Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
I'm very bullish on XME long term (10+ years) as I believe we're exiting the area of cheap metals permanently. The lion's share of my money would go into "investment" ETFs like VT, with the leftovers going into fun "speculative" ETFs like XME or the ones originally mentioned.
My general recommendation is an ETF that covers the entire world. The cheapest one is VT, but SWDA seems solid as well. It should be noted that SWDA only seems to cover the developed world ("Broad exposure to a wide range of global companies within 23 developed countries"), so it should probably still be complemented with an emerging markets fund.
Yea my portfolio is basically VT, but I do build in some home country bias(canada, 20-25%) and a small tilt to small cap value and low volatility. For behavior, I set 10% aside as my "bets" and have to match it 9-1 with itself boring stuff. That 10% is in commodity-facing companies to kinda get some commodity correlation without investing in futures, split between farmland, copper, strategic metals, and battery metals. I hate gold and crypto so that's my attempt at diversifying asset classes only 5-10% bonds though as we are a two defined benefit pension family with 25 years until retirement. Great conversation buddy, enjoyed it.
I think that small cap and value stocks were a better deal before everyone started investing in them via cheap, convenient, and liquid index funds. I also think there is no good, convenient alternative to VT. The market reflects the wisdom of everyone else in the world. Everything is perfectly priced because people go long when assets are underpriced and short when the are underpriced. The fact you aren’t buying or selling a given stock right now either means you think it’s correctly priced, or you don’t know enough to make a determination. This applies to everyone in the world at all times. So assets are tautologically “correctly” priced at all times. The efficient market hypothesis says that the only way to beat the market is if you have new information. The only way to do that is to have ultra specialized information that others don’t have. It’s sort of like how when you’re in traffic, you are traffic. Similarly, you are the market participating in the market. As such, I buy the Peter Lynch “invest in what you know” argument. If you’re a doctor who is the first to figure out a new drug is a miracle cure, you should invest in it before everyone else. If you work in the food court in the mall and see that the once popular Gap store is empty nowadays, you should short it. But this individual knowledge doesn’t translate well to investing in other people’s individual knowledge. If I have nearly inside information, I’d use it to benefit myself, not you. If I was an active hedge fund manager, I’d sell you my info, but at an enormous price that is greater than what it’s worth (or again, I’d use it myself.) So my move is to go 90-99% VT+bonds, and 1-10% into other securities where I have specialized information others don’t have. I pay zero fees, and if I’m wrong and the efficient market hypothesis means I truly can’t beat the market, then at least I’m making a correctly priced bet (because all stocks are correctly priced at all times.) Its basically the same as betting on the number 7 in Roulette vs betting on all odd numbers. The risk adjusted return is the same. I’m just less diversified. Ultimately, I think factor investing is fine. It’s just a less diversified correctly priced bet. The only thing I don’t like is that DFA’s owners are billionaires off the seemingly small fees. You can get the same risk-reward ratio without fees, so why pay them just to place your bet on the Roulette wheel for you? The only other aspect to all this is psychology. Behavioral finance is legit. Everyone is vulnerable to stupid emotional trading decisions including the smartest person in human history (in my opinion), Issac Newton. There is a great deal of value in simply managing one’s emotions, especially because one bad trade can cost you years of retirement. That’s the real value of believing in a religion or a given investment strategy. Maybe the science supports atheism and VT, but if Muhammad and Ben Felix get you through hard times, then it’s worth putting a few dollars into the collection plate.
Ya I actually think you're right on this one thinking back. Back to why you'd take them: By "riskier", if you are significantly diversified by region and company, then this is basically the risk of being more volatile. So for an investor with long time horizons, it seem like a no brainer still? I guess my original point was that...what's the better alternative to this tilt over just VT backed by research. And you are pretty much saying the research backed counterpoint is...there is no alternative? In terms of tilting. Is this accurate?
> Personally, I'd just keep to market cap for simplicity's sake and to avoid the need for rebalancing This is why I am all-in on ETF's like VT, which are total world index funds. I just dump money in there and call it a day. The entire argument of is international outside of the USA a good market to invest in is a separate debate. While the USA has went above and beyond other countries markets, that doesn't mean it will continue to do so in the long term (as evidenced in the USA history multiple times), so I will continue to hedge my bets via also buying into international markets (diversification, and no, buying into the S&P500 does not mean you are genuinely diversified). There is also the VTWSX and ACWI. If you want to find an index/mutual fund similar to this, then you are effectively looking for one that tracks the "FTSE Global All Cap Index"; https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/FTSE_Global_All_Cap_Index
I’m with you on the VT basket approach. However, I noticed the money policy of the Euro central bank, and maybe other ones too, are in locked steps with the US. It sounds like they talk and coordinate their actions. That can reduce the diversification effect that we hope for. International stocks have been performing poorly in the last decade, I start to lose hope if their central banks don’t think independently.
That one really stung. U/sludge_dawkins thinks I’m the “lamest dude” on r/shortsqueeze. What am I going to do with myself. Just stop hating the fact I consistently, successfully trade in and out of these piece of shit pump and dump stocks while you remain clueless. You should probably just DCA into VOO and VT squirt. This trading shit ain’t for you
/r/Bogleheads unironically be like: **100% VT Investor:** "What do you all think about my portfolio?" **Fellow 100% VT Investors:** "Very nice, I'd consider upping the VT allocation for diversification purposes." **70%/30% VTI Investor:** "I prefer more of a US tilt" **Everyone else:** *howling, crying* "Nooooo you can't just deviate from global market cap weights" **50/30/10/10 VTI + VXUS + AVUV + AVDV investor:** "You fools, you simpletons, have you not read the latest 6 papers from Fama-French? Are you so uncultured as not have consoomed Ben Felix's video last week? You non-factor-tilted buffoon!"
If you strictly want buy and hold, QQQ is not necessarily a the best. If you want the same underlying index (NASDAQ-100), then QQQM is cheaper. Other ETFs like VGT or whatever probably aren't *bad*, but they won't benefit from the inertia benefit of QQQ (i.e., lots of people buying it will push the price of those 100 companies up by increasing scarcity of their stock). For buy and hold, the only reasonable reason you might want QQQ is for liquidity. For example, if you want to panic sell when the market drops, it can be harder to fill orders at good prices on less liquid products. A better answer, however, is to stick to funds like VTI. They are the best of everything: they include the entire market, it's super low cost, and you don't need to worry about picking winners or losers. The only winner you're picking in that case is capitalism. Even better is VT, which includes international stocks thus hedging you against the risk of US hegemony decline amongst other things.
Just hold VT or VTWAX until you retire m. Focus on things you can control to make money like your career. We have no control over the stock market. Focus on saving on taxes by using IRA/401k, those are bigger gains than one can achieve by stock picking and they’re guaranteed. Simplicity is key.
Here is the order of thought... 1. Pick your asset allocation using a top/ down approach. That means start what % of the entire pie do you want in: Stocks/ bonds/ cash/ alternative investments. The 2 stock indexes are stocks and the i bonds are bonds. My rule of thumb to investors is keep the amount of stock % to the level at which you are okay seeing your portfolio drop by half of that amount in any given year. That means if someone is 100% stocks you have to be okay with their portfolio dropping 50%. If one is 80/20 then you have to be okay with it dropping 40%. 2. Now decided under each asset class how you want to divide them up. Fidelity large cap is of course 100% U.S. large cap and VT is U.S./ international at current market caps (current think it is something like 60/40 U.S./ international). My advice is either go: 100%VT or do combo of U.S. large cap with total international so it is easier to decide how much U.S. vs. international exposure you want. Vanguard advice is 20% international to current market cap weighted is reasonable. So pick what you feel is comfortable in that range. NO ONE knows what the best option will be until after the fact (all depends on dollar strength vs. other currencies). 3. Lump sum vs. dollar cost average is more a psychological decision with what you are comfortable. Best play is just throw it all in now, but if you don't feel comfortable then put 1k each month over next 5 months. Hope that helps.
Meh. Thats is fine also. Percentage of portfolio is way more important than individual holding anyway. A portfolio that is 50% VT + 50% Ibond is going to do basically the same as another portfolio that is 50% FNILX + 50% I bond. It does not matter that much. However, a portfolio that is 10% FNILX + 90% Ibond is going to be radically different than a portfolio that is 90% FNILX and 10% Ibond. The standard bit of advice is to pick a fund to it in your portfolio and not pick a portfolio to hold your fund. Write VT and FNILX on slips of paper, tape each to a wall, throw a dart, and whatever one you hit you pick that.
As an investor i would always buy stock, because even in a recession, depression, inflation, deflation, QE, QT and so on there are always company how can make a profit of the situation. More often there are companies who are making money al the time, even during war and yet there stock price goes down, that are the best companies to buy and wil make you a lots of money. I personally like to buy VT ETF and this the biggest chunk of my portfolio. At the moment S&P500 is 24% down and can go down even more, but nobody knows how much more and form where we rebound. So i would keep buying every month no mater what, in te long run you will make money.
The problem is that you thought that you were a good stock picker and the problem now is that you are thinking that you are a good ETF picker and not to forget that you want to make up your losses as soon as possible. My advice to you would be to take one ETF like VT with a world wide exposure en just keep buying every month en don't look at what the market does, after 5 years and more you will be a winner with this strategy. Buy VT every month and preferable one the 1ste of every month if it does not fall on Saturday of Sunday of course and els after the weekend, so 2th or 3th of the month. With this strategy you are not trying to beat the market, nor timing the market to purchase you VT ETF and you losses wil recover but not ass soon as they disappear. Your losses are you lessons learned money and you will earn it back and much more, but have patient and be consistent with you plan to buy every month an do this for at least 5 to 10 years and you never stop investing this way. This is the easiest and stress free way of investing, of course you won't make 50% a year but that also applies to you losses. In the bear market, where we are now in, it is nice to see the price dropping because you know that a all world ETF won't fail and wil make you rich if you keep buying cheap. People like to but in a bull market(FOMO) but are cautious in a bear market, while the bull market can make you money the bear market can make you rich over time.
Everything in FNILX is also in VT so buying both is redundant. [https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/fnilx/portfolio](https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/fnilx/portfolio) [https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/vt/portfolio](https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/vt/portfolio) Scroll down to the third section that says "holdings" and you will see that both of these are just Apple + Microsoft + Amazon + Tesla + Google + Berkshire + United + J&J + Nvidia. Just in different percentages is all. Buying VT + FNILX is practically the same as buying just VT + VT. So my answer is VT + I bonds split in the ratio of I bonds being 5% for each 'one year salary' that you have stockpiled so far and the rest into VT.
Would you be comfortable spreading $200k across just 15 stocks? I know I wouldn't, that's like \~15-20 years of savings for an average income. Imagine being wrong on just 1 or 2 stocks, you would under perform so badly. This is why I think any rational retail investor should pick an ETF like VTI or VT.
He misrepresents Peter Lynch's viewpoint. Lynch says "Buy what you know." That means if you work as a doctor and see some new drug is becoming popular, you should invest in that drug company. If you work at a mall and see that the Gap is becoming less popular, you should sell your Gap stock. This is not the same as buying blue chip companies just because you're familiar with them. Furthermore, Felix keeps hyping up so called value stocks (defined by low P/E). This is easy for academic research (e.g., French and Fama's factor model), but the problem is that DFA, Avantis, Felix, etc. keep hyping up these as distinct categories of investments. As a result, they have been overbought and have underperformed for decades. Excellent companies at expensive prices is the same as bad companies at cheap prices. The ideal is an excellent company at a cheap price. Felix seems to hype up bad companies at medium prices, which explains the underperformance of his funds. If you want to try your hand at active investing, go for it. If not, stick with total market investing (e.g., VT, VTI, VXUS). The idea of having your cake and eating it too with a small cap value fund only serves to enrich French, Fama, and Felix. You don't get to donate enough to have the University of Chicago business school named after you without charging some incredible fees.
I would save money now and open up a Roth IRA the day you turn 18. Invest your savings into a diverse ETF like VT, VTI, or VOO. Just understand that, while markets trend upwards and your investment will increase over a long period of time, if you take that money out because you suddenly need to buy a car or something there is a chance it will be less than you put in.
> What do you think? The future is unknown, and it will do whatever it will do. I'm to lazy to think that hard, so I just invest in the "boring" cheap stuff that I'm very likely to be rewarded for owning(think VT). Let you active types hash out all the winners and losers for me. I'm going to own the 20% of equities that will win and as they win my fund(s) will own more and more of them. I win regardless of what you all eventually decide on as the winners, and spent essentially no time doing it!
In VT the rental market where I am is strained. Theres 0 inventory at all its to the point where we have a massive housing shortage. However airbnbs and hotels keep getting built everywhere most of these are owned by people who leverage several. Historically tourism has always had a direct correlation to gas prices. Im waiting to see what happens.
I wrote another comment in this thread with recommendations. VOO or VTI. Maybe some VT for some outside of American diversification? If you are American I heard there are some tax benefits to a dividend EFT like SCHD but I'm not American so idk what this entails.
What about adding VTI or VOO? Maybe schd? Or a world eft like VT. You're very tech heavy. You got brutalised by the market. I would continue to DCA into QQQ but I think a little diversity wouldn't hurt. But you're not the only one going through this right now.
You really need to simplify things, you have no clear strategy. It's going to result in you changing things all the time, and probably losing more money. So when tech has dropped a bit you are going to sell and rotate into commodities? If you believed in tech before, why are you selling now? Selling low and buying high is the number one thing to avoid. Yes, that amount of cryptocurrencies is not to be recommended, they have no real intrinsic value in my opinion. >I am hoping this may be good example and help others build a good portfolio, as I have tried to put a lot of thought into the below strategy It's not a good example at all. What thought have you put into it? What's the reasoning for holding these assets in these proportions and all those exotic ETFs? To answer your questions: * For a horizon of 10-20 years you want something you aren't going to waste time and money changing all the time. Something you can buy and hold. You realise significant macroeconomic changes can happen rapidly and often. A much simpler solution would be a diversified stocks ETF such as Vanguard World Stocks (VT) (which includes EM), some bonds e.g. BND, and some commodities such as DBC or just gold. E.g for a horizon of 10-20 years something like 70% VT, 20% BND, 5% DBC, 5% GLD would be decent and simple in my opinion. What's the need for the exit strategy, buy and hold for 10-20 years, or make gradual regular contributions (DCA). Towards the end of your horizon you can begin withdrawing from the sum or add more bonds etc. to reduce volatility. * Commodities follows gas, unsure what that means? Gas is a commodity, so is sugar, wheat, steel etc. They aren't always correlated with each other. Something that follows the price of commodities is a commodities ETF, for example take a look at Invesco DB commodities ETF (DBC). Be aware that ETF does not only track gas prices, it tracks the price of a "basket" of commodities, including oil, gas wheat, metals etc. Hope that helps you. ​ ^(This is for educational purposes only, it is not investment advice.)
At 19 I would go to college and get a degree in something useful like engineering. When you graduate you will be making 6 figures and if you land a job at one of the tech companies you will be making 2-3x more than other companies. That would be the best investment in your life. But if you just want to put it in the market, then just put it in a low cost index fund. VT or VTI is probably your best bet.
"minimize risk" - is that your main concern? What is the worst percentage drop in your portfolio you could bear? If you are investing for the long term, e.g. 10-20 years + a broad ETF is fine. I would not recommend investing any money for a purchase next year, as you said. Is this money what you plan to use of the vehicle? REITs are already included in VTI at around 4%, this is enough in my opinion. Adding more REITs would just concentrate this holding and may actually reduce your diversification as a result. VTI is already very well diversified, however if you want to diversify further, **I would recommend VT (Vanguard Total World Stock ETF)**. This will give some further diversification, by giving exposure to international stocks. VT has more holdings than VTI (has around 8000 vs 4000 for VTI), so has less volatility than VTI. Hope this helps you. *This is not investing advice, it is my opinion only.*
I know this is r/stocks, but with no experience at all, that amount of capital, and no work done in regards to the companies, I'd just suggest putting it into a broad index fund - SPY, VOO, VTI (even VT if you wanna play it ultra safe) and letting it ride while you learn. Putting your money in a single stock, no matter how great the company is, always has a chance of going wrong. And the risk is much higher than it is for a diversified portfolio, be it via many positions or etfs.
Make sure you have an emergency fund first. People typically recommend 3-6mo expenses. As another comment said, depending on what type of work you do it may be best to invest that money into yourself to increase your earning potential. You should prioritize investing into tax sheltered accounts first, which would be 401k and/or Roth IRA. You can open a Roth yourself and contribute up to $6k earned income per year. For investments, until you understand investing and stocks a bit better, I would recommend to buy 100% VT and keep it simple. This is a total market index fund that covers both US and international. While individual stock picking is fun, it can result in underperforming the market. For starting out, you should consider sticking to index funds and then expand from there if you find you like stocks.
Start by investing little by little like $1k to $2k a month. To be lazy, try lazy portfolio. There's one I have been trying these 4 months, but is based on a well known portfolio. Original All weather portfolio is: 30% VTI, 7.5% GSG, 7.5% GLD, 15% IEI, and 40% TLT My adjustment: 50% PDBC(substitute for GSG, since this one gets no K-1), 15% GLD, 15% VTI, 10% IEI, 10% TLT. Idea is to capture all kinds of assets in the whole world market (you can of course substitute VT for VTI, but I feel gold, bonds and commodity are pretty related to foreign investment)
Yes, most of us do and for a reason. While there have been some periods where ex-US has outperformed US, by and large, the US simply has performed better than ex-US and done so over a long period of time. If you do add in ex-US, the question becomes, how much? Some would suggest a fund like VT which has ex-US at roughly 42% currently and that's too high, imo. I personally am 80/20 US ex-US because I believe in diversification, but will always remain heavily US tilted. ​ [https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-asset-class-allocation#analysisResults](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-asset-class-allocation#analysisResults)
If you want to do that, and you have decided that you won't need that money for years, and you are willing to sit through downturns, then yes, I do think currently is a good time to put money into the market. Just be aware that it can take years to break even if we experience a hard recession. But so far in history, staying in a broad investment has always paid off given enough time. That could theoretically change, but we can most certainly reasonably assume that it won't. What I would do if I was in your situation is choose an index fund with broad exposure - VTI or SPY for the US market or VT for the global market. Then start by putting some part of the money - 30, 40, 50k in followed by weekly, bi-weekly or monthly payments until I have everything I want to invest invested. And then just let it run. You don't need a financial advisor for that, but what you do need is a brokerage account.
Your financial situation sounds good. I would not hire a financial advisor in your shoes, but I would consider increasing your contributions to the 401(k). Beyond that, having an asset-allocation might help you make decisions, both now and in the future. An asset-allocation is just a set division of your money into different assets -- usually stocks, bonds, cash, real-estate, and so forth. The idea of having an asset-allocation is that you divide your money into each asset, and work to maintain those ratios over the years as markets fluctuate and more money is added from your income. An asset-allocation is a reflection of your willingness, ability, and need to take financial risk, so they are very personal, and range from close to 100% in stocks to almost nothing stocks. More typical asset-allocations range from 40 - 80% in stocks, and the 20 - 60% in bonds and cash. As markets fluctuate, these ratios can fall out of balance -- for instance, your stock percentage may rise from 70% to 75%. In that case, you'll want to sell 5% of your assets worth of equity holdings and and either keep that money in cash or use it to purchase a bond fund. In the opposite case -- say, your stock percentage falls from 70% to 65% -- you'll want to sell 5% of your assets worth of bonds and use that money to purchase stocks. This activity is called, "rebalancing," and usually doesn't need to be done more than a handful of times a decade, particularly if you're still working, since you can simply direct new savings to the asset whose percentage is too low. For tax purposes, the simplest place to do all of this rebalancing is in your 401(k). Returning to your question, I would consider using some of that $100k to increase your 401(k) contributions, if possible, to the maximum you're allowed to contribute. That will likely increase your exposure to stocks, and give you some additional tax savings. If you exhaust that option and still want to put more money into stocks, consider opening a taxable brokerage account (Vanguard, Schwab, Fidelity, and Interactive Brokers are all decent), and purchasing an index fund that invests in either the total US or Global equity markets. There are many funds to choose from, but VTI and and VT are two of the more popular choices. No one knows where the market will go next, so take what others say about that with a grain of salt, and always proceed with caution. Good luck.
Market is very volatile right now and there’s certainly a grim outlook in the near term. Make sure you want to invest, and do so with the knowledge that you could still lose a good portion of that money. It will give you a good idea of your risk tolerance moving forward. As far as an investing plan, I would dollar cost average into an index fund (VT, VTI, VOO, etc) over the next 6-12 months. Start by reading some “beginner” info on r/bogleheads. You’re best off starting with tax advantaged accounts. I would avoid a financial advisor in favor of doing it yourself. Will save you a lot of money and headache in the future. Look into opening accounts at Schwab or Fidelity and learn how to manage those.
I often send that story to people. But there's an important catch. Bob was investing into a broad index. That lesson applies to broad indexes - VT, VTI, SPY. It does NOT apply to sector indexes or individual companies. And most people here own individual companies. So, yes, be like Bob, but be like Bob in regards to your VTI position. Don't try to be like Bob with an individual company. You might end up riding that DKNG, QS,.. to zero. And even with good companies, there's always a certain risk the longer you hold. Companies come and go, even the best of them. And even companies that stay sometimes reach a point of decline, of not reclaiming former highs or of staying dead flat.