Is it a good idea to rebalance without withdrawing money?
"Rebalancing has been studied empirically quite a bit, but not particularly carefully and actually turns out to be very hard to study well.  The main problem is that you don't know until afterward if your target weights were optimal so a bad rebalancing program might give better performance if it strayed closer to optimal weights even if it didn't do an efficient job of keeping near the target weights. In your particular case either method might be preferred depending on a number of things: You can see why there isn't a generally correct answer to your question and the results of empirical studies might very wildly depending on the mix of assets and risk tolerance.  Still if your portfolio is not too complicated you can estimate the costs of the two methods without too much trouble and figure out if it is worthwhile to you. EDIT In Response to Comment Below: Your example gets at what makes rebalancing so hard empirically but also generally pretty easy in practice.  If you were to target 75% Equity (25% bonds?) and look at returns only for 30 years the ""best"" rebalancing method would be to never rebalance and just let 75% equity go to near 100% as equity has better long term returns.  This happens when you look only at returns as the final number and don't take into account the change in risk in your portfolio. In practice, most people that are still adding (or subtracting in retirement) to a retirement portfolio are adding (removing) a significant amount compared to the total amount in their portfolio.  In the case you discribe, it is cheaper (massively cheaper in the presence of load fees) just to use new capital to trade toward your target, keeping your risk profile.  New money should be large enough to keep you near enough your target.  If you just estimate the trading costs/fees in both cases I think you'll see just how large the difference is between the two methods this will dwarf any small differences in return over the long run even if you can't trade back all the way to your target." Yes, rebalancing with new money avoids capital gains taxes and loads (although if you're financially literate enough to be thinking about rebalancing techniques, I'm surprised to hear that you're invested in funds with loads). On the other hand, if it's taking you years to rebalance, then: (a) you are not rebalancing anywhere near frequently enough.  Rebalancing should be something you do every 6 months or 1 year, such that it would take only a few weeks or maybe a month of new investment to get back in balance. (b) you will be out-of-balance for quite a long time, while the whole point of the theory of rebalancing is to always be mathematically prepared for swings in the market.  Any time spent out of balance represents that much more risk that an unexpected market move can seriously hurt your portfolio. You should weigh the time it will take you to rebalance the long way (i.e. the risk cost of not rebalancing immediately) vs. the taxes and fees involved in rebalancing quickly.  If you had said that it would take you only a couple weeks or a month to rebalance the long way, I would say that the long way is fine.  But the prospect of spending years without a balanced portfolio seems far more costly to me than any expenses you might incur rebalancing quickly. Since it's almost the end of the calendar year, have you considered doing two quick rebalances, one this year, and another in January?  That way half of the tax consequences would happen in April, and the other half not until the next April, giving you plenty of time to scrounge up the money.  Also, even if you have no capital losses this year with which to offset some of your expected capital gains, you would have all of next year to harvest some losses against next year's half of the rebalancing gains. There will quickly come a time when buying to rebalance is impractical. Consider, you save 10%, and at some point, you have 5x your income saved. (you earn $50K and have accumulated $250K). A simple allocation, 50/50, so $125K stock, $125K bonds. Now, in a year the market is up much over 4%, your $5K deposit will not be enough to balance. Earlier on, the method may work just fine, later on, not so much. Edit - The above is an example, to show that there will come a time when deposits are not enough to rebalance. The above single year produces a 52/48 split, and the rebalance deposits more than 2 years. If the market continues to rise a reasonable amount, 2 years later you are even more out of balance, perhaps 56/44.  I chose reasonable numbers as a starting point, just 5X income saved, and a 10% annual deposit. In the end, you can waive off any divergence from your target. That's your choice.
"The diversification offered by the advisor can easily be duplicated at Vanguard with something like the Ivy Portfolio. Simplify it or complicate it to your liking, with Vanguard index REITs, index stock funds, international, bond, etc. Set up automatic contributions and don't watch your money like a hawk. Set it and forget it, or maybe rebalance your holdings once a year. The main thing advisors are good for (at your level of assets) is persuading investors to stay in the market during a crash. Most investors will sell after a crash, and completely miss out on the rebound. It's human nature to be a terrible market timer. But if you can really promise yourself never to sell in a panic, then you don't need an advisor at your asset level. Fees like ""1.25%"" sound like a okay deal but should be viewed in context. With an average annual return of, say, 7%, a 1.25% fee represents nearly 18% of your gain for the year. And 1.25% may be the least of your fees - what about fees when you get out of the funds? (Neat trick, huh, calling a fee ""1.25%"" instead of ""~18%""..). Is active management worth 18% of your yearly gain? Your advisor's fee and the active funds' fees compound year after year, because they take the fees out of your account every year (or month)." In your entire question, the only time you mention that this is an investment inside an IRA is when you say Every quarter, six months, whatever Id have to rebalance my IRA while Vanguard would do this for the fund of funds without me needing to. Within an IRA, there are no tax implications to the rebalancing. But if this investment were not inside an IRA, then the rebalancing done by you will have tax implications. In particular, any gains realized when you sell shares in one fund and buy shares in another fund during the rebalancing process are subject to income tax. Similarly, losses also might be realized (and will affect your taxes). However, if you are invested in a fund of funds, there are no capital gains (or capital losses) when re-balancing is done; you have gains or losses only when you sell shares of the fund of funds for a price different than the price you paid for them. "I assume by that you mean gradually buying the same mix of funds over time.  If that's the case, there is no rational reason to do this.   Dollar-cost averaging is an artifact of the way most people fund their 401(k).  I would not consider it a viable ""strategy"".  (Neither does Wikipedia)  Let's say you have $100,000 that you add $10,000 at a time.  When you add money, one of three things can happen: Since you can't predict the future, there's no mathematical justification for buying in segments.  There's just as much chance that your funds will be worth more or less, so on average it should make little to no difference.   In fact, given the time value of money there is a slight  advantage to investing it all now so you can capture any future returns.  You can always rebalance later to capture gains on some funds and purchase funds that are down to (hopefully) catch them on a rebound." They can rebalance and often times at a random manager's discretion. ETF's are just funds, and funds all have their own conditions, read the prospectus, thats the only source of truth. "Rebalancing is, simply, a way of making sure your risk/reward level is where you want it to be. Let's say you've decided that your optimal mix is 50% stocks and 50% bonds (or 50% US stocks, 50% international, or 30/30/30 US large-cap/US small-cap/US midcap...).  So you buy $100 of each, but over time, the prices will of course fluctuate.  At the end of the year, the odds that the ratio of the value of your investments is equal to the starting ratio is nil.  So you rebalance to get your target mix again. Rebalance too often and you end up paying a lot in transaction fees.  Rebalance not often enough and you end up running outsize risk. People who tell you that you should rebalance to make money, or use ""dollar cost averaging"" or think there is any upside to rebalancing outside of risk management are making assumptions about the market (mean regressing or some such thing) that generally you should avoid." Yes, it's possible to withdraw money without penalty but you have to do it in a special way. For example you have to withdraw the same amount every year until you retire: Tapping Your IRA Penalty-Free  as for unstable economy - you can trade many instruments in your IRA. you can do bonds, mutual funds, stocks, ETFs or just keep it in cash. Some do well in bad economy. "The problem with daily-rebalanced ""inverse"" or ""leveraged"" ETFs is that since they rebalance every day, you can lose money even if your guess as to the market's direction is correct. Quoting from FINRA'S guide as to why these are a bad idea: How can this apparent breakdown between longer term index returns and ETF returns happen? Here’s a hypothetical example: let’s say that on Day 1, an index starts with a value of 100 and a leveraged ETF that seeks to double the return of the index starts at $100. If the index drops by 10 points on Day 1, it has a 10 percent loss and a resulting value of 90. Assuming it achieved its stated objective, the leveraged ETF would therefore drop 20 percent on that day and have an ending value of $80. On Day 2, if the index rises 10 percent, the index value increases to 99. For the ETF, its value for Day 2 would rise by 20 percent, which means the ETF would have a value of $96. On both days, the leveraged ETF did exactly what it was supposed to do—it produced daily returns that were two times the daily index returns. But let’s look at the results over the 2 day period: the index lost 1 percent (it fell from 100 to 99) while the 2x leveraged ETF lost 4 percent (it fell from $100 to $96). That means that over the two day period, the ETF's negative returns were 4 times as much as the two-day return of the index instead of 2 times the return. That example is for ""just"" leveraging 2x in the same direction. Inverse funds have the same kind of issue. An example from Bogleheads Wiki page on these kinds of funds says that over 12/31/2007 to 12/31/2010, The funds do exactly what they say on any given day. But any losses get ""locked in"" each day. While normally a 50% loss needs a 100% gain to get back to a starting point, a fund like this needs more than a 100% gain to get back to its starting point. The result of these funds across multiple days doesn't match the index it's matching over those several days, and you won't make money over the long term. Do look at the further examples at the links I've referenced above, or do your own research into the performance of these funds during time periods both when the market is going up and going down. Also refer to these related and/or duplicate questions:" I do this very thing, but with asset allocation and risk parity in mind. I disagree with the cash or bust answers above, but many of the aforementioned facts are valuable and I don't mean to undermine them in anyway. That said, let's look at two examples: Option 1: All-in For the sake of argument let's say you had $100k invested in the SPY (S&P 500 ETF) in early 2007, and you kept it there until today. Your lowest balance would have been about $51k, and at this point the possibility of you losing your job was probably at a peak. Today you would be left with $170k assuming no withdrawal. Option 2: Risk Parity BUT if you balanced your investments with a risk parity approach, using negatively correlated asset classes you avoid this dilemma. If you had invested 50% in XLP (Consumer Staples Sector ETF) and 50% in TLT ( Long Term Treasury ETF) your investments low point would have been $88k, and your lowest annual return would be +0.69%. Today you would be left with $214k assuming no withdrawals.  I chose option #2 and it hasn't failed me yet, even in 2016 so far the results are steady and reliably given the reward. My general opinion is simple: when you have money always grow it. Just be sure to cover your ass and prepare for rain. Backtesting for this was done at portfoliovisualizer.com, the one caveat to this approach is that inflation and a lack of international exposure are a risk here. Rebalance is across asset-classes which are mutually independent [like stocks and bonds; they may be inversely correlated at times as when stocks go down, bonds go up] 80%-20% (stock-bond) split is good for a young investor [say in 30s, some suggest 110-age as a good stock allocation percentage]. Here rebalance is done when say the asset-allocation(AA) strays away more than say 3 to 5% (again just a rule of thumb). E.g. if due to a recent run-up in stocks, AA could become 85%-15%. Then you sell stocks to buy bonds to make the AA 80%-20% And since this method always sells the winner -- you automatically make gains [selling high and buying low] S&P 500 index gives decent diversification within stocks; you want a total-bond-fund to take care of the bond side of your AA. "My feeling is that you're basically agreeing to throw away a bucket of money for a lesson that doesn't have to cost a penny. Like another commenter said, you're putting the cart before the horse.  I once asked a similar question to a seasoned investor, though I wasn't in the position to toss my hard-earned cash into the well yet. He told me that the difference between the winners and losers is that the winners don't need the money. I'm not trying to say that there's a ""rich keep getting richer ..."" component here, while schlubs like me get nada.  The real nugget of wisdom he offered was that if anyone wants to do well as investors, we must invest in a way that we're not dependent on the money we have in the market. Instead, manage risk carefully so that you don’t get swept up in the emotional highs and lows.  For you, what I applaud is that you're willing to do your research first. And part of that should be anticipating how you will handle the anxiety when you put your money in at the wrong time or get out a little later than you should.  What I understand now is that you don’t need to be wealthy to “not need the money.” You just need to invest smartly and leave your emotions out of it." "Doesn't ""no rebalancing"" mean ""start with a portfolio and let it fly?""  Seems like incorporation of rebalancing is more sophisticated than not. Just ""buy"" your portfolio at the start and see where it ends up with no buying/selling, as compared with where it ends up if you do rebalance. Or is it not that simple?" You're trying to mitigate the risk of having your investments wiped out by fraud committed by your broker by using margin loans to buy stock secured by other, non-cash assets in your account. The solution that you are proposing does not make any sense at all. You mitigate a very low probability/high impact risk by doing something that comes with a high probability/medium impact risk.  In addition to interest costs, holding stocks on margin subjects you to the very real risk of being forced to sell assets at inopportune times to meet margin calls. Given the volatility that the markets are experiencing in 2011, there is a high risk that some irrational decision in Greece could wipe you out. If I were worried about this, I would: If you have enough money that SIPC protection limits are an issue, you desperately need a financial adviser. Do not implement any strategy involving margin loans until you talk to a qualified adviser. It is a dangerous policy not to have a balance across the terms of assets. Short term reserves should remain in short term investments because they are most likely needed in the short term.  The amount can be shaved according to the probability of their respective needs, but long term asset variance usually exceed the probability of needing to use reserves. For example, replacing one month bonds paying essentially nothing with stocks that should be expected to return 9% will expose oneself to a possible sudden 50% loss.  If cash is indeed so abundant that reserves can be doubled, this policy can be expected to be stable; however, cash is normally scarce.  It is a risky policy to place reserves that have a 20% chance of being 100% liquidated into investments that have a 20% chance of declining by approximately 50% just for a chance of an extra 9% annual return. Financial stability should always be of primary concern with rate of return secondary only after stability has been reasonably assured. How should we disregard leverage when it's the leverage that creates the 'wipe-out' potential? If you simply convert 100K EUR to USDollars, you dollars might then fluctuate a few thousand, maybe even 10K over a year, but the guy that only put up 1000 EUR to do this has a disproportionally higher risk. "Here's a dump from what I use. Some are a bit more expensive than those that you posted. The second column is the expense ratio. The third column is the category I've assigned in my spreadsheet -- it's how I manage my rebalancing among different classes. ""US-LC"" is large cap, MC is mid cap, SC is small cap. ""Intl-Dev"" is international stocks from developed economies, ""Emer"" is emerging economies. These have some overlap. I don't have a specific way to handle this, I just keep an eye on the overall picture. (E.g. I don't overdo it on, say, BRIC + Brazil or SPY + S&P500 Growth.) The main reason for each selection is that they provide exposure to a certain batch of securities that I was looking for. In each type, I was also aiming for cheap and/or liquid like you. If there are substitutes I should be looking at for any of these that are cheaper and/or more liquid, a comment would be great. High Volume: Mid Volume (<1mil shares/day): Low Volume (<50k shares/day): These provide enough variety to cover the target allocation below. That allocation is just for retirement accounts; I don't consider any other savings when I rebalance against this allocation. When it's time to rebalance (i.e. a couple of times a year when I realize that I haven't done it in several months), I update quotes, look at the percentages assigned to each category, and if anything is off the target by more than 1% point I will buy/sell to adjust. (I.e. if US-LC is 23%, I sell enough to get back to 20%, then use the cash to buy more of something else that is under the target. But if US-MC is 7.2% I don't worry about it.) The 1% threshold prevents unnecessary trading costs; sometimes if everything is just over 1% off I'll let it slide. I generally try to stay away from timing, but I do use some of that extra cash when there's a panic (after Jan-Feb '09 I had very little cash in the retirement accounts). I don't have the source for this allocation any more, but it is the result of combining a half dozen or so sample allocations that I saw and tailoring it for my goals."