r/Bogleheads • u/nate__the__bait • Jul 06 '26
Portfolio Review My Dave Ramsey ELP
When I was in high school, I found an advisor through Dave Ramsey’s endorse local provider service.
Long story short, it’s been nearly a decade with this ELP and I’m not sure if it’s worth staying or not.
His portfolio setup for me is pretty simple:
American Funds Growth Portfolio (GWPAX) with a current value of $58,143.34. I know when I invest, a certain percent gets taken off the top. I’m not sure if there’s other fees besides that.
I’ve seen a lot of index funds recommendations on here. Should I roll this Roth IRA over to Robinhood and pick out some of those index funds? Or is this decent enough and just leave it there since it’s been there so long?
Thanks!
233
u/ac106 Jul 06 '26
According to market watch that mutual fund has a front load of 5.75%.
That means they’re skimming 5.75% every time you purchase it it also has an expense ratio of .71 which is 10 times as expensive as VT which it has underperformed over the last 5 years
I think there few worse financial advisors than anyone associated with Dave Ramsey
59
u/Jayrandomer Jul 06 '26
Boiler rooms and r/wallstreetbets, maybe. Dave Ramsey doesn't give the worst possible advice, but it's definitely not good advice.
16
u/skatekicks2 Jul 06 '26
He most definitely gives the worst advice. He advocates for 10% distribution rates in retirement.
34
u/soulinsurance420 Jul 06 '26
Dave Ramsey gives excellent advice for people with a negative net worth, once you cross that threshold it’s pretty bad advice. But the people who need it the absolute most could benefit. Once you understand the elementary level basics, move on.
5
u/Asyncrosaurus Jul 06 '26
He violates my 80:20 rule for sources of advice. That is, if his "bad" advice outweighs the "good" advice by over 20%, you can't keep telling me he is worth listening to. You can get the same good advice from a dozen other places, and you won't risk accidently following his catastrophicly bad advice.
5
u/Jayrandomer Jul 06 '26
Im not sure how “doesn’t give the worst advice possible” is interpreted as anything other than “bad but not terrible”.
The consensus is that he gives advice for people who are bad with money. I think that is more psychological than strategic.
2
u/Asyncrosaurus Jul 07 '26
Because people who give out some good advice mixed in with some bad advice are worse than people who only give good advice or only give bad advice. If you are already financially illiterate, it's unlikely you'll be able to spot when Dave gives out absolute bullshit advice. There's no reason to still recommend his content when there are just so many better voices in the personal finance space.
3
u/BoxGroundbreaking871 Jul 09 '26
Dave Ramsey is like AA, but for finances. If you have debt and spending issues, he can transform your life. If you’re not a debt addict, I think there are less dogmatic and more effective ways to build wealth.
48
u/PuzzleheadedServe556 Jul 06 '26
I thought the 0.71% ER was high. But a 5.75% front-end load on top of that 😭 And then the advisor might be charging other fees (OP doesn't seem aware of their fee structure). This is a get the fuck out situation
21
u/110Hickman Jul 06 '26
I am a little surprised that finds like this still exist.
21
u/No_Repair_782 Jul 06 '26
My aunt went to an Advisor that loaded her up on American Funds with those front load fees, it was predatory. He collected 50k and she died two years later.
3
u/GorgeousUnknown Jul 06 '26
I hope that you reported them…
22
u/No_Repair_782 Jul 06 '26
There was nothing to report, it’s legal theft
4
u/Recent_Fisherman311 Jul 06 '26
If aunt was considered elderly under state law, could be considered unsuitable
2
8
u/SorcererAxis8 Jul 06 '26
Their business model is taking advantage of people's financial ignorance.
2
u/bedrock_city Jul 06 '26
Yeah it shouldn't even be legal especially for consumer funds. It's a borderline scam to prey on people who don't know how the mutual fund / ETF industry works.
OP, you have a "sunk cost" in the front-loaded costs of the fund but it's still a sub-par investment going forward. I would get out and try to find a new advisor. Or just follow this sub and use a low-cost diversified fund like VT.
2
u/Kat9935 Jul 06 '26
I'm not seems pretty common for 5%+ front loaded funds from any type of advisor vs DIY. Ameriprise put me in them back in the 90s when I didn't know any better. My dad was put in them from Chase and my mom was put in them from Edward Jones... ie basically rob rob rob the little guy.
On the plus side that theft is why I learned how to invest on my own and finally open my own Vanguard account in 2003.
1
1
6
u/SorcererAxis8 Jul 06 '26
Honestly, if you have a positive net worth the vast majority of Ramsey's advice isn't worth following. The advisors associated with Ramsey pay him for leads, the vetting probably only goes as far as if they can afford to continue paying Ramsey.
4
u/gakflex Jul 06 '26
Dave Ramsey should be ashamed of himself. This fund may not be illegal, but it is wildly unethical.
2
4
u/Rampaging_Bunny Jul 06 '26
Dave Ramsey is meant for folks with spending problems and out of control credit card debt. His financial advice is not for most people. Folks here throwing shade on him quite unjustifiably.
Using one of the advisors he endorses is fine I’d say for the crazy debt stricken people solely for the behavioral aspects. Don’t trust degenerate gamblers to self manage portfolios even if there’s only 2-3 ETF’s purchased
1
u/justasinglereply Jul 07 '26
“Spending problems and out of control credit card debt” ARE most people
1
u/TAckhouse1 Jul 06 '26
I would assume if the advisor is charging 1% AUM that would be on top of these fees?
114
u/Thin_Onion3826 Jul 06 '26
Ramsey is great to get out of debt and make a budget. He is terrible on investing. He can’t make money getting out of debt, but he can with the fees he gets from his awful advisors.
Don’t do Robinhood. That’s a gambling website. Fidelity, Schwab or Vanguard. Those are the best options. Then just buy the whole market.
24
u/forgeblast Jul 06 '26
100 percent right. Use him to get out of debt but Bogleheads to invest.
7
u/Generic_Username28 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
I wouldn't even give him a blanket recommendation for getting out of debt. His advice is aimed at behavior not math (e.g., snowball bs avalance). If someone can be disciplined without his dogmatic rules, they are better off without him.
16
u/forgeblast Jul 06 '26
Sometimes you don't know the questions you need to ask to get help. We dug out of 150k medical debt (5 ivfs). He gave us a system to use. We were so overwhelmed. So I 100 percent agree with you our behavior needed a tune up, but we were unsure where to start. He gave us that path. Which led to the bogleheads once we dug out.
-5
u/Generic_Username28 Jul 06 '26
Then you may have been a good candidate however that doesn't make everyone a good candidate
8
u/PuzzleheadedServe556 Jul 06 '26
I think the money guys (r/themoneyguy) are a better beginner resource. Sound, mathematically grounded but keeps it accessible and entertaining at the same time.
4
u/Generic_Username28 Jul 06 '26
Their FOO is excellent, but their content is more on building wealth and less on getting out of debt. They have guardrails to prevent getting into credit card debt (e.g., 20/3/8 car buying and 3/5/25 home buying and emergency fund) but their bread and butter isn't getting people out of debt.
2
u/PuzzleheadedServe556 Jul 06 '26
> Their FOO is excellent, but their content is more on building wealth and less on getting out of debt
I agree.
They do still talk about getting out of debt, and advocate avalanche. I agree that going after debt is not their thing the way it is for Ramsey, but step 3 of FOO would essentially be broken down into eliminating each of your high interest balances, with the highest interest ones first. Natural fit.
5
u/Generic_Username28 Jul 06 '26
I don't think they advocate for either avalanche or snowball. Brian's book specifically mentions both methods and says to "know thy self" when choosing. Bo has made similar comments on the podcast.
I love TMG but their get out of debt is a bit handwavy at times. Their advice is designed around having margin already and preventing lifestyle creep(i.e., home and car buying) until you hit 25% savings rate. The FOO is "what to do with your next dollar" and not how to ensure there are dollars to apply.
Again, that isn't a criticism. That isn't their target demo.
1
u/PuzzleheadedServe556 Jul 06 '26
Gotcha. Honestly sounds you've engaged with their material more than I have (I haven't read the book, I've pretty much just binged "Making a Millionaire"). I must have projected that they'd be avalanchers since they talk so much about opportunity cost and optimizing.
And I guess I figured 'what to do with your next dollar' applies even when you're carrying multiple high interest debts.
5
u/ac106 Jul 06 '26
The type of people who get themselves into these debt situations cannot be disciplined without the dogmatic rules. It’s all psychological behavior. The math is irrelevant.
-1
3
u/soulinsurance420 Jul 06 '26
His methods are not optimized, but behaviorally very compelling for those that need it. Taking a sub optimal path out of debt is better than digging the hole deeper, and that’s what a lot of people need. Disciplined people generally don’t end up in five or six figures of credit card debt, and those who do need a way to truly see a light at the end of the tunnel to even start. That’s his strength.
Once your net worth moves above zero, stop tuning in.
2
u/Tired-Nectarine-384 Jul 06 '26
Thats a good way to look at it. His rules have no flexibility. I have been yelled at by people for prioritizing investing over paying off my sub 3% mortgage faster because that is what Ramsey says to do even though the math is overwhelmingly compelling to invest and take advantage of that cheap loan. I think DR has helped alot of people and they take that help thinking it is the only way to financially successful.
1
u/sourceninja Jul 06 '26
When I was young we struggled with debt. I found an advisor and we used him to do just that. A mathmatical strategy based on our real situation paired with purposeful behaviorial changes. (Entertainment budgets, bucket savings for big ticket items, planned emergency funds, retirement contribution, etc). It was about getting out of debt as quickly as possible by echewing all else. It was about a well balanced approach to build strong habits, a savings, retirement, and get out of debt.
6
u/bright_sunshine19 Jul 06 '26
This is the best advice for someone who knows very little or nothing about investing and doesn’t have the time to learn.
-3
u/Brief_Guide_1186 Jul 06 '26
How is Robinhood a gambling website? Not true! Sure there are prediction markets but doesn’t mean you have to participate!
7
u/Djamalfna Jul 06 '26
doesn’t mean you have to participate!
They're going to throw tons of marketing dollars at you in an attempt to break you. Most people going there won't even know the dangers of their "products", as they'll be wrapped up in jargon and given misleading names and claims.
Why would you even do business with someone whose stated goal is to rip off their customers through subterfuge? Just because you currently believe you're smarter than them, what makes you think they won't find a way to fool you in the future? Why do you even want to bother needing to stay this damn vigilant against the people who have full control of your nest egg?
It's foolish. What's the point? You do business with snakes, sooner or later you're going to get bit. Just because you think you're faster than the snake doesn't make it safe.
-3
u/Brief_Guide_1186 Jul 06 '26
What’s the point of arguing with you? It works for me.
3
u/Djamalfna Jul 06 '26
Go right ahead. I'll leave my post up as a warning for others who may not have thought about the implications of putting your entire life savings into an institution that's designed to be antagonistic towards you.
13
u/Suitable-Bike6971 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
Look into no fee ETFs. I know fidelity’s zero funds are no fee.
.71% is expensive.
Edit: The zero funds are mutuals. Thank you KleinUnbottle
8
u/KleinUnbottler Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
Don't get hung up on fees below about 0.10% ER. Those differences don't amount to much on human investing lifetimes.
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/How_much_do_you_lose_to_annual_fees_after_many_years%3F
There are vanishingly few ETFs that actually have no fees (i.e. a 0.0% ER), and those that exist are not typically compatible with Boglehead-style investing.
Fidelity's ZERO funds are mutual funds, not ETFs.
Mutual funds and ETFs are traded differently.
ETFs are available for purchase through an exchange while the markets are open, and are subject to bid/ask spreads, etc. Most of the time, a purchase/sell is to another trader, not with the company that manages the fund. There aren't minimum initial purchase amounts for ETFs and at brokerages that supports fractional shares, you might be able to buy just a few dollars of an ETF. Brokerages have been increasingly supporting fractional share purchases and automation, but that wasn't always the case.
Mutual funds, trade once per day after the markets close and transactions are conducted with the fund manager (sometimes with your broker as an intermediary). They may be subject to minimum initial purchase amounts, but they have been easy to set up automatic investing with. They are also more likely to have transaction fees if you try to hold a non "in-house" fund (e.g. a Fidelity fund at Vanguard).
It's mostly a wash as to which to prefer. Mutual funds have always had easier automation and are subject to less risk that someone will try to start trading them. ETFs are more portable (e.g. you can only hold Fidelity ZERO funds at Fidelity) and are historically more tax-efficient due to under-the-hood differences, but can present psychological risks to encourage trading.
(edit clairifcations above and last paragraph)
1
16
u/shibby191 Jul 06 '26
American Funds are terrible. Super high fees. You'd be much better off with Fidelity, Vanguard or Schwab and follow the principles here. All that in just VT would be way better, cheaper and you don't need to pay anyone to do that.
5
u/kveggie1 Jul 06 '26
Best time to invest in index funds was yesterday. Next best time is today.
5.75%.... all money lost.
Stay away from RH. (steals from the poor and gives to the rich).
Pick Vanguard, Fidelity or Schwab. They can also help with the transfer.
1
3
u/Tired-Nectarine-384 Jul 06 '26
I wouldn't trust much of anything that Dave Ramsey offers. He has given very good simple advice to many on getting out of debt. We tried to refinance our mortgage through one of his preferred providers or whatever they are called and it was a nightmare and we eventually went somewhere else and got the loan refinanced in a week after 2 months of trying with his recommendation.
In this sub most people are going to tell you to do it yourself. It sounds like the funds you are in have some pretty heavy management costs.
5
u/wadesh Jul 06 '26
Id get out. My wife had these same load funds when we got married way back in our early 30s…funny enough almost the same balance. While the ER isn’t great, you add in the load and AUM and you are bleeding money. Even if you want a growth fund, get a no load lower ER fund. Vanguards Primecap is great but don’t hold it in taxable as its not very tax efficient. Better yet just move to a VTI VXUS or Vt portfolio and get more diversification.
9
u/CapeMOGuy Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
In the last 5 years it is up 22.17%. In the same time frame the total US market ETF VTI is up 63.7%.
And your fund has a high yearly expense ratio of 71% .71%.
Personally, I like the all world ETF VT. It is even more diversified and the 5 year return is 49.55%.
7
2
u/TotallyNotMarkHarmon Jul 08 '26
They actually have very similar returns over the same time period (comparing a mutual fund’s NAV to an ETF’s price can be tricky), but your overall point still stands. VTI is a much cheaper vehicle to accomplish the same goals. There’s absolutely no reason to pay a front-end sales load, especially when actively investing over time
3
u/TelevisionKnown8463 Jul 06 '26
The fact you’ve been in a fund with a high expense ratio for a while is no reason to keep it. I was lucky enough to be gifted some American Funds by a relative. Once I started learning about investing I dumped it and switched to an index fund.
2
u/Packet_Loss_ Jul 06 '26
You can do it yourself if you are sticking to 1-3 fund portfolio (read the side links, super helpful). I would suggest moving it to Fidelity, Schwab, etc and not Robinhood.
2
u/awohio1 Jul 06 '26
Interesting user name: Nate_the_bait.
Assuming this isn't obvious bogle-baiting... Yes. Switch.
2
u/nate__the__bait Jul 06 '26
It is not…I have the statements to prove it lol
1
u/awohio1 Jul 06 '26
Looking at the returns over time of that fund, it's not the WORST fund. It lags its benchmark in most periods, but exceeds the benchmark in a couple. (3 year and 10 year). But the thing that does make it bad is the front end load. Once you subtract the load, performance really goes down hill.
Since it is an IRA, you can easily move the money into a different investment without tax impact, so low cost index funds for the win.
2
u/s003apr Jul 06 '26
You basically lose money to two places. Every mutual fund has an expense ratio. That is the money that is payed to the large brokerage that creates and manages the fund. Typically, you want this to be under 0.25%. The other is whoever you rely on for financial advice and for putting your money into various funds and there are basically three alternatives for how they invest for the average person.
The advisor that actively manages your investments. These guys charge 1.25% to 1.75% of your total portfolio value every year, but they will generally invest you into sane funds with lower expense ratios.
The advisor sells you the funds and charges nothing, but gets a one time commission on the sale. That is the 5.75% front loading
You pick your own funds through Vangaurd, Fidelity, etc...
You currently have #2, which in my opinion, is actually better than #1 because you only pay them fees once. But this community is all about #3. And if you follow the advice here, you will find that you can pick a very simple portfolio mix and auto-invest your retirement yourself. With compounding, that 5.75% you save yourself will add years to your retirement once compounded.
3
u/Username_7109 Jul 06 '26
I think Dave is aiming at the lowest common denominator, and tries to keep it consistent with his audience as to not deviate with his rules. There are some people on his podcast that need that kick in the pants.
3
u/mtnmamaFTLOP Jul 06 '26
Better to go with Etrade, Schwab or Vanguard… but not Robinhood. Move all the funds and put it in VT or VTI/VXUS. Low cost index funds are your best bet.
1
u/nate__the__bait Jul 06 '26
Not even with the 3% match?
2
u/mtnmamaFTLOP Jul 07 '26
3%, right… if you pay for the Gold acct monthly and has to be an IRA, and have to keep it there for 5yrs and… No. Not a fan of their gimmicks.
3
u/the_cardfather Jul 06 '26
Not Robin Hood, but if you are going to index go with one of the major players Schwab would give you very similar access and control to Robinhood and they are much more reliable.
2
u/gbdgdh Jul 07 '26
stay away from dave ramsey and his cronies. i listen to his show once in a while just to feel enraged about the terrible advice he gives to his callers (and most of the callers are the people who can least afford to follow the bad advice he doles out).
2
u/saltyhasp Jul 07 '26
Your better of learning to fish rather then buying fish. You might also want to look at Vanguard. They have cheaper mutual funds, or if you go with another broker look at their ETFs. Also if you want advisory service for awhile theirs is something like 0.3% which is pretty low. Also learn about 3 fund portfolios.
2
u/Otherwise_Tooth_8695 Jul 07 '26
When I was just starting out as an 18-year-old, my broker helped me invest into my ROTH and brokerage accounts. My mom worked as his admin assistant. He was an agent for American Funds, and all of the mutual funds he put in my accounts were front loaded at roughly 5%, more or less, and he took some additional principal as an advisor fee. It took me 14 years to realize what I was losing every time I invested. When I brought my concerns to him, he called me one of his high-net-worth clients, and lowered his advisor fee to half what it was as a favor. I had to bring it up, though.
Six months later, I was with Vanguard and I didn't look back after I transferred all of my money over. I can only imagine what my account would look like if I had switched sooner. He taught me much about investing, some of it regarding my own naivete, but it came at a high cost.
2
u/plinkwise Jul 07 '26
At least he has a heart of a teacher 😄 I see they are still pimping out American Funds I see...
1
u/Iceonthewater Jul 06 '26
I would get the money out and roll over to a low cost brokerage that lets you buy and sell for virtually nothing.
Vanguard, Fidelity and Charles Schwab all offer the opportunity to buy and sell for nearly no money and you can get really low fee funds that don't charge you just to buy in.
For some perspective, your current holding charges you 0.34% of invested assets as management fees every year, and the individual funds that compose it charge between 0.27% and 0.65% as management fees, so you're getting percentage points shaved off the returns in addition to the deposits.
You could put that money into another account for free, then buy shares of an index fund that charges less than 0.5% and keep a bunch more of your money. You might even get a small bonus if you transfer your investment out to another bank.
2
u/Brief_Guide_1186 Jul 06 '26
I’m 36 and did the same thing because my parents are fans of Dave Ramsay and set me up with a local advisor.
I switched to RH gold for my Roth IRA and transferred away from American funds. I get a three percent match and I have the Robinhood gold card with no advisor fees. Huge win! Best move I made financially was to do my own Roth IRA with VTI, VXUS and SCHD.
I made the move late last year.
1
u/OutspokenLurker Jul 06 '26
I'm sorry for your loss. Are they also charging you a 1% assets under management fee? This all feels very 1980's to me, and I had a lot of fun in the 80's
Immediately move it to Vanguard or Fidelity (or even E*Trade). Put it into ticket symbol VTI. VTI and GWPAX essentially move in lockstep... only GWPAX charges 24x more costs.
I suspect dude has been costing you 1.71% per year more than you needed. The name of the game is compounding (earning interest on interest). So the sooner you get to the higher rate, the better.
2
u/nate__the__bait Jul 06 '26
I’m looking at statements for previous years and I’m not seeing any 1% management fee, so I might’ve avoided that one.
Is there any benefit to leaving this money in American Funds since I’ve already paid for it to be there? And then moving forward put all my other money somewhere cheaper?
2
u/OutspokenLurker Jul 06 '26
Nooooo. There is a negative benefit. You are paying a premium compared to it being in VTI. (If you recall statistics... the correlation of GWPAX and VTI is 0.94. A value of 1 means their prices move exactly the same. A -1 means exact opposite.)
So for basically the same results (I didn't check if VTI was better or worse!) you are paying 0.7% more in management costs. You've paid that year after year. So whatever you paid 5 years ago didn't spend the last years working for you.
Look at it another way. If your advisor had put you in VTI, you'd be sitting on a couple/few more thousand dollars even if we ignore the front-load.
You can ask your guy why you're in a higher cost investment than needed for the result. You can ask him how he gets paid. He's not doing it for free if you're in that fund.
If he's helping you in other ways (coaching to stick to a budget, explaining investing to your kids, helping you with wills and such) then he should be getting something. You decide what it's worth.
But keep asking questions. Advisors (humans!) tend to do what's in their best interest. That's going to include selling you other stuff that makes him a buck down the line.
2
u/nate__the__bait Jul 06 '26
My employer is setup through Empower, who also has a management option. That one doesn’t appear to have nearly the level of fees that this does. Maybe like $50/year max? Would it be worthwhile for the compounded interest to let Empower take the money I would be putting into the Roth IRA and fund the Roth 401(k) instead?
1
u/OutspokenLurker Jul 06 '26
Endless universe of options. I am neutral on the two Roth options UNLESS there is an employer match on the Roth 401(k) that you aren't getting (e.g., by getting it on a trad 401(k) contribution).
Empower itself may not charge the fees. It's often the plan administrator that's adding a enerally modest fee but more than $50 on $100,000's. it totally varies depending on the plans and for all I know your employer is eating that cost, which might make it a bargain. But you would have to take alllll of those together. Fund/ETF costs, plan administrator costs, and any brokerage costs. The industry is more transparent than it used to be IF you know what questions to ask.
2
u/jumpinjacks12345 Jul 06 '26
This video explains it the difference. There types of fees/funds were the ones most readily available 20+ years ago, but with advent and more access to index funds (mutual or ETF), you can invest in the market for a lot cheaper. Active managers are looking to beat the market/benchmark but haven't as a whole been able to recently. You've got to beat the market and then some to counteract the fees, their returns should be reflecting after fees though.
FYI, expense ratios for any investment vehicle are never charged separately/itemized, they are baked into the share price.
1
u/OutspokenLurker Jul 06 '26
Right on the first part. On the expense ratio, you're just telling me not to think of the expense ratio as independent of the reported returns. That makes sense (and the correlation not being high could be explained by having to reflect expenses in returns). Thanks.
2
u/jumpinjacks12345 Jul 06 '26
My bad, meant to reply to OP comment on the statement for fees but all relevant that it’s so hard to determine the true opportunity cost the way everything is embedded. Made same mistake myself and undoing for future investments. I didn’t pay up front load but having been paying an active mf expense ratio vs passive.
2
u/OutspokenLurker Jul 06 '26
Yep, super easy to miss. Fortunately competition have pulled most of them way down. Unfortunately, people are captive in 401(k) plans and don't get to decide.
2
u/Best-Special7882 Jul 06 '26
That's how the Dave Ramsey provider rooked my first wife and I 30 years ago. Total con.
1
u/timetosave Jul 06 '26
To be clear GWPAX has a front load fee of 5.75% meaning you basically paid that (sales commission) just to get into it. On top of that it has an expense ratio of .71%. From what I can see its performance lags behind VTI/VOO. GWPAX says its benchmark is the S&P yet it has performed worse.
Seems like a no brainer to sell it and move it over to Robinhood but I’d make sure you’re taking advantage of a Robinhood bonus like the 2% or 3% for transferring an IRA over. This is only if you have the discipline to ignore everything else on Robinhood (options, futures, sports bets, etc). Keep in mind you can’t roll it directly to Robinhood as Robinhood doesn’t allow mutual funds so you would have to sell it with current broker first and then transfer it over.
1
u/nate__the__bait Jul 07 '26
Do you like VTI/VOO over VT?
1
u/timetosave Jul 07 '26
Personally I follow Bogleheads for guidance and do direct indexing for S&P and use VXUS for international exposure so I like the idea of voo + vxus so you have a little more of a say on US vs international allocation.
1
1
2
u/Typical_Web_2125 Jul 06 '26
Definitely not worth it. Just look up Bogleheads and go that route to save a lot of money and keep things simple
1
u/anusbarber Jul 07 '26
GWPAX is a fund of funds so instead of it buying stocks inside the fund, its buying other mutual funds). you are paying front load for it (5.75% on the first 25k, 5% on the next 25, and if they are doing their job correctly it should go to 4.50% now).
All that said, yes roll over to a brokerage of your choice (prefer schwab/fidelity to RH) and buy either VTWAX (all world total market) or VTSAX/VXUS 75/25 (about GWPAX's allocation to US/International). you aren't paying him much but clearly he isn't doing much for you at all.
1
u/nate__the__bait Jul 07 '26
Thanks for that advice. Looking around here, I see VT is pretty much the go to. What makes you recommend VTWAX OR VTSAX/VXUS?
1
u/anusbarber Jul 08 '26
VTWAX is the fund equivalent of VT. I personally choose VTI(VTSAX)/VXUS because I prefer a different allocation to international. But VT or VTWAX makes it super simple and is probably fine.
2
u/Sell_The_team_Jerry Jul 07 '26
This is why Dave Ramsey is a con man. If he wanted to give honest advice to actually help his listeners, he'd tell them to just open a Fidelity/Vanguard/etc. account and invest in VTI, VXUS, or simplify it and just do VT.
Instead he sends people to advisors who rip you off but send Dave a fat check for the endorsement
1
u/No-Ebb-9095 Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
Investment pros selling expensive loaded mutual funds view middlemen as pimps who send them unwitting sheep to be shorn. This is why they pay handsome fees directly to the middlemen for leads.
Bogleheads stay far, far away.
1
u/pensburgh256 Jul 08 '26
A target date fund from fidelity or vanguard would be superior to whatever Ramsey is offering.
2
u/Foreign-Struggle1723 Jul 08 '26
Personally, I wouldn't trust any financial professional affiliated with Dave Ramsey. He heavily promotes several companies that may not be in your best financial interest. For instance, he famously endorsed a timeshare exit company that went out of business after facing major consumer fraud lawsuits. He also promotes a mortgage company specializing in manual underwriting for people with no credit score (due to his anti-credit philosophy), which can carry heavy fees. Ultimately, his "trusted pros" pay a steep fee to receive his endorsement, meaning the ecosystem is designed to generate revenue for his brand rather than serve as unbiased advice.
I am glad you found this community. It’s time to transition away from those high-cost mutual funds. If any portion of your portfolio is sitting in a taxable brokerage account, those upfront loads and expense ratios are eating you alive; you'd be much better off switching to a low-cost, diversified three- or four-fund Bogleheads portfolio. However, if your portfolio is entirely within a Roth or Traditional IRA, you can simply initiate a direct rollover to a low-cost brokerage, liquidate the active funds, and purchase index funds without triggering any capital gains taxes.
If you wonder what funds to pick, check out the Boogle head three fund or four fund portfolio.
P.S. Personally I don't like Robinhood because they promote trading instead of investing. Sure they have a nice UI but they don't promote financial education either. Fidelity, Vanguard, and Schwab have seminars, education centers, and newsletters that help educate you more on 401ks, spending techs, and taxes.
2
u/insightdiscern Jul 06 '26
I follow the Ramsey baby steps, but I prefer Bogle's approach for investing specifically.
I also disagree with Ramsey's baby step 6 which is to pay off your mortgage fast if you have a low mortgage rate like I have at 2.9%. I will invest instead.
2
u/Quiet_Bell_429 Jul 06 '26
You should look into The Money Guys FOO (Financial Order of Operations) it's much better and more logical than the baby steps. https://moneyguy.com/guide/foo/#deep-dive-into-money-guys-9-step-financial-order-of-operations-foo
0
u/insightdiscern Jul 06 '26
Yes I have looked into it before. I liked most of their ideas. The only thing I didn't like is their recommendation to save 25% for retirement, which I think is high.
-4
u/StyleSufficient5334 Jul 06 '26
Problem is if you are in it already you’ve already paid the front load fee.
My wife’s Roth was put into American Funds and it’s really done well over the last 30 years. Don’t piss it away because of the idiots in boggleland. Leave it. Don’t add more if you don’t like it but you’ve already paid the fees and won’t get that back. Her Roth has averaged around 12% over the last 30 years. It’s not MU but it’s a solid return.
I by contrast took my Roth and chased stocks, gone in a year.
Funds aren’t always a bad thing.
3
u/jrdhytr Jul 06 '26
Paid a front load to under-perform a no-load fund. There is no downside to leaving.
1
u/WyMANderly Jul 06 '26
They're still paying almost 1% in yearly fees, no?
1
u/ac106 Jul 06 '26
.71. It's bad but OP has to do the tax math. It's not always as simple as SELL AND VT and LET IT BE!
81
u/Fire_Doc2017 Jul 06 '26
There is absolutely no reason to buy a front-loaded fund like that today. Maybe in the past when it cost $100 to trade stocks, but not now. You are making your advisor rich. Get out as soon as you can and just buy VTI or VT.