p*******y
发帖数: 125 | 1 诚心请教牛人们公司的 401 K如何投资，有如下选择：
Vanguard LifeStrategy Income Fund
Vanguard LifeStrategy Conservative growth fund
Vanguard LifeStrategy Moderate Growth Fund
Vanguard LifeStrategy Growth Fund
Vanguard Prime Money Market Fund
Vanguard Short-Term Investment Grade fund
Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund
Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund
Vanguard 500 Index Fund
Vanguard Windsor II fund
Vanguard US Growth Fund
Vanguard Extended Market Infex Fund
Vanguard Explorer Fund
Vanguard International Growth Fund
请牛人指教，不胜感激！ | Q***u
发帖数: 433 | 2 最简单的就是选个LifeStrategy fund。我没具体查，不过估计是个age-based基金，根
据你的年龄自动决定比例。
我个人喜欢自己控制，所以下面是我的建议（假设你年纪小于35）：
Vanguard 500 Index Fund: 50%
Vanguard Explorer Fund: 20%
Vanguard International Growth Fund: 20%
Vanguard Short-Term Investment Grade fund: 10%
前三个funds比例加减5%都可，根据你的risk tolerance。Bond先捡着这个short-term
，等2、3年后联邦利率上调得差不多了，再转到Vanguard Total Bond Market Index
Fund。
如果你想进一步diversify你的large-cap，可以这样：
Vanguard 500 Index Fund: 20%
Vanguard Windsor II fund: 15%
Vanguard US Growth Fund: 15%
这样你growth、value和blend的就都有了。 | j****y
发帖数: 1714 | 3 我不推荐age-based funds. 都太新，没有时间检验， performance也不佳。
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/your-money/mutual-funds-and-
etfs/25target.html
June 25, 2009
Target-Date Mutual Funds May Miss Their Mark
By LESLIE WAYNE
Washington blessed them as a way to put your 401(k) on automatic pilot
and glide safely toward retirement.
But popular target-date mutual funds have badly missed the mark — and
now regulators are asking why.
The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Labor Department are
examining why the funds, which were supposed to become safer as their
investors grew older, seemed to get riskier instead.
Big mutual fund companies like Fidelity and Vanguard promised that
target-date funds would shift automatically from high-growth
investments, like go-go tech stocks, toward safer ones, like bonds, as
investors neared the year of retirement — a “target date,” like 2010,
2020 or 2030.
Labor Department officials evidently found the concept persuasive. In
2007, they issued an unusual rule that protects employers who
automatically send workers’ 401(k) money to target funds if, later, the
employees lose money. That so-called safe harbor unleashed a flood of
money into the funds.
But as the stock market plummeted last year, some 2010 funds — which
many investors thought would be invested safely by then to protect their
nest eggs — lost 40 percent of their value. That showing was even worse
than that of the Standard & Poor’s 500, which fell 38.5 percent.
Mary L. Schapiro, the chairman of the S.E.C., is now questioning whether
fund companies misled investors about the risks associated with target-
date funds, a concern the mutual fund industry says is unjustified.
Data collected by the S.E.C. shows that target-date funds vary widely in
terms of their investment risks, even when they use similar target years
or names. Even though federal officials put a stamp of approval on
target-date funds, there are no clear standards about how they should
work.
Funds marketed to people hoping to retire in 2010, for instance, have
anywhere from 21 percent to 79 percent of their holdings in stocks, Ms.
Schapiro said in a speech in New York last week, citing data collected
by Morningstar.
No hard and fast rules exist for how to balance a portfolio as
retirement approaches. A lot of variables come into play, including age,
sources of income and appetite for risk. Some financial planners
recommend that people who are at or near retirement age, and comfortable
with some risk, invest about 40 percent of their portfolios in stocks.
But Ms. Schapiro said the S.E.C. was concerned that funds with the same
target dates vary so widely in their investments and returns. The
average 2010 fund had more than 45 percent of its holdings in stocks
last year. The Fidelity Freedom 2010 Fund was 50 percent in stocks and
lost a quarter of its value, according to Morningstar. The
AllianceBernstein 2010 fund was 57 percent in stocks and fell by a
third.
Funds leaning toward safer bonds, by contrast, fared far better. A Wells
Fargo 2010 fund that was heavily invested in bonds lost just 11 percent,
while a Deutsche Bank fund that also favored fixed-income investments
was down just 4 percent.
“Funds with the same target date in their names can be structured, and
thus perform, very differently,” Ms. Schapiro said.
Target-date funds have exploded since 2006, when Congress enabled
companies to make them the automatic choice for employees who do not
specify where they wanted to invest their 401(k) savings. The move, a
boon for the mutual fund industry, occurred over the objections of
insurance companies, whose money market-style “stable value” funds had
been the default choice for 401(k) investments. About $182 billion has
been poured into target-date funds, and fund companies have set up
scores of them.
Now, in a reversal, a number of bills before Congress seek to provide
greater disclosure of fees, more accurate marketing and improved
financial advice to workers investing in target-date funds and other
401(k) funds.
“What we have is the Wild, Wild West of investing,” said David A.
Krasnow, president of Pension Advisors, an asset management firm, at a
hearing on June 18 held by the S.E.C. and the Labor Department. “Many
people in target-date funds got run over by a truck and didn’t know
why.”
Critics of target-date funds maintain that these investments are often
opaque and difficult to understand. Mutual fund companies often create
them by bundling existing mutual funds, some with good track records and
some with worse records. This “fund of funds” concept enables mutual
fund companies to collect more assets and fees, but can make it hard for
investors to understand what these funds contain or how they are being
charged.
Paul Schott Stevens, chief executive of the Investment Company
Institute, the mutual fund trade association, defended target-date
funds. The institute supports some elements of the many proposed
changes, but opposes others.
“The future is bright for target-date funds, which are a useful tool,”
said Mr. Stevens. “The idea was to remove the prospect that younger
people would invest only in fixed income and older people only in
equities. And, it does seem to have moderated that investing at the
extremes. Before this, people were radically misinvested.”
Such assurances aside, the S.E.C. is looking into whether putting a date
in a fund’s name should be prohibited, whether there is enough
information about the risk of these funds and whether they are properly
structured to provide for a safe retirement. There is also legislation
calling for greater fee disclosure, more objective investment advice and
the inclusion of low-cost index funds in workers’ 401(k) plans.
If regulators do not act, members of Congress say they will. One of them
is Senator Herb Kohl, Democrat of Wisconsin, chairman of the Special
Committee on Aging, who has been a critic of some aspects of target-date
funds.
“At the end of the day, consumers need to know what they’re getting
into.” Mr. Kohl said. “We’d like to see regulation, whether it’s a
standardization of target-date composition, or increased clarification
of information made available about the plans.”
If the combination of explosive growth and poor performance was not
enough to raise alarms, another concern is that buyers of target-date
funds are often the least sophisticated investors.
A study by Envestnet Asset Management and Behavioral Research
Associations found a range of misconceptions, including that employees
thought target-date funds would provide a guaranteed return, that their
money would grow faster in target-date funds than in other investments,
and that these funds allowed workers to put away less money and still be
able to retire.
This conflict between perception and reality came into play at the joint
S.E.C. and Labor Department hearing in Washington last week. Ms.
Schapiro, the S.E.C. chairwoman, asked about the extent to which these
funds “are marketed as the solution and pushed as a be-all and end-all.”
Joseph C. Nagengast, a principal at Target Date Analytics, responded
that “if you read the marketing brochure, you could relax because
everything will be O.K. But if you read the prospectus, it tells you to
be careful.” Representative Rob Andrews, Democrat of New Jersey, worries
that mutual fund companies that are advising employers on 401(k) plans
are not disclosing enough about target-date funds or offering other
options, like low-cost index funds.
“I’m not saying that pensions are being pillaged by greedy mutual fund
companies,” said Mr. Andrews in an interview. “But I am saying that
people should know how much they are paying and that investment advice
should be in the best interest of the investor, not the adviser.”
term
【在 Q***u 的大作中提到】
: 最简单的就是选个LifeStrategy fund。我没具体查，不过估计是个age-based基金，根
: 据你的年龄自动决定比例。
: 我个人喜欢自己控制，所以下面是我的建议（假设你年纪小于35）：
: Vanguard 500 Index Fund: 50%
: Vanguard Explorer Fund: 20%
: Vanguard International Growth Fund: 20%
: Vanguard Short-Term Investment Grade fund: 10%
: 前三个funds比例加减5%都可，根据你的risk tolerance。Bond先捡着这个short-term
: ，等2、3年后联邦利率上调得差不多了，再转到Vanguard Total Bond Market Index
: Fund。
|
|
