Each amount if it were free money?
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
Would you put in the lump sum or dollar cost average over time?Tumble Weed said:
Amount doesn't matter. I would invest all 3 the same. S&P 500.
Lump sum due to my time horizon. I recently considered moving some stock to cash (around 25%) in anticipation of the recession, but couldn't talk myself into it. I just love watching my money make money. It is one of my favorite hobbies.DouglasPearce said:Would you put in the lump sum or dollar cost average over time?Tumble Weed said:
Amount doesn't matter. I would invest all 3 the same. S&P 500.
I guess I'm a little bit confused. You're considering de-risking your portfolio using elements of market timing (investing the lump sum and moving stock to cash), but then you're talking about moving to cash to stock.Tumble Weed said:Lump sum due to my time horizon. I recently considered moving some stock to cash (around 25%) in anticipation of the recession, but couldn't talk myself into it. I just love watching my money make money. It is one of my favorite hobbies.DouglasPearce said:Would you put in the lump sum or dollar cost average over time?Tumble Weed said:
Amount doesn't matter. I would invest all 3 the same. S&P 500.
In another 20 years, I will probably put in 10% stop loss on a portion of it.
My post is poorly worded. I need another cup of coffee.SquareOne07 said:I guess I'm a little bit confused. You're considering de-risking your portfolio using elements of market timing (investing the lump sum and moving stock to cash), but then you're talking about moving to cash to stock.Tumble Weed said:Lump sum due to my time horizon. I recently considered moving some stock to cash (around 25%) in anticipation of the recession, but couldn't talk myself into it. I just love watching my money make money. It is one of my favorite hobbies.DouglasPearce said:Would you put in the lump sum or dollar cost average over time?Tumble Weed said:
Amount doesn't matter. I would invest all 3 the same. S&P 500.
In another 20 years, I will probably put in 10% stop loss on a portion of it.
There are definitely people that can choose funds that will outperform the S&P 500. If a person has a business degree ( I do ) and studies the market, then by all means he or she should choose the best vehicle.SquareOne07 said:
As an aside...
People...especially people here...seem to be absolutely enamored with the S&P.
I'm not touting Mutual Funds as the sole pony people should be riding, rather just using it as a benchmark.
Since 1934 (the inception of American Funds's Investment Fun of America), the average annual return to Nov 2015 (when the particular article I quickly found) is 12.05%, to be fair, it carries an expense ratio of .58%
During the same time period, the S&P returned 8.26%.
It's easy to simply say an S&P index is the way to go, especially during the longest economic expansion in history, but long term, a diversified and slightly actively (SLIGHTLY) managed portfolio may suit you better.
Investopedia's 10 American Funds with long performance
Tumble Weed said:There are definitely people that can choose funds that will outperform the S&P 500. If a person has a business degree ( I do ) and studies the market, then by all means he or she should choose the best vehicle.SquareOne07 said:
As an aside...
People...especially people here...seem to be absolutely enamored with the S&P.
I'm not touting Mutual Funds as the sole pony people should be riding, rather just using it as a benchmark.
Since 1934 (the inception of American Funds's Investment Fun of America), the average annual return to Nov 2015 (when the particular article I quickly found) is 12.05%, to be fair, it carries an expense ratio of .58%
During the same time period, the S&P returned 8.26%.
It's easy to simply say an S&P index is the way to go, especially during the longest economic expansion in history, but long term, a diversified and slightly actively (SLIGHTLY) managed portfolio may suit you better.
Investopedia's 10 American Funds with long performance
My wife is educated and works in the health care industry. While she is accomplished and well compensated, she does not grasp basic fundamentals of finance.
I need to have a fund in place so that if I die unexpectedly, everything will continue to tick along as planned. I feel that an index fund works best for this scenario. A full 25% of funds will outperform my choice, but that also means that 75% will not. It is kind of like getting par on every hole. No birdies, no bogies, and I can live with that.
I understand...but that's also why i said numbers looked different 2-3 years ago. Numbers at the end of 2015 put REITs and small and mid cap quite a bit ahead of the S&P (like 2%-3% average per year over the past 20).Tumble Weed said:
Very interesting chart. Thanks for sharing.
Which asset class did the best over the 15 year time frame?
I didn't move the goal posts. I didn't choose 15 years or choose the article.cjsag94 said:I understand...but that's also why i said numbers looked different 2-3 years ago. Numbers at the end of 2015 put REITs and small and mid cap quite a bit ahead of the S&P (like 2%-3% average per year over the past 20).Tumble Weed said:
Very interesting chart. Thanks for sharing.
Which asset class did the best over the 15 year time frame?
That's sort of the point, we can always pick a point to prove a case, but there are lots of points it moves away. Asset allocation definitely reduced volatility.
10,000--mutual fundsag0207 said:
Each amount if it were free money?
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
ORAggieFan said:
I'd give it to my financial advisor. He mixes among ~15 ETFs and some other things. As mentioned, go lump sum.
SquareOne07 said:ORAggieFan said:
I'd give it to my financial advisor. He mixes among ~15 ETFs and some other things. As mentioned, go lump sum.
Why ETFs?
ORAggieFan said:SquareOne07 said:ORAggieFan said:
I'd give it to my financial advisor. He mixes among ~15 ETFs and some other things. As mentioned, go lump sum.
Why ETFs?
Easiest way to diversify, minimal fees.
SquareOne07 said:ORAggieFan said:SquareOne07 said:ORAggieFan said:
I'd give it to my financial advisor. He mixes among ~15 ETFs and some other things. As mentioned, go lump sum.
Why ETFs?
Easiest way to diversify, minimal fees.
What type of account is it in? Lower fees do not always equate to better long term performance. The tax status of the account is important when considering ETFs vs Mutual Funds...I assume your advisor has ran through that with ya.
SquareOne07 said:
ETFs are, in my experience, better suited in taxable brokerage accounts because of their relative tax efficiency compared to mutual funds...there's less "activity" to pay taxes on.
Since you're working with an advisor, I'd certainly ask, if for no other reason than your own understanding, why he/she recommends ETFs over MFs in your IRA and how your tax situation is taken into account in that decision.
ag0207 said:
Each amount if it were free money?
10,000 - online savings account
100,000 - rental properties
1,000,000 - something dull, boring, and very safe. Retire immediately. Plus Mavs season tickets. And a Corvette.
SquareOne07 said:
There's no need to pick funds or do research or build out a "fund of funds" if your sole objective is long term growth. That single fund right there beats the S&P. The S&P gets murdered during downturns.
EliteZags said:SquareOne07 said:
There's no need to pick funds or do research or build out a "fund of funds" if your sole objective is long term growth. That single fund right there beats the S&P. The S&P gets murdered during downturns.
so you were able to look back and pick one fund that beat the S&P out of however many, conceptually how is that much different than looking back at the last lotto and saying if you had just picked those numbers you would have come out on top?
or are you telling us past performance is and indicator of future results, which means anyone that invests should easily be filthy rich right?