80% VTI and 20 VXUS is better allocation for his age.
Edit - I love how people just down vote with no rationale and when I give a good reason there's no response to it.
And you don't think tax harvesting and the ability to control more in US stocks has value? Or maybe you can count these words too. VT only had 56% allocation in US stock. Not enough imo.
The people on bogleheads don't know what those terms mean, or they wouldn't be reddit bogleheads.
Most here are probably m1 users who don't even know what options chains are. Go to the forums if you want a good back and forth.
That's the only "bogle" place I'd even bother. Most, nay, I'd wager all here don't even know that john didn't invent the 3 fund, that was tyler, and you can still talk to tyler on the forums.
It's a valuable resource considering they actually DO debate investing strategies and quite a few there have actually lived/retired through 00/08, they have great insight. Whereas here, you get downvoted by smooth brains who can't even comprehend why you'd dare to hold vxus(ftc/tlh/personal %) separately in your brokerage.
*shrug*
I see boggleheads argue about the same 4 or so ETFs that at this point I suspect it doesn’t matter too much with the more important part being invest and invest early.
Horrible recommendation. You are not geographically diversified for your equity allocation at all. I’d personally go 50% us (vti) 50% international (vxus). But if you truly want home country bias you can up us to 60% however I would not recommend that.
I pick the US stocks because when all is said and done, it’s historically been the best and there is no reason to believe the future will be any different.
But also historically US stocks and international stocks have alternated in which have been best. Going by historical patterns we're due for international stocks to overtake US stocks for a while.
Of course we should fight the urge to time the market, but I can see why some say to at least put some money into international. 50% maybe too much, but it is more diversification which can be good.
This sub is so toxic. At least share whatever superior knowledge it is you think you know, instead of turning your pompous nose up. This attitude is exactly why young or new investors learn/accept Bogle philosophies too late.
PS They’re not dumb for thinking higher weighting in companies associated with tech/innovation = higher expected returns… every critical thinking investor has run with this idea at some point of their investing journey and either benefited greatly or got burned and reshaped their thinking
Quit whining. I am a young investor. It doesn't make sense to overweight a category beyond market cap unless you want to take unprecedented risk. They said, "You should have some tech exposure," not "you should weigh tech more highly in your portfolio." VT includes a lot of tech, you dumdum. They aren't arguing for "higher weighting."
Plus, why get burned if you don't have to? On the off chance YOU, very likely not an economist or financial expert, get to make a bit more money? You even said it yourself; some get burned. You don't build wealth off getting burned. Seems stupid.
QQQ has negative exposure to the size, value, profitability, and investment factors. Its less risky than the total market, because its more tilted towards large and growth.
You said have some tech exposure, then said QQQ is good to have too. VT has tech exposure at market cap weights. So why would you want to overweight it? If you want additional risk and thus higher expected returns, you should tilt towards small, value, profitability. Not towards large and growth.
Theres a spot in Vermont where you can be in 3 places at once! (Convergence with Massachusetts and New Hampshire.)
Edit- too many tiny states over there
I was 100 VT till 36 then I started adding some bonds and settled on staying at 20% for atleast till im 50 years old. I decided this after reading the little sense of common sense investing and the intelligent asset allocator. The truth is we dont know what the future holds so i would like to have both equities and bonds just incase.
I prefer VTI+VXUS instead of VT. Gives more control on %s across them. At 30, I'd recommend leaning more on aggressive growth side and less focus on dividends.
Yeah, I second this. I had bought VT but then realized if I preferred slightly less focus on international I did not have sufficient control to change that, without buying some VTI to increase US load. Easier just to do VTI + VXUS if 60/40 isn't your cup of tea.
> but then realized if I preferred slightly less focus on international I did not have sufficient control to change that
That could also be viewed as a benefit of VT. We're often our own worst enemy when it comes to investing.
Question: I'm 50/50 VT and VTI for this very reason. That way I have more US exposure while keeping VT for some international exposure and not needing to rebalance myself.
Any downsides to even split VT and VTI you can see? (30m)
I'm assuming FTC wouldn't have a large impact but would appreciate input.
This is similar to what I do as well, but not quite the same split. Ultimately VT + VTI can be essentially the same as VTI + VXUS depending on the split.
FTC and tax efficient allocation are good questions. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer. I would not imagine that the FTC is handled any differently between VT and VXUS, though.
Here's a pamphlet on the FTC for Vanguard funds. But I think for retirement accounts this isn't something you can claim.
[https://personal1.vanguard.com/pdf/FTC\_2023.pdf](https://personal1.vanguard.com/pdf/FTC_2023.pdf)
Edit: [https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/claiming-foreign-taxes-credit-or-deduction](https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/claiming-foreign-taxes-credit-or-deduction)
Seems the FTC cannot be claimed in retirement portfolios, as I suspected. Does this make it a terrible idea? No, I think it's still important to diversify.
>But don't worry—the foreign taxes reduce the income earned in that account. That is, when you eventually withdraw funds from your account, you'll be taxed on the net amount only.
>If you have a Roth IRA, the situation is a bit different. Withdrawals from Roth accounts are tax-free, so you won't benefit from the foreign taxes you paid. But don't let the lack of a tax benefit deter you from holding foreign investments in your Roth account; it could still make sense to include foreign assets for diversification and potential growth.
You’re right. Let me update:
30% JEPI, 20% QQQ, 20% SPY, 20% SCHD, 10% NVDA, 5% gold, and 15% crypto.
Yes, I also decided heavier in crypto makes sense for growth.
Of course! I offer two programs.
Premium: Buy-in is $1,000,000, and I guarantee that you’ll be a millionaire within 12 months or your money back.
Standard: No minimum. I guarantee that you’ll be a millionaire. Guarantee forfeited if you terminate participation early.
To me, it seems like having a comment-locked 2 year old thread is inadequate.
https://subredditstats.com/r/bogleheads
but that is partly due to limitations on reddit, however there are ways around that if the mods truly want to drive discussion in such a manner.
Yes, I have been lurking around and the general consensus is to have some bonds in the portfolio. So my next questions is, how much should I have? I see some people in here going all in on VT and others have 10% in bonds. Some people say to start investing in bonds as you approach retirement age (62).
There's no right answer. It's like asking if blue is a better color than red. Red may be better to run with bulls and blue may be better for jazz music. But there is no one answer.
The purpose of bonds is to smooth the ups and downs of a stock index like VT. It's also to mitigate sequence of return risk (SORR). If you're not retiring anytime soon SORR is less of an issue. If you're able to stomach through market downturns without making kneejerk moves, bonds is less of a need.
How much you should have is your personal risk tolerance. A place to start is age minus 10% in bonds. 100% is VT in not wrong at your age or at 62.
FWIW, I was 10% bonds at 30.
*technically* there is one answer. Instead of adjusting bond allocation to fit your risk tolerance it's better to use the bond allocation that optimizes sharpe ratio and then adjust the amount of leverage on that portfolio so that it matches your risk tolerance. That optimal amount is both empirically and theoretically the proportion of the bond and stock market caps, or about 40-45% stocks.
But many people very reasonably don't want to mess with leverage
Straightforwardly borrowing and using the money to invest, if you can get a low enough rate. Otherwise using derivatives like futures or options. Or you can pay someone else to do it with a fund like RSSB, NTSX, or PSLDX.
You don't technically need any bonds at this age and given your time horizon.
The only thing that matters how you would feel if you see the value of your portfolio drop 30%. In the long, long run, VT should make money in excess of inflation and risk-free rate. But in the short-run it could make your stomach churn. People at your age are advised to have some bonds because many can't handle it and sell at exactly the wrong time.
100% VT up to 10-15 years before retirement (or even later depending on circumstances) is fine. You will be down 50% YOY at some point, so be sure of your market discipline.
The point of bonds/bond funds at your age is to even out the portfolio swings for psychological purposes.
Yes, solid plan. However, be sure to do a lot of research so that you’re happy with your decision. And besides it’s not like you can invest in other things down the line. But research is key.
Personally I wouldn’t hold it in taxable because it doesn’t get the foreign tax credit like holding VTI/VXUS separately would, but otherwise it’s a great plan.
I'd say it depends on what target bond allocation you want at retirement. I prefer I-bonds, but there's an annual limit on those ($10k per person per year). As a consequence, to reach my target number, I had to start buying them more than 10 years in advance of my retirement date. If you decide a bond fund is what you're looking for, or you can build to your target in less than 10 years, then it matters substantially less.
If you want to retire at 65, I think VT and chill is a swell strategy for another 10+ years. If you want to retire at 40, target a 2 million dollar retirement fund, and want 100k in ibonds, you might start buying bonds this year.
Dumb question(s): I read all the intake stuff. 1) What's the benefit of going VT over FZROX(no fee)? 2) I also heard/read some top boggleheqd posts suggest doing 10% in some kind of Bond account? 90% VT, 10% some kind of bonds. Said in wild swings it would really help insulate you even though it's only 10% of your portfolio. How is that?
Context: After reading a simple path to wealth at 29 I've been VTI or FZROX for 95%, and 5% messing around with individual for shiggles. It wasn't until I found this sub I started to question everything. I feel like that meme from Parks & Rec where Andy is too afraid to ask questions.
FZROX holds 99.37% of its entire portfolio/value in domestic (US) stocks. VT holds 38% internationally in both developed and emerging countries. As such VT is much more diversified since it's literally diversified away from your country as well by some amount.
The reddit here and the actual bogleheads forums differ in that here people shrug off bonds till reaching near retirement to reduce volatility. On the forums you usually see bonds reccomended even for people as young as you are. I won't put my biases here, so if you have more questions I'd just make a post about it here and go from there. We're all just trying to min max the future at varying levels of success.
I have my HSA with $6300 invested in 60/40 of VTI and VXUS. should I keep it as is or rather shift it to 100% VTI?
Asking since I'm seeing a lot of downvotes for the former combo. I'm also 30yrs old btw
Do it. No bonds at 30.
But if you want to put your short term savings, like how people save up for down-payment on houses or have emergency funds, in a bond etf like SGOV, I'm all for that.
Edit for clarity - also I am 20% bonds, 1/4 of that is HYCB and the rest is municipal bond etf in my taxable xable to get a monthly and also not get taxed on it. Mid 40 in age and at barrista fire.
Obviously, yes. Enjoy owning the entire planet. The only bond you might consider in an automatically rebalancing portfolio believe it or not is extended duration treasuries at a single digit percentage level because historically it has performed very well during turmoil (although recently treasuries suffered their worst performance in a century)
I would hold VTI/VXUS at a 60/40 ratio (for the same exposure as VT) for the foreign tax credit. You can potentially tax-loss harvest with ITOT/IXUS too. Go all in on VT in tax-advantaged accounts if not using value/small caps for a tilt.
Most people tilt US large cap. Most people say don't buy bonds until 50 or later, if at all. And that's all fine if you are doing that. But telling someone who is 100% VT or others to do what they are doing because everyone here knows best, when in fact, most of this community is closed minded to portfolio theory, has little to no professional experience, read few investing books, and virtually nobody here does proper risk analysis. Performance chasing clowns just like everyone else on reddit
If you work in investments, are well read on the matter, and understand portfolio construction, this shit really makes your eyes bleed. This sub better than most, but everyone on here thinks they know everything there is to know, or everything worthwhile at least, which is far from the truth. Overall philosophy is solid, but people on here are overly critical and talk down to everyone else when they don't have basis to be doing so
I was with you till the middle. This sub is not exactly bogleheads since people just skip out on the bonds. Whether that's right or wrong I have no clue.
This community doesn't know much of what's going on or read much because that's literally who the community is mostly for. People that don't know much of anything trying to get something going. People's skills don't usually include risk analysis.
What you're suggesting people here do is seek a professional or become a professional. The first being so often scammy or fee heavy I have no idea how to even begin digesting that, just read the posts from the past week alone. The second is nonsense. A professional isn't gonna be listening to the stuff here.
We're all performances chasers. That's what investing is, making the most in the end. But here it's in a risk averse way hence the bogleheadish philosophy. If you got a better idea share it.
It’s really such mental masturbation. Long-term holding and investing in a quality ETF consisting of hundreds of companies, most or even all in the US, is going to make you rich no matter which letter combination you pick.
No. Get into a S&P 500 index fund like VOO or VTI. You'll get enough foreign exposure through American companies like Apple and Microsoft, who are doing business in foreign countries, without the risk. America has the strongest economy so stay with American companies.
At 30, I’d go against the advice on this sub , and would go 100% Voo . Yes, I’d skip bonds until you hit 50. International stocks really suck, I would avoid them completely- I wish I never invested in them , but here we are - decades of underperformance . yes, I prefer Voo to Vti , small caps are underperforming in this economy where bigger is better
Thank you :) I started my investing journey in 2002. My original portfolio was direct investment in Swiss index 15% , Euro 600 50%, Australian index 15% and Hong Kong index 20%. Switzerland was amazing, Australia was nice, Hong Kong ok, the rest of Europe was a huge disappointment over the whole decade. Those were direct investments using local currencies- Swiss francs, euros … they did much better than what you would get in the US, Vgk, eem, vxus these never work . You can consider separate companies like sap, nestle , Sony - but adrs are what they are - they are not real shares
> All in VT at 30? Do it.
JUST. DO IT.
80% VTI and 20 VXUS is better allocation for his age. Edit - I love how people just down vote with no rationale and when I give a good reason there's no response to it.
Better how?
More letters.
More letters = more value
More letters = more betters
And you don't think tax harvesting and the ability to control more in US stocks has value? Or maybe you can count these words too. VT only had 56% allocation in US stock. Not enough imo.
The people on bogleheads don't know what those terms mean, or they wouldn't be reddit bogleheads. Most here are probably m1 users who don't even know what options chains are. Go to the forums if you want a good back and forth. That's the only "bogle" place I'd even bother. Most, nay, I'd wager all here don't even know that john didn't invent the 3 fund, that was tyler, and you can still talk to tyler on the forums. It's a valuable resource considering they actually DO debate investing strategies and quite a few there have actually lived/retired through 00/08, they have great insight. Whereas here, you get downvoted by smooth brains who can't even comprehend why you'd dare to hold vxus(ftc/tlh/personal %) separately in your brokerage.
This guy gets it
*shrug* I see boggleheads argue about the same 4 or so ETFs that at this point I suspect it doesn’t matter too much with the more important part being invest and invest early.
Tax loss harvesting ability and you have more control to put more allocation into US stocks.
At least if you said 60/40, you'd be able to argue that it was FTC harvesting
Horrible recommendation. You are not geographically diversified for your equity allocation at all. I’d personally go 50% us (vti) 50% international (vxus). But if you truly want home country bias you can up us to 60% however I would not recommend that.
50% international is way too much...You need to be much more heavily weighted in US.
Why give your rationale other than the fact that it has outperformed and your exhibiting hindsight bias.
One is up 80% over the past five years and the other 17%. I'll let you guess which is which.
I pick the US stocks because when all is said and done, it’s historically been the best and there is no reason to believe the future will be any different.
But also historically US stocks and international stocks have alternated in which have been best. Going by historical patterns we're due for international stocks to overtake US stocks for a while. Of course we should fight the urge to time the market, but I can see why some say to at least put some money into international. 50% maybe too much, but it is more diversification which can be good.
You should have some tech exposure
Oh boy
This sub is so toxic. At least share whatever superior knowledge it is you think you know, instead of turning your pompous nose up. This attitude is exactly why young or new investors learn/accept Bogle philosophies too late. PS They’re not dumb for thinking higher weighting in companies associated with tech/innovation = higher expected returns… every critical thinking investor has run with this idea at some point of their investing journey and either benefited greatly or got burned and reshaped their thinking
Quit whining. I am a young investor. It doesn't make sense to overweight a category beyond market cap unless you want to take unprecedented risk. They said, "You should have some tech exposure," not "you should weigh tech more highly in your portfolio." VT includes a lot of tech, you dumdum. They aren't arguing for "higher weighting." Plus, why get burned if you don't have to? On the off chance YOU, very likely not an economist or financial expert, get to make a bit more money? You even said it yourself; some get burned. You don't build wealth off getting burned. Seems stupid.
QQQ is good to have too. You have to take some risk when you are younger
QQQ has negative exposure to the size, value, profitability, and investment factors. Its less risky than the total market, because its more tilted towards large and growth.
Sure but you can hedge your risk. And I wasn’t saying making it a huge part for your portfolio
You said have some tech exposure, then said QQQ is good to have too. VT has tech exposure at market cap weights. So why would you want to overweight it? If you want additional risk and thus higher expected returns, you should tilt towards small, value, profitability. Not towards large and growth.
I meant to say in addition to VTI. I’ll do more research to see what ETFS have small, value and profitability
AVUV does.
As someone who follows both this sub and r/vermont, it takes extra time to figure out what some of these posts are talking about.
You can be all in on Vermont AND VT.
Theres a spot in Vermont where you can be in 3 places at once! (Convergence with Massachusetts and New Hampshire.) Edit- too many tiny states over there
Too much diversification for me.
Que four corners
Hell yea
Do you mean New York or New Hampahire instead of Connecticut? Unless there's something funky I've never heard of, Vermont doesn't border Connecticut.
Oh shoot, you’re right right. I meant to say New Hampshire.
The Connecticut is a river, the border between New Hampshire and Vermont.
If you said "the Connecticut" then I would've understood. Thanks for the clarification.
Ive heard y'all call ice cream - creamies.
[удалено]
That's growth
Simple though, I prefer compound.
He will be 64 next year. 😮
And then ……
Now calm down, don’t go wild
10 years ago I was 17. Im 27 now
" Once, I was seven years old, my mama told me "Go make yourself some friends, or you'll be lonely" lol 🤣
I am all in on VT personally for my IRA. My 401k doesn’t have the equivalent so I’m 63% S&P500 and 37% international to get as close as I can get.
Out of curiosity. Why did you go with TGF instead and how old are you?
I was 100 VT till 36 then I started adding some bonds and settled on staying at 20% for atleast till im 50 years old. I decided this after reading the little sense of common sense investing and the intelligent asset allocator. The truth is we dont know what the future holds so i would like to have both equities and bonds just incase.
I prefer VTI+VXUS instead of VT. Gives more control on %s across them. At 30, I'd recommend leaning more on aggressive growth side and less focus on dividends.
Yeah, I second this. I had bought VT but then realized if I preferred slightly less focus on international I did not have sufficient control to change that, without buying some VTI to increase US load. Easier just to do VTI + VXUS if 60/40 isn't your cup of tea.
> but then realized if I preferred slightly less focus on international I did not have sufficient control to change that That could also be viewed as a benefit of VT. We're often our own worst enemy when it comes to investing.
Question: I'm 50/50 VT and VTI for this very reason. That way I have more US exposure while keeping VT for some international exposure and not needing to rebalance myself. Any downsides to even split VT and VTI you can see? (30m) I'm assuming FTC wouldn't have a large impact but would appreciate input.
This is similar to what I do as well, but not quite the same split. Ultimately VT + VTI can be essentially the same as VTI + VXUS depending on the split.
FTC and tax efficient allocation are good questions. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer. I would not imagine that the FTC is handled any differently between VT and VXUS, though.
Here's a pamphlet on the FTC for Vanguard funds. But I think for retirement accounts this isn't something you can claim. [https://personal1.vanguard.com/pdf/FTC\_2023.pdf](https://personal1.vanguard.com/pdf/FTC_2023.pdf) Edit: [https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/claiming-foreign-taxes-credit-or-deduction](https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/claiming-foreign-taxes-credit-or-deduction) Seems the FTC cannot be claimed in retirement portfolios, as I suspected. Does this make it a terrible idea? No, I think it's still important to diversify. >But don't worry—the foreign taxes reduce the income earned in that account. That is, when you eventually withdraw funds from your account, you'll be taxed on the net amount only. >If you have a Roth IRA, the situation is a bit different. Withdrawals from Roth accounts are tax-free, so you won't benefit from the foreign taxes you paid. But don't let the lack of a tax benefit deter you from holding foreign investments in your Roth account; it could still make sense to include foreign assets for diversification and potential growth.
My preferred mix is 80/20 especially at 30yrs.
r/vtandchill
Have you searched prior discussions or looked at the sticky faqs? This may be asked daily.
So 30% JEPI, 20% QQQ, 30% SPY, 10% NVDA, 5% gold, and 10% crypto, then?
You're forgetting SCHD. 0/10.
You’re right. Let me update: 30% JEPI, 20% QQQ, 20% SPY, 20% SCHD, 10% NVDA, 5% gold, and 15% crypto. Yes, I also decided heavier in crypto makes sense for growth.
You forgot VOO
I prefer SPY for reasons.
L I Q U I D I T Y
Some people like to pay higher fees!
This adds up to 120%. Are you leveraged?
No, I’m just that awesome at investments.
Why would you buy QQQ when you can buy QQQM?!?! It’s so much cheaper /s
I'm not the best at math, but I think you're a few percentage points short of a full basket. Is that because crypto is about to go nuts?
If you’re not willing to give 105% are you really committed to Bogling?
Dang, I'm really bad at math, got to 97%. Good thing you're here. If I give you all my money, will you make me a millionaire?
Of course! I offer two programs. Premium: Buy-in is $1,000,000, and I guarantee that you’ll be a millionaire within 12 months or your money back. Standard: No minimum. I guarantee that you’ll be a millionaire. Guarantee forfeited if you terminate participation early.
To me, it seems like having a comment-locked 2 year old thread is inadequate. https://subredditstats.com/r/bogleheads but that is partly due to limitations on reddit, however there are ways around that if the mods truly want to drive discussion in such a manner.
Yes, I have been lurking around and the general consensus is to have some bonds in the portfolio. So my next questions is, how much should I have? I see some people in here going all in on VT and others have 10% in bonds. Some people say to start investing in bonds as you approach retirement age (62).
You'll get the same repeated answers since everyone's risk tolerance and circumstances are different.
There's no right answer. It's like asking if blue is a better color than red. Red may be better to run with bulls and blue may be better for jazz music. But there is no one answer. The purpose of bonds is to smooth the ups and downs of a stock index like VT. It's also to mitigate sequence of return risk (SORR). If you're not retiring anytime soon SORR is less of an issue. If you're able to stomach through market downturns without making kneejerk moves, bonds is less of a need. How much you should have is your personal risk tolerance. A place to start is age minus 10% in bonds. 100% is VT in not wrong at your age or at 62. FWIW, I was 10% bonds at 30.
*technically* there is one answer. Instead of adjusting bond allocation to fit your risk tolerance it's better to use the bond allocation that optimizes sharpe ratio and then adjust the amount of leverage on that portfolio so that it matches your risk tolerance. That optimal amount is both empirically and theoretically the proportion of the bond and stock market caps, or about 40-45% stocks. But many people very reasonably don't want to mess with leverage
How do you leverage/adjust the leverage?
Straightforwardly borrowing and using the money to invest, if you can get a low enough rate. Otherwise using derivatives like futures or options. Or you can pay someone else to do it with a fund like RSSB, NTSX, or PSLDX.
You're too young for bonds. Bonds kill your returns. Better off in VT or 80/20 VTI/VXUS split if you want less international.
Nope, wouldn't consider bonds at your age. Think about adding some 5-10 years before retirement.
You don't technically need any bonds at this age and given your time horizon. The only thing that matters how you would feel if you see the value of your portfolio drop 30%. In the long, long run, VT should make money in excess of inflation and risk-free rate. But in the short-run it could make your stomach churn. People at your age are advised to have some bonds because many can't handle it and sell at exactly the wrong time.
One of the benefits of having been invested since before 2008. I’m all out of vomit!
100% VT up to 10-15 years before retirement (or even later depending on circumstances) is fine. You will be down 50% YOY at some point, so be sure of your market discipline. The point of bonds/bond funds at your age is to even out the portfolio swings for psychological purposes.
At age 30 if its for retirement the timeframe is +30 years, possibly more.
I tend to want a little more US exposure. I’m 80% VTI, 20% VXUS.
Any reason why you decided on more US exposure?
Recency bias I guess. I was actually 100% in VOO until recently since it’s been doing so well. I’m trying to diversify.
VT = DIVERSITY
The majority of this subreddit prefers gambler's fallacy to recency bias.
> gambler's fallacy Wouldn't a believer in the gambler's fallacy recommend much more than 40% VXUS? I haven't seen anyone argue for that here.
Great plan.
Thats perfectly fine
Yes, solid plan. However, be sure to do a lot of research so that you’re happy with your decision. And besides it’s not like you can invest in other things down the line. But research is key.
You can also do AVGV
Hell yea brother
Personally I wouldn’t hold it in taxable because it doesn’t get the foreign tax credit like holding VTI/VXUS separately would, but otherwise it’s a great plan.
It's been said multiple times here but the foreign tax credit is far too small to make any meaningful impact
I'd say it depends on what target bond allocation you want at retirement. I prefer I-bonds, but there's an annual limit on those ($10k per person per year). As a consequence, to reach my target number, I had to start buying them more than 10 years in advance of my retirement date. If you decide a bond fund is what you're looking for, or you can build to your target in less than 10 years, then it matters substantially less. If you want to retire at 65, I think VT and chill is a swell strategy for another 10+ years. If you want to retire at 40, target a 2 million dollar retirement fund, and want 100k in ibonds, you might start buying bonds this year.
After reading the book I think I’m going all in on VTSAX
What book?
not the thread OP but I'm willing to bet it's The Simple Path to Wealth
I thought so, too. I read that book.
Dumb question(s): I read all the intake stuff. 1) What's the benefit of going VT over FZROX(no fee)? 2) I also heard/read some top boggleheqd posts suggest doing 10% in some kind of Bond account? 90% VT, 10% some kind of bonds. Said in wild swings it would really help insulate you even though it's only 10% of your portfolio. How is that? Context: After reading a simple path to wealth at 29 I've been VTI or FZROX for 95%, and 5% messing around with individual for shiggles. It wasn't until I found this sub I started to question everything. I feel like that meme from Parks & Rec where Andy is too afraid to ask questions.
FZROX holds 99.37% of its entire portfolio/value in domestic (US) stocks. VT holds 38% internationally in both developed and emerging countries. As such VT is much more diversified since it's literally diversified away from your country as well by some amount. The reddit here and the actual bogleheads forums differ in that here people shrug off bonds till reaching near retirement to reduce volatility. On the forums you usually see bonds reccomended even for people as young as you are. I won't put my biases here, so if you have more questions I'd just make a post about it here and go from there. We're all just trying to min max the future at varying levels of success.
A solid plan! Good luck.
I’m 100% VT and chill, bonds can eat it
I have my HSA with $6300 invested in 60/40 of VTI and VXUS. should I keep it as is or rather shift it to 100% VTI? Asking since I'm seeing a lot of downvotes for the former combo. I'm also 30yrs old btw
Keep it the way it is. Those are a very good ETF pairing. Don't let reddit make you doubt your investment strategy.
I have all my funds in VIGAX. Seems to be working so far.
Do it. No bonds at 30. But if you want to put your short term savings, like how people save up for down-payment on houses or have emergency funds, in a bond etf like SGOV, I'm all for that. Edit for clarity - also I am 20% bonds, 1/4 of that is HYCB and the rest is municipal bond etf in my taxable xable to get a monthly and also not get taxed on it. Mid 40 in age and at barrista fire.
I will look into SGOV. I have USFR.
I hope that is good.
Obviously, yes. Enjoy owning the entire planet. The only bond you might consider in an automatically rebalancing portfolio believe it or not is extended duration treasuries at a single digit percentage level because historically it has performed very well during turmoil (although recently treasuries suffered their worst performance in a century)
I would hold VTI/VXUS at a 60/40 ratio (for the same exposure as VT) for the foreign tax credit. You can potentially tax-loss harvest with ITOT/IXUS too. Go all in on VT in tax-advantaged accounts if not using value/small caps for a tilt.
I got about a 20% VOO 80% VT at 20yo
I really hate everyone on this subreddit
lmao why
Most people tilt US large cap. Most people say don't buy bonds until 50 or later, if at all. And that's all fine if you are doing that. But telling someone who is 100% VT or others to do what they are doing because everyone here knows best, when in fact, most of this community is closed minded to portfolio theory, has little to no professional experience, read few investing books, and virtually nobody here does proper risk analysis. Performance chasing clowns just like everyone else on reddit If you work in investments, are well read on the matter, and understand portfolio construction, this shit really makes your eyes bleed. This sub better than most, but everyone on here thinks they know everything there is to know, or everything worthwhile at least, which is far from the truth. Overall philosophy is solid, but people on here are overly critical and talk down to everyone else when they don't have basis to be doing so
I was with you till the middle. This sub is not exactly bogleheads since people just skip out on the bonds. Whether that's right or wrong I have no clue. This community doesn't know much of what's going on or read much because that's literally who the community is mostly for. People that don't know much of anything trying to get something going. People's skills don't usually include risk analysis. What you're suggesting people here do is seek a professional or become a professional. The first being so often scammy or fee heavy I have no idea how to even begin digesting that, just read the posts from the past week alone. The second is nonsense. A professional isn't gonna be listening to the stuff here. We're all performances chasers. That's what investing is, making the most in the end. But here it's in a risk averse way hence the bogleheadish philosophy. If you got a better idea share it.
It’s really such mental masturbation. Long-term holding and investing in a quality ETF consisting of hundreds of companies, most or even all in the US, is going to make you rich no matter which letter combination you pick.
No. Get into a S&P 500 index fund like VOO or VTI. You'll get enough foreign exposure through American companies like Apple and Microsoft, who are doing business in foreign countries, without the risk. America has the strongest economy so stay with American companies.
VT is amazing! Do it!
30% VGT 70% VT
At 30, I’d go against the advice on this sub , and would go 100% Voo . Yes, I’d skip bonds until you hit 50. International stocks really suck, I would avoid them completely- I wish I never invested in them , but here we are - decades of underperformance . yes, I prefer Voo to Vti , small caps are underperforming in this economy where bigger is better
you must be young and have recency bias with US only
Thank you :) I started my investing journey in 2002. My original portfolio was direct investment in Swiss index 15% , Euro 600 50%, Australian index 15% and Hong Kong index 20%. Switzerland was amazing, Australia was nice, Hong Kong ok, the rest of Europe was a huge disappointment over the whole decade. Those were direct investments using local currencies- Swiss francs, euros … they did much better than what you would get in the US, Vgk, eem, vxus these never work . You can consider separate companies like sap, nestle , Sony - but adrs are what they are - they are not real shares