| Main > Everything Else |
| Roth IRA |
| << < (2/3) > >> |
| Token:
--- Quote from: BadMouth on October 22, 2015, 01:24:00 pm ---eh, I take the position that it's best to talk to someone who isn't going to profit from swaying you. Someone once told me to only work with a financial planner that gets paid by the hour and does not make money any other way. I'm yet to come across one though. (not that I've looked) --- End quote --- That's good advice. Find a local fee-only financial adviser here: https://www.napfa.org/ Generally, you should go Roth unless one of these situations applies to you: http://www.businessinsider.com/five-people-who-shouldnt-convert-to-a-roth-ira-2012-8 |
| pbj:
Serving on one of those committees can be a real eye opener. We dealt with TIAA-CREF and they admitted that the majority of their own employees didn't participate in the company retirement plan. And my company had about 40 funds in their mix, where something like a dozen was the norm. Each of those carried an administrative cost of $20kish a year, and some just had a couple thousand invested in them. We also got one of those "commodities! commodities! commodities! gold backed commodities funds!" guys on the committee... clearly he had listened to too much talk radio... gold bottomed out a few months later... Anyway, even the funds with the worst fee structures were pretty reasonable from the mostly passive, long term investment perspective... I don't think any reputable house is going to screw you too badly. People have to make a living. |
| Token:
--- Quote from: pbj on October 22, 2015, 03:29:08 pm ---Serving on one of those committees can be a real eye opener. We dealt with TIAA-CREF and they admitted that the majority of their own employees didn't participate in the company retirement plan. And my company had about 40 funds in their mix, where something like a dozen was the norm. Each of those carried an administrative cost of $20kish a year, and some just had a couple thousand invested in them. --- End quote --- I hope you were able to clean up some of that when you were on the committee. I don't understand how some large employers are still pushing high-fee funds in their company 401(k)s. You would think their employees' long-term financial stability would be in their own best interest. The vast majority of people would be best served by putting their retirement savings in 3-5 ETFs or Vanguard low-fee funds, and then not looking at the balance but once a year. |
| pbj:
Yeah, can't argue with any of that. We were able to nuke a few of the offerings, but we couldn't shut down anything that already had money in it. So it turned into a game of waiting for those people to die or retire, subtly encouraging them to redistribute into other funds, and preventing any further deposits. The company chunked 7% into an age appropriate mix, and the employees had to actively opt out of an automatic 3%. We did make that annual opt out a yearly requirement and sadly lots of people did it. Anyway, I was only involved a couple of years and left, so I hope they've been able to hold firm against people randomly selecting funds to add to the mix. Given the manpower situation, I doubt it. |
| BorgDog:
--- Quote from: Token on October 22, 2015, 04:17:29 pm --- The vast majority of people would be best served by putting their retirement savings in 3-5 ETFs or Vanguard low-fee funds, and then not looking at the balance but once a year. --- End quote --- There are so many people that don't do anything that just starting something and putting money into it is better than what they have now, Roth or Traditional. And I second and third the don't ---fudgesicle--- with it. That business insider article you linked to was about converting to a Roth, not starting one, big difference. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |