- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
401k Allocation Advice for Newb
Posted on 1/11/15 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 1/11/15 at 5:53 pm
Recently eligible for company 401k but they don't offer a target retirement date fund. Limited options available & I've narrowed them down to these based mainly on low expense ratios. 30+ years to retirement, how would you allocate using these funds? Thanks in advance!
(MWTIX) Metropolitan West Total Return Bond Fund Instl
(VFIAX) Vanguard 500 Index Admiral
(FLMVX) JP Morgan Mid Cap Value Instl
(RRREX) Deutsche Real Estate Securities S
(RERGX) American Funds Europacific Growth r6
(MWTIX) Metropolitan West Total Return Bond Fund Instl
(VFIAX) Vanguard 500 Index Admiral
(FLMVX) JP Morgan Mid Cap Value Instl
(RRREX) Deutsche Real Estate Securities S
(RERGX) American Funds Europacific Growth r6
Posted on 1/11/15 at 6:00 pm to questionable
Vfiax heavy. ~90%
The rest in bonds if you want a little less volatility
The rest in bonds if you want a little less volatility
Posted on 1/11/15 at 6:05 pm to questionable
VFIAX ~50%
FLMVX ~20%
RRREX ~10%
RERGX ~20%
Just spitballing.
Bonds suck right now, given your time horizon.
FLMVX ~20%
RRREX ~10%
RERGX ~20%
Just spitballing.
Bonds suck right now, given your time horizon.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 4:34 am to TheHiddenFlask
The purpose of bonds is equity risk diversification.
With quarterly rebalancing, a portfolio with bonds will best one without. Nothing crazy, 7-10%....but still there.
With quarterly rebalancing, a portfolio with bonds will best one without. Nothing crazy, 7-10%....but still there.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 6:58 am to Volvagia
quote:
The purpose of bonds is equity risk diversification.
I know.
quote:
With quarterly rebalancing, a portfolio with bonds will best one without.
No. It won't. It will improve your sharpe ratio significantly, but it won't improve your expected return. Historical results do not predict future returns. Especially when bonds are yielding virtually nothing.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 10:07 am to TheHiddenFlask
This also depends on how expensive everything is - probably the American funds choice will have higher costs than the generic Vanguard 500. Expense ratios in 401ks can be screwy though.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 2:35 pm to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
No. It won't. It will improve your sharpe ratio significantly, but it won't improve your expected return. Historical results do not predict future returns. Especially when bonds are yielding virtually nothing.
I think you may be underestimating the power of "buying low and selling high" can give you. That is the advantage of bonds in a long risk horizon portfolio. Not the returns the bonds offer themselves but the opportunity to capitalize on stocks "when they are cheap."
Posted on 1/12/15 at 3:17 pm to Volvagia
I don't think you know how to calculate expected return.
i get what you are saying, believe me, I do. However, that is not going to increase your expected return. You're talking like you only rebalance at the perfect time, which isn't true. You buy things on their way down and see them on their way up. Not just buy low and sell high.
You are preaching the words of modern portfolio theory. A theory that was good at its time and is still not a bad approach, but a theory that was killed by a man named Ray Dalio.
Now, I'm not saying my advice is in accordance with PMPT, but PMPT does suggest that liking for dislocation in risk to return is the best way to manage a semi active global portfolio.
i get what you are saying, believe me, I do. However, that is not going to increase your expected return. You're talking like you only rebalance at the perfect time, which isn't true. You buy things on their way down and see them on their way up. Not just buy low and sell high.
You are preaching the words of modern portfolio theory. A theory that was good at its time and is still not a bad approach, but a theory that was killed by a man named Ray Dalio.
Now, I'm not saying my advice is in accordance with PMPT, but PMPT does suggest that liking for dislocation in risk to return is the best way to manage a semi active global portfolio.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 3:50 pm to TheHiddenFlask
Hmmm.
I'm still an intermediate to finances but making it a point to learn. Can you help me out here?
What I could find about Ray Dalio (All weather portfolio) not only is perfectly in line with what I said, but he recommends using bond allocations that are considerably higher than mine.
I'm still an intermediate to finances but making it a point to learn. Can you help me out here?
What I could find about Ray Dalio (All weather portfolio) not only is perfectly in line with what I said, but he recommends using bond allocations that are considerably higher than mine.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 6:30 pm to Volvagia
Expected return of a portfolio is equal to the weighted value of each of the prortfolio's expected return.
My comment about dalio was not that he hated the risk in bonds (that was the part I was admitting I was backwards on), but that he encouraged people to think outside of the old world to find the right asset allocation, even if it meant taking on leverage to juice low expected return assets with good risk. I have levered myself in certain fixed income, but I have done it mostly because the cost to borrow is even more insanely low than the expected return of good risk assets.
Unfortunately, the world is different in retirement accounts, so you can only go affect asset allocation.
After all that rambling, let me ask you this one question: if having a portfolio of bonds and stocks out performs one with only stocks, why wouldn't you lever yourself up to short the S&P and go long a portfolio of S&P stocks mixed with bonds? Why wouldn't every hedge fund in the world do this if it was so simple? The answer is: it's not. Which was my original point. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine that can guarrantee higher returns. All you can do is hope to maximize your returns at a given risk level.
My comment about dalio was not that he hated the risk in bonds (that was the part I was admitting I was backwards on), but that he encouraged people to think outside of the old world to find the right asset allocation, even if it meant taking on leverage to juice low expected return assets with good risk. I have levered myself in certain fixed income, but I have done it mostly because the cost to borrow is even more insanely low than the expected return of good risk assets.
Unfortunately, the world is different in retirement accounts, so you can only go affect asset allocation.
After all that rambling, let me ask you this one question: if having a portfolio of bonds and stocks out performs one with only stocks, why wouldn't you lever yourself up to short the S&P and go long a portfolio of S&P stocks mixed with bonds? Why wouldn't every hedge fund in the world do this if it was so simple? The answer is: it's not. Which was my original point. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine that can guarrantee higher returns. All you can do is hope to maximize your returns at a given risk level.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News