How to decide on split between large/mid/small cap on 401(k) and how often rebalance
I really like keshlam's answer. Your age is also a consideration. If you make your own target fund by matching the allocations of whatever Vanguard offers, I'd suggest re-balancing every year or every other year. But if you're just going to match the allocations of their target fund, you might as well just invest in the target fund itself. Most (not all, just most) target funds do not charge an additional management fee. So you just pay the fees of the underlying funds, same as if you mirrored the target fund yourself. (Check the prospectus to see if an additional fee is charged or not.) You may want to consider a more aggressive approach than the target funds. You can accomplish this by selecting a target fund later than your actual retirement age, or by picking your own allocations. The target funds become more conservative as you approach retirement age, so selecting a later target is a way of moving the risk/reward ratio. (I'm not saying target funds are necessarily the best choice, you should get professional advice, etc etc.) "It's a trade-off. The answer depends on your risk tolerance. Seeking higher rewards demands higher risk. If you want advice, I would recommend hiring an expert to design a plan which meets your needs. As a sample point, NOT necessarily right for anyone else...I'm considered an aggressive investor, and my own spread is still more conservative than many folks. I'm entirely in low-cost index funds, distributed as ... with the money tied up in a ""quiesced"" defined-contribution pension fund being treated as a low-yield bond. Some of these have beaten the indexes they're tracking, some haven't. My average yield since I started investing has been a bit over 10%/year (not including the company match on part of the 401k), which I consider Good Enough -- certainly good enough for something that requires near-zero attention from me. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance. This may be completely wrong for someone at a different point in their career and/or life and/or finances. I'm posting it only as an example, NOT a recommendation.  Regarding when to rebalance: Set some threshhold at which things have drifted too far from your preferred distribution (value of a fund being 5% off its target percentage in the mix is one rule I've sometimes used), and/or pick some reasonable (usually fairly low) frequency at which you'll actively rebalance (once a year, 4x/year, whenever you change your car's oil, something like that), and/or rebalance by selecting which funds you deposit additional money into whenever you're adding to the investments. Note that that last option avoids having to take capital gains, which is generally a good thing; you want as much of your profit to be long-term as possible, and to avoid triggering the ""wash sales"" rule. Generally, you do not have to rebalance very frequently unless you are doing something that I'd consider unreasonably risky, or unless you're managing such huge sums that a tiny fraction of a percent still adds up to real money." Slice and Dice would have the approach for dividing things up into 25% of large/small and growth/value that is one way to go. Bogleheads also have more than a few splits ranging from 2 funds to nearly 10 funds on high end. "One other thing to consider, particularly with Vanguard, is the total dollar amount available.  Vanguard has ""Admiralty"" shares of funds which offer lower expense ratios, around 15-20% lower, but require a fairly large investment in each fund (often 10k) to earn the discounted rate.  It is a tradeoff between slightly lower expense ratios and possibly a somewhat less diverse holding if you are relatively early in your savings and only have say 20-30k (which would mean 2 or 3 Admiralty share funds only)." There many asset allocation strategies to chose from that beat lifestyle funds. For example: Relative Strength Asset Allocation keeps your money in Stocks when stocks perform well, bonds when they outperform stocks, and cash when both bonds and stocks are under-performing.   The re-allocation happens on a monthly basis.
The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Twain I use index funds in my retirement planning, but don't stick to just S&P 500 index funds. Suppose I balance my money 50/50 between Small Cap and Large Cap and say I have $10,000.  I'd buy $5,000 of an S&P Index fund and $5,000 of a Russell 2000 index fund. Now, fast forward a year.  Suppose the S&P Index fund has $4900 and the Russell Index fund has $5200.   Sell $150 of Russell Index Fund and buy $150 of S&P 500 Index funds to balance.  Repeat that activity every 12-18 months.  This lets you be hands off (index fund-style) on your investment choices but still take advantage of great markets.   This way, I can still rebalance to sell high and buy low, but I'm not stressing about an individual stock or mutual fund choice. You can repeat this model with more categories, I chose two for the simplicity of explaining. "For what it's worth, the distribution I'm currently using is roughly ... with about 2/3 of the money sitting in my 401(k). I should note that this is actually considered a moderately aggressive position. I need to phone my advisor (NOT a broker, so they aren't biased toward things which are more profitable for them) and check whether I've gotten close enough to retirement that I should readjust those numbers. Could I do better? Maybe, at higher risk and higher fees that would be likely to eat most of the improved returns. Or by spending far more time micromanaging my money than I have any interest in. I've validated this distribution using the various stochastic models and it seems to work well enough that I'm generally content with it. (As I noted in a comment elsewhere, many of us will want to get up into this range before we retire -- I figure that if I hit $1.8M I can probably sustain my lifestyle solely on the income, despite expected inflation, and thus be safely covered for life -- so this isn't all that huge a chunk of cash by today's standards. Cue Daffy Duck: ""I'm rich! I'm wealthy! I'm comfortably well off!"" -- $2M, these days, is ""comfortably well off."")" "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." "That's a lot of manual checking-in to see if everything is performing the way you ""want"". Not to insult your intelligence, but that is not your job, and doing that on a monthly basis is going to eat a lot of time. Plus, most 401(k) programs have lockout periods wherein changes can't be made without incurring additional fees (related to distributions, etc). And if you're checking that often, you are [likely] losing the benefits of investing in mutual funds to start with. If you have the stomach to handle the risk, go for the high-risk investment vehicles early in your career - you can afford a 30% drop this year if you then make 105%, 15%, or 50% back each of the next 5. If, on the other hand, you're in your mid-career, switch to more conservative management tactics." "Before anything, I see that no one mentioned the one thing about 401(k) accounts that's just shy of magic - The matching deposit. In 2015, 42% of companies offered a dollar for dollar match on deposits. Can't beat that.  (Note - to respond to Xalorous' comment, the $18K OP deposits can be nearly any percent of his income. The typical match is 'up to' 6% of gross income. If that's the case, the 401(k) deposits are doubled. But say he makes $100K. The $18K deposit will see a $6K match. This adds a layer of complexity to the answer that I preferred to avoid, as I show with no match at all, and no change in tax brackets, the deferral alone shows value to the investor.) On to the main answer - Let's pull out a spreadsheet -  We start with $10,000, and assume the 25% bracket. This gives a choice of $10,000 in the 401(k) or $7500 in the taxable account. Next, let 20 years pass, with 10% return each year. The 401(k) sees the full 10% and after 20 years, $67K. The taxable account owner waits to get the 15% cap gain rate and adjusts portfolio, thus seeing an 8.5% return each year and carrying no ongoing gains. After 20 years of 8.5% returns, he has $38K net. The 401(k) owner on withdrawal pays the 25% tax and has $50K, still more than 25% more money that the taxable account. Because transactions within the account were all tax deferred.  EDIT - With respect to davmp's comment, I'll offer the other extreme -  In his comment, he (rightly) objected that I chose to trade every year, although I did assign the long term 15% cap gain rate, he felt the annual trade was my attempt to game the analysis. Above, I offer his extreme case, a 10% return each year, no trade, no dividend. Just a cap gain at the end. The 401(k) still wins. I also left the tax (on the 401(k)) at withdrawal at 25%, when in fact, much, if not all will be taxed at 15% or lower, which would put the net at $57K or 30% above the taxable account final withdrawal.  The next issue I'd bring up is that the 401(k) is taken out at the top (marginal) tax rate, e.g. a single filer with taxable income over $37,650 (in 2016) would save 25% on that 401(k) deduction. Of course if the deduction pulls you under that line, I'd go Roth or taxable. But, withdrawals start at zero. Today, a single retiree has a standard deduction ($4050) and exemption ($6300) for a total $10,350 ""zero bracket"" with the next $9275 taxed at 10%. This points to needing $500K in pre tax accounts before withdrawals each year would get you past the 10% bracket. (This comes from the suggestion of using 4% as an annual withdrawal rate).  Last - the tax discussion has 2 major points in time, deposit and withdrawal, of course. But, the answers here all ignore all the time in between.  In between, you see that for any number of reasons, you'll drop from the 25% bracket to 15% that year. That's the time to convert a bit of money to Roth and 'top off' the 15% bracket. It can happen due to job loss, marriage with new spouse either not working or having lower income, new baby, house purchase, etc.  Or in-between, a disability put you out of work. That permits you to take money out with no penalty, and little chance of paying even the 25% that you paid going in. This, from personal experience with a family member, funded a 401(k) with 28% money. Then divorced and disabled, able to take the $10K/yr to supplement worker's comp (non taxed) income." Dollar cost averaging is an great way to diversify your investment risk.  There's mainly 2 things you want to achieve when you're saving for retirement: 1) Keep your principal investment; 2) Grow it.  The best methods recommended by most financial institutions are as follows:  1) Diversification;  2) Re-balance. There are a lot of additional recommendations, but these are my main take away.  When you dollar cost average, you're essentially diversifying your exchange risk between the value of the funds you're investing.   Including the ups and downs of the value of the underlying asset, may actually be re-balancing.  Picking your asset portfolio: 1) You generally want to include within your 401k or any other invest, classes of investments that do not always move in total correlation as this allows you to diversify risk; 2) I'm making a lot of assumptions here - since you may have already picked your asset classes.  Consider utilizing the following to tell you when to buy or sell your underlying investment: 1) Google re-balance excel sheet to find several examples of re-balance tools to help you always buy low and sell high;   2) Enter your portfolio investment; 3) Utilize the movement to invest in the underlying assets based on market movement; and 4) Execute in an emotionless way and stick to your plan.  Example -  Facts 1) I have 1 CAD and 1 USD in my 401k.  Plan I will invest 1 dollar in the ratio of 50/50 - forever.   Let's start in 2011 since we were closer to par: 2010 - 1 CAD (value 1 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 50/50 ratio 2011 start  - 1 CAD ( value .8 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 40/60 ratio 2011 - rebalance - invest 1 USD as follows purchase .75 CAD (.60 USD) and purchase .40 USD = total of 1 USD reinvested 2011 end - 1.75 CAD (value 1.4USD) and 1.4 USD (value 1.4 USD) - 50/50 ratio As long as the fundamentals of your underlying assets (i.e. you're not expecting hyperinflation or your asset to approach 0), this approach will always build value over time since you're always buying low and selling high while dollar averaging.  Keep in mind it does reduce your potential gains - but if you're looking to max gain, it may mean you're also max potential loss - unless you're able to find A symmetrical investments.  I hope this helps. Taxes  Based on the numbers you quoted (-$360) it doesn't appear that you would have a taxable event if you sell all the shares in the account.  If you only sell some of the shares, to fund the new account, you should specify which shares you want to sell. If you sell only the shares that you bought when share prices were high, then every share you sell could be considered a loss. This will increase your losses. These losses can be deducted from your taxes, though there are limits. Fees Make sure that you understand the fee structure. Some fund families look at the balance of all your accounts to determine your fee level, others treat each fund separately.  Procedure If you were able to get the 10K into the new account in the next few months I would advise not selling the shares. Because it will be 6 to 18 months before you are able to contribute the new funds then rebalancing by selling shares makes more sense. It gets you to your goal quicker.  All the funds you mentioned have low expense ratios, I wouldn't move funds just to chase a the lowest expense ratio. I would look at the steps necessary to get the mix you want in the next few weeks, and then what will be needed moving forward. If the 60/40 or 40/60 split makes you comfortable pick one of them. If you want to be able to control the balance via rebalancing or changing your contribution percentage, then go with two funds. I do the same thing with my 401k (100% S&P 500). My strategy is to check it weekly.  If the S&P falls by 10%-20% (based on risk tolerance, currently mine is 19%). I'll move all of it out into cash until I see 3-consecutive months of gains, then I'll get back in. I don't have a lot of time to manage my investments, and this was the simplest strategy I've come up with so far.  It served me very well in the 2008 crash. I got out around 120 and returned to the S&P on 2009-06-29 around 90. Interesting, but I don't think we are talking the same thing. This seems to say that that the fund itself doesn't have the rule applied: I.E. the MF can't get hit with the 5% commission when you buy it.  That makes sense.  What I'm asking though is that when my (say) American Fund that I own already does a rebalance, the constituent holdings change. Those securities are not exempt from the rule and thus when they are transacted can have commissions applied.  As a matter of fact the broker for those securities has no idea if the fund is eligible or not.   Where did you get this from? As I'm. It studying for a series 7 I'm probably missing some foundational sources. "There are probably 3-4 questions here.  Diversification - A good index, a low cost S&P fund or ETF can serve you very well. If you add an extended market index or just go with ""Total market"", that might be it for your stock allocation. I've seen people with 5 funds, and it didn't take much analysis to see the overlap was so significant, that the extra 4 funds added little, and 2 of the 5 would have been it. If you diversify by buying more ETFs or funds, be sure to see what they contain.  If you can go back in time, buy Apple, Google, Amazon, etc, and don't sell them. Individual stocks are fun to pick, but unless you put in your homework, are tough to succeed at. You need to be right at the buy side, and again to know if, and when, to sell. I bought Apple, for example, long ago, pre-last few splits. But, using responsible a approach, I sold a bit each time it doubled. Has I kept it all through the splits, I'd have $1M+ instead of the current $200K or so of stock. Can you tell which companies now have that kind of potential for the future?  The S&P has been just about double digit over 60 years. The average managed fund will lag the S&P over time, many will be combined with other funds or just close. Even with huge survivor bias, managed funds can't beat the index over time, on average. Aside from a small portion of stocks I've picked, I'm happy to get S&P less .02% in my 401(k). In aggregate, people actually do far worse due to horrific timing and some odd thing, called emotions." "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." "I can't find a decent duplicate, so here are some general guidelines: First of all by ""stocks"" the answers generally mean ""equities"" which could be either single stocks or mutual funds that consist of stocks. Unless you have lots of experience that can help you discern good stocks from bad, investing in mutual funds reduces the risk considerably. If you want to fine-tune the plan, you can weigh certain categories higher to change your risk/return profile (e.g. equity funds will have higher returns and risk than fixed income (bond) funds, so if you want to take a little more risk you can put more in equity funds and less in fixed income funds). Lastly, don't stress too much over the individual investments.  The most important thing is that you get as much company match as you can.  You cannot beat the 100% return that comes from a company match. The allocation is mostly insignificant compared to that.  Plus you can probably change your allocation later easily and cheaply if you don't like it. Disclaimer:  these are _general_ guidelines for 401(k) investing in general and not personal advice." Call up vanguard and tell them you want to do a rollover.  They walk you through the process.  Spend some time on reading up on asset allocation and benefits of indexing.   1.5% every year is steep and what do you have in return?  The advisor's word that he'll make it up.  How much did he manage to return during the last lost decade?   It's a lose-win situation.  He'll get his 1.5% no matter how the market does but that's not the deal you are getting. Go with Vanguard.  You are already thinking correctly - diversification, rebalancing, low cost! You can only contribute up to 5% of your salary? Odd. Usually 401(k) contributions are limited to some dollar amount in the vicinity of $15,000 or so a year. Normal retirement guidelines suggest that putting away 10-15% of your salary is enough that you probably won't need to worry much when you retire. 5% isn't likely to be enough, employer match or no. I'd try to contribute 10-15% of my salary. I think you're reading the rules wrong. I'm almost certain. It's definitely worth checking. If you're not, you should seriously consider supplementing this saving with a Roth IRA or just an after-tax account.  So. If you're with Fidelity and don't know what to do, look for a target date fund with a date near your retirement (e.g. Target Retirement 2040) and put 100% in there until you have a better idea of what going on. All Fidelity funds have pretty miserable expense ratios, even their token S&P500 index fund from another provider, so you might as let them do some leg work and pick your asset allocation for you. Alternatively, look for the Fidelity retirement planner tools on their website to suggest an asset allocation. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, as you're saving for retirement you'll want to have N% of your portfolio in bonds and the rest in stocks, where N is your age in years. Your stocks should probably be split about 70% US and 30% rest-of-world, give or take, and your US stocks should be split about 64% large-cap, 28% mid-cap and 8% small-cap (that's basically how the US stock market is split). "Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at ""Fidelity Low-Priced Stock"" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, ""I'll stay the course,"" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, ""I don't need any drugs,"" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, ""I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,"" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the ""sure thing"" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do."