Allocate my 401k!
July 26, 2010 7:39 PM Subscribe
First job out of college. How should I allocate my 401k?
I just graduated from college and started my first job. I just enrolled in my 401k, and I have to choose my investments.
I'm inclined to pick a riskier category - 100% stocks, no bonds - but would love to hear other's thoughts. There are tons of choices: different mixes of bonds and equities, various geographic concentrations, sizes (large cap, growth, etc.), emerging markets, sectors (for example, precious metals and mining), etc.
My job is in the financial industry and I am receiving a large salary (and presumably a large year-end bonus) so I feel like my salary is comfortable enough to allow me to be risky. I'd love to hear your thoughts and advice.
Thanks.
I just graduated from college and started my first job. I just enrolled in my 401k, and I have to choose my investments.
I'm inclined to pick a riskier category - 100% stocks, no bonds - but would love to hear other's thoughts. There are tons of choices: different mixes of bonds and equities, various geographic concentrations, sizes (large cap, growth, etc.), emerging markets, sectors (for example, precious metals and mining), etc.
My job is in the financial industry and I am receiving a large salary (and presumably a large year-end bonus) so I feel like my salary is comfortable enough to allow me to be risky. I'd love to hear your thoughts and advice.
Thanks.
My company has "Lifecycle 20xx" funds, where 20xx is the approximate decade of retirement. When I started the highest was 2040, which was the most aggressively invested. Conversely, the 2020 fund is fairly low risk.
It's probably not the most lucrative option, but could provide a decent level of risk/reward without requiring you to be an expert.
posted by johnstein at 7:48 PM on July 26, 2010
It's probably not the most lucrative option, but could provide a decent level of risk/reward without requiring you to be an expert.
posted by johnstein at 7:48 PM on July 26, 2010
If there's a vanguard fund available, especially the growth oriented ones, I'd recommend it.
I would also recommend now putting in as much as you can handle to hold until you retire. If you have school debt, work on that first. Obviously you will be maxing the matching contributions out, I'm hoping.
posted by TheBones at 7:50 PM on July 26, 2010
I would also recommend now putting in as much as you can handle to hold until you retire. If you have school debt, work on that first. Obviously you will be maxing the matching contributions out, I'm hoping.
posted by TheBones at 7:50 PM on July 26, 2010
This isn't specifically what you asked, but another piece of advice is to put as much as possible into your 401(k). If you start living without that money in your paycheck right off the bat, you'll never miss it. And you'll be very happy in 40 years.
posted by cholstro at 7:51 PM on July 26, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by cholstro at 7:51 PM on July 26, 2010 [1 favorite]
I still like Dave Swenson's (CIO of Yale's endowment) approach as described in his book Unconventional Success. The "Yale Model" has been criticized lately, but for reasons more applicable to institutional investors. His advice for individuals still holds up, IMO.
And, yeah, he suggests an equity-oriented portfolio. But he gives some good guidance re: international/emerging markets, real estate, etc.
posted by mullacc at 7:51 PM on July 26, 2010
And, yeah, he suggests an equity-oriented portfolio. But he gives some good guidance re: international/emerging markets, real estate, etc.
posted by mullacc at 7:51 PM on July 26, 2010
Spend the $20 to get The Bogleheads' Guide to Retirement Planning.
And regardless of what mix of assets you decide on, make sure you have a solid understanding of expense ratios and what the long-term effect will be on your investments, especially because retirement is so far away. You can play with this calculator to get an idea of the large effect of small expenses.
posted by Durin's Bane at 7:55 PM on July 26, 2010
And regardless of what mix of assets you decide on, make sure you have a solid understanding of expense ratios and what the long-term effect will be on your investments, especially because retirement is so far away. You can play with this calculator to get an idea of the large effect of small expenses.
posted by Durin's Bane at 7:55 PM on July 26, 2010
I'm like johnstein's example, I've got a 2050 fund that half of my 401k is in, and the other half is me throwing darts at a board for different mutual funds I can pick from in my Principal portfolio. Do higher risk, we've got a long time for this money to grow.
posted by deezil at 7:57 PM on July 26, 2010
posted by deezil at 7:57 PM on July 26, 2010
Response by poster: Thanks for the advice. Yes, I am young (22) and yes, I'm currently contributing the maximum that my company will match. I have about $20k in student loans to pay off, so while my paycheck leaves me with plenty of "extra" money, I am not putting that into the 401k.
Lots of useful links here. Thanks again.
posted by rastapasta at 8:20 PM on July 26, 2010
Lots of useful links here. Thanks again.
posted by rastapasta at 8:20 PM on July 26, 2010
100% stocks is fine if you are young, but don't put everything into the same fund.
Diversification is important even with a long term time horizon. So make sure you spread your money over the options you have in your plan. For example, make sure you have money in both domestic (US) and international stock funds. You should strive for a similar balance between small vs. large cap stock funds and growth vs. value funds.
posted by NoDef at 8:23 PM on July 26, 2010 [1 favorite]
Diversification is important even with a long term time horizon. So make sure you spread your money over the options you have in your plan. For example, make sure you have money in both domestic (US) and international stock funds. You should strive for a similar balance between small vs. large cap stock funds and growth vs. value funds.
posted by NoDef at 8:23 PM on July 26, 2010 [1 favorite]
You're young, which means a long retirement horizon, but beware of going 100 percent into US stocks. The goal of diversification is to reduce the likelihood of total disaster among your assets and raise the average total return. But people miss the fact that assets are more than just things in you put in your 401k. They include your home, your car, and your future income. The last one is important -- employer match into the 401k is huge, and Employee Stock Purchase Programs can be beneficial, but this can leave you with retirement funds heavy in your employer, when you're already heavily tied to them for income.
Beyond that, consider how tied your employer is to the performance of US stocks. Normally, an investor with a long term horizon should prefer equities, but you may already be heavily vested in them via your employer. It may make sense to go slightly bond / Treasury heavy, or abroad. Depends on your employer; maybe you're just working for a small local bank that isn't overleveraged and will track regional not national economics. Financials tend to get hit the worst in recessions, so it's a fact to consider in allocation.
There's also a matter of short term uses for retirement funds. When I opened my retirement account, I went roughly 100 percent stocks through a mutual fund. I saw the market, and my shares, rise by 20 percent in 4 months; I knew it was unsustainable but didn't know what do to about it. Then it fell 5 percent the next month and 10 percent two months later. A volatile market, but still a respectable return (then September 2008 hit and we know that story). Point is, short term this stuff is very volatile, and if you're wanting to use the money for a downpayment on a house via a 401k loan or Roth IRA, that money should probably stay away from stocks.
posted by pwnguin at 9:07 PM on July 26, 2010
Beyond that, consider how tied your employer is to the performance of US stocks. Normally, an investor with a long term horizon should prefer equities, but you may already be heavily vested in them via your employer. It may make sense to go slightly bond / Treasury heavy, or abroad. Depends on your employer; maybe you're just working for a small local bank that isn't overleveraged and will track regional not national economics. Financials tend to get hit the worst in recessions, so it's a fact to consider in allocation.
There's also a matter of short term uses for retirement funds. When I opened my retirement account, I went roughly 100 percent stocks through a mutual fund. I saw the market, and my shares, rise by 20 percent in 4 months; I knew it was unsustainable but didn't know what do to about it. Then it fell 5 percent the next month and 10 percent two months later. A volatile market, but still a respectable return (then September 2008 hit and we know that story). Point is, short term this stuff is very volatile, and if you're wanting to use the money for a downpayment on a house via a 401k loan or Roth IRA, that money should probably stay away from stocks.
posted by pwnguin at 9:07 PM on July 26, 2010
You want a stock fund, but the most important thing to look at is almost certainly the funds' expense ratios. Index funds are generally cheap; managed funds are not. (There are exceptions.) There is a lot of evidence pointing towards managed funds being a really bad deal for most people, and that the key metric is really expenses more than just about anything else.
I would start with a domestic stock index fund like an S&P 500 index, Wilshire 5000 index, or whole-market index. These should have the lowest expense ratios around. Then you can look at other ones and compare them. Although diversification is important, personally I am loathe to pay what my employer's fund-management company wants for international/smallcap/emerging-market funds.
Which brings me to my other point, which is to remember that your employer's designated fund-management company isn't the be-all and end-all of your retirement. You should absolutely contribute enough to your 401k so that you get the full employer match; anything else is just leaving money on the table. However, if you have a crummy fund selection, or if the expense ratios are higher than you can get on the open market (i.e. through Vanguard), don't contribute more than whatever you need for the match.
My list of priorities is something like (and this doesn't factor in paying off your debts, which is probably like step 1.5):
1. Get employer match, put into lowest-cost index fund possible.
2. Open Roth account with low-cost broker (e.g. Vanguard). Contribute here until you hit the Roth cap ($5k/yr, post-tax). I like the passive balanced funds for this, like the "Retirement 20xx" ones that automatically switch from aggressive to less risky over time.
3. If you have more after maxing the Roth, I'd probably just eat the taxes and put it into a non-retirement rainy day fund. Could be a mutual fund, money market, or just a savings account depending on what your goals are. If you don't need it soon, this is the money I'd use for diversification and hedging. You could also top off your employer account until you hit the cap there, but only do so if the expenses and fund selection are good.
That's just personal opinion, but it's relatively uncontroversial, and has worked well for me.
If you are offered company stock at a discount via an ESPP I would take it, but I wouldn't factor it into your retirement plans.
Also, you may have an opportunity to select a different percentage of your bonus income for retirement deferment than from regular salary. If you know you are going to get a bonus, you might want to talk to someone and see if putting some/all of your bonus into retirement would be advantageous from a tax perspective, since it might be taxed worse. That might be a question for your coworkers once you get started.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:43 PM on July 26, 2010
I would start with a domestic stock index fund like an S&P 500 index, Wilshire 5000 index, or whole-market index. These should have the lowest expense ratios around. Then you can look at other ones and compare them. Although diversification is important, personally I am loathe to pay what my employer's fund-management company wants for international/smallcap/emerging-market funds.
Which brings me to my other point, which is to remember that your employer's designated fund-management company isn't the be-all and end-all of your retirement. You should absolutely contribute enough to your 401k so that you get the full employer match; anything else is just leaving money on the table. However, if you have a crummy fund selection, or if the expense ratios are higher than you can get on the open market (i.e. through Vanguard), don't contribute more than whatever you need for the match.
My list of priorities is something like (and this doesn't factor in paying off your debts, which is probably like step 1.5):
1. Get employer match, put into lowest-cost index fund possible.
2. Open Roth account with low-cost broker (e.g. Vanguard). Contribute here until you hit the Roth cap ($5k/yr, post-tax). I like the passive balanced funds for this, like the "Retirement 20xx" ones that automatically switch from aggressive to less risky over time.
3. If you have more after maxing the Roth, I'd probably just eat the taxes and put it into a non-retirement rainy day fund. Could be a mutual fund, money market, or just a savings account depending on what your goals are. If you don't need it soon, this is the money I'd use for diversification and hedging. You could also top off your employer account until you hit the cap there, but only do so if the expenses and fund selection are good.
That's just personal opinion, but it's relatively uncontroversial, and has worked well for me.
If you are offered company stock at a discount via an ESPP I would take it, but I wouldn't factor it into your retirement plans.
Also, you may have an opportunity to select a different percentage of your bonus income for retirement deferment than from regular salary. If you know you are going to get a bonus, you might want to talk to someone and see if putting some/all of your bonus into retirement would be advantageous from a tax perspective, since it might be taxed worse. That might be a question for your coworkers once you get started.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:43 PM on July 26, 2010
100% stocks is fine if you are young, but don't put everything into the same fund.
Diversification is important even with a long term time horizon. So make sure you spread your money over the options you have in your plan. For example, make sure you have money in both domestic (US) and international stock funds. You should strive for a similar balance between small vs. large cap stock funds and growth vs. value funds.
Beware false diversification. Different "classes" of equities are rarely as diversified as they seem. Often the only thing they do is introduce extra volatility into your portfolio. (small cap being more volatile then large cap).
posted by An algorithmic dog at 11:24 PM on July 26, 2010
While you can go all in on equities (both foreign and domestic) I'm a big fan of keeping a bit of cash and fixed income on the side. The reason is that I like having some spare cash just in case something really interesting comes up and I want to go long something new.
Funny enough, once you build up your tax defered accounts past a certain size; due to the tax defered nature of the Traditional IRA and 401k, and tax-free on gains nature of the Roth, it almost encourages more trading. After all, if I actively trade in my taxable account I suffer the consequences of short term capital gains -- however if I constrain that to the IRA and other like accounts I don't pay anything until I cash out.
One last thing...
You're young you're making a large pile of money. While the temptation is to spend it on "wine, women and song" -- I'm a big advocate for figuring out how to find ways to save more now so you don't have to save quite as much when things such as spouses, houses and children arrive.
Ergo, if you're making enough that you've...
1) Maxed out your 401k
2) IRA contributions (btw: no income limitations on Roth conversions anymore!)
3) and you've put aside enough cash for your emergency savings (personally I like ~9 mo of costs as starting point, although given that we have miles of deleveraging to go I might consider ~12).
.. I'd add in another level of retirement savings and consider non-qualified annuities and go from more tax deferals. I know loads and loads of people hate them, but I feel like if you've already chased down the easy sources of retirement why not add in a small piece more. Do read the fine print however ... annuities are strikingly complicated.
And then if you've still got more cash left over, pile that into a taxable account and have a little fun.
posted by cheez-it at 11:51 PM on July 26, 2010
Funny enough, once you build up your tax defered accounts past a certain size; due to the tax defered nature of the Traditional IRA and 401k, and tax-free on gains nature of the Roth, it almost encourages more trading. After all, if I actively trade in my taxable account I suffer the consequences of short term capital gains -- however if I constrain that to the IRA and other like accounts I don't pay anything until I cash out.
One last thing...
You're young you're making a large pile of money. While the temptation is to spend it on "wine, women and song" -- I'm a big advocate for figuring out how to find ways to save more now so you don't have to save quite as much when things such as spouses, houses and children arrive.
Ergo, if you're making enough that you've...
1) Maxed out your 401k
2) IRA contributions (btw: no income limitations on Roth conversions anymore!)
3) and you've put aside enough cash for your emergency savings (personally I like ~9 mo of costs as starting point, although given that we have miles of deleveraging to go I might consider ~12).
.. I'd add in another level of retirement savings and consider non-qualified annuities and go from more tax deferals. I know loads and loads of people hate them, but I feel like if you've already chased down the easy sources of retirement why not add in a small piece more. Do read the fine print however ... annuities are strikingly complicated.
And then if you've still got more cash left over, pile that into a taxable account and have a little fun.
posted by cheez-it at 11:51 PM on July 26, 2010
I think pwnguin makes a good point re the diversification between your investments and the fortunes of your company; investments should diversify against all the risks you're facing, not just the investment specific risks. In Vanguard's case, the largest cap ETFs have a lower allocation to financials than the smallest cap ETF.
Also nthing on the lowest fees. You may gain more in other funds and you may not, but that 2% additional fee is guaranteed.
Finally, not enough US investors go internationally, or go internationally nearly enough. My own personal target allocation globally is a weighted blend of 50% market cap, 50% GDP. Including the debt portions, I think it touches 68 countries. But more importantly, my target for emerging and frontier markets is larger than that for the US, nevermind the rest of the developed world. Should a good low cost international option exist, go for it. Double that for emerging markets, IMHO. Hell, commodities are starting to be made available in some cases.
Now I feel even guiltier for neglecting to rebalance my own portfolio.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 12:24 AM on July 27, 2010
Also nthing on the lowest fees. You may gain more in other funds and you may not, but that 2% additional fee is guaranteed.
Finally, not enough US investors go internationally, or go internationally nearly enough. My own personal target allocation globally is a weighted blend of 50% market cap, 50% GDP. Including the debt portions, I think it touches 68 countries. But more importantly, my target for emerging and frontier markets is larger than that for the US, nevermind the rest of the developed world. Should a good low cost international option exist, go for it. Double that for emerging markets, IMHO. Hell, commodities are starting to be made available in some cases.
Now I feel even guiltier for neglecting to rebalance my own portfolio.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 12:24 AM on July 27, 2010
I'm in a pretty similar situation to you - slightly older (late 20s), working in finance, plenty of risk tolerance, and a pathological aversion to fees.
My rule of thumb is to put a percentage equal to my age in bonds (high-grade corporate - there are index funds that track the iBoxx bond indices and have very low expense ratios); put the rest in stocks (part in a US index fund, part in a world index fund); keep a bit of cash on the side for emergencies; and rebalance every year.
It's worth noting, though, that there's a very good reason for you to be more risk averse than the average investor. In finance, when the markets are running red-hot, you're going to get paid bigger bonuses, and you're probably going to get them in restricted stock. But when things all blow up, you're at a higher risk of getting fired and your restricted stock will turn into toilet paper. That is to say, your income will be strongly correlated to the market.
So it makes sense for you to skew more into (high-grade and government) bonds, at least as long as you're working in the finance sector - they're less correlated with the stock market, so you're less likely to end up in a nasty situation where there's a market downturn and you get downsized just as your retirement funds and company stock spiral into the toilet. (Commodities used to be good for this sort of diversification, but they're increasingly just trading in line with the stock market.)
posted by The Shiny Thing at 5:02 AM on July 27, 2010
My rule of thumb is to put a percentage equal to my age in bonds (high-grade corporate - there are index funds that track the iBoxx bond indices and have very low expense ratios); put the rest in stocks (part in a US index fund, part in a world index fund); keep a bit of cash on the side for emergencies; and rebalance every year.
It's worth noting, though, that there's a very good reason for you to be more risk averse than the average investor. In finance, when the markets are running red-hot, you're going to get paid bigger bonuses, and you're probably going to get them in restricted stock. But when things all blow up, you're at a higher risk of getting fired and your restricted stock will turn into toilet paper. That is to say, your income will be strongly correlated to the market.
So it makes sense for you to skew more into (high-grade and government) bonds, at least as long as you're working in the finance sector - they're less correlated with the stock market, so you're less likely to end up in a nasty situation where there's a market downturn and you get downsized just as your retirement funds and company stock spiral into the toilet. (Commodities used to be good for this sort of diversification, but they're increasingly just trading in line with the stock market.)
posted by The Shiny Thing at 5:02 AM on July 27, 2010
nthing index funds. I was in one of those "2040 target retirement" funds until i realized how much money it'd cost me from the fees. I've since moved most if not all of my money into index funds. This book does a decent job at explaining their benefits, while not going overboard with details.
posted by Tu13es at 5:02 AM on July 27, 2010
posted by Tu13es at 5:02 AM on July 27, 2010
...on preview, pwnguin said what I wanted to say, and said it better.
posted by The Shiny Thing at 5:04 AM on July 27, 2010
posted by The Shiny Thing at 5:04 AM on July 27, 2010
When I started my first job, I was told that I should put my age into bonds and the rest into stocks. Over time, you adjust the portfolio and it becomes more and more conservative. Right now, I'm 25 years old with about 25% bonds and 75% stocks (diversified across a couple funds).
I thought it was an easy rule to remember and made sense.
posted by JannaK at 5:42 AM on July 27, 2010
I thought it was an easy rule to remember and made sense.
posted by JannaK at 5:42 AM on July 27, 2010
Put 80-85% in a stock fund tied to an index and the rest into bonds. You might want to put a small pittance into a retirement trust if that's an option for you (like 2-5% in your youngin years).
posted by WeekendJen at 6:49 AM on July 27, 2010
posted by WeekendJen at 6:49 AM on July 27, 2010
Get a 14 day free subscription to Morningstar. Start to get aquainted with your financial planner at your company's directed financial services institute.
I went from a totally uneducated, listening to my old financial planner who said "just pick something fun", listening to her, losing, being afraid of being educated, losing a lot to signing up to Morningstar, reading their "best top picks", looking at their star rating, looking at their projections, talking with my current financial planner about my portfolio, pics, etc. to seeing a pretty good return.
It doesn't hurt to have one of the choices be a future family fund. For example, Fidelity 2037 or something on the date of your retirement.
Rinse and repeat when things change (for example company just eliminated tier 3 options which messed up 3 of my choices), every few years.
posted by stormpooper at 6:54 AM on July 27, 2010
I went from a totally uneducated, listening to my old financial planner who said "just pick something fun", listening to her, losing, being afraid of being educated, losing a lot to signing up to Morningstar, reading their "best top picks", looking at their star rating, looking at their projections, talking with my current financial planner about my portfolio, pics, etc. to seeing a pretty good return.
It doesn't hurt to have one of the choices be a future family fund. For example, Fidelity 2037 or something on the date of your retirement.
Rinse and repeat when things change (for example company just eliminated tier 3 options which messed up 3 of my choices), every few years.
posted by stormpooper at 6:54 AM on July 27, 2010
I would suggest reading as much as you can about retirement savings, whether it is online or your employer's documentation.
The 20xx target series looks great in theory, but considering fees, it might be best to follow the strategy discussed above:
1. Invest age% in bonds.
2. Invest (100 - age)% in diversified stocks (international and domestic).
3. Adjust on each birthday.
posted by BearPaws at 7:22 AM on July 27, 2010
The 20xx target series looks great in theory, but considering fees, it might be best to follow the strategy discussed above:
1. Invest age% in bonds.
2. Invest (100 - age)% in diversified stocks (international and domestic).
3. Adjust on each birthday.
posted by BearPaws at 7:22 AM on July 27, 2010
Question: if you're pulling in serious salary working at a finance company, why are you soliciting financial advice from a community of largely artistic intellectuals?
Further, with very little information about your appetite for risk besides your very blanche statement of "100% stocks," little understanding about your goals, your salary level, your career path etc... this question is very difficult, if not impossible, to answer with any level of reasonability.
Sorry if it sounds harsh, but I'd advise you to speak to your company's financial analyst, or the bevy of co-workers that can offer more seasoned advice.
If there is a piece of general advice I can give, given that you don't seem pressed financially, I would max your contributions. Laying a stout foundation at these formative years reaps huge rewards in the long-term.
posted by Hurst at 10:11 AM on July 27, 2010
Further, with very little information about your appetite for risk besides your very blanche statement of "100% stocks," little understanding about your goals, your salary level, your career path etc... this question is very difficult, if not impossible, to answer with any level of reasonability.
Sorry if it sounds harsh, but I'd advise you to speak to your company's financial analyst, or the bevy of co-workers that can offer more seasoned advice.
If there is a piece of general advice I can give, given that you don't seem pressed financially, I would max your contributions. Laying a stout foundation at these formative years reaps huge rewards in the long-term.
posted by Hurst at 10:11 AM on July 27, 2010
Some more information on the "Target 20xx" funds. I looked into them on Vanguard, just in case anyone is curious.
I used Target 2050 as a sample. It has fees of 0.20% p/a and consists (currently, so 40 years from the exit date) ~70% total US Stock Market, 10% US Bond Market, 9% Euro Stock Market, 5% Pacific Stock, 5% Emerging Market. So although it has some other stuff in it, right now if you bought in you'd basically be buying a US stock index fund.
The Vanguard 500, which is Vanguard's most popular fund (and I believe the biggest mutual fund in the world?) has expenses of 0.18% p/a* and just tracks the S&P 500.
So you're paying 0.02% p/a extra for the automatic features of the 2050 fund.
To me that doesn't seem like a bad deal, but if you're really good about re-balancing each year and know you'll actually do it, you could just DIY and save the few hundredths of a percent over time. The only thing to consider is that depending on how much money you have, you couldn't buy into as many funds separately as the Target fund does, since they have per-fund minimums (generally $3, $5, or $10k; some are higher though). You could also do it via ETFs instead of traditional mutual funds.
* This is for "investor" i.e. non-Admiral class shares. If you have $100k in the fund, you can get 0.07% p/a. The Target funds don't have this option.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:53 AM on July 27, 2010
I used Target 2050 as a sample. It has fees of 0.20% p/a and consists (currently, so 40 years from the exit date) ~70% total US Stock Market, 10% US Bond Market, 9% Euro Stock Market, 5% Pacific Stock, 5% Emerging Market. So although it has some other stuff in it, right now if you bought in you'd basically be buying a US stock index fund.
The Vanguard 500, which is Vanguard's most popular fund (and I believe the biggest mutual fund in the world?) has expenses of 0.18% p/a* and just tracks the S&P 500.
So you're paying 0.02% p/a extra for the automatic features of the 2050 fund.
To me that doesn't seem like a bad deal, but if you're really good about re-balancing each year and know you'll actually do it, you could just DIY and save the few hundredths of a percent over time. The only thing to consider is that depending on how much money you have, you couldn't buy into as many funds separately as the Target fund does, since they have per-fund minimums (generally $3, $5, or $10k; some are higher though). You could also do it via ETFs instead of traditional mutual funds.
* This is for "investor" i.e. non-Admiral class shares. If you have $100k in the fund, you can get 0.07% p/a. The Target funds don't have this option.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:53 AM on July 27, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
Yes, put your money 100% in a stock fund. A indexed stock fund, as the evidence shows that managed funds aren't worth the extra cost.
posted by Dimpy at 7:46 PM on July 26, 2010 [3 favorites]