SWYHX

Able_Corner_4673

If I own SWISX, SWTSX and SWYHX am I impacted by these shenanigans?

Particular_Buddy_938

There is plenty of other options. However, managed fund fee ratios are mostly the same. If you want to go the passive route, schwab has target index funds that are around .09% the ticker symbol for mine is SWYHX (retiring around 2045) . Im not sure how close to retirement you are, but these target funds get more conservative towards retirement dates so u keep what you have. If you prefer not to manage your portfolio and get a little lower on fees, this is a hands free option.

xiongchiamiov

>I just looked at the I-Shares chart and the AOA - aggressive looks interesting because it has a lot of S&P and also international stuff but a little bit of bonds. I'm assuming this is more to the riskier side than what I have now? Well, SWYHX is about 14% bonds. AOA is about 18%. So your current position is actually more aggressive. I wouldn't say that's an indication of AOA being off, but rather that the common characterization of target date funds as "not aggressive enough" as being incorrect. Both of those are also globally diversified. If you want to go 100% stock, VT invests in essentially the entire world stock market, basically being either of these funds but minus the bonds. >Everything I read says that Manager funds just aren't worth the fees they charge . That is true, but let's be more specific. What folks are talking about there are when you hire a financial advisor and pay them a yearly fee. Usually there you're paying them 1% of your assets every year, _plus_ the funds they put you in charge expense ratios of 0.5% if you're lucky, or 1-2% if you're not. So you're at something like 2% of your portfolio to fees every year, [which kills the end value](https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/How_much_do_you_lose_to_annual_fees_after_many_years%3F). The target date fund you're in is .08%, which is nothing. Same thing for AOA.

geekydreams

Btw I see that The SWYHX Index I'm in now has a Gross expense ratio of %0.13 and a Net expense ratio of %0.08. 0.13 seems kind of high isn't it?

therealjerseytom

> I wanted to know if there is a ETF that is similar to a TDF that is Diversified similar to SWYHX or a Vanguard Equivalent but doesn't adjust to a more Conservative position Yes, you might hear these called "targeted allocation funds." You can decide how aggressive or conservative you want to be, but they stay at that proportion and don't adjust over time. For example you can go here: https://www.ishares.com/us/resources/tools/core-builder And go to the "All In One" tab, and see the different options for varying balance of bonds and equities.

Key-Mark4536

>Thanks to reading Ramit Sethi's book highlighting the importance of paying attention to your IRA investments I haven't read his book, but from what I have read in articles and heard on his podcast, that's not so much about picking specific funds as just making a deliberate choice. People miss out on doing that in two main ways, depending on the type of account: * Sometimes people [contribute money to their IRA](https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/ramit-sethi:-this-one-investing-mistake-could-cost-you-thousands) thinking that the IRA itself is an investment. It's not, the IRA is a container to *hold* investments, and everything within that container is allowed to grow tax-deferred or tax-free. If you don't pick a fund or other asset to invest that money in, it'll sit in a money market account earning a couple percent per year. * Banks contribute to the confusion by labeling some of their Certificates of Deposit as IRAs. That's probably the first place most people would have heard the term. * With a 401k your default investment may be safer (or riskier) than you'd like. In years past this too was usually a money market fund, though [target date funds](https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/12/10/are-401k-contributions-automatically-invested-well/) are getting more popular. * To use myself as an example, my conventional retirement date is around 2045, and target funds like [VTIVX](https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/profile/vtivx#portfolio-composition) or [SWYHX](https://www.schwab.com/research/mutual-funds/quotes/portfolio/swyhx) would put me 30% into international stock and 15% into bonds. That's fine, nothing wrong with that, but the US market has [done really well](https://www.hartfordfunds.com/practice-management/client-conversations/investing-for-growth/us-and-international-markets-have-moved-in-cycles.html) the last 15 years so target funds have generally lagged. (Then again that could go the other way, as it did in the 2000s.) That focus on just making *a* choice is consistent with other research. Assuming a portfolio is reasonably well diversified, asset allocation (how much you put into stocks, bonds, real estate, or commodities; foreign or domestic; and so forth) is the single biggest determinant of returns. Pretty much any fund holding large-cap US stocks should perform about the same. This is why index funds are so popular; they do basically the same as an equivalent actively-managed fund but at a lower cost.