BND

isetfiretotherain

BND

Nadenkend440

BND / HYDB at about a 2:1 ratio.

Im_Still_Here12

You’re conflating cash with bond funds. Sgov is not a bond fund like BND.

KeyMysterious1845

what are we buying ? SGOV ? BND? Mason jars and shovels ?

diggida

I hold SGOV, BND, VGIT, and BOXX.

SirGlass

OP just one word of advice reading your previous post; your portfolio had losses you wanted to stop the bleeding and sold Then you were stuck with paralysis when the market is going back up ; but still was worried it might crash further This means one thing, you were invested higher than your risk tolerance. Note you do not have to be 100% in the market or 100% out. You can setup a more diversified portfolio that meets your risk tolerance , some classic 60% stock / 40% bond portfolio will limit losses and gains and help you stick out the market ups and downs You said you live in the middle east so I admit I do not know much about investing if you can buy local bond funds or if those funds are good deals or if you can buy something like BND ? My point is do not lie about your risk tolerance , there is nothing wrong with having a lower risk tolerance unless its so low you can only hold basically bonds or something

Sufficient_Put4775

BND is about to crash

Sufficient_Put4775

BND tanked Wtff is going on

Bagholder147

They had to retcon Doom for scraping Kang. 6 years of flops with a few gems thrown in. Could have just Done Loki. Spiderman No way home, Dr Strange 2, and BND. Daredevil was okay.

IronyElSupremo

More investors are getting more into bonds at these higher global yields (there’s the “Rule of 72” calculation, whether it’s in a tax-deferred account), … but still everyone’s individual circumstances need to be considered. Equities may still grow, .. while the iShares general investment grade ETF is yielding 5.75% = thd latter would still take a little over 12 years to double that money …albeit pretty safely. Still more are taking that last part to heart. Now Vanguard’s BND is almost at 5% adding US Treasuries so that’s even safer in case of a recession. Course if one goes longer (esp in a tax-deferred) with investment grade corperate (iShares 10+ yr IGLB at 6.46%), may add a little long Treasuries and reinvesting yld, let those run to build some serious insurance using the houses money.

Spac55

It’s not Fed hike every time even many members keep making noise. Long term bonds so low, after 19 years. $BND $TLT not meme ETF the way Algo treated everyday to $SNDK $NVDA $MU $AMD $META $QQQ & others with 0DTE. Too many Option Algo & 0DTE, rig the stock market & treasury.

sharp315

you should align your bond investment with your liquidity needs. if you like the 5% on the 10 year and want to lock that in for the full duration and you know for sure you don't need liquidity then go with a long duration ETF like SCHQ. BND and GOVT are mixed duration ETFs with long, short, and medium exposure so these are not specific to the 10 year yield. in general I don't recommend mixed duration ETFs unless you are in retirement and just need fixed income. another strategy that works for many people is to set up a bond ladder with each duration so for example put 1/3 of your bond allocation to short duration like SCHO, 1/3 to medium duration like SCHR, and 1/3 to long duration like SCHQ. Vanguard also has a nice line up of target date maturity ETFs.

InjuryEmbarrassed532

BND holders questioning their life choices…

Spac55

TLT, BND. Time to load

Technical_Quiet_5687

So if, for example, I haven’t had any bond exposure since pre COVID and am looking to add more or diversify, it makes sense to buy into like BND or GOVT right? I can’t quite understand all the naysaying on this thread. I’ve been looking to rebalance out of my 99% US equity portfolio 🙈 for awhile and it seems like with 10 yr treasury hitting 5%, I should be happy with that return (even if not as high as equities). Right? 

Creative_Pen7789

if there's a massive crash, you'll have time to buy BND. They're not going to drop interest rates over night so you'll be able move some cash into bonds before the run up or at least before the top happens.

dvdmovie1

I'd remove O. Nothing against JNJ, but I'd rather TMO as a broader life science beneficiary than sleepy JNJ. I do like LLY although it's already run a significant amount. Definitely no to PFE. I wouldn't own BND. You might like REMIX (https://www.standpointfunds.com/fund) Overall, this is fine.

strog91

A solid start. Personally I don’t like REITs because their returns have been abysmal for 15+ years, so I’d drop $O. I also think that bonds are a poor investment generally and especially a poor investment in our high-debt, high-inflation reality so I would drop $BND. I also don’t like healthcare so I’d drop $LLY and $JNJ. All it takes is one election cycle and those companies could get smoked by single payer healthcare, or by price caps on drugs, etc. The returns are also not great. Finally I think the returns on defense companies tend to be poor and holding them is unethical so I’d drop LMT. I also think holding large established defense companies is particularly risky because the future is not one billion dollar airplanes, it’s one thousand dollar drones.

PandAlex

yea BND ETF

Fapados

> The economy is no longer about mcdonalds and coca cola its about tech and AI. In 2000, the economy was about the internet. Then SPY fell -56% and QQQ fell -83%. > Voo is for preserving wealth, qqq and vgt are for building wealth Neither are for preserving wealth. All of them are for building wealth. VT + BND is for preserving wealth. > why not add in alot of qqq alongside with voo? QQQ outperforms VOO. MAG7 outperforms QQQ. Semiconductors outperform MAG7. The higher the returns, the higher the risk. You have to draw the line somewhere.

CrypticSoldier

That is a good question. I can see it is a 100% investment allotment but it doesn't tell me what. I have to check with them to find out. Really on the BND and GLD? For information, why not?

CrypticSoldier

I checked into my retirement through work, it doesn't appear that I can leverage any stock options due to the kind of retirement it is. I have to check with them on that. As for my IRA, my plan is to 70/30 split VTI/VXUS, and once it gains some value, maybe 1kish? I plan to switch to 60/30/5/5 VTI/VXUS/BND/GLD respectively.

Sudden-Tone3983

BND baby

Sudden-Tone3983

BND

Sudden-Tone3983

BND at all 52 w low, good safety pick

harrison_wintergreen

>I am trying to balance long term investing with the reality that some parts of the market can get expensive or fragile. to use the Boglehead plan as an example, it would be sensible right now to trim VTI as a percentage of the portfolio while boosting VXUS and BND. US stocks are at one of their highest valuation peaks in history, while VXUS is much more reasonable. BND yield is almost 5%, nothing to sneeze at, and it very likely could outperform VTI over the next ~10 years. >Do any of you use AI portfolio tools no, I construct a portfolio from low-correlation assets. I don't need AI to do that.

Franks2000inchTV

Buy other ETFs that spread your investment into other markets. **3-ETF version:** * US total market (e.g., VTI or ITOT) — \~40-50% * International developed + emerging markets ex-US (e.g., VXUS or IXUS) — \~30-40% * Total bond market (e.g., BND or AGG) — \~10-20%, sized to risk tolerance/horizon **5-ETF version** (splits out regions for more control): * US total market — \~35-40% * International developed markets ex-US (e.g., VEA) — \~20% * Emerging markets (e.g., VWO) — \~10% * Domestic/international bonds (e.g., BND) — \~15-20% * REITs or a satellite tilt (e.g., VNQ, or small-cap value) — \~5-10% Equity/bond split is the main lever for risk — a common default is age-based (e.g., bond % ≈ age, though many now use lower bond allocations given longer horizons) or a flat 80/20 or 60/40 depending on risk tolerance and time horizon.

towngrizzlytown

That's awful, so it's good you realized and asked; now you can get on the right path. Open a Roth IRA at Vanguard or Fidelity and initiate a transfer. After the transfer to Vanguard or Fidelity is complete, sell the American fund within your Vanguard or Fidelity Roth IRA and invest the money however you like (VT + BND or a Target Date Fund). [https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/iras/roth-ira-transfers](https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/iras/roth-ira-transfers) You're familiar with VOO, and here are a few other funds that are commonly referred to: VTI - Total US stock market VXUS - Total International stock market (excluding US) VT- Total World (VTI and VXUS combined conveniently into one fund) BND - Total Bond, although this designation isn't quite as accurate as the total stock market funds are [https://www.reddit.com/r/Bogleheads/comments/1l6j6tj/new\_to\_rbogleheads\_read\_this\_first/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bogleheads/comments/1l6j6tj/new_to_rbogleheads_read_this_first/) I recommending perusing r/Bogleheads regularly.

traderbusto

BND 30-day yield is up to 4.79%

TreGet234

A broad bond etf like BND must be a complete freak show by now in terms of holdings.

Mindless_Acadia_7382

BND would be a good satellite position for your portfolio.

Loose_Hornet4126

Is BND the vanguard index for beyond meat? They both are fake anyways

BocephusQuimbyMcFry

Maybe we should have a thread for the most "boring" portfolio. I'm long EDV, BND, and PCEF. I hold the majority of the open interest on PCEF 20 for September, and it should get called. I'd buy more EDV and BND because I think interest rates will remain elevated at least through the mid-term elections, because I do not think Iran will blink and give Trump anything to crow about in negotiations.

traderbusto

I’ve got 23 tickers in my funzies port. BND up, AVUV up, VXUS up. The other 20 are all down bad.

msbmteam

Bogleheads view the stock market through broad diversified index funds. When considering their 3-fund portfolio (VTI, VXUS, BND) it makes sense to talk about VXUS outperforming VTI or vice-versa

luckysharms93

Might as well just add bonds if you want income and stability. 80/20 SPY/BND beats VIG in both nominal and risk adjusted terms over the past 20 years. Bonus points for diversification and not just loading up on Financials/energy/telecoms

OnwardFeats

I like this chat. I feel like bogleheads would be like: hey chat I DCA’d into VOO and VXUS and BND today

Spac55

Fed is talking less, feels hawkish, it doesn’t mean he will raise rate. Fed & Treasury both work with same interest, to make strong economy. 10Yr bump by Bond jokers, like they expect 6 rate hike in 2021, never got one. $TLT $TMF $BND $SPY $QQQ $SMH don’t see any systemic risk

blorg

It's not AI, I compared Schwab vs Vanguard ETFs for my own investments. The list of top ETFs is just going down through that ETFdb list and picking the top fund for each category; that's how I got that. Crude but not AI. Look, I don't think we disagree on anything substantive. If you had just been clearer in the start that you were only talking about outflows from Vanguard's brokerage business, this whole thread would not have happened. When you said "4x the outflows that they do inflows in the retail channel, their retirement business has stemmed enough of that bleeding" almost everyone interpreted "retail" as retail fund AUM, not ACAT transfers out of the brokerage. I acknowledged early on your clarification. I wouldn't be talking about the brokerage business in my replies if I hadn't accepted that was what you meant. My point then wasn't that your stat was false, it was that it was secondary to their fund business. I have never used Vanguard's brokerage but I regularly hear it's difficult to use. I agree with you it should be better and it's a *theoretical* negative to their future funds business if they have someone move to another broker, it just gives that broker more leverage, sending you stuff to encourage you to use their products. It gives them an in from a marketing perspective. But that's all it is. If anything, the shift to Vanguard has actually accelerated since everyone went zero commission. Vanguard overwhelmingly has cultural mindshare on this. Reddit threads, YouTube, podcasts, it's always VOO, VTI, VXUS, VT, BND. No one is saying IVV, ITOT, IXUS, SCHX, SCHF. The reality is that Vanguard's core fund business is growing and money is flowing *in* to Vanguard.

shitbergfuckstick

VTI/VSUX/BND amrite fellas

Cav829

I kind of have to move things around between accounts based on plan restrictions and shit. So like in my 401 which wants me to pick between different intermediate/long/mixed bond funds, I'm dumping those and then putting a similar amount in my Roth or my personal account into short-term bonds or gold. USFR/SGOV are fine. Buying shorter duration T-Bills yourself is fine. I just want nothing to do with any of these TLT/BND type funds.

Mindless_Acadia_7382

My positions are in the sectors finance, industries, utilities, real estate, and government, but I don't manage it actively. I just buy BND.

CSMasterClass

IUSB seems like a reasonable fund, but why do you think that is clearly dominates BND? Expense ratios, durations, yields, credit qualities don't differ that much (do they) and if they differ, is one more compelling than the other.

InjuryEmbarrassed532

Once the stock market catches up with the bond market and reality, the SP will look at lot like BND long term.

alpacaMyToothbrush

.07 ER is not a burdensome fee for the diversity it brings. Bond funds 'lose money' because they are forced to mark the value of their underlying securities to market. Their total returns are partly their price, but mostly the interest that's earned. If you took a thousand dollars, and bought BND and a basket of treasuries at the same date. They would have roughly the same total returns over time. If bond rates rose from 2% to 5%, you would lose money on the price of BND, sure, but in exchange you would also earn higher interest as it bought higher yielding securities. Where your basket of bonds would return the same, not because they fell in price, but because they returned a lower amount of interest over time. There is no 'free lunch' holding individual bonds over a fund. I do not fancy myself to be Bill Gross. I would much rather buy a couple index funds, pay the low fees, and chill.

Original-Poet1825

You buy more than just US stocks basically. I personally do 60% VOO 20% VXUS 20% SGOV/BND and forget about it. If there’s a big drop I don’t mind rebalancing

Electronic_Bee3134

I think you read a different thread and are commenting on my post. Because you're responding to things I never wrote. I want to dump bonds entirely, not replace BND with a different bond fund, and you're claiming the opposite. So it seems like you just didn't read my post and read something else 🤷

Wooden-Broccoli-913

I have never owned BND and will never own BND. ICPI for inflation protection and USDX for cash

Raiddinn1

You have 10% of your portfolio in BND, ok. Why do you want to change that if not for market timing, then? How is it not market timing if you keep talking about how this one fund is down in the OP? Changing your AA when something is down is called market timing, literally. That's what market timing is. I do time the market and I think anyone would call it successful if they looked at the numbers.

Electronic_Bee3134

No, I don't drip. I use the dividends to rebalance. So sometimes I end up buying more BND but not always.

Pitiful_Fox5681

Hmm, is there a leveraged BND equivalent? 

Zyltris

Dilute risk with BND or VGIT to the allocation necessary to account for her risk tolerance as well. OP said she wants it to be hands off and low stress, so some amount of bonds to lower volatility sounds like a must for her mental health (assuming she ever checks her account).

Dull_Judgment1587

Psychologically you shouldn't feel bad selling BND at a loss, because it has been paying you dividend income all these years. Trying to "time the market" with bonds can be heartbreaking in my experience. I would caution you against any kind of "I have a hunch the bond market will go back up again soon" magical thinking.

bob49877

With the ladder you get a rolling average of rates, but you protect your principal investment if you but at par and hold to maturity. With the funds, like in 2021 when rates started to increase sharply, the bond funds total returns dropped like rocks. Check the total return for bond funds before you buy in for the last 5  to 10 years and compare that to rates on individual bonds if bought at the same time.  The five year total return for BND is negative!  Plus open ended funds have a savvy investor dilution problem, explained in my other post and the Kiplinger article link.

skilliard7

bonds generally trade inversely to yields, so returns seem low because future expected returns are rising. The better way to look at BND is its yield to maturity, which is 5%

Rav_3d

> I'm 35 and the more I think about it, the less need I see for bonds at all.  Agree. With decades to retirement there's no reason to be invested in bonds. You should be aiming to maximize capital gains. Deciding whether to buy/sell an investment based on your current P/L is a trap. Either you want to be invested in BND or you don't. Whether you're sitting on a loss or gain is irrelevant.

marima33

A quick check shows BND at 2.4% total return in the last year. [https://totalrealreturns.com/](https://totalrealreturns.com/)

Gunk_Olgidar

BND is strong negative beta and performs well during market corrections and bear markets. It did great in 2022, and most recently also in March of 2026. It does lousy the rest of the time as the market goes up. And with bond interest rates climbing now, it's doing poorly as bond values drop. You'll be far better off with that 10% as cash a 3% money market fund, so you can buy the dips in the market (like 2022 and March of 2026). Then when the market tops out like it did in June 2026, you take some profits and put it back into cash until the next dip. However, this requires you to pay attention to the market news and have a notion of when the market is up and down, but not all that much more than 1x per month. If you can't or don't want to pay attention this much, then you'll be better off with all 100% in a total market ETF and just riding through the dips, because stuff like March and June of 2026 is noise, and even the bear market of 2022 is tiny and mostly meaningless on a long term 20 year chart.

Honest_Spread7227

You say you do "long term passive index investing, rebalancing monthly," yet you're letting the red ink on one specific line item dictate your entire asset allocation. Ask yourself this: if you had that exact amount of money in cash sitting in your IRA today, would you use it to buy BND? If the answer is no, then sell it. You are anchoring to your purchase price.

Mindless_Acadia_7382

My top ETF pick so far this year, beyond the ETFs listed in the question, is BND.

VexxySmexxy

I think what I'm considering at the moment is having the inheritance be put into VTI/SPY/VT in the taxable, then reallocate the 401k into a BND adjacent fund to get something close to a 60/40 stock/bond split here. I did consider JEPI (similar to the top two funds you listed), but it seems like the simplest pllan here might be the VT/BND split.

Traditional-Fox-1597

Beyond those exclusions in the title? VTI and BND. 

BizarreReverend76

Keep it in BND or something and pull 4.5% while you wait.

Jaded-Argument9961

I mean 3% Roth IRA match/3% cash back credit card on ALL purchases/$1,000 in free margin you can park in SGOV or BND for free money All that in addition to being able to invest in low cost index funds aka what serious investors do

15pH

>if you are able to survive a few years without depleting your retirement savings, isn't it better to stay with a majority equities The baseline assumption is that retirees are RETIRED and live off retirement savings. If someone has an income stream outside their savings to keep them afloat, then yeah they don't need bonds, or any savings at all! The core concept you might be missing is sequence of returns risk (SORR). Go read that and it might clarify things. Another note is that BND is a horrible bond fund to ballast an equity portfolio. BND has a ton of corporate bonds, which fail at the same time a market is tanking. SGOV is a fine place to stick money for a few years cushion to fight SORR, but short TIPS are generally better because they address the specific mechanism of short term failure.

Droo99

If you lose 200k of your 400k 401k at age 40 its a lot different than losing 2 million of your 4 million pile of money you need to live at age 60. Exactly what they should at that age depends a ton on boring details around healthcare, taxes, expenses, life expectancy, unrealized gains, etc though, very hard to simplify it down to a rule of thumb. But something like 200k in cash equivalents, 600k in a TIP/bond ladder, 600k in US stock and 600k in global stock is a decent template to start figuring it all out from i guess Also you can't compare BND past returns to SGOV  current yield. 

throwawayawayayayay

These are reasonable funds for a retiree to hold and the only real questionable thing is why to hold them all (e.g. BND and VBTLX are literally the same investment content, only difference is ETF vs. mutual fund). But yes, unless you are also a retiree, it's best to sell them and invest in VT or similar.

Temporary-Alarm-744

BND

smexypelican

Well the bigger point is one shouldn't just hold long treasury bonds or bond ETFs. Should at least be a mix, something like BND or even heavier on short medium term bonds (short term essentially being cash).

Senior-Preference678

You hit the nail on the head. That is exactly what is happening. To make it worse, you are paying a premium for that second jacket. When you buy both, you are paying two different management fees to hold the exact same top positions: \[[1](https://www.reddit.com/r/ETFs/comments/ummgke/why_is_fund_overlap_an_issue/)\] **VOO (S&P 500)**: Costs a rock-bottom **0.03%** expense ratio. **QQQ (Nasdaq-100)**: Costs **0.20%** expense ratio. By adding QQQ on top of VOO, you are actively paying **nearly 7 times more** in fees for QQQ's portion just to double-down on Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia, Amazon, and Meta. **The Same Fabric** **Top 5 Holdings**: Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia, Amazon, and Meta. **What happens**: These five stocks already make up roughly 25%+ of VOO. In QQQ, they make up over 40%. **The Result**: Your 50/50 portfolio isn't diversified; it is just a super-concentrated bet on a handful of tech executives **The Only True Difference** **What QQQ adds**: A tiny 6% sliver of Nasdaq-exclusive stocks (like mid-cap biotech or tech firms not yet in the S&P 500). **What QQQ drops**: You completely lose exposure to the S&P 500’s financials (JP Morgan), energy (Exxon), healthcare (Johnson & Johnson), and industrials (Caterpillar) on that portion of your money. **How to Actually Fix It** If your goal is to actually add a *different* fabric to your portfolio rather than just overlapping large-cap US equities, you have a few structural options: **For Small/Mid-Cap Exposure**: Pair VOO with an un-overlapped fund like **AVUV**or **IJR** (Small-Cap Value) to capture the bottom of the market. **For Sector Diversification**: If you want tech but want to avoid the exact same top 5 stocks, look into an equal-weighted tech ETF like **RSPT**, where every tech stock gets the same slice. **For True Diversification**: Keep VOO as your core, drop QQQ, and add international exposure (**VXUS**) or bonds (**BND**) depending on your time horizon. Source: Gemini Ai

Valvador

Holding it to maturity, yes. But bond funds aren't the same thing as holding your bond to maturity, they are constantly cycling bonds in and out. If you look at BND in 2022, you can see its "Market Value" drop significantly from, to reflect the lost opportunity cost in holding on to a 10 year bond that yields 2% when 5% bonds are going out from the FED.

soidvaas

I’m confused by this pair of comments. Wouldn’t holding an actual 10 or 30 year bond be much better downside protection than BND in the event of a crash? If holding to maturity, your RoR is determined from the entry point, it’s only varying factor being inflation.

Valvador

> 40% allocation to bond ETFs like BND and TLT moved in positive correlation with the stock market in 2022. Depending on your composition, the drawdown in that bond allocation even exceeded the broad stock market downturn. A few things: * No one should have 40% in bonds. Not even retired individuals. * If you look at Total Return, instead of "BND" stock chart it still did better than VTI. [Check this out.](https://totalrealreturns.com/n/VTI,BND) 2022 was a ~20% loss for VTI while a ~13% loss for BND. However if you look at 2008, the story was different. But you're right, bonds expose you to interest rate risk, which in the COVID days was actually significantly worse than anything recent-ish.

feedthebeetus

I am not taking about "buying a 30 year bond" In a 60/40 portfolio, a 40% allocation to bond ETFs like BND and TLT moved in positive correlation with the stock market in 2022. Depending on your composition, the drawdown in that bond allocation even exceeded the broad stock market downturn.

Fhyzikz

Sold everything but BND in my 401k. GLHF

Vindaloo6363

Percent is relative to your liquidity needs. I only hold 3-4% SGOV and Cash. Bonds and bond ETFs like BND don’t always move opposite of stocks like in 2022 and can loose significant value.

Uatatoka

Global 3 fund. 70% US (VTI), 20% international (VXUS), 10% bond (BND)

shitbergfuckstick

VTi 80% BND 20% auto withdrawals and delete app.

Raiddinn1

I'm not you and I am comfortable being way more aggressive than you, but 100% CDs is arguably the worst possible AA short of just putting all the money in checking. 50% BND and 50% SCHD might be a baby step in the right direction.

smalltalk2k

I don't think Investing a portion of your paycheck every two weeks is dollar cost averaging. It is periodic lump sum investing. You put the money into the market as soon as it becomes available. Actual dollar cost averaging is having a lump sum of cash and intentionally holding it back to invest in pieces over time. That is market timing because you hold cash expecting a better price. The data shows lump sum investing beats DCA most of the time. ​The idea that you do not lose money until you sell is a behavioral fallacy. Your wealth is exactly what your portfolio is worth today. If the market drops, you lost that wealth. Believing otherwise is mental accounting to avoid the pain of a loss, which is known as the disposition effect. The long term effect does change though depending if it is in individual stocks or broad market index funds. Broad market index funds will recover over time where individual stocks may not.  ​The forced selling point highlights a real risk. Human capital and equity returns are positively correlated. When the economy tanks, job loss often happens at the exact same time your portfolio drops. If you hold only equities like VOO (U.S. S&P 500) and carry a mortgage, you are exposed to sequence of returns risk even before retirement. I think a good solution is not avoiding stocks. It is holding an emergency fund or a fixed income allocation like BND (U.S. Total Bond Market). That breaks the correlation. If you lose your job during a recession, you spend down the safe assets instead of liquidating stocks at a loss.

Aggressive-Donkey-10

find a fiduciary fee only financial advisor for him if he refuses, then tell him 75% BND and 25% VT, and he will be fine, or to be extra safe just 6 month bank Cds at 4.5% and keep rolling them.

Upper-Olive4639

The best part of this is that you still don't have it sitting in VT, BND, or your money market fund. You beat the house and you still can't help yourself lol. Despite the tone of this post, you will undoubtedly lose it all back like you did before.

banevaderplus6000

Do not listen to anyone telling you not to help your grandfather, it is better for you to learn and for him to trust you. You will both sleep better at night because of it. The following advice is going to be almost exactly what a financial advisor will tell him. Tell him at his age he should have about half of his cash in bonds and half in an all world ETF if he wants to be average . Personally I would do VT and BNDW ETFs, some will tell you BND over BNDW but I like to invest globally even in bonds. If you really do not want any risk to lose any money, at the very least get the money into a money market fund on a brokerage account, or in a high yield savings account. $10,000 earning 3.5% annual is an extra $30 a month in interest and the rates will vary depending on inflation so you will not have to worry about value erosion. And that literally it. that is investing in a nutshell if you don't want to actually learn how to invest. Just broad, global ETFs. The ONLY rule is do not sell your investments unless you need the money for good or services. If the market crashes, do not sell unless necessary. if the market rallys, do not sell unless necessary. sideways for 100 years? do not sell unless necessary.

SoundOff2222

Maybe 70% BND + 30% VT? Something along those lines

DoinIt4DaShorteez

If he has wages, the best thing for him to do as far as actually investing would be to: Open a a regular brokerage account and a Roth IRA with Fidelity or whoever. Put $8,600 into the Roth immediately. Buy 40% VOO etf, 30% BND etf, 30% SGOV etf. Put the rest into the regular brokerage account and buy SGOV with it. On Jan 4 of next year, sell the SGOV in the regular account, move the resulting cash to the Roth, and invest it in the same 40/30/30 allocation.

Buck169

What are his expectations? Realistically, in late 60s you're not going to be "in a better position" soon, or by many dollars, unless you A. take a big risk on something speculative and B. get REALLY lucky and actually make a big score. Most likely, this is a recipe for losing it all. Less risky investing (i.e. buy and hold diverse stock funds) is a game of decades to see really significant returns. If \*you\* have any spare money at all, if you start now, you'll probably be very happy that you did so in 30 years. For someone who's already late 60s, it's not so certain. If he wants to be safe, just put the money in a MMF and at least stave off most of inflation. If he wants to gamble a bit, you can start in MMF and do something like every two or three months, take 5% of the total and invest it 50/50 in BND and either VT or VOO. Continue until 2/3 of the money is in those funds, then stop changing anything. If he wants to gamble somewhat more, put 1/3 in each an MMF, BND and VT or VOO tomorrow and get ready to be pleased or horrified, depending...

oldtimehawkey

What risk level are you? Put most of the money in a low risk like VOO or VTI. Me, I’m low risk, so I’d do 80% Then buy individual stocks with the rest till you realize there’s no way to win at that and put that into BND. Haha.

Gonz4Rockford

Earnings call was better than expected + big blockbusters coming up with The Odyssey and Spider-Man BND

Gameboy69NoScope420

Yeah open a brokerage account with whatever brokerage you feel comfortable with. Do research on what to invest in. AI is a useful tool, not full proof but useful. Others will debate me I’m sure, but ETF’s like VOO, VTI are a good place to start. Some say to grab some bonds BND or something similar, and an international ETF like VXUS. Lower %’s. As I said. Do some research and don’t blindly throw your money into things.

Emotional-Power-7242

Get rid of the commodities ETF, gold shouldn't be more than 10%, replace QAQ with an S&P 500 or US total market funds, replace cash withdrawals BND and BNDX (assuming this is a long term investment account and the cash isn't short term savings).

sweglordnagger

Swap BND with VGT

sixsixsevens

Agreed. I would ditch the BND.

Calm_Chicken_5549

So I should remove the VXUS and FZILX as well as the BND?

greenpride32

I wouldn't go with BND at your age; you have plenty of time to ride out the ups and downs of growth equities. VXUS and FZILX underperform VTI and FZROX in the long run. The reason for this is the US has the largest economy and attracts the most capital investment (which helps to perpetuate the cycle). Also most of the leading US companies operate on a global scale, so it's not as though you only invested in one domestic economy. Over the course of the long run, the difference in CAGR will make a very meaningful difference in total return. My goal in investment is to grow my net worth as much as possible by making selections that have a proven track record; everything else (diversity) is secondary. You can compare VTI (US), VT (World including US) and VXUS (World minus US) - the more US weight the better the long term performance.

leaning_on_a_wheel

Sell BND and buy more VTI

leaning_on_a_wheel

Most people would say that’s very conservative for your age. You could cut BND entirely

OneManShow23

If you want to invest but you can’t just put your damn money in VTI, VXUS, BND, and BNDX and move on. You’ll make an average 5% growth. It won’t be as glorious as doing options on a stock that shoots to the moon (Nvidia) but you’ll still reap the rewards from Nvidia or a co growing to the moon.

boundary-tail

BND

srfdriver99

The term for what you're looking for is "Sharpe ratio". WIthout knowing what level of risk RH is taking on your porftolio, we cannot actually determine whether or not it is meeting its goal as an investment. For example, a traditional 60-40 VOO/BND portfolio will underperform the S&P 500 - but will perform in line with expectations per the Sharpe ratio.

IceHand41

When you say 85/15/5 is that VTI/VXUS/BND? I'm guessing that's an approximation since real life tends to be a little messier, and you mentioned some single stock pics. And what about shifting your "weight" from 60-40 to 90-10. Ratio of equities to ..what?