Investing
- Thread starter Tmac
- Start date
Also rolling out of a 401k is a terrible idea. You're currently purchasing with breakpoints provided to you by the sum of all of the plan's participants. So assuming your company's participants have cumulatively say over a million dollars, you'll pay a lesser sales charge for purchased shares.
And before you ask, 403bs do not link your balance to the other participant's balance - herego why you rolling to an IRA Rollover isn't a bad idea.
And before you ask, 403bs do not link your balance to the other participant's balance - herego why you rolling to an IRA Rollover isn't a bad idea.
If you roll your 403b to it you most certainly do, bro. it's the purpose of an IRA Rollover - to separate the contributory IRA from the rolled assets.
10% mandatory withholding on non-qualified assets
20% on qualified.
tell me more about retirement distributions.
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 26,837
- 55,893
http://www.investopedia.com/universi...403b/403b3.asp
An employee may avoid the 20% withholding by having the distribution processed as a direct rollover to an eligible retirement plan. In a direct rollover, the assets are made payable to the trustee or custodian of the receiving retirement plan.
Dumb fucker
Falstaff
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 8,566
- 3,580
Well i'm not a dickhead so ill admit I goofed on that one piece, definitely my bad. Neg on, but don't assume I'm full of shit.
- 17,189
- 8,197
Ok, so dumb question #2: how do you go about evaluating a fund with a high(er than an index fund) operating expense? A lot of them report 5 and 10 year performances that put their return above 7% after subtracting the operating expense, which is I think the average rate of return for an index fund. Are there managed funds that are worth the higher operating expense, or is the 5 - 10 year performance not enough of a time window and just happens to be the market at that time?
I guess a better method would be to take an index fund during the same time period and compare the differential to the operating expense?
I guess a better method would be to take an index fund during the same time period and compare the differential to the operating expense?
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 26,837
- 55,893
There certainly are funds that have outperformed the market, even on very long time horizons. But thats no guarantee they will outperform the market next year if you buy today. Chances are, if you are looking at funds that have performed really well lately, you're buying at a high value point.
There are also a bunch of funds that have underperformed the market. At one time, these funds were above market. Now they're not. How do you know when to buy? Its kind of a crapshoot. Even the professionals that run these funds don't make the correct decision.
If you're a long term holder, you really can't go wrong with VITSX.
ah gimme a break i say one incorrect thing and now look like a doofus.
at least i admitted i was wrong.
also im so fucking irritated i relied on memory to post on that shit, fucking fuck.
i even negged Cad. Today is a bad day.
at least i admitted i was wrong.
also im so fucking irritated i relied on memory to post on that shit, fucking fuck.
i even negged Cad. Today is a bad day.
- 17,189
- 8,197
I'm not saying you're wrong(see earlier statement of limited knowledge) but I typed that stock symbol into google and they have a little tool that shows the fund's performance over X amount of time. If you set it to max, which I think is ~13 years(founding?), it's rate of return over that whole time is only 27.07%(non annualized). Bad timing of the max window?
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 26,837
- 55,893
Put it up against the Dow Jones, it tracks the market perfectly. This is what happens when you have 2 relatively major stock crashes and your time horizon starts right before one of them.
Invest in 1928 and your 13 year return will look shitty too.
