The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing


Subject:  Re: IRA Questions Date:  3/3/2001  1:58 AM
Author:  jbking Number:  28234 of 88807

Well, if you have little income then I would guess a Roth would be better given your tax situation now is low enough that it shouldn't be lower in the 45 years or so when you start drawing on this money.

As for how to invest, I would argue more for something that is considered aggressive like a 100% stock allocation in a broad-based index fund or something similar if you have looked into the subject of asset allocation.

I started my Roth at 23 with a couple of mutual funds(VHCOX and VASGX are the tickers if you care to research them) so that I have one part that is somewhat aggressive(VHCOX) and another that is more bland(VASGX). I would wonder if you would accept 60-90% losses that some aggressive growth funds dish out like UOPIX, USPIX, POTSX, PNETX, AHERX, JAMFX or ATCHX in their worst time period are in this range and think these will 'come back' to make up for the lost ground. I know I couldn't stomach that in my IRA. Could you?

Copyright 1996-2018 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us