Just to ask, if you are 37 years old (a guess based upon the fund target), why not take the 2045? The current percentages are identical, but it will increase its investment in bonds slower.hockeypop,You know, I thought about that, and ran the addictive "watch the allocation pie-chart change over time" slider for a bunch of the target funds on the Vanguard website. It's true, going for a longer-horizon fund would be a way to compensate for the fund ending up with only 30% stocks in 2035. Most of the commentaries I've been reading say retirees should hold more of their portfolios in equities than that. But I decided to go with the 2035 fund for two reasons: - The IRAs are in the target fund, but the 401(k) with my current employer isn't. The company plan doesn't offer target retirement funds. So I can use the 401(k)'s allocation to compensate if I judge the target fund is turning too conservative 20 years down the road. - I trust Vanguard. I trust that if over time it becomes prudently-recommended practice for retirees to hold 50% of their portfolios in stocks, then Vanguard will modify their allocation rate-of-change.Standing by to learn how this all will work out in real life . . . why does life take so long??
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra