to get this advice. What's the problem with the REIT tax treatment (if you don't have time to explain, can you point me to where I should look for the info?) Is it just this, which I got by a bit of googling? http://www.financialpublishers.com/reits.html posted:REITs have high dividends. Unfortunately, the dividends are fully taxable and not subject to the special 15% income tax rate, which was enacted in 2003. On the positive side, occasionally, additional cash distributions are made that are non-taxable. These distributions are called return of capital for income tax purposes, which actually reduce cost basis leading to a larger capital gain when sold.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
80k posted:Yea, that is the main issue: most of the gains in REITS is distributed (REITs are legally required to distribute 90% of their taxable income), so your gains are disproportionately distributed annually (as opposed to stock index funds which have low distributions and have most of their gains deferred until you sell). And they get no preferential tax treatment (so you pay your full marginal tax rate). Thanks very much. Okay. I put money into them basically just because I read lots of advice that was like "diversify!" and then a few bits of advice that were like "REITs are a good way to diversify!". And all my other money was in stock indexes, so I wasn't sure HOW to best diversify otherwise (since I'm young, bond indexes didn't seem aggressive enough for what I wanted). So how do I get out of this position? Wait until a year has passed from initial purchases (so that I at least get capital gains rate on whatever I can from it) and sell the whole fund, redistribute to the indexes? Or what? I'm aiming for a relatively simple portfolio, unless I get really into this research, at which point I'll be able to figure it out myself. ButI don't want a tax pain-in-the-rear end in my life for the next twenty years.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
Anyone have personal experience or suggestions about value averaging vs. dollar cost averaging for long-term investments? (My retirement accounts are entirely DCA, as I think that needs to be automated for me, but I could give quarterly value averaging a shot with other accounts if it seems worth it.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2011 19:03
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:Your question is better suited for the stock-picking thread. Anyone here who is more than 10 years away from retirement will tell you that dips are a long-term investor's best friend. Just so I don't panic, are there any particularly good discussions of why we are probably NOT heading into a Japan-style 20-plus-years recession? My baseline emotional feeling is that some sort of long-term "the U.S. is no longer exceptional" economic failure (of the sort we have not had since the stock market came into being) is relatively close, but I am so extremely non-expert that I know that emotional feeling means zilch, and am continuing to do index investing like the personal finance books tell me to. But, like, is there anything well-written that will convince me on a deeper level that it's a good idea to continue to invest in American or worldwide economic growth?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:The "sky-is-falling" papers and news will always outshine the "keep-calm-carry-on" stuff, even in good times, since there's always someone hoping to cash in on being the guy who called the next big collapse. Don't put too much stock in it. Okay. Right. Always good to hear that again. Thanks. And if we have a genuine apocalypse, retirement savings will be the least of my worries.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
edit: sorry, wrong thread.
onefish fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Feb 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
There's no way to invest pre-tax other than through my employer's payroll 401k, if I'm already fully funding a Roth IRA, right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:Well there are HSAs, but other than that the next best thing would be tax-deferred or tax-advantaged investments like municipal bonds or annuities. But what's so bad about taxes? Thanks. No, nothing's so bad about taxes. The issue is that I don't *currently* max my 401k. I work at a small company, and cannot change my 401k contribution automatically, but have to go through the company accountant. I make a relatively low salary, but live beneath my means anyway and am still saving. But I make little enough as it is--I'd prefer not to let them know that I can afford to save more, since I think that would make them less likely to increase my pay! Which it shouldn't, but I think that might be the psychology. I mean, I have enough of a savings cushion that it would even make sense to max the 401k even if net income went below zero by a bit, since non-retirement savings could cover the difference for a long while. It probably makes sense to bit the bullet and ask to increase or max my 401k after my next raise, though. onefish fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Mar 23, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
Hi all. My parents have a large portion of their retirement accounts managed by a money manager who takes approximately a 1%-of-the-whole-amount fee annually. He's apparently a nice guy, but doesn't, by all accounts, DO a whole ton. I just began reviewing the accounts as best I could*. He's got them in a whole bunch of different mutual funds, mostly, some actively managed, with expense ratios that aren't absurd but are certainly higher than non-actively managed funds. Returns seem decent but nothing totally wild. I think it's pretty clear that they could save a lot of $$$ managing their own money (passively) and not paying the fee, right? And returns might, in fact, be better with a smaller expense ratio overall. I am not even sure that this guy's returns are beating the market BEFORE fees. My questions, I guess, are "what are the things I am not thinking about" and how significant are the risks to moving the money away from the manager for them to manage it on their own? Has anyone helped their parents do this before? Should I try to continue researching what they are currently in and match it as well as possible at Vanguard for a suggested plan? Or if they have a bunch more money than I do and a 10-year-or-so retirement horizon, is "Vanguard Target Retirement 2025" still a reasonable place for them to put their money? Should I butt out, given that I'm not actually an expert? They seem open to the idea of leaving the money manager, but I need to have a suggestion for what they do instead. I'm worried that moving them from all these complex, specific funds to a Target Retirement (and/or a few other Vanguard indexes) either *is* or will *appear* to be hopelessly naive and risky. But I can't imagine that having someone who's not a total genius overseeing their retirement funds is worth 1% of their nest egg each year, so I am pretty sure I want to help them get away from that. Right? *I am not a finance professional; I am an interested layperson of the "automated dollar-cost-averaging in a Target Retirement for my Roth IRA and 401k" school who has learned most of what I know from a few books and this forum.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
Thank you for responses!moana posted:Right. If you're concerned about not having a specific enough plan, post the allocations that they have here, along with the fees. We can try to figure out a way to do a passive equivalent so that you have something to offer them as an alternative. Thanks tremendously for this offer. I'm going to get the info again (left the paper statements* at home after Thanksgiving, don't have electronic statements yet), then see about doing a percentages roundup here if needed. *which were annoyingly incomplete--I can't figure out exactly where his fee is coming from or when it's taken out, but my parents say it's definitely from the money he manages and not from other accounts. Baddog posted:A guy who is charging 1% should be helping with tax strategy and estate planning as well, which at a certain point is a lot more important than the actual investments (see romney). Although personally I'd rather do the investing myself and hire an accountant. Totally. And they *have* a separate accountant. And while they have a retirement-appropriate amount saved, it's not so much where I think estate-planning would be a big deal. They're not even totally certain if he takes .5% or 1%, though they mentioned the 1% figure more often and seem to think it's more likely. But either way, it doesn't seem worth it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
Apologies if this has been posted, but how common is cost-basis accounting other than average-cost for most investors? Like, I save, I dollar-cost average max a Roth and contribute to employer match in a 401k, and I have some investments/savings in taxable accounts. It's all automatic, and I don't personally keep records. How much money (would you guess) am I potentially losing if I just go with average-cost cost basis because it's simpler, rather than keeping better records and doing smart specific batch cost basis? Do many normal investors do non-average-cost-basis? do YOU, and if so, how much of a hassle is it? Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
MiTEG posted:For tax advantaged accounts like a Roth or traditional 401k, the gain or loss determined by cost basis doesn't really matter. Generally all of a 401k distribution is taxable, not just the gain. The opposite is true with a Roth, none of the distribution is taxable, including the gain. Thank you! This is very helpful, actually. If I had thought about it for a moment, I'd have figured out the retirement stuff :/ But for the others, that helps clarify my thinking. My brokerage uses FIFO default for stocks, but average cost default for index funds, which is where most of my money is.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Are there any good centralized info posts about HSAs? I have a plan through work and thought I couldn't do it, but apparently can (it has a high deductible). I still get benefits even if I don't itemize, right? Basically, I need a cheat sheet to make sure I can use this , and initial googling is not providing one. But if this is a good idea for me, I want to figure it out and open ASAP--especially since apparently I can only use it for expenses after I open the account. Wish I had known more about this at start of year. edit: wait. looking into this further. I probably don't qualify, if I have a $0 deductible in-network and $2000 out of network. Even though most of my expenses are out of network and my copay is $60/month for my main prescription. Grr. But if I might be wrong, please let me know. onefish fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Dead Pressed posted:My wife and I make about 120k between us, my wife gets no benefits, I hit 401k match, and we've maxed our Roth's each of the last two years. We make some untaxed money on the side, which will be reported to the IRS. If I switch from Roth to traditional IRAS, that 5.5k is taken off the top of our income in whole, correct? Okay, so I was thinking about this, too, but I think it means the lop off the top is no longer valid, so you should just use the 401k as your pretax savings vehicle. (It sounds like you hit match, but not max.) Can anyone confirm that? http://wiki.fool.com/Can_an_Employee_Make_Contributions_to_Both_a_401(K)_%26_an_IRA%3F posted:Typically, a taxpayer must earn income to contribute to a traditional IRA and deduct the amount of his contribution on his federal tax return. If a worker participates in his employer's 401k plan, the IRS may limit or eliminate his ability to deduct his traditional IRA contribution if his MAGI is above certain thresholds. If a person who files his taxes as head of household records a MAGI of $56,000 or less on his federal return, the IRS permits him to deduct the full amount of his permissible IRA contribution. If the person's MAGI is between $56,000 and $66,000, the IRS allows him to partially deduct his traditional IRA contribution. If the worker reports a MAGI of $66,000 or above, the IRS does not permit him to deduct his IRA contribution on his federal tax return.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
I'm having trouble finding good discussion on this topic via Google, so I'm curious re: opinions from SA Thread folks: for (generally) long-term mutual/index fund investments in taxable accounts, do most of you use average cost cost-basis tax reporting as automatically calculated by your broker, or do you handle it yourself with one of the more labor intensive methods? Is there any "rule of thumb" for determining at what point it become worthwhile to do specific identification? I want to allocate my time reasonably, but I don't want to throw away money. No major impact to me so far, since I'm mostly not selling investments, instead rebalancing by changing what I buy--but I have made occasional sales, and might sell more in the future. Anecdotally, how much can specific identification save at different total investment amounts? How much has it "cost" people to stick with the simplicity of Average Cost for mutual/index funds -- if any? Any thoughts/advice welcome--thanks! edit: it seems like this matters most if your income fluctuates significantly year to year. If I have a steady day job, and am investing long term, almost entirely in index funds, I don't appear to be losing much money at all when I report with average cost--right? edit2: there's a holding in my Roth IRA for which Vanguard says "This holding has incomplete cost basis information; therefore, we're unable to display your cost basis details." Since it is in a Roth IRA, and will never be taxed, this does not matter at all, right? VVV thank you very much. It's really helpful to hear how someone else handles it, and your method seems pretty smart. All general info on the topic online is in very broad, vague terms, and never gives advice, only suggesting that you should "do the calculations yourself." Which I should/will, but it's useful to have a starting point. I do currently automatically reinvest in taxable accounts, but I will give some thought as to whether that is the best method for me. (If there are differing strategies or experiences from others, happy to hear, too) onefish fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
I'm trying to start the research process for whether I want to use one of the relatively low fee automatic or semi-automatic money management tools out there for investors. I ended up thinking about this because I'm using Personal Capital to get a bird's eye view of all accounts in one place (Mint.com straight up doesn't function for me), and they have a management service, too, which they pitch after sign up. I'm 31, unmarried, not in a high earner industry, but not a big spender either, so I save and have reasonably significant investments at this point. My general investing approach is the basics as generally recommended by SA/etc: Vanguard index funds, keep fees low, don't market time, don't pick stocks. Max out Roth IRA and go as high as possible in 401k (near max now). Have some asset class diversification (I hold an REIT index in my Roth). I figure that's most of the battle, and I have no real complicating circumstances for my finances; no specific short or medium-term goals, just seeking investment growth. But I'm NOT particularly good about rebalancing or deciding what my specific asset allocation should be, and I don't currently do tax loss harvesting or more than the very most basic tax efficiency placement. Do people have thoughts on the auto-adviser services, or have suggestions on where I can go for good research/more info? Is there any general wisdom, or just people's thoughts, on whether the gains from rebalancing and tax-loss harvesting will offset the management fees? (I'm also a bit bummed that I'll take a big tax hit when they reallocate if I give management of the $ in my taxable account over to one of these services, but I probably just have to deal with that--the alternative seems to be to keep holding in a way that may be inefficient until a year in the indefinite future when I could withdraw at 0% capital gains rate, but I don't *really* know how likely that is to happen.) Personal Capital's service emphasizes that they'll invest equally across sectors with a basket of stocks and ETFs rather than mutual/index funds, avoiding the disproportionate sector weighting that comes from simply going with indexes. They also do tax-loss harvesting, rebalancing, etc, and obviously have a whole pitch about their proprietary technology for all of that. Their free Mint-like service is functional, well-designed, etc, which did get me to listen to their pitch. But they're .89% annual fee total in my investment range. Betterment seems like it might be able to handle/advise toward a lot of this at a lower fee. And I haven't even really looked into Wealthfront, FutureAdvisor, etc yet. Anyone use (or consider using) any of these services and have thoughts, or have any other sites to point me toward? Thanks! onefish fucked around with this message at 18:11 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
moana posted:So far I haven't seen any auto-investor that I would say is worth the fee. I'm patiently waiting for one of the startups to get bought out by Vanguard. Ha. I just started with them. I'll see how much spam I get. And thanks for this perspective. Obviously willing to hear more from you or others. Are you better than I am about tax-efficiency, tax-loss harvesting, and rebalancing, though? (i.e. might there be value in it for me that there isn't for you?) Going to start here for some more research: http://investorjunkie.com/35919/robo-advisors/ VVV edit: Thanks. Looking like PC management is probably not the way I'd want to go. Still researching for something like Betterment. http://cashcowcouple.com/service-reviews/personal-capital-review/ http://cashcowcouple.com/service-reviews/betterment-review/ (p.s. I hate that basically all the reviews of these sites have some kind of conflict of interest in that they'll offer bonuses if you sign up through them...) onefish fucked around with this message at 18:24 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:Pro tip; target retirement funds are auto-investors and they do a better job for less money. Sure, but I generally want to be more aggressive than the retirement funds (and particularly, see no reason to hold bonds in) in taxable accounts. Murgos posted:e: The only thing you don't get with a one-fund approach is tax loss harvesting. If that's critical to you then obviously these wont work for you. I'm trying to figure out how important it is. Wealthfront talking up their tax-loss harvesting stuff: https://pages.wealthfront.com/faq/daily-tax-loss-harvesting/ Basic claim: average resulting annual tax benefit of TLH historically = 1.35% It seems like if I took them at their word, and this could increase my effective returns 1.35% for a .25% fee on managed assets over $15000, that would be a move I'd definitely want to make (that we'd all want to make). But, of course, I'm suspicious of taking a for-profit company at their word. Googled around for a skeptical opinion and hit this, which is mainly concerned about the IRS seeing or closing the "loophole" of avoiding wash sales by switching between two extremely highly correlated ETFs. (And this, which points out tax-deferral vs. tax-savings. It does acknowledge long term tax deferral IS a positive for most investors, given the fact that you're investing the amount deferred, but the numbers they propose are much lower than Wealthfront's, of course. edit: Oh, and apparently Vanguard itself now has advisors at a 0.3% fee, which I'll look into, too. onefish fucked around with this message at 21:30 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
moana posted:Did any of you all read the Medium article that bashes the poo poo out of Wealthfront? http://medium.com/@blakeross/wealthfront-silicon-valley-tech-at-wall-street-prices-fdd2e5f54905 Well, I have now. It's convincing!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Hi all--can anyone help with a taxes/investment sense check? My 401k and Roth are currently in Target Retirement funds, but I also have a decent amount in a taxable Vanguard mutual fund account. Taxable account breakdown approx: 27.5% Vanguard 500 Admiral VFIAX 28.5% Extended Market Adm VEXAX 16.6% Emerging Markets Adm VEMAX 22.1% Total Int'l Adm VTIAX 4.6% LifeStrategy Growth VASGX (I had thought I might transition my regular deposits to this, but am reconsidering) I'd been doing regular investments and reinvesting dividends on these for years (excepting VASGX), so I don't have good records on the specific deposits before Vanguard had to keep them (so my working years ~2007-2012), and it seems like cost basis would have to be Average Cost. I also have a brokerage account with some old Apple stock and VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF). ETFs seem like they're much easier to track for specific ID cost basis/tax purposes. VEMAX and VTIAX (as well as VASGX) are pretty close to 0 cost basis gain/loss at this point. Would it make sense to sell them all and replace with similar ETFs, just to kind of update my records and get into specific ID cost-basis rather than average-cost with those holdings? (VFIAX and VEXAX appreciated too much, so I don't want to sell and take the tax hit right now.) Or is this idea a bad or pointless one? I *am* a buy and hold index investor, but it still seems like a bad idea to lock myself into average cost basis accounting? Or no, not really?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
substitute posted:Is your old 401k comprised of a single fund (or allocation of funds) that only track/mirror the S&P 500? Everyone, check out those graph labels. It's not a chart of fund performance, it's a chart of the fund's underperformance relative to the S&P 500. Which, by the way, is a kind of odd way to set up a comparison chart, and not one I've seen elsewhere. But yeah. Done is done, just do the index investing right starting now and you'll be fine. edit: Oh, I see. The fund is in cash, and so hasn't had value fluctuations. That may be partly on the OP, if they had to tell the 401k administrator to put contributions in anything other than cash. I know I had to do that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Funds it's in right now, according to Mint: 18.78% growth over the past 2.5 years is fine. You're fine. But no reason to be in all of those. Simplify in your next 401k.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Desuwa posted:My advice is use the retirement funds if you don't want to rebalance anything yourself, otherwise the ETFs are fine until you can trade them up for admiral shares of the same underlying fund. Admiral shares will have lower expense ratios. I think Vanguard's ETFs and Admiral share funds have the same expense rations, for most of the ones I was looking at. For Total US and Total International anyway. Can anyone give me a link/example if not, in case I'm being thick? (Was looking at this because I wanted to get out of some funds where I was locked in Avg Cost cost basis b/c I didn't have good records and into specific ID cost basis).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Rurutia posted:You can use losses to offset up to 3k in normal income. To confirm -- this applies even if you don't itemize, right? I don't see any reason why it wouldn't, but checking to be sure I understand just in case.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
My Rhythmic Crotch posted:
Stayyyyyy the course. I started investing right before the recession! onefish fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
Jon Von Anchovi posted:What did you use to chart this? ? Michael Scott posted:Is that an annual rate of return? It's just Vanguard's "Personal Performance" chart (balance minus amount invested, so however much I was up or down over time), with the dollar amounts erased. Yes, that's the annual rate of return as of yesterday, I believe. (At market high it was over 10%.) p.s. any way to delete the picture attached (rather than bbcode linked) to my original post? Not b/c it's too much personal info or anything, but a) it's big, and b) why can't I figure this out? onefish fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 19:23
|
|