Horseman

I said that meaning that you can beat the indexes with regular rebalancing. But my investing in index funds is to match the market they are indexing, that's what they do. I'm not investing in funds that say they can beat the indexes, because I'm not convinced any can with any certainty or regularity. Agree S&P is a good one for growth. I'm moving towards total market (as compared to S&P) to reduce risk nearing retirement.

The spectrum posters should listen2you.

How many times do we have to cover this for the on the spectrum posters? The vast majority of self made millionaires got that way by being smart with money. That habit never changes. Idiots buy a new car that depreciates 20% instantly, and you take out a loan to pay for it. Smart people by the exact same car one year old at a 20% discount with cash. You're welcome.

Gutterboy's version of buying a used car is finding one on Craigslist.

Never heard of getting a car detailed? Man you must be poor.

I think that's true of any index fund. That's what I'm confused about your subpar comment.

Cash for slightly used vehicle is the sweet spot for me. Basically new, less depreciation, never a loan.

@Alias Detective It occurred to me that when you said "subpar"" perhaps you didn't mean between Fidelity and Vanguard, rather a low cost index is subpar to some other actively managed fund. See #2 in the post above. I'd be interested if you can find a fund that regularly beats the "the market" or index.

Subpar? No. FZROX (Fidelity Total Market Index Zero Cost) vs. VTSAX (Vanguard Total Market Index) https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/fund-performance?s=y&sl=7G5sTyQ6DVZOAf1A49Wri6 FZROX (Fidelity Total Market Index Zero Cost) vs. VTI (Vanguard Total Market Index ETF) https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/fund-performance?s=y&sl=2sWPv5Ulb809onhLnDo2Vs If you scroll down to the graphs you have to zoom in to even tell there are two graphs plotted because they are directly on top of each other. They are for all intents and purposes the EXACT SAME fund. Index funds are already very low cost. FZROX (0.000%) VTSAX (0.040%) VTI (0.030%) Because there isn't much managing to do. All they do is track an index. A computer can do all the work. Vanguard invented index funds for two reasons. The same two reason why people should use index funds above any other actively managed fund. 1 - Very low expense ratio. 2 - Actively managed funds trying to beat "the market" or a particular index are only successful less than 30% of the time. And the success for a given year usually isn't repeatable.

I start salivating everytime I hear tax cuts for the rich. We need more of that.

The talking head narrative yesterday was "if she can just keep it in the single digits!" Wonder where the goalposts move next.

Harder.

20% Sounds like something a poor would say.

5 minutes ago you called him uneducated. Blow harder.

Money - Trump Success - Trump Wife - Trump by a landslide Successful Children - Trump Uneducated - Let's break this one down. You both have the exact same level of education. Trump owns 5 star resorts around the world. You manage low rent strip malls. Hobbies - lol For the rest of your emotional projection try taking a long look in the mirror. Imagine a grown asss man saying, "Trump is irrational and strikes me as unhappy."

Losing to Trump in her home state might just be political suicide.

We? You're just figuring this out.

From the articles I've read the 4 funds are an attempt to steal customers from Vanguard. And then they will sell them other suites of funds which they've also priced at a cheaper expense ratio than Vanguard. It just so happens they are index funds and 3 out of 4 match what I'm looking for. And being index funds they mirror exactly the equivalent of the Vanguard or any other index fund. https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/investing-ideas/index-funds?imm_pid=700000001009773&immid=100820_SEA&imm_eid=ep35415530246&utm_source=GOOGLE&utm_medium=paid_search&utm_account_id=700000001009773&utm_campaign=MUT&utm_content=58700004265124983&utm_term=fidelity+zero+fund&utm_campaign_id=100820&utm_id=71700000038714008&gad_source=1&acs_info=ZmluYWxfdXJsOiAiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZmlkZWxpdHkuY29tL211dHVhbC1mdW5kcy9pbnZlc3RpbmctaWRlYXMvaW5kZXgtZnVuZHMiCg&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-NuFtez0gwMV3iKtBh0Hwg0EEAAYASAAEgJ6W_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds Low cost is the one thing you have total control over. Any default 401k is probably at an undesirable expense ratio. None of my retirement money is in any default fund.

"Probably don't need" depends on what you're trying to achieve. I'm reducing risk and owning the global stock market is more diversified and less risk than solely US stocks. That's fact. I've explained several times how you beat "the market" that you have yet to define for yourself. Go ahead and show me where I am wrong.

In the simplest of terms and let's use @IGotWorms S&P 500 example: A S&P 500 Index Fund matches exactly what the S&P does. If the S&P goes up 50% your investment will go up 50%. That's what index funds were designed to do. If worms sets up an account with 80% in his S&P Index and 20% in a Bond Index Fund he will perform exactly how those two markets perform at a 80:20 ratio. The way he beats those two markets is by regularly rebalancing. If equities do good he might check his account and find his ratio has changed to 85:15. He sells 5% of the S&P high and buys 5% of the bond fund low. At the end of the investment period he effectively has more shares by repeatedly buying low and selling high. He would beat the S&P/Bond market at 80:20 ratio.

I was extremely lucky when I heavily invested in AMZN and GOOG nine years ago. I am extremely lucky to have a high paying job and am able to invest 90K a year into Roth type retirement accounts. I am extremely lucky that I own privately held company stock that regularly outperforms "the market" buy a significant amount. I am very unlucky at playing the lottery. I recently sold half of every individual stock I own valued more than 250K, some I sold outright, and am investing in the total market as I explained in the other thread. And I'm going to continue to sell more and do the same. You can do just the S&P 500, there is nothing wrong with that. I'm not knocking that at all. It's a lot less risky than what I did 9 years ago. But for me right now heading into retirement I'm moving into total market index funds with more diversification and less risk.

That's all I'm doing. Total market (not just 500 companies) plus international (not just US). By definition a total market index fund meets the market. Good or bad, that's what it does. I beat the market by regular rebalancing (sell high, buy low) between stocks and bonds and using zero cost funds. It's simple math.

The point and example is lost on you. I expected that. You're not what I'd classify as "highly educated".

Grammar, spelling and formatting. No, just the guy that points to a communication method as an example of intelligence that has trouble using it.

Did I mention that a lot of those funds are zero cost? Not just low cost, ZERO cost.