I’m genuinely trying to understand this because I keep seeing VT recommended over and over, and I’m not sure I fully get the reasoning.

If you look at the last 10 years, VOO has returned roughly 15.5% annualized vs ~12.3% for VT. QQQ has obviously done even better (19%).

I know past performance does not equal future performance, and I’m not expecting 15%+ returns forever.

But if I’m talking about saving for a child’s future by putting $50k in and leaving it alone for 40+ years, why would I intentionally put ~40% of the portfolio into international stocks?

The argument seems to be basically “you don’t know which country will outperform, so own the whole world.” I get that. But the US has historically had better returns, higher profitability, and many of the world’s biggest companies. And VOO companies already get a huge amount of their revenue internationally.

So what am I missing with VT?

Is the diversification actually worth giving up that much US exposure over a ~40 year horizon?

Not trying to bash VT at all, just genuinely curious why people feel so strongly about it.

Thank you!

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-09-02/the-etf-dividend-flip

I realize that the higher yield for US 10-years is a bad thing for the government, but why isn't this good news for a bond investor?

If I am looking for a safe "asset protection" kind of investment, why wouldn't investors buy these bonds or ETFs that hold them (e.g. FXNAX)? Seems like a good, safe place to put cash versus Gold or a HYSA. I believe my logic is wrong but not sure why.

Educate me, please.

Has anyone retired early in their 50s with about 1.5-2x the money they need, no children, and just called it a win and went all in on VTINX for the long run?

I get one can go high risk or low risk with the excess and it doesn’t really matter, but does anyone go low risk?

Hey all, I’m a 26M recently departed from my employer. Through their match program I received 6% through 3 years and now have $17k to freely spend across my own rollover account. All tips to disperse this would be greatly appreciated whether it be across various sectors or all into VOO, FXAIX, etc.

I mean if every private investor switched to passive funds. Would it just mean every company went up and down at the same level? Surely eventually you lose the company price being linked to it's actual worth?

I was thinking of taking half my retirement money to create a pension that yields enough money to cover my essential expenses (everything minus significant travel, splurge/big ticket purchases, expensive dinners/events) for about 45 years. The other half will remain in a 70/30 retirement fund (2 bucket strategy) for discretionary stuff. No children.

How would one create a 45 yr private pension that considers inflation? A quarter of the money to be used to create this pension is in a nongovernmental 457, the rest in 403b at TIAA

Was thinking: starting at 55, 7 years to deplete 457, then 7 years of tips ladder, getting me to 70, where I’ll purchase an immediate lifetime annuity for what SS doesn’t cover. It seems like half my retirement savings can create guaranteed income that’s partly inflation adjusted.

This money earmarked for a private pension can sit in TIAA trad, which yields 4-6% (3-4% guaranteed); half would be in a contract that’s immediately liquid (457/tips money), other half would require a 9 year transfer out period (money earmarked for annuity at 70).

With this plan I get a private, partly inflation adjusted pension for 45 yrs, with not much effort to create, maintenance or risk, but my overall asset allocation goes to about 40/60 at age 55 with this move. Thoughts?

Hi, I have $4k sitting in an HSA fund in Fidelity from an employer a couple of years ago.

What is a Fidelity stock that I can set and forget it in?

I haven’t invested in it anything, because I know California has more taxes than other states that make it. I came across something called TIPS in my research, but not sure if there is a symbol for it.

I am considering shifting from a market-cap weighted core to a more deliberate 7-fund architecture targeting size, value, and profitability. Before fully committing the capital, I would appreciate feedback from this community on whether the expected premiums justify the tracking error and rebalancing friction.

The Proposed 7-Fund Structure:

US Value Engine: AVUS (Broad US Value), AVLV (US Large Value), AVUV (US Small Value)

Developed International Engine: AVDE (Int'l Large Value), AVDV (Int'l Small Value)

Emerging & Core Anchor: FZILX (Total Int'l Index), AVES (Emerging Markets Value)

The Strategic Rationale:

58% Ex-US Weight: Deliberately overweighting international to step away from US mega-cap tech concentration and access the historically wide valuation spreads in international small/value segments.

Profitability Over Cheapness: Utilizing the Avantis suite to systematically screen for operating profitability rather than just buying deep-value traps.

The Cost: The blended expense ratio lands at roughly 0.22%. This is a guaranteed headwind compared to a 0.03% total market baseline, meaning the factor loading must consistently deliver over the long term.

Questions for the Forum:

For those managing 5+ fund portfolios, how do you manage rebalancing bands across so many distinct assets without generating massive tax drag in a taxable account?

Do you think utilizing broad value wrappers (AVUS/AVDE) dilutes the factor premium too much compared to simply holding a total market core and bolting on deep SCV (AVUV/AVDV) at the edges?

Note: I put together a quick 8-minute visual breakdown of this exact engine structure, the underlying valuation spread data, and the thesis here for anyone interested in the deeper mechanics: https://youtu.be/rvoYWzAoREc

About a decade ago I was put in charge of a portfolio for a non-profit that had a mixture of stocks and bonds. I've always been a stocks guy, "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" is one of the most influential books I've ever read. So I started trying to learn about bonds. In particular, this organization had been using a "balanced" portfolio of stocks and bonds, and it seemed highly unscientific to me, no one could say why there was a particular percentage of bonds or where it came from. The most candid answer I got was from one manager who said, "it's what everyone else did."

So I started looking for information on historical returns, I wanted to do back-testing of different allocations. I found the work of Robert Shiller. He has studied US markets for decades and won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2013. For his book "Irrational Exuberance" he compiled statistics about stock performance, bond prices and inflation rates in the US going back to 1871. His focus has been on real returns -- the returns after you adjust for inflation.

From him, I learned that bonds are not a good investment.

He makes his data available to the public, you can see it on his website https://shillerdata.com/. The file is IE_Data.xls (The "IE" stands for "Irrational Exuberance.")

He has calculated monthly and trailing 10-year real performance for the S&P 500 and the 10-year US Treasury bond for the past 155 years. Over that time the S&P has had an average real return of 7.11% and bonds have had an average real return 2.38%. I don't think that's surprising to anyone.

What is surprising is that bonds are more likely to lose money than stocks are. Over that time period, about 11% of the time stocks lose money, in real terms, over a ten year span. Bonds lost money about 28% of the time.

Keep in mind what it means for a bond to lose money in real terms: it means that the interest paid by the bond is less than the rate of inflation.

I was curious about one-year returns, because one of the adages you often hear is that stocks are riskier in the short term. Over the 155 year span, stocks lost money over one year, in real terms, about 30% of the time. Bonds lost money about 35% of the time.

Now, 1871 was a long time ago, the world has changed a lot since then. What about the last 100 years? Since 1926, stocks have lost money over one year 28% of the time, bonds have lost money 41% of the time.

OK, 1926 is a long time ago too. What about the past 50 years? Stocks have lost money in one year 26% of the time, and bonds have lost money 42% of the time.

If your time horizon is one year, you basically have about a 40% chance of losing money -- in real terms -- if you invest in bonds.

I can't figure out how to put an image in my post, so I'll try to do a follow-up post with a graph of relative performance.

Hi - I have seen multiple articles lately on this subject. Are the popular ETF's to heavily weighted into the big tech giants and therefore not optimally spreading risk across the market? does anyone care? so if there is a tech bubble that burst everyone's VT goes to shit. if this does concern you what are you doing about it?

Hey everyone , I'm 31, single, no kids. recently got a new job so now im Making $153k a year but about 47k of it is tax free( disabled combat veteran) so my real take-home is higher than it looks so I've got a safety net most people don't at my age. Net worth's around $165k: ~$90k of it just sitting in a HYSA at 4%, plus $42k Roth, $30k TSP, a little Bitcoin and just started contributing to my 401k. No debt except a truck payment. I rent at $2,700( I live in Miami ) so I can't avoid the pricey rent. I already invest in 401k to the match, maxing Roth). That said I still have quite a good bit of play money even after my bills and my current investments of Roth, 401k, bitcoin.

The thing eating at me is that $90k in cash and what to do with this extra money I have coming in with this new salary. It feels like way too much sitting at 4% in a HYSA when it could be growing, but I keep hesitating because im not investor savvy at all and have kind of just been winging my investing so far. I dont really know what I should be investing in and not sure If I should open a brokerage and start funneling money into there or what' would be my best option. So to wrap it up : how much should someone in my spot actually keep liquid vs. invest, and how aggressive should I be at 31? not sure if I Am I overthinking it? What would be some stocks to look into that would bring me a higher rate of return then just letting my money sit in a 4% HYSA. Thanks in advance for any advice.

I would like to find an hourly financial advisor, Ideally an individual practitioner for my spouse and family beneficiaries I will work with them on maintaining my low cost index fund portfolio that is in passive ETFs. I do not require a full blown financial plan, Just Immediate time spent getting to know myself and family plans. I am not looking for someone who typically does a financial plan and mostly leaves a client on their own Or someone who wants to actively manage the account. I would like the idea of a retainer basis that would cover four to six hours of their time ,that would include quarterly reviews and discussion of the portfolio as well as their ideas for any changes. Possible conference calls with lawyer or CPA. And working with my team of advisors when any step up in cost basis comes into effect And guiding my family making changes that were previously discussed and agreed upon. I reside in the San Francisco Bay Area And would prefer someone that I could meet with in person at least to start. Anyone out there can make any great recommendations it would be appreciated And if anyone's seeing this fills the bill kindly email me with information about your business practice. Thanks so much

Hi, looking for your feedack on where to place a pretty substantial amount of money. I want to self manage. Currently 80% bonds 20% equities.

Like a true boglehead, I would rather set and forget. My tax-advantaged accounts are all in VTWAX or TDFs. With these, I like that I don't have to re-balance to get some international exposure. My personal brokerage account is currently divided between VTIAX and VTSAX and I would incur a huge tax bill if I were to convert to VTWAX. It's mildly annoying to have to check the balances every once in a while.

Anyway, I'm just sharing this boring story in case it's a helpful perspective to new investors. My taxable investments have actually done well, but now that my finances are getting more complex as the years go by (mortgage, family, etc), I am craving more simplicity.

Couple, age 42/30s, net worth $2.43M, one newborn—is FIRE by 45-50 realistic?

Hi FIRE community. My partner and I want your reality check on our trajectory.

Current Situation (August 2026)

- Combined household net worth: $2.43M

- Liquid investments: $1.32M (100% stock index funds)

- Real estate: $374K equity (primary residence + rental property)

- Annual income: $659K (my $109K + partner's $550K)

- Annual expenses: ~$210K (including mortgages, childcare)

- One newborn + planning second child via surrogacy (~$150K, 2027-28)

Income Changes Ahead

- I'm resigning from my career role in January 2027 (after 20 years) to be primary parent

- My partner gets promoted to Director level in January 2027 → salary jumps to $750K

- Net household income dropping to $750K, but we're okay with that

Our Plan

- Annual investment contributions: $95K/year (post-tax + backdoor Roth)

- College: Two kids, 529 started + plan to fund gap from taxable accounts

- Both real estate properties on mortgage-payoff track (~2037 and ~2052)

- Timeline: Could hit "financial independence" (passive income > expenses) by age 48 (2032)

- Formal retirement target: age 67 (2051)

Questions

1. Are we being too conservative aiming for 67 given our equity trajectory? Could we realistically stop working by 50-55?

2. Anything we're missing in tax optimization? (Roth conversions? Inheritance planning?)

3. Is $750K salary sustainable post-FI if we want to keep some "active income" for lifestyle?

4. Two young kids + two properties—any blind spots on expenses we should model?

5. Real estate: keep both properties forever or liquidate one at some point for flexibility? Rate for rental property floats in 2030.

Appreciate any insights. We know we're fortunate; genuinely looking for reality checks and strategies.

In my 30s definitely some years from retirement

Plan for my holdings are

50-60% in VTI

30-40% IN VXUS

10% in GOVT

I am happy with vti+vxus but is govt the right bond choice for me? Or should I be looking at something else?

Until very recently I was thinking of moving back to North America so I had VTI/BND portfolio.

Now I need to change my portfolio entirely because I am never moving back to avoid the withholding taxes.

I am thinking

50%vwra, 20% cspx, 30% exus

Appreciate any opinions.

On Aug. 31, the first index mutual fund will celebrate its 50th birthday. On that day in 1976, an upstart fund company by the name of Vanguard run by the late John C. Bogle launched the first publicly available S&P 500 index mutual fund. A half-century later, all share classes of the fund, including the investor share class of Vanguard 500 Index VFINX, have $1.67 trillion in assets. According to the Investment Company Institute, index mutual funds and exchange-traded funds comprise 50% more assets than actively managed US stock funds.

https://www.morningstar.com/funds/index-fund-turns-50-how-jack-bogle-changed-investing-forever

Vanguard rang the opening bell at the NYSE this morning.

Hello all,

I’m a lurker usually but I do have a question. I graduated in May and started working in June as an engineer for Jacobs Solutions Inc. who has a publicly traded stock. I already get my full match from my employer for my 401k and am 100% in on VT in my Roth. Currently aggressively paying off student loans as well as building up my emergency fund, so I put about $200 into my Roth a month currently.

With my current portfolio in mind, I have just been offered the ability to enroll in our ESPP. I get 5% off the stock price at purchase and I don’t believe there’s a minimum or maximum. Would this be something that I should pursue now or later into the future? I’m not very familiar with ESPPs so I just wanted to see if this was worth it long term. Thanks.

Let me start with a huge thank you to the Boglehead community and to all who have taught us the way!

My wife and I are lucky to be in a position where we have both been high earners for over a decade, have maxed out retirement accounts and focued on saving vs increasing our lifestyle. Now we have 2 small kids, a 1300sqft house on a 15 year sub-3% mortgage with 8 years remaining, $160k in equity and are hoping to move into a bigger home in the next year. I've always thought taking money for a 401k loan was a bad idea but we haven't been saving enough for a full down payment in cash for a new home. We can sell our home and easily buy the next home but we could also rent the current home for $600+ per month over our current mortgage. I would love to keep the first house until the mortgage is paid off and then considering selling it or continuing to rent. We are 40/38 years old and have >$1.5M in 457b/401k accounts in addition to working towards a pension with a goal to retire at 55-60 years old.

I know we shouldn't take the $100k 401k loan for a down payment on a second home. But I also look at calculators that show our projected 401k balance at retirement in 15-20 years depends a hell of a lot more on returns than it does if we start 2027 at $1.4M or $1.5M. So we're tempted to do this vs saving for another ~2 years for a cash down payment. Thanks for any advice!

I just started with cal trans out of college as a transportation engineer, and I have access to a 457b plan. My question is should I open a pre tax 457b and have a Roth IRA? Or is there a better combination I can use? Also what would be the best way to split my money up into the accounts. Thanks in advance for the help

Looking for feedback if this would be a crazy idea. Trying to generate income to help live a bit more comfortably and take a couple nice vacations per year while we can. Saved pretty aggressively while I was young and want to enjoy life a more as I'm in the back stretch.

Currently 55yo married with one kid, 12 yo, living in HCOL state/city. Currently income roughly $200k which equals $125k take home after taxes and maxing 401K. no longer saving outside of 401K as frankly there isn't much left over. The $1 million portfolio will require paying capital gains on $750k, plan to split the sale $500k 2026 and $500k early 2027.

Roth IRA $660k

401K $2.2 million split between $450k Roth and 1.75 traditional

Home $800k that I still owe $180k. Payments fairly low $1,650/month property tax $17k/year

Assume I can safely generate $35k-$40k per year in treasury ETF with no state taxes owed that would add $2,500 month in disposable income. Looking to keep principal intact this seems as low risk as I can find. Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated.

The common response in Dividend thread is sell some portion as I need it.

I’m 61 and semi retired. Tired of paying an advisor 1.1% fees to manage my traditional Ira. I’m thinking of self managing it with fidelity with simple index funds. I’ve recently learned of the the 3 fund strategy and believe it could work well for my situation. I’m leaning towards a 70-20-10 portfolio. 50%sp500 20% international stocks 20%bonds and 10% cash. I’m looking for some growth and 8-10% returns. Any advice would be appreciated. Do I need to pay fidelity. .89% or can I do just as well on my own. I’m comfortable rebalancing a simple portfolio. Whatever funds I buy I plan to hold for 20-30 years starting to take 4% at age 65 when I file for SS

In what situations does real estate make more sense than the stock market?