vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Your decision about which of these investments to make is going to depend on how long you expect to leave the money in the account. For example, based on the figures you give us, if you think you are going to want to withdraw the money in three months or less then you should chose the savings account.  For ten months or more you should choose the Fixed Deposit. (As Michael Kjorling says, ""flexible to withdraw at any time"" does not mean you won't pay penalties for withdrawing early that's why you shouldn't choose the longer term deposits if you want to withdraw earlier). That's the simplest approach. The trouble of course is that you don't necessarily know how long you are going to leave the money in. If you are saving for a house, and you know you won't want to buy in the next year, the 12 month deposit looks good. But what if your car suddenly needs repairs? You would have to withdraw that money early and pay the penalties, and it turns out you would have been better of putting it in the savings account. A good approach is:"
If you're looking for a purely financial answer (ignoring the social/environmental aspects) there are a few different ways you can look at it. For these types of improvements the simplest is a payback calculation.  How long would it take you to recoup the initial costs?   For example, if the entire installation cost $5,000 (including any tax credits), and you save $100 per month (I'm making both numbers up), you'll pay back your investment in 50 months, or about 4 years.   (Note that if you borrow money to do the improvement, then your payback period is longer because you're reducing the amount that you're saving each month by paying interest.) If you're deciding between different uses for the money (like investing, or paying down other debt) then you can look at the return that you're getting.  Using the same example, you are spending $5,000 and getting $100 per month back, for a 24% annual return ($1,200 / $5,000), which is better than you can get on almost anything but a 401(k) match (meaning don't stop your 401(k) contributions to do this either). The decision on whether or wait or not then becomes - will the price drop faster than the amount of savings you will realize.  So if you will save $100 per month in your electric bill, is the price of the complete installation going down by more than $100 each month?  If not, you'd be better off buying now and start paying back the investment sooner.
There is no absolute answer to this as it depends on your particular situation, but some tips: As to investing versus saving, you need to do some of both: Be careful about stockpiling too much in bank accounts. Inflation will eat that money up over time to the tune of 3-4%/year. You are young and have a longer investment horizon for retirement, take advantage of that and accept a little more risk while you can.
Why would it not make more sense to invest in a handful of these   heavyweights instead of also having to carry the weight of the other   450 (some of which are mostly just baggage)? First, a cap-weighted index fund will invest more heavily in larger cap companies, so the 'baggage' you speak of does take up a smaller percentage of the portfolio's value (not that cap always equates to better performance). There are also equal-weighted index funds where each company in the index is given equal weight in the portfolio. If you could accurately pick winners and losers, then of course you could beat index funds, but on average they've performed well enough that there's little incentive for the average investor to look elsewhere.  A handful of stocks opens you up to more risk, an Enron in your handful would be pretty devastating if it comprised a large percentage of your portfolio. Additionally, since you pay a fee on each transaction ($5 in your example), you have to out-perform a low-fee index fund significantly, or be investing a very large amount of money to come out ahead. You get diversification and low-fees with an index fund.
A CD will give you a higher rate of return.  The tradeoff is you cannot access your money until the CD matures. If you need the ability to get your money, you should choose a savings account.  If you won't use your money for awhile, choose a CD. Right now interest rates are so abysmal, you aren't going to get much return with either (so I would recommend against locking up your money in a CD).
"Other individuals answered how owning an REIT compares to an individual real estate investment, but did not answer your second question as readily, ""are REITs a good option to generate passive income for awhile?"". The ""awhile"" part is quite important in answering this question. If your intentions are to invest for a relatively short time period (say, 7 years or less), it may be especially advantageous to invest in a REIT. The foremost advantage comes from significantly lower transaction fees (stock/ETF trades are practically/potentially free today) compared to purchasing real estate, which involves inspection+titling fees/taxes/broker fees, which in a round-trip transaction (purchase and sale) would come to ~10%. The secondary advantage to owning a REIT is they are much more liquid than a property. If you wanted to sell your investment at a given point in time, you can easily log into your brokerage and execute your transaction, while liquidating an investment property will take time on market/potentially tossing tenants/fixing up place, etc. On the other hand, illiquid investments have generally yielded higher historical returns according to past research."
I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly.  If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses)  For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads..
"Average return on the S&P500 over the last 10 years has been 1.6 %; so if you'd invested in that with money borrowed at 3 % you would have lost (so far). Investing with borrowed money implies you think you can beat the market: that you're a cleverer investor than whoever decided to lend you the money. Whoever decided to lend you the money decided that you are the best (return/risk ratio) investment for their money. It might make sense to invest borrowed money if you don't need to pay it back if things go wrong: if you're an investment professional whose bonus depends on the profit you make, but who won't need to repay any loss. It might also makes sense to borrow money if you're going to 'add value', e.g. sweat equity: for example if you use it to renovate a house or (if you're a business) to hire more staff. But the question was ""What guidelines do you use"" and the answer is, ""I don't make passive investments with borrowed money."" My Dad did it, i.e. didn't repay his mortgage as soon as he could have: but that was because (back in the '70s) he had a long-term (government-sponsored) mortgage for about 1.5 % (designed to help first-time buyers or something like that), at a time when banks were paying higher interest rates on (ultra-safe) deposits."
&gt; it makes US investments even better because the rate of return gets boosted higher.  Except it doesn't.    Do they really teach this?  Does anyone have a link to textbook thinking on this subject, because that's a blatant lie and might explain why so many people understand the dynamics at work here completely wrong.
"It is my opinion that part of having a successful long-term relationship is being committed to the other person's success and well-being. This commitment is a form of investment in and of itself. The returns are typically non-monetary, so it's important to understand what money actually is. Money is a token people exchange for favors. If I go to a deli and ask for a sandwich. I give them tokens for the favor of having received a sandwich. The people at the deli then exchange those tokens for other favors, and that's the entire economy: people doing favors for other people in exchange for tokens that represent more favors. Sometimes being invested in your spouse is giving them a back rub when they've had a hard day. The investment pays off when you have a hard day and they give you a back rub. Sometimes being invested in your spouse is taking them to a masseuse for a professional massage. The investment pays off when they get two tickets to that thing you love. At the small scale it's easy to mostly ignore minor monetary discrepancies. At the large scale (which I think £50k is plenty large enough given your listed net worth) it becomes harder to tell if the opportunity cost will be worth making that investment. It pretty much comes down to: Will the quality-of-life improvements from that investment be better than the quality-of-life improvements you receive from investing that money elsewhere? As far as answering your actual question of: How should I proceed? There isn't a one-size fits all answer to this. It comes down to decisions you have to make, such as: * in theory it's easy to say that everyone should be able to trust their spouse, but in practice there are a lot of people who are very bad at handling money. It can be worthwhile in some instances to keep your spouse at an arms length from your finances for their own good, such as if your spouse has a gambling addiction. With all of that said, it sounds like you're living in a £1.5m house rent-free. How much of an opportunity cost is that to your wife? Has she been freely investing in your well-being with no explicit expectation of being repaid?
"Often in life we have to choose the lesser of evils.  Whole Life as an investment vs. Term Life and invest the difference is one of these times. I assume the following statement is true. ""The commissions on whole life are sick. The selling agent gets upward of 90% of your first year's premium."" But how does that compare to investing in mutual funds (as one alternative)?   Well according to Vanguard the average mutual fund keeps 60% of the total returns over the average investors lifetime. And of course income taxes (on withdrawal) consume another 30% (or more) of the dollars you withdraw (from a tax deferred retirement plan like a 401k.) http://www.fool.com/School/MutualFunds/Performance/Record.htm So you have to pick your poison and make the choice that fits your view of the future. Personally I don't believe my cost of living in retirement will be radically lower than my cost of living while working. Additionally I believe income tax rates will be higher in the future than the in the present and so deferring taxes (like a 401k) doesn't make sense to me.  (In 1980 a 401k made sense when the average 401k participant was paying over 50% in federal income tax and also got a pension.) So paying 90% of my first year's premium rather than 60% of my gains over my lifetime seems acceptable.  And borrowing tax free against my life insurance once retired (with no intention of paying it back) will, I believe, provide greater income than a 401k could."
You may want to move money between your investments within the plan, rebalancing money to maintain your diversification. You don't have to deal with the details if selling and buying, just tell them how much to move where. Many plans offer investments that automatically rebalance for you such as Target Date accounts. You may be able to select one of those and just ignore the 401k until retirement, or at most rebalance even less often. Look at what's offered, look at what it costs as fees, run the numbers and decide whether you can do better.
"There's nothing to rebalance, the index fund rebalances itself to continue matching the index. However, you need to understand that such an investment is not diversified and you only invest in a very specific market, and very specific stocks on that market. S&P 500 is large (500 different companies, most of the time), but still not as broadly diversified as your retirement investment portfolio should be. You should talk to a financial adviser (CFP for example), many companies provide access to these for 401k plan participants. But in any case, I'd suggest considering ""target date"" funds - funds that are investing based on your expected retirement year, and become more conservative as you get closer to that year."
The numbers aside (I'd not assume 12%/yr) there is no limit to the balance. There are 401(k) accounts that have great matching and profit sharing deposits putting the per year limit closer to $45k, combine that with company stock in, say, Apple which has risen 60 fold this past decade, and balances in the tens of millions are possible.
Ben Miller's answer is very thorough, and I up voted it. I believe that the ability to rebalance without tax implications is very import, but there are two aspects of the question that were not covered: The 401K in many cases comes with a company match. Putting enough money into the fund each year to maximize the match, give you free money that is not available in the non-retirement accounts. The presence of that match is to encourage employees to contribute: even if they are tying up their funds until retirement age; and they are into a plan with only a handful of investment options; and they may have higher expenses in the 401K. The question also had a concern about the annual limits for the 401K (18,000) and the IRA (5,500). The use of a retirement account doesn't in any way limit your ability to invest in non-retirement accounts. You can choose to invest from 0 to 23,500 in the retirement accounts and from 0 to unlimited into the non-retirement accounts. Double those amounts if you are married.
I've never seen anything in any IRS publication that placed limits on the balance of a 401K, only on what you can contribute (and defer from taxes) each year.  The way the IRS 'gets theirs' as it were is on the taxes you have to pay (for a traditional IRA anyway) which would not be insubstantial when you start to figure out the required minimum distribution if the balance was 14Mill.. You're required to take out enough to in theory run the thing out of money by your life expectancy.. The IRS has tables for this stuff to give you the exact numbers, but for the sake of a simple example, their number for someone age 70 (single or with a spouse who is not more than 10 years younger) is 27.4..  If we round that to 28 to make the math nice, then you would be forced to withdraw and pay taxes on around $500,000 per year.  (So there would be a hefty amount of taxes to be paid out for sure). So a lot of that $500K a year going to pay taxes on your distributions, but then, considering you only contributed  660,000 pre-tax dollars in the first place, what a wonderful problem to have to deal with.  Oh don't throw me in THAT briar patch mr fox!
The simplest way to consolidate the funds your old 401(k) plans is by doing what's called a Direct Rollover (whereby the funds go directly into the new plan and skips you completely) from each of the old plans into either an IRA that you establish with a provider of your choice or even into your current employer's 401(k) plan if that is available. That way, the funds are in one central account and available to invest. Plus it eliminates the mandatory 20% withholding if the rollover is indirect and is sent to you first before the deposit into the new plan. It is important to bear in mind that you have 60 calendar days from the date of distribution to get the full amount into the new plan and a rollover is considered a tax reportable, but not necessarily a taxable event provided you deposit the funds within the time frame allotted.
You need to look at all your investment as a whole. The 401K, IRA, and any taxable account need to be a part of the diversification and re-balancing. The fact you have regular deposits into the 401K needs to also be a part of your strategy.  Regardless of how much specific investments have gone up this year, you need to first determine how you want to be invested in large cap stock, small cap stock, bond, international, emerging markets... Then you need to see where you are today compared to those investment percentages. You then move the money in the retirement accounts to get to your desired percentage. And set the 401K deposits to be consistent with your goals. Many times the deposits are allocated the same way the balances are, but that is more complex if one of the sectors you are investing in exists completely outside the 401K.  When you re-balance in the future you will be selling sectors that grew the most and buying those that grew the least compared to their planned percentages. If all the moves are within the 401K and IRA then capital gains are not a concern. Don't think of the different accounts as separate baskets, but think of them as a whole investment strategy.
One of the strengths of 401K accounts is that you can move from investment X in the program to investment Y in the program without tax consequences. As you move through your lifetime you will tend to want to lower risk by investing in funds that are less aggressive. The only way this works is if there is an ability to move funds. If there were only one or two funds to pick from or that you were locked in to your initial choices that would be a very poor 401K to be enrolled in. On your benefits/401K website you should be able to adjust three sets of numbers: Some have you enter the current money as a percentage others allow you to enter it in dollars. They might limit the number of changes you can do in a month to the current money balances to avoid the temptation to try and time the market. These changes usually happen within 1 business day.  Regarding new and match money they could limit the lowest non zero percent to 5% or 10%, but they might allow numbers as low as 1%. These changes take place generally with the next paycheck.
The benefit of the 401K and IRAs are that reallocating and re balancing are easy. They don't want you to move the funds every day, but you are not locked in to your current allocations. The fact that you mentioned in a comment that you also have a Roth IRA means that you should look at all retirements as a whole.  Look at what options you have in the 401K and also what options you have with the IRA. Then determine the overall allocation between bonds, stocks, international, REIT, etc. Then use the mix of funds  in the IRA and 401K to meet that goal. Asking if the 401K should be small and mid cap only can't be answered without knowing not just your risk tolerances but the total money in the 401K and IRA.  Pick an allocation, map the available funds to that allocation. Rebalance every year. But review the allocation in a few years or after a life event such as: change of job, getting married, having kids, or buying a house.
There are not as many options here as you fear. If you have no other investments outside this 401K it is even easier. Outside accounts include IRA, Roth IRA, taxable investments (mutual funds, ETF, individual stocks), Employee stock purchase plans. Amount: make sure you put enough in to get all the company match. I assume that in your case the 9% will do so, but check your documents. The company match will be with pre-tax funds.  Roth vs Regular 401K? Most people in their lifetime will need a mix of Roth and Regular retirement accounts. You need to determine if it is better for you to pay the tax on your contributions now or later. Which accounts? If you are going to invest in a target date fund, you can ignore the rest of the options. The target date fund is a mixture of investments that will change over the decades. Calculate which one fits your expected retirement date and go with it. If you want to be able to control the mix, then you will need to pick several funds. The selection depends on what non-401K investments you have. Now here is what I considered the best advice.  Decide Roth or regular, and just put the money into the most appropriate target date fund with the Roth/regular split you want. Then after the money starts flowing into your account, research the funds involved, the fees for those funds, and how you want to invest. Then move the money into the funds you want. Don't waste another day deciding how to invest. Just get started. The best part of a 401K, besides the match, is that you can move money between funds without worrying about taxes. If you realize that you want to put extra emphasis on the foreign stocks, or Mid-cap; just move the funds and redirect future contributions.
"First, decide on your asset allocation; are you looking for a fund with 60% stocks/risky-stuff, or 40% or 20%? Second, look for funds that have a mix of stocks and bonds. Good keywords would be: ""target retirement,"" ""lifecycle,"" ""balanced,"" ""conservative/moderate allocation."" As you discover these funds, probably the fund website (but at least Morningstar.com) will tell you the percentage in stocks and risk assets, vs. in conservative bonds. Look for funds that have the percentage you decided on, or as close to it as possible. Third, build a list of funds that meet your allocation goal, and compare the details. Are they based on index funds, or are they actively managed? What is the expense ratio? Is the fund from a reputable company? You could certainly ask more questions here if you have several candidates and aren't sure how to choose. For investing in US dollars one can't-go-wrong choice is Vanguard and they have several suitable funds, but unfortunately if you spend in NIS then you should probably invest in that currency, and I don't know anything about funds in Israel. Update: two other options here. One is a financial advisor who agrees to do rebalancing for you. If you get a cheap one, it could be worth it. Two is that some 401k plans have an automatic rebalancing feature, where you have multiple funds but you can set it up so their computer auto-rebalances you. That's almost as good as having a single fund, though it does still encourage some ""mental accounting"" so you'd have to try to only look at the total balance, not the individual fund balances, over time. Anyway both of these could be alternatives ways to go on autopilot, besides a single fund."