Mathematically it seems like the expected rate of return, whatever that might be, is the same for both. An aggressive strategy is higher risk and higher reward. A conservative strategy is lower risk and lower reward.
That is not true. Roughly, the mathematical analogue of "higher risk and higher reward" is "higher standard deviation and higher mean". In ...
This seems to me irregular both in terms of risk, lack of diversification
Is this a suitable allocation of assets?
Putting 50% in one stock is acceptable, I think, if that one stock is a highly diversified and well-run investment company like Berkshire-Hathaway. (Apparently, half of Bill Gates' wealth is in B-H.)
Of course, a giant bank isn't ...
Holding pure cash is a problem for 401K companies because they would then have follow banking rules because they would be holding your cash on their balance sheets. They don't want to be in that business. Instead, they should offer at least one option as a cash equivalent - a money market fund. This way the money is held by the fund, not by 401K ...
TL;DR: Cash is king — and bonds are not cash.
I've written about this in this other answer. Here's part of it:
[...] inflation aside, why do we want our "equivalent to cash" position to
be relatively liquid and principal-protected?
When it comes time to rebalance your portfolio after disastrous
equity and/or bond returns, you've got in ...
As others have said, this opinion is predicated on an assumption that early in your life you have no need to actually USE the money, so you are able to take advantage of compounding interest (because the money is going to be there for many many years) and you are far more tolerant of loss (because you can simply wait for the markets to recover).
This is ...
Having cash and bonds in your portfolio isn't just about balancing out the risk and volatility inherent in equities. Consider: If you are 100% invested in equities and the market declines by 30%, you'll be hard pressed to come up with additional money to "buy low". You'll miss out on the rebalancing bonus.
But, if you make a point of keeping some portion of ...
See how the fund shows the % net? It simply means that $100 in assets is actually $150 in Bonds and Other, with $50 borrowed to do so.
As of Aug 2015, this anomaly appears to be gone, they are now net long bonds and cash positions.
A lot of people (and it's common advice) only have x% of their portfolio invested at any given time. Depending on your tolerance for risk, you might leave 10-30% in cash/money market, for example. Also, if you're still earning and saving, that amount of cash will grow every month as you continue to grow your nest egg.
That's where the money comes from.
what else is wrong with focusing on less developed markets exclusively?
Less developed markets are risky, because they're volatile and prone to high inflation.
That means you can lose a lot of money.
What am I missing?
The debt burden isn't as bad as you think it is.
If the developed Western economies crash, everyone else's will too.
Any fee based financial adviser should be able to help you. I don't think you need to worry about finding a 401K specific adviser. I'm not even sure that's a thing.
A good place to start is the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors.
The reason I specifically mentioned a fee based adviser is that the free ones are working on sales commissions, ...
Let the man be.
If you've tried again and again to convince him, and haven't, maybe he doesn't want to be convinced.
It's his money, and he has every right to manage it as he sees fit. You can advise him, but its his call whether he accepts your advice or not, and for what reasons.
And suppose you push and push and it gets through?
Now either he has more ...
(Leaving aside the question of why should you try and convince him...)
I don't know about a very convincing "tl;dr" online resource, but two books in particular convinced me that active management is generally foolish, but staying out of the markets is also foolish. They are:
The Intelligent Asset Allocator: How to Build Your Portfolio to Maximize Returns ...
The short answer: zero.
dg99's answer gives some good reasons why. You will basically never be able to achieve diversification with individual stocks that is anywhere close to what you can get with mutual funds. Owning individual stocks exposes you to much greater risk in that random one-off events that happen to affect one of the companies you own can ...
A standard 2050 lifecycle fund allocation like LifePath 2050 index funds will generally have a very tiny allocation to cash (~1% in this example) because as you mention the target date is far out and cash is not a long term investment. However, for LifePath dynamic funds
Allocations are flexible to capture opportunities in changing markets.
If you look ...
The question is asking for a European equivalent of the so-called "Couch Potato" portfolio. "Couch Potato" portfolio is defined by the two URLs provided in question as,
A 50:50 allocation of assets between
a long position in an stock fund; and
a long position in a fixed-income index fund.
Holding these two long positions for five years at a minimum, and ...
You're 20, the year is 2008, and your $15K savings are slashed in half because S&P500 crashed. In 50 years, when you need to go to groceries with that money, the S&P500 has gained 2000% since.
Now consider you're 70, the year is 2008, and your $15K savings are slashed in half because S&P500 crashed. But now, you're going to the ...
Your employer decides what options you have in the 401k. You can talk to your HR about that. There are requirements for diversity of various types of investments, money-market funds is being one of them. That is the investment account equivalent of cash. While it is not really cash but rather short term bonds - the term is generally very short and the risk ...
Yes, this is terrible in terms of lack of diversification and concentrated risk.
Conflict of interest? No, because there's no benefit to Morgan Stanley if a client owns shares of JPM.
Mismanagement? Maybe, maybe not. This might be a violation of FINRA's "Know Your Client Rule" which requires a broker to assess each customer's financial situation, ...
It's likely that the main reason is the additional currency risk for non-USD investments. A wider diversification in general lowers risk, but that has to be balanced by the risk incurred when investing abroad.
This implies that the key factor isn't so much the country of residence, but the currency of the listing. Euro funds can invest across the whole ...
That's a lot of manual checking-in to see if everything is performing the way you "want".
Not to insult your intelligence, but that is not your job, and doing that on a monthly basis is going to eat a lot of time. Plus, most 401(k) programs have lockout periods wherein changes can't be made without incurring additional fees (related to distributions, etc). ...
I think you may be drawing the wrong conclusion about why you put what type of investment in a taxable vs. tax-advantaged account. It is not so much about risk, but type of return.
If you're investing both tax-advantaged and taxable accounts, you can benefit by putting more tax-inefficient investments inside your tax-advantaged accounts.
Some aggressive ...
There are a few main economic reasons given why investors show a strong home bias:
Added currency risk which MSalters explains very well in another answer
Local investors may have superior information about local economies and be looking to profit from it
Tax burden on foreign investment can be larger in some countries
A number of countries limit foreign ...
Your adviser cannot advise you if you don't tell him the whole picture. You don't have to invest everything with the adviser, you can just say that you have the cash allocation portion already invested elsewhere, and he can consider your portfolio based on that information. He works for you and you pay him for this work, why would you want him to provide a ...
0.13% is a pretty low fee.
PTTRX expenses are 0.45%, VINIX expenses are 0.04%. So based on your allocation, you end up with at least 0.08%. While lower than 0.13%, don't know if it is worth the trouble (and potentially fees) of monthly re-balancing.
Vanguard might be the top provider of no-load mutual funds around. Attempting to do better than 0.13% in fees is just as likely to cost you more time than the money you're attempting to say. You're in your first job out of school--you've got better things to do with your time.
With my additional savings is there any reason i would want to do a post-tax 401k instead of keeping it in a regular taxable brokerage account?
Let's clarify what you mean by "post-tax 401k".
First there is the Roth 401k, which behaves like a Roth IRA -- money that you contribute is taxed, but you pay no taxes on earnings when you withdraw them in ...
Googling vanguard target asset allocation led me to this page on the Bogleheads wiki which has detailed breakdowns of the Target Retirement funds; that page in turn has a link to this Vanguard PDF which goes into a good level of detail on the construction of these funds' portfolios. I excerpt:
(To the question of why so much weight in equities:)
In our ...
If you have retirement savings, the HSA should not be considered in isolation, but as part of your complete asset allocation.
The HSA is a unique account in that the funds go in pre-tax, grow tax free, and then for qualified expenses, are withdrawn tax free. With healthcare being the biggest risk to one's retirement portfolio (i.e. a large unknown in that ...
Taking examples from this loosely Googled page:
If you find, or calculate, the standard deviation (volatility) of the returns from your various investment classes you will find they range from low-risk (low volatility), such as Cash, to high-risk (high volatility), such as Strategic Growth.
I think it's safe to say that Apple cannot grow in value in the next 20 years as fast as it did in the prior 20. It rose 100 fold to a current 730B valuation. 73 trillion dollars is nearly half the value of all wealth in the world.
Unfortunately, for every Apple, there are dozens of small companies that don't survive. Long term it appears the smaller cap ...