Best long term mutual fund

[cchoukal]

Hey, guys, investment question here. When I got out of residency, I was working with a financial planner that I liked whose advice led me to a tax-managed fund-of-funds approach as part of my after-tax investing. The fund has done okay, but the fees are high and, since I now have a mortgage, the managed-tax-aspects of the fund are less necessary. If I were to take this money and put it into something else on my own, where should it go? I'm assuming index funds, but who do you like for low fees/good performance?

It's about $100K, my investment horizon is long, and I intend to continue to contribute $10K-$20K per year.

(to avoid the unnecessary ancillary advice, I'll add that I'm already maxing out my pre-tax contributions, roth-IRA, cash safety net, life/disability/umbrella insurances).

Thanks in advance!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted171991]

Vanguard, Vanguard, and I forgot, Vanguard. Either the S&P500 index ETF or MF, or the total stock market ones. I mentioned the ETFs in case you already have a brokerage account elsewhere, and not inclined to open another account at Vanguard. Plus they have ridiculously low fees.

Also, get into the habit of reading the bogleheads.org forum and wiki, and whitecoatinvestor.com. You can start with this book.

You are welcome.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Vanguard, Vanguard, and I forgot, Vanguard. Either the S&P500 index ETF or MF, or the total stock market ones. I mentioned the ETFs in case you already have a brokerage account elsewhere, and not inclined to open another account at Vanguard. Plus they have ridiculously low fees.

Also, get into the habit of reading the bogleheads.org forum and wiki, and whitecoatinvestor.com. You can start with this book.

You are welcome.

Charles Schwab is very good as well with the lowest cost ETFs in the business. I hold a lot of Vanguard ETFs but if I was starting out today I would strongly consider Schwab.

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/05/27/the-3-best-schwab-etfs.aspx

http://www.investmentnews.com/artic...-etf-empire-gaining-on-blackrock-and-vanguard

 

[caligas]

Hey, guys, investment question here. When I got out of residency, I was working with a financial planner that I liked whose advice led me to a tax-managed fund-of-funds approach as part of my after-tax investing. The fund has done okay, but the fees are high and, since I now have a mortgage, the managed-tax-aspects of the fund are less necessary. If I were to take this money and put it into something else on my own, where should it go? I'm assuming index funds, but who do you like for low fees/good performance?

It's about $100K, my investment horizon is long, and I intend to continue to contribute $10K-$20K per year.

(to avoid the unnecessary ancillary advice, I'll add that I'm already maxing out my pre-tax contributions, roth-IRA, cash safety net, life/disability/umbrella insurances).

Thanks in advance!

Get out now. We've seen the "trump bump". Get ready for the "trump dump."

J/k. Nobody knows what's gonna happen. Other posters are right-on with their suggestions.

 

[cchoukal]

This may sound like a dumb question, but if I have an Ameritrade account, can I invest in a vanguard fund through that account, or is the only way to invest directly through vanguard?

 

[Mman]

This may sound like a dumb question, but if I have an Ameritrade account, can I invest in a vanguard fund through that account, or is the only way to invest directly through vanguard?

you can probably search for individual Vanguard funds on Ameritrade. I know on ScottTrade I can buy Vanguard funds but they tack on a small additional fee to each purchase (I think $10 per trade plus the $7 per trade that is normal for them so $17 total).

 

[fakin' the funk]

Hey, guys, investment question here. When I got out of residency, I was working with a financial planner that I liked whose advice led me to a tax-managed fund-of-funds approach as part of my after-tax investing. The fund has done okay, but the fees are high and, since I now have a mortgage, the managed-tax-aspects of the fund are less necessary. If I were to take this money and put it into something else on my own, where should it go? I'm assuming index funds, but who do you like for low fees/good performance?

Vanguard > Fidelity > Schwab is the quick answer for low-cost index funds. I personally like mutual funds since there's more variety and there's no day-to-day temptation to trade (which is why ETFs exist in the first place).

Which funds to invest it in depends on your need/tolerance/ability to take risk, and what the money is for, if for anything specific (college fund, house down payment, etc., -- I know you said you already have a mortgage).

If it's just after-tax investing for retirement, then you could do either a "Target Retirement Date" type of fund-of-funds, or a combination of US and International Stock and Bond Market index funds. The asset allocation in your OVERALL PORTFOLIO should be what you set ahead of time (like in your Investment Policy Statement), so depending on your asset allocation in your various "buckets" (401k, Roth IRA) you may or may not need to adjust your asset allocation in your taxable retirement account.

I happen to know you're in CA; take a look at the CA Tax Exempt Bond Index Fund which goes nicely in a taxable account.

 

[BLADEMDA]

This may sound like a dumb question, but if I have an Ameritrade account, can I invest in a vanguard fund through that account, or is the only way to invest directly through vanguard?

Yes. Vanguard ETFs are available through AMERITRADE

 

[BLADEMDA]

Vanguard > Fidelity > Schwab is the quick answer for low-cost index funds. I personally like mutual funds since there's more variety and there's no day-to-day temptation to trade (which is why ETFs exist in the first place).

Which funds to invest it in depends on your need/tolerance/ability to take risk, and what the money is for, if for anything specific (college fund, house down payment, etc., -- I know you said you already have a mortgage).

If it's just after-tax investing for retirement, then you could do either a "Target Retirement Date" type of fund-of-funds, or a combination of US and International Stock and Bond Market index funds. The asset allocation in your OVERALL PORTFOLIO should be what you set ahead of time (like in your Investment Policy Statement), so depending on your asset allocation in your various "buckets" (401k, Roth IRA) you may or may not need to adjust your asset allocation in your taxable retirement account.

I happen to know you're in CA; take a look at the CA Tax Exempt Bond Index Fund which goes nicely in a taxable account.

I own many ETFs through Fidelity (Fidelity ETFs and iShares) as well as Vanguard (50% mutual funds, 50% ETFs). I view these Investments as low cost, tax efficient long term vehicles.

 

[criticalelement]

I agree with vanguard funds being the best but the best online broker is either Fidelity or Schwab. vanguard is not for the everyday trader, they dont have 24/7 support either.

 

[pjl]

Index funds.
1. Us stocks
2. International stocks
3.Bonds

Adjust ratio based on risk tolerance, and need for higher returns. Bonds are for the low risk, low reward crew, but if you see a big drop in the market you will do better short term than the stock crowd.
I personally see no need for bonds as a young investor with very long timeline, and steady income. You don't care about your account value now or even 10 years from now. Shift into bonds in 20 years or so. If anything like history happens, you will come out ahead.

Mix of us vs international is personal, but I think US will go up for the next few years if tax rates drop for corporations. That extra tax savings sure won't go to lower prices, it will be pure profit.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[pjl]

Oh, and pick the company with the prettiest website, all the low cost index stuff is in similar range. Would swap to vanguard, fidelity, or schwab though.
Vanguards site kinda sucks, but I'm there due to more low cost options a few years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[BLADEMDA]

Index funds.
1. Us stocks
2. International stocks
3.Bonds

Adjust ratio based on risk tolerance, and need for higher returns. Bonds are for the low risk, low reward crew, but if you see a big drop in the market you will do better short term than the stock crowd.
I personally see no need for bonds as a young investor with very long timeline, and steady income. You don't care about your account value now or even 10 years from now. Shift into bonds in 20 years or so. If anything like history happens, you will come out ahead.

Mix of us vs international is personal, but I think US will go up for the next few years if tax rates drop for corporations. That extra tax savings sure won't go to lower prices, it will be pure profit.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Impossible to predict when International/Emerging Markets may go up. For example, Financial stocks have rallied 20% or more in one week. I would argue now is a great time to start investing in Emerging Markets (cost average in) over the long term.

Lower risk tolerance favors DEVELOPED International stocks/multi-nationals based out of UK/Europe/Ireland (Euro zone). But, if you have a 20+ time horizon then why not invest in higher risk emerging markets as well?

If you prefer a Financial Adviser then go with DFA:
http://whitecoatinvestor.com/dfa-vs-vanguard/
https://us.dimensional.com/firm/overview.aspx

 

[Noyac]

If you are like me and find investing to be somewhat boring then I would recommend Vanguards total stock market. It has the lowest ER and covers everything, even the international market since most major companies are highly active overseas. Every advisor is graded on their performance in comparison to the Totsl Stock Market. Nobody beats the market year after year. So just go with the market. I would also recommend the Total Bond Market in some low percentage (10-20%) just for the security but if you are in this game for >20yrs then it should be small. Increase your bond holdings as you approach retirement.
The Vanguard Tot Stock Market has an ER of .05. Nobody matches that.

 

[Mman]

I personally see no need for bonds as a young investor with very long timeline, and steady income. You don't care about your account value now or even 10 years from now. Shift into bonds in 20 years or so. If anything like history happens, you will come out ahead.

The best argument for including some bond allocation at a young age is to decrease your desire to do something stupid if the market tanks. If you can promise that you will literally never look at the account balance for > 10 years, then go ahead and have 0% bonds. But if you will periodically check it and get slightly nervous if there is a massive downturn, having a small bond allocation helps offset that massive downturn and keeps you in the right mental frame of mind for not making changes. Besides, the potential downside to having 15-20% bond allocation over 20 or 30 years is relatively small even if the stock market soars over that time.

For young investors, bonds are mental insurance against making rash decisions.

 

[BLADEMDA]

research supports the value of diversified passive investing as a long-term strategy. According to a study by Dalbar, average passive investors earn 3 percent to 4 percent more annually than average active investors. Over time, that makes a huge difference.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/14/what-are-the-benefits-of-passive-investing.html

 

[Ezekiel2517]

I use betterment for my taxable. All low cost vanguard funds, extremely low fee, does all your tax loss harvesting for you which more than makes up for the fees themselves

 

[Wiscoblue]

There is a difference between even SPY and VOO both are S&P 500 index ETFs but because of how they are structured, the dividend is not entirely taxed the same way. So if you have say $ 5 million in SPY in retirement, and you plan to live off the dividend, you might end up paying more of that dividend in taxes than if you had $5M in a vanguard etf VOO. It is important to know it now and plan now. You can't switch 20,000 shares of SPY to VOO after holding them for 30 years in a taxable account. The capital gains tax on that sale would be prohibitive.

 

[Noyac]

research supports the value of diversified passive investing as a long-term strategy. According to a study by Dalbar, average passive investors earn 3 percent to 4 percent more annually than average active investors. Over time, that makes a huge difference.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/14/what-are-the-benefits-of-passive-investing.html

I agree however, recent market trends have started to support the active trader.

http://www.barrons.com/articles/act...wiEvl8QShVVxyusz0F3PbxKqCYorTsLn4oDefkCGVmKLR

 

[Mman]

I agree however, recent market trends have started to support the active trader.

http://www.barrons.com/articles/active-stockpickers-are-outpacing-passive-funds-1478318812?emailToken=D2XdhvE44nGRHvgxK+AIPaf+dY7YU3dxTn8V3K4nz7xBnbKIrQBwiEvl8QShVVxyusz0F3PbxKqCYorTsLn4oDefkCGVmKLR

A couple things...

1) that's a terrible article. Wow, 60% of active funds have beat the S&P since July? That's like 4 months of data. That's nothing. Funds need to be judged on several years and several decades of performance or else random luck will guarantee that some outperform over a shorter stretch of time. They also point out that quite a few of those funds that are outperforming since July are underperforming for the calendar year.

2) I agree that picking stocks can outperform the market. I buy individual stocks with my after tax investing (though I'm all mutual funds with my 401K) and I've outperformed the S&P for years (I am heavily influenced by Munger/Buffett/Graham). After how many years of outperformance can I claim that I am better than a low cost mutual fund? I'm thinking after 20 years or so I can probably safely make that claim (not quite there yet). I mean my individual choices are even lower cost than the mutual funds since I rarely sell anything and just keep buying when I see opportunities.


Trading is a dumb idea. Investing wisely is a great idea. For most people that don't have the time or inclination to research individual companies, they should simply stick to low cost mutual funds. Paying annual fees for active management is a great way to underperform over decades.

 

[deleted131481]

A couple things...

1) that's a terrible article. Wow, 60% of active funds have beat the S&P since July? That's like 4 months of data. That's nothing. Funds need to be judged on several years and several decades of performance or else random luck will guarantee that some outperform over a shorter stretch of time. They also point out that quite a few of those funds that are outperforming since July are underperforming for the calendar year.

2) I agree that picking stocks can outperform the market. I buy individual stocks with my after tax investing (though I'm all mutual funds with my 401K) and I've outperformed the S&P for years (I am heavily influenced by Munger/Buffett/Graham). After how many years of outperformance can I claim that I am better than a low cost mutual fund? I'm thinking after 20 years or so I can probably safely make that claim (not quite there yet). I mean my individual choices are even lower cost than the mutual funds since I rarely sell anything and just keep buying when I see opportunities.


Trading is a dumb idea. Investing wisely is a great idea. For most people that don't have the time or inclination to research individual companies, they should simply stick to low cost mutual funds. Paying annual fees for active management is a great way to underperform over decades.

From the same article:

"Granted, passive investing has outpaced active in 22 of the past 26 years, in large part because of fees—1.14% for the average actively managed large-cap fund, compared with less than half that for passively managed funds, going as low as 0.03% for some broad-market exchange-traded funds"

I think that should sum up the story that passive is better than active.

 

[Noyac]

A couple things...

1) that's a terrible article. Wow, 60% of active funds have beat the S&P since July? That's like 4 months of data. That's nothing. Funds need to be judged on several years and several decades of performance or else random luck will guarantee that some outperform over a shorter stretch of time. They also point out that quite a few of those funds that are outperforming since July are underperforming for the calendar year.

2) I agree that picking stocks can outperform the market. I buy individual stocks with my after tax investing (though I'm all mutual funds with my 401K) and I've outperformed the S&P for years (I am heavily influenced by Munger/Buffett/Graham). After how many years of outperformance can I claim that I am better than a low cost mutual fund? I'm thinking after 20 years or so I can probably safely make that claim (not quite there yet). I mean my individual choices are even lower cost than the mutual funds since I rarely sell anything and just keep buying when I see opportunities.


Trading is a dumb idea. Investing wisely is a great idea. For most people that don't have the time or inclination to research individual companies, they should simply stick to low cost mutual funds. Paying annual fees for active management is a great way to underperform over decades.

Exactly!
The only reason I posted the article is to point out that even in the best situation it is difficult to out perform the passively managed funds. Plus, I didn't major in finance. I majored in medicine. So I don't presume to be able to outperform the markets. Especially, when the vast malority of finance majors can't do it either.

And I always take those that claim that they have with a grain of salt. Or even better a large portion of disbelief.

 

[Psai]

Hermes ties and ferragamo shoes don't pay for themselves. They come right out of your pocket from "active management".

 

[cchoukal]

If you are like me and find investing to be somewhat boring then I would recommend Vanguards total stock market. It has the lowest ER and covers everything, even the international market since most major companies are highly active overseas. Every advisor is graded on their performance in comparison to the Totsl Stock Market. Nobody beats the market year after year. So just go with the market. I would also recommend the Total Bond Market in some low percentage (10-20%) just for the security but if you are in this game for >20yrs then it should be small. Increase your bond holdings as you approach retirement.
The Vanguard Tot Stock Market has an ER of .05. Nobody matches that.

Ameritrade shows that fund has an ER of 0.16. (Not that that's terrible). I see very few Vanguard mutual funds below 0.1, and most of those are bond funds.

Does anyone have a strategy for moving the money without incurring capital gains? I'm assuming that I'll liquidate the fund the money's currently in, get a check, deposit it in my Ameritrade account, and make the buy. This will incur capital gains, right?

Does anyone like VTWIX (total world stock, institutional)? They also have a similar fund of Investor shares, but the ER is twice that of the fund with institutional shares (what's the difference?)

 

[GravelRider]

Ameritrade shows that fund has an ER of 0.16. (Not that that's terrible). I see very few Vanguard mutual funds below 0.1, and most of those are bond funds.

Does anyone have a strategy for moving the money without incurring capital gains? I'm assuming that I'll liquidate the fund the money's currently in, get a check, deposit it in my Ameritrade account, and make the buy. This will incur capital gains, right?

Does anyone like VTWIX (total world stock, institutional)? They also have a similar fund of Investor shares, but the ER is twice that of the fund with institutional shares (what's the difference?)

To get the lower ER for the Vanguard index funds, you need to purchase the Admiral class shares. I am not sure if these are available at most brokerage accounts. Otherwise, if you have a Vanguard account, you can purchase the Admiral class shares for a minimum (I think it's $10,000 for index funds). Otherwise, you are probably better off buying the ETF version of those Vanguard funds in your non-Vanguard brokerage account. The ETF expense ratios are the same as the Admiral class expense ratios. Confusing?

https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/admiral-shares

 

[Noyac]

If you purchase these from other accounts other than Vanguard then you will pay an addition fee.

 

[Mman]

If you purchase these from other accounts other than Vanguard then you will pay an addition fee.

to be clear when talking about fees, the additional fee is a flat fee with purchase. Like I mentioned ScottTrade is an extra $10. There is no additional annual fee, however, so the expense ratio going forward stays the same.

 

[Shimmy8]

Vanguard Total Stock Market Index - 50%

Vanguard Total International Market Index - 30%

Vanguard Total Bond Index - 20%

My total portfolio right there, for now. Also I'm a resident so don't have much else to throw in, but I'm in the KISS and don't touch/look at it philosophy at the moment.

 

[sazerac]

Vanguard Total Stock Market Index - 50%

Vanguard Total International Market Index - 30%

Vanguard Total Bond Index - 20%

My total portfolio right there, for now. Also I'm a resident so don't have much else to throw in, but I'm in the KISS and don't touch/look at it philosophy at the moment.

I used to do something similar.

Every January I would rebalance, selling a little of the funds that got ahead, buying a little of the funds that got behind. Every five years I would adjust the percentages slightly as my age went up and tolerance for risk gradually went down.

Then I realized that those Vanguard Target Retirement funds basically did all of the above for me, automatically. So I waited a little, and on the next market dip in 2008 I shifted all of my funds into a single Target Retirement fund.

The last time I checked my balances was 2012. Everything is humming along smoothly, and I don't waste time adjusting mutual fund balances anymore.

 

[Noyac]

I used to do something similar.

Every January I would rebalance, selling a little of the funds that got ahead, buying a little of the funds that got behind. Every five years I would adjust the percentages slightly as my age went up and tolerance for risk gradually went down.

Then I realized that those Vanguard Target Retirement funds basically did all of the above for me, automatically. So I waited a little, and on the next market dip in 2008 I shifted all of my funds into a single Target Retirement fund.

The last time I checked my balances was 2012. Everything is humming along smoothly, and I don't waste time adjusting mutual fund balances anymore.

That's the idea.

 

[Noyac]

Vanguard Total Stock Market Index - 50%

Vanguard Total International Market Index - 30%

Vanguard Total Bond Index - 20%

My total portfolio right there, for now. Also I'm a resident so don't have much else to throw in, but I'm in the KISS and don't touch/look at it philosophy at the moment.

I would argue that one doesn't even need the "international" holding.
If you are in the "Total Stock Market" then you have all the international exposure you need. For example, let's take Coka Cola. They are a big holding in the TSM and they have huge interests abroad. As the international markets grow so does the companies that are present there. Therefore, you get plenty of international exposure.

But there is nothing wrong with have TIM holdings as well. But at 30% in the TIM you may be internationally heavy. I don't know.

 

[Mman]

I used to do something similar.

Every January I would rebalance, selling a little of the funds that got ahead, buying a little of the funds that got behind. Every five years I would adjust the percentages slightly as my age went up and tolerance for risk gradually went down.

Then I realized that those Vanguard Target Retirement funds basically did all of the above for me, automatically. So I waited a little, and on the next market dip in 2008 I shifted all of my funds into a single Target Retirement fund.

The last time I checked my balances was 2012. Everything is humming along smoothly, and I don't waste time adjusting mutual fund balances anymore.

while that is the ultimate in bogleheads philosophy, it isn't always 100% applicable to a physician. For example, the target date funds work well if that is 100% of your retirement savings. As a physician, though, you can have significant savings that are not accounted for in that TDF and that could throw your desired allocation out of whack.

For example, I have a self funded pension plan that I participate in. To me, that's kind of a bond like entity for retirement planning. Hence I can reduce my bond exposure in my 401K below what a target date fund would target and still end up at the same overall allocation model. There are lots of other things that can tilt it out of whack as well.

 

[pgg]

For example, I have a self funded pension plan that I participate in. To me, that's kind of a bond like entity for retirement planning. Hence I can reduce my bond exposure in my 401K below what a target date fund would target and still end up at the same overall allocation model.

That's sort of how I treat my military pension. One issue though is that I can't use my pension "bond" allocation to rebalance into stocks if/when the market tanks. So I keep some bonds in the taxable and IRA accounts.

For this reason I feel like I'm sort of stuck with a higher "bond" allocation than my risk tolerance would otherwise need, and maybe I'm wasting an opportunity. I don't know what the best answer is. I suspect it probably doesn't really matter, so I try not to worry about it.

 

[deleted171991]

Ignore the military pension, plan as if it doesn't exist, and you will have mostly nice surprises come retirement time. 😉

 

[lord_jeebus]

I like VASGX, which is a blend of Vanguard Total Stock, Vanguard Total Bond, Vanguard Total International Stock, and Vanguard Total International Bond, with an 80/20 stock/bond ratio and 70/30 domestic/international ratio. I grew up overseas and might go back someday so international allocations are partly a hedge against long-term relative devaluation of the dollar.

edit: correction, 62/38 domestic/international ratio

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[Noyac]

Blade, I don't follow this. Can you summarize?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Blade, I don't follow this. Can you summarize?

Morningstar.com

We conducted a study recently in which we examined the after tax returns of all U.S. equity funds compared with relevant Vanguard index funds. What we found was that very few of those funds beat the Vanguard index alternative after taxes. In fact, your odds of succeeding would have been about the same as landing a coin on the same side three times in a row.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Aftertax Odds
The case for passive investing grows stronger still after tax. After all, the starting point for after tax performance is pretax performance, which we've already seen is shabby. Predictably, we find that very few active U.S. equity funds have succeeded after tax.

Morningstar.com

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[Noyac]

Morningstar.com

We conducted a study recently in which we examined the after tax returns of all U.S. equity funds compared with relevant Vanguard index funds. What we found was that very few of those funds beat the Vanguard index alternative after taxes. In fact, your odds of succeeding would have been about the same as landing a coin on the same side three times in a row.

Got it. Thanks

 

[Dawkter]

Some very basic questions here as I am a soon to be attending. I apologize if these are no brainers.

1. If saving for a home down payment (3-4 years $100k) is a Vanguard ETF the best way to go in terms of a safe return? A regular savings account at Chase/Wellsfargo seems to generate pennies each year. Is there a better short term vehicle to get some growth?

2. When would be the best time to get life/disability insurance? I have heard a term life policy at 5x your annual wage should be the goal here.

 

[facted]

Some very basic questions here as I am a soon to be attending. I apologize if these are no brainers.

1. If saving for a home down payment (3-4 years $100k) is a Vanguard ETF the best way to go in terms of a safe return? A regular savings account at Chase/Wellsfargo seems to generate pennies each year. Is there a better short term vehicle to get some growth?

2. When would be the best time to get life/disability insurance? I have heard a term life policy at 5x your annual wage should be the goal here.

If you need the money in the next few years, do not invest in stocks. You could have a very crappy few years of returns and not have time to make it up before you need the money.

Best time for insurance is NOW. You will only get older and sicker (and therefore more expensive to insure). The amount you need depends on your liabilities, dependents, etc... I personally have staggered life insurance policies at 10,20,30 yr so that as I build up assets and my liabilities decrease (mortgage paid down, kids college saved for, etc...) My policies will begin to lapse.

There are plenty of threads about this if you do a search.

 

[urge]

Hey, guys, investment question here. When I got out of residency, I was working with a financial planner that I liked whose advice led me to a tax-managed fund-of-funds approach as part of my after-tax investing. The fund has done okay, but the fees are high and, since I now have a mortgage, the managed-tax-aspects of the fund are less necessary. If I were to take this money and put it into something else on my own, where should it go? I'm assuming index funds, but who do you like for low fees/good performance?

It's about $100K, my investment horizon is long, and I intend to continue to contribute $10K-$20K per year.

(to avoid the unnecessary ancillary advice, I'll add that I'm already maxing out my pre-tax contributions, roth-IRA, cash safety net, life/disability/umbrella insurances).

Thanks in advance!

ETF??!

Mutual funds??

PCRX all the way! Just ask anyone here.

Oh wait! That stock has been a dog.

You are probably better off not taking advice from SDN.

 

[kidthor]

I'm a huge fan of Vanguard too... given that you're a long term investor, it might make sure to just do one of their lifecycle funds that will automatically balance risk for you.

Or if you're like me a like a bit more control, you could for now invest more in their higher risk, higher reward (or loss) funds...

I have 75% into VHDYX - Vanguard High Dividend Yield Index Fund Investor Shares
and 25% into VWENX - Vanguard Wellington Fund Admiral Shares

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

I'm a huge fan of Vanguard too... given that you're a long term investor, it might make sure to just do one of their lifecycle funds that will automatically balance risk for you.

Or if you're like me a like a bit more control, you could for now invest more in their higher risk, higher reward (or loss) funds...

I have 75% into VHDYX - Vanguard High Dividend Yield Index Fund Investor Shares
and 25% into VWENX - Vanguard Wellington Fund Admiral Shares

He specifically said he is NOT a long-term investor; that he will need the money in 3-4 years. If that's the case, there are not a lot of options. Anything that has the potential to grow significantly has the potential to shrink significantly. Would suck to want to buy a house but can't because you have 20% less than you thought you were going to due to the stock market. Just pick the highest yield savings account you can find, or maybe a 3-year CD. I guess short-term bonds would be alright, but they're probably not going to make you that much more than a good CD.

As far as life/disability; get disability now. Get term life if there's someone that is depending on you for income (wife, kids, parents, etc). Otherwise you can wait a bit, but don't wait too long; as a previous poster said, you're probably not going to be getting healthier.

 

[deleted50478]

.

 

[deleted50478]

I don't think low risk bonds are worth investing in if you aren't close to retirement (and maybe not even in retirement) except as a place to park some money for future stock investing after a stock market drop.
Taxed managed funds are also questionable since you are likely to lose in performance what you gain in tax savings.