Related
JP Morgan is about to launch lowest-fee US stock market ETF — lower than Vanguard, BlackRock and Sch
johnNjohnN
5:48AM in Fund Discussions
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/11/jp-morgan-about-to-launch-lowest-fee-us-stock-market-etf-yet.html
Published Mon, Mar 11 2019 • 1:37 PM EDT Updated Mon, Mar 11 2019 • 4:58 PM EDT
Eric Rosenbaum
@erprose
Key Points
J.P. Morgan is about to launch the JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Equity ETF with a fee of 0.02 percent.
That makes the broad U.S. stock market fund cheaper than similar ETFs from Vanguard, Schwab and BlackRock’s iShares.
Schwab and iShares had offered the cheapest U.S. stock market ETFs, charging 0.03 percent .
J.P. Morgan has grown to become one of the largest ETF companies in only a few years, primarily by selling ETFs to its own clients.

Hi @poptart
I forgot about lsbrx for income... Several mfo members owed this fund before, I have it since 2012..good reasonable fund to have for nice monthly income
Just some personalize thoughts being in market for 12 yrs now :
I do hold fidelity total bond market Fbnd and Phk in mom portfolios she is few months from retirement plannings
In my acct I have bnd - Vanguard total bond market
At 35 yo I would do 80 to 90% stocks portfolio in my holdings to reap most rewarding to long terms investments lol... You still have a long way to go +35 or 40yrs until retirement ... I would not change nor touch portfolio too much maybe once every few yrs.. Being couched and iddle maybe best for you and invest more in indexes stocks.. At least this is what buffet and boggle keep on preachings for many years
For my tsp 401k I have 80/20 since started investing in 2007 (right before the largest crash in modern time),,, have not changed portfolio much since 2007 and I am doing very well with those positions and holdings... Currently still >80%stocks <20%bonds
For 401k-tsp biggest holdings
Indexes from tsp 80% large cap mid cap small cap and em divided evenly
10% 2040 maturity fund Tdf
10% G bond
Brk.b another large holdings
Vgstx
Vppcm Vanguard prime cap
Another thing if you have 1099 return forms (most investment company have these for their portfolio for tax purposes if you have div incomes from bonds or MF ETFs)
you maybe able qualified to open sep-ira acct, we have this since few yrs now, this acct works exactly as regular-Ira but you can put in 20%of your income and maxed out at 55k annually... the best thing is you can have this along w tsp(private 401k if working for govt) and regular 401k. You may save lots tax money once able to retired many yrs from Now and just let those money grow taxed free... Just do research and ask ur cpa at your institution before starting... I highly recommend having Sep-ira + roth Ira... We saved so much in taxation $$ past 3 yrs now
Good luck

https://money.usnews.com/investing/slideshows/7-tips-for-finding-the-best-target-date-retirement-funds-to-buy?src=usn_invested_nl
7 Tips for Finding Target-Date Retirement Funds
March 11, 2019
One in three Americans have nothing – zilch – saved for retirement. That's not OK. If you're financially able, you need to start saving, today. A retirement nest egg is vital for a full, happy, and healthy life.
Once you start saving, choosing where to invest your money is another hassle. Thankfully, retirement funds have made this much easier for investors, and target-date retirement funds, which adjust their holdings as you age to suit your changing risk profile, are even easier. Contrary to public perception, figuring out how to invest responsibly isn't rocket science.
Here are seven tips to finding the best target-date retirement funds for you.
1. Figure out your timeline. This is generally the easiest and most crucial variable to consider when narrowing down what kind of target-date funds will work for you. Most target-date funds contain a year in their name, which corresponds to the year you expect to retire. If you're 45 and expect to retire at 65, pick a target-date fund roughly 20 years out. They're often organized into five-year increments, so in this case you might consider a 2040 target-date retirement fund. There are also target-date funds designed for those currently in retirement.
2. Figure out your risk tolerance. Remember, target-date funds are designed to be full portfolios, so if you have other investments, consider how those might affect the total risk you're taking. For example, if you already have a good chunk of money in the stock market, you might want to lean more conservative than you otherwise would, choosing funds with less equity exposure, or funds that move to lower-risk investments more quickly than others. – John DIvine

hank: you said, "The fact that JohnN says he just bought some, however, gives me pause.)" John gets an A, you on the other hand get an F. Looks at BA's returns over the last ten years.
Regards,
Ted :(

Buy BA at your own risk folks. Yes, it’s a great company with a storied tradition. But issues like this one can take years to resolve. Perhaps the cause was a completely different one than the first. We don’t know yet. But: If It should be determined to be the same or similar software issue ... than you might just have an even better buying opportunity down the road. (BTW - The change in software was dictated by a new type of larger and heavier more fuel efficient engine - likely adversely affecting CG - which may complicate any “fix”.) IMHO it’s a coin toss at this time whether this will hurt Boeing.
Here’s a summary of the rudder reversal problem which afflicted the 737 in the 90s. There were two fatal crashes and a third close call on landing approach caused by what proved to be a faulty piston actuator in the tail that on rare occasion would cause the rudder to deflect uncommanded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues
From first related crash in 1991 until final NTSB official finding of probable cause in 1999, 7 years elapsed. The flying public was more accustomed to aviation disasters in the 90s than today. More likely to ignore the issue. In today’s environment I’d expect to see some aversion to 737-MAX (and possibly all 737s). Temporary one would expect. I don’t deal in individual stocks and so have no recommendation either way on BA. (The fact that JohnN says he just bought some, however, gives me pause.)

Smart idea JohnN. Of course my position in BA goes back to 1978 and I continue to hold 40 years now.

@msf - Thanks for your comment! Yes, I'm working and hopefully have many more productive work years ahead of me as I have a young family dependent on my income. I'm not investing for income at this time, although I want to learn more about income investing for later in life. As you suspected, my neighbor isn't working and is in a situation very different from mine which is why I'm trying to gather income investing suggestions to help him out.
Thanks for your explanation of CEF's. I understand your explanation and look forward to learning more about CEF's. I honestly don't know what my neighbor intends to do, although I do know that some current income is a definite priority for him. I'll pass on your CEF suggestion for him to think about. Thanks again!!

FYI: Not looking forward to this weekend’s shift to daylight saving time?
You’re not alone. Here’s yet another reason to dislike it: the shift is likely to cause the stock market to struggle this coming Monday.
That is the implication of a study, “Losing Sleep at the Market: The Daylight-Savings Anomaly,” that appeared some years ago in the prestigious American Economic Review. The study found that stock market returns around the world are below-average on the Monday following shifts to daylight saving.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/daylight-saving-time-could-give-investors-some-sleepless-nights-2019-03-08/print

He might want to consider one I just added SDY an etf of high yielding stocks which have raised dividends each year for 20 + years in a row. Yield is 2.46% and seems tax efficient.

Gary brings up a great point, When I was working (late 60s until around 2000) the standard line was: “Defer income while you’re in a high bracket and pay a lower tax rate on it after you’re retired and earning less.” That may have happened in my case - but I’m not so sure. For one, back when that creed was in vogue Social Security wasn’t considered taxable income. Today at least a portion of it is if you also receive a pension and exceed a certain level of income:
“Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law the 1983 Amendments. Under the '83 Amendments, up to one-half of the value of the Social Security benefit was made potentially taxable income.” https://www.ssa.gov/history/taxationofbenefits.html.
A pension (with cola) has pushed me over 20+ years into a higher tax bracket than I expected when working. The % taken doesn’t seem appreciably lower than during the working years. In addition, Michigan also levied an income tax on pensions - previously exempt.
I think when it comes to this kind of dynamic (figuring out what tax bracket you’ll be in 30 years down the road) you’re best to play it safe. No one really knows. I’m not sure using a Roth at an early age is the answer. Might be. But if, as a seasoned investor, you can play the percentages and convert a portion into an asset you think is undervalued - it’s worth paying those taxes a few years earlier than you might have otherwise and doing the conversion (in stages over several years).
BTW - Roths aren’t subject to RMD. What’s not to like?

I always thought when earnings were put into a 401K or IRA ect. ect. the taxes that were avoided where usually higher (say 28%) rate then taxes would be on an RMD because the withdrawal is usually in a lower bracket (say 10% ideal would be zero). Is this not true? Also RMD's come from the whole pool not just the last years investment. Main point is to do your investment over as many years as possible. Just what am I missing?

To be honest, it's a terrible idea. Imagine what it would be like for someone in government to regulate Microsoft, Exxon and Amazon when the entire country's Social Security depends on their stocks performing well. It creates massive conflicts of interest. Norway is a tiny country with not much of a stock market--and interestingly a number of its biggest companies are oil companies. So divesting from oil creates less conflicts for regulators. You couldn't do that here. Not to mention the fact that during the worst bear markets in U.S. history it took many years for investors in the market to fully recover. It's a stupid, stupid idea.

Hi @bee, Nice to hear from you.
My dense brain required two readings to grasp all of this. Spot-on, except the very last couple sentences aren’t quite computing for me. (“This is why ...”)
If I may restate your observations, I believe you’re highlighting the fact that when we invest in tax deferred accounts we are also investing on behalf of the government. That’s because eventually Uncle Sam does get to tax our contribution and in addition any growth on that contribution that has accrued over the years. As you note - your success and that of the government’s rise or fall together.
Overall the government may be seen to be riding on our backs and sharing in (what ought to be) our long term investment success. I continue to like Roth IRAs for the reason being you get to keep whatever you’ve earned over the years. And, if someone wants to roll the dice and do a later life Roth conversion into an asset they think has been unjustly beaten down and stands to rebound - than BINGO - you get to keep 100% of your winnings.

Related -- Man credited with calling the 2008 crisis says the next 20 years in the stock market will ‘break a lot of hearts’ -
https://finance.yahoo.com/m/027db830-2283-3401-a13e-4c3121b983f4/man-credited-with-calling-the.html
Jeremy Grantham, an investor credited with calling the 2000 and 2008 downturns, told CNBC on Thursday that investors should get inured to lackluster returns in the stock market for the next two decades, after a century of handsome gains.

When the median household income is around $60k, how can you expect a high % of people maxing out 401(k)s? $18k would be 30% going to retirement savings - just not going to happen.

I agree with JoJo on this. Criticizing low-income workers for not maxing-out is reminiscent of Wilbur Ross wondering why all those unpaid government workers didn’t simply obtain a loan. :)
Couple thoughts: The IRS allows a generous catch-up provision during a worker’s later years if they failed to max out in early years. I learned of it accidentally through an “overheard” conversation at work. It proved a great way to make up for my lackluster contributions earlier. Folks nearing retirement (age 50+) should look into it. Think it depends on your employer’s willingness to allow it. https://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/T047-C001-S001-the-rules-for-making-ira-401-k-catch-up-contributi.html
Second thought: It’s hard to tell exactly what % of one’s disposable income maxing out would take. Remember the tax deferral one receives when contributing at work. When I was working, a buck contributed was costing something like 75 cents out of pocket - give or take.
On the other hand, if you include all the other taxes we pay in addition to income tax (sales tax, car & boat licensing fees, property tax, phone tax, gas tax, tax on alcoholic beverages & tobacco, social security tax, etc) than your disposable income is really much lower than first appears. That would make maxing out a really onerous option for lower wage workers. Heck, it could easily take 30% or even 40% of their disposable income.

https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20190304/stepleman-do-target-date-funds-do-their-job
Buffet recommended these vehicles recently.
We have 10 % in 401k in tdf

Huh?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-target-date-funds-arent-way-go-175409855.html
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/40833/target-date-funds-buffett

Yahoo Finance reader Greg Woodruff from Bakersfield, California asked Warren Buffett, the CEO Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A, BRK-B), if target date funds are really adding value.
“No, probably not,” Buffett said during a wide-ranging interview with Yahoo Finance’s Andy Serwer. “The S&P 500 Index Fund is the one to use. That’s the one I used in that bet I made for ten years. It’s the one I’ve told the trustee for my wife to put 90% of the funds I leave her in to.”

Also, the idea with target date funds is to use them for substantially all of your assets. If you don't, you're working against the glide path which is designed for your overall portfolio.
Suppose the glide path for your age says you should be 50/50 stocks/bonds and you have 10% in the tdf and 90% in equity funds. Then your mix is 95/5. What's the point of using the tdf? If you want to control the portfolio allocation yourself, it's easier to work with fixed allocation funds than with ones that "glide".

Who is this guy? His arguments against target date funds are lame.

It's easy enough to find out who this guy is:

... He has also written on portfolio risk management for Barron’s Financial Weekly. Additionally, he assists in the management of the investment portfolio of the Community Foundation of Sarasota County.
Dr. Stepleman holds a Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of Maryland and a B.S. in Physics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has taught at the University of Virginia and Rutgers University. He also spent 20 years at Exxon Research and Engineering Company and seven years with the RCA David Sarnoff Research Center. ...

Some of his arguments do seem lame. For example, on the one hand lamenting that there's not agreement on what a "correct" glide path is; on the other complaining about "one size fits all". There isn't agreement on a correct glide path precisely because one size doesn't fit all. Different glide paths are offered because what is correct for one person is not correct for another.
Some of his points IMHO not lame at all. "Research by Wade Pfau and Michael Kitces suggests a more optimal glide path ramps down even more severely to 10 percent stocks at retirement and then starts increasing the stock holding gradually to 50 percent. Their research indicates this glide path can provide better protection against sequence of return and longevity risks."
Of course I would think this part had substance. I have to. I said the same thing two days ago:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/111071/#Comment_111071

When we were in our savings years my wife had a 403b, and we both had IRAs. Neither of us had access to any other savings mode other than (of course) Social Security. We both maxed out our IRAs,and my wife maxed out her 403b (converted to an IRA after her retirement). Any additional spare funds were put into either American Funds or American Century, with no load.
Like Investor, we maxed out whatever was available to us.

If this guy got paid to write article, he will write. It's an occupation...
They simulated a common glide path strategy over 141 years and found that an investor using a 50 percent stock and 50 percent bond allocation, and regularly rebalancing, would likely have had better results than the target-date fund.
Not even a statement of fact. Giving Research Affiliates a bad name in the process. No link to actual study. We don't know if there was such a study. 141 years - F me! Regular balancing - how regularly? Totally idiotic.
Anyone from Research Affiliates reading?

FYI: In his 2001 book “Fooled by Randomness,” author and fund manager Nassim Nicholas Taleb argued that chance plays a largely unacknowledged role in success, particularly in the finance industry. A new study of the returns generated by fund managers suggests that even the minority able to beat their benchmarks are lucky rather than good — and maybe not even that lucky.
Analysts at S&P Global examined the returns of more than 2,400 investors based in the U.S. Unsurprisingly to anyone who has followed the active-versus-passive debate in recent years, less than a third were able to beat their benchmarks in the three years to September 2015 on an annualized basis and once fees are taken into account.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-05/s-p-fund-manager-study-shows-luck-a-big-factor-in-outperformance

@hank I don't deserve your admiration. The cynic in me always prompts me to think no one really knows anything, and reversion to the mean is the norm. I always maintained, I couldn't find anything wrong with Hussman's ANALysis, but his trading desk who didn't really know how to hedge. Option decay when market moving against you will definitely turn returns negative from fully hedged position. However, KNOWING that fact, WTF did you not hedge a little less? Full hedged means your return should be close to 0% and not several points below it.
So basically HSGFX became a "Bear fund", and after giving him plenty time to fix his problem I sold, because I thought I have as much probability of hedging my bets by just investing part of my portfolio in a short fund instead.
Regarding why I haven't been much active these days, I'm trying to sorta determine my priorities. I find working in the IT sector with nincompoops totally humiliating, and after all these years after having long recognized I made bad career choice I am too old for a change. Suffering through it I realized is causing me a lot of stress and causing me to lose my sense of humor. So my inactivity on MFO has as much to do with the fact total time I spend at computer outside work has reduced by 90%. I switched to Macs from PCs making sure I don't "work from home" anymore. I have one princess in college and another who will be in a couple of years. Just trying to spend more time with the family, something I never really did before given my wife is 1000 times worse than me when it comes to bringing work home.
However, I promise one day I will surprise you with a fund :-)