Vanguard Mutual Funds — Diversification vs Share Class
"If I were in your shoes I'd probably take the Vanguard Total Market fund with Admiral shares, then worry about further diversification when there is more in the account. Many times when you ""diversify"" in to multiple funds you end up with a lot of specific security overlap.  A lot of the big S&P 500 constituents will be in all of them, etc.  So while the 10 or so basis points difference in expense ratio doesn't seem like enough of a reason NOT to spread in to multiple funds, once you split up the money between Large, Mid, Small cap funds and Growth, Value, Dividend funds you'll probably have a collection of holdings that looks substantially similar to a total market fund anyway. Unless you're looking for international or some specific industry segment exposure and all of the money is going to equities anyway, an inexpensive total market fund makes a lot of sense." There's really no right or wrong answer here because you'll be fine either way. If you've investing amounts in the low 5 figures you're likely just getting started, and if your asset allocation is not optimal it's not that big a deal because you have a long time horizon to adjust it, and the expense ratio differences here won't add up to that much. A third option is Vanguard ETFs, which have the expense ratio of Admiral Shares but have lower minimums (i.e. the cost of a single share, typically on the order of $100). However, they are a bit more advanced than mutual funds in that they trade on the market and require you to place orders rather than just specifying the amount you want to buy. A downside here is you might end up with a small amount of cash that you can't invest, since you can initially only buy whole numbers of ETFs shares. So what I'd recommend is buying roughly the correct number of ETFs shares you want except for your largest allocation, then use the rest of your cash on Admiral Shares of that (if possible). For example, let's say you have $15k to invest and you want to be 2/3 U.S. stock, 1/6 international stock, and 1/6 U.S. bond. I would buy as many shares of VXUS (international stock ETF) and BND (U.S. bond ETF) as you can get for $2500 each, then whatever is left over (~$10k) put into VTSAX (U.S. stock Admiral Shares mutual fund). "In general, I'd try to keep things as simple as possible. If your plan is to have a three-fund portfolio (like Total Market, Total International, and Bond), and keep those three funds in general, then having it separated now and adding them all as you invest more is fine. (And upgrade to Admiral Shares once you hit the threshold for it.) Likewise, just putting it all into Total Market as suggested in another answer, or into something like a Target Retirement fund, is just fine too for that amount. While I'm all in favor of as low expense ratios as possible, and it's the kind of question I might have worried about myself not that long ago, look at the actual dollar amount here. You're comparing 0.04% to 0.14% on $10,000. That 0.1% difference is $10 per year. Any amount of market fluctuation, or buying on an ""up"" day or selling on a ""down"" day, is going to pretty much dwarf that amount. By the time that difference in expense ratios actually amounts to something that's worth worrying about, you should have enough to get Admiral Shares in all or at least most of your funds. In the long run, the amount you manage to invest and your asset allocation is worth much much more than a 0.1% expense ratio difference. (Now, if you're going to talk about some crazy investment with a 2% expense ratio or something, that's another story, but it's hard to go wrong at Vanguard in that respect.)"
Half VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF) and half VEU (Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF), and stop futzing.  The US is roughly half the world market cap so this is like a total world equity index.  Very low costs. VTI Expense ratio is 0.04% as of 04/27/2017. I don't know what you mean by RSG, but it could be either a waste processor or a gold miner. Either way it seems kind of speculative to hold even 10% of your wealth. Where are you planning on buying this ETF?  I'm guessing it's directly through Vanguard?  If so, that's likely your first reason - the majority of brokerage accounts charge a commission per trade for ETFs (and equities) but not for mutual funds.   Another reason is that people who work in the financial industry (brokerages, mutual fund companies, etc) have to request permission for every trade before placing an order.  This applies to equities and ETFs but does not apply to mutual funds.  It's common for a request to be denied (if the brokerage has inside information due to other business lines they'll block trading, if a mutual fund company is trading the same security they'll block trading, etc) without an explanation.  This can happen for months.  For these folks it's typically easier to use mutual funds. So, if someone can open an account with Vanguard and doesn't work in the financial industry then I agree with your premise.  The Vanguard Admiral shares have a much lower expense, typically very close to their ETFs. Source:  worked for a brokerage and mutual fund company "I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or something like that. Well, this isn't a meaningful distinction. The mutual fund may or may not be in an IRA. Similarly, the mutual fund may or may not be in a 401(k), however. So I'm going to treat your question as if it's ""why would a person get a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or something like that in an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into the same mutual fund in a 401(k)."" Same mutual fund, same amount of money, narrowing your question to the difference between the two types of accounts, as stated in your question's title. Others have answered that to the extent that you really have no choice other than ""pick which type of account to use for a given bundle of money"", other than nobody having mentioned the employer match. Even if there were no other difference at all in tax treatment, it's pretty typical that 401(k) contributions will be matched by free money from the employer. No IRA can compete with that. But, that's not the only choice either: Many of us contribute to both the 401(k) and the IRA. Why? Because we can. I'm not suggesting that just-anybody can, but, if you max out the employer matching in the 401(k), or if you max out the tax-advantaged contribution limit in the 401(k), and you still have more money that you want to save in a tax-advantaged retirement account this year, you can do so. The IRA is available, it's not ""instead-of"" the 401(k)." "So it's not always what degree of risk you want be exposed to, but what *type* of risk. So let's say you were happy with the S&amp;P 500 ETF but you wanted to avoid oil stocks, so you combine that ETF with some derivatives that profit if oil goes down and you will outperform the S&amp;P 500 on a net basis.  Hedge funds can be very crafty with what exposure they want. They include a LOT of different strategies, so it's kind of incorrect to group them into one ""asset class"" per se.  As for the question if hedge funds are worth it? Well if the market tanks, you might find your hedge fund's performance to be very positive (ex: Kyle Bass made big money with the crisis)." Vanguard (and probably other mutual fund brokers as well) offers easy-to-read performance charts that show the total change in value of a $10K investment over time.  This includes the fair market value of the fund plus any distributions (i.e. dividends) paid out.  On Vanguard's site they also make a point to show the impact of fees in the chart, since their low fees are their big selling point. Some reasons why a dividend is preferable to selling shares: no loss of voting power, no transaction costs, dividends may have better tax consequences for you than capital gains. NOTE:  If your fund is underperforming the benchmark, it is not due to the payment of dividends.  Funds do not pay their own dividends; they only forward to shareholders the dividends paid out by the companies in which they invest.  So the fair market value of the fund should always reflect the fair market value of the companies it holds, and those companies' shares are the ones that are fluctuating when they pay dividends. If your fund is underperforming its benchmark, then that is either because it is not tracking the benchmark closely enough or because it is charging high fees.  The fact that the underperformance you're seeing appears to be in the amount of dividends paid is a coincidence. Check out this example Vanguard performance chart for an S&P500 index fund.  Notice how if you add the S&P500 index benchmark to the plot you can't even see the difference between the two -- the fund is designed to track the benchmark exactly.  So when IBM (or whoever) pays out a dividend, the index goes down in value and the fund goes down in value. I would recommend using growth/value/income/bond based asset allocation because your goal is to find asset classes that have different performance trends (when 1 is up, the other is down and vice-versa).    If you chose Domestic, US stocks and diversified between Med Cap and Large Cap stocks, they would not exactly mirror each other, but they would roughly rise and fall at the same time, preventing you from taking full advantage of diversification, increasing risk and lowering returns. "This paper by a Columbia business school professor says: The standard 60%/40% strategy outperforms a 100% bond or 100% stock strategy over the 1926-1940 period (Figure 5) and over the 1990-2011 period (Figure 6). This is based on actual market data from those periods.  You can see the figures in the PDF.  These are periods of 14 and 21 years, which is perhaps shorter than the amount of time money would sit in your IRA, but still a fairly long time.  The author goes on with a lot of additional discussion and claims that ""under certain conditions, rebalancing will always outperform a buy-and-hold portfolio given sufficient time"". Of course, there are also many periods over which a given asset mix would underperform, so there are no guarantees here.  I read your question as asking ""is there any data suggesting that rebalancing a diversified portfolio can outperform an all-in-one-asset-class portfolio"".  There is some such data.  However, if you're asking which investing strategy you should actually choose, you'd want to look at a lot of data on both sides.  You're unlikely to find data that ""proves"" anything conclusively either way. It should also be noted that the rebalancing advantage described here (and in your question) is not specific to bonds.  For instance, in theory, rebalancing between US and international stocks could show a similar advantage over an all-US or all-non-US portfolio. The paper contains a lot of additional discussion about rebalancing.  It seems that your question is really about whether rebalancing a diverse portfolio is better than going all-in with one asset class, and this question is touched on throughout the paper.  The author mentions that diversification and rebalancing strategies should be chosen not solely for their effect on mathematically-calculated returns, but for their match with your psychological makeup and tolerance for risk." "You have many alternatives to the funds you mentioned. It is actually very unusual for ETFs to have such high denominations. Possible alternative: iShares IVV What would you recommend I do with $1000? A diversified index fund is a great equity investment for the long run but might be considered ""boring"" by newcomers who think of equity markets as something more exciting. Maybe add a share or two, small ones, just to show the differences to the fund. This wouldn't be called wise investing but it certainly would have an educational effect. Except if this money is all you saved for your daughter, then don't gamble any of it." No, there is no real advantage. The discrepancies in how they track the index will (generally) be so small that this provides very, very limited diversification, while increasing the complexity of your investments. "There are several reasons. One, mutual funds provide instant diversification.  To build a diverse portfolio ""manually"" (by buying individual shares) requires a lot of time and effort.  If your portfolio is not diverse, then it is wrong to say ""buying shares gives higher return""; in many cases diversification will increase your returns. Two, mutual funds reduce transactions costs.  If you buy individual shares, you pay transactions costs every time you buy or sell.  If you buy and sell the shares of many companies, you must perform many transactions and thus incur heavy fees.  With mutual funds, a single transaction gets you access to many companies.  In addition, it is often possible to buy mutual funds without paying transactions costs at all (although you will still pay fund expenses). Three (sort of a combination of the previous two) it is just easier.  Many people can easily buy mutual funds with no cost and little effort through their bank.  It is also simple to set up auto-investment plans so that you automatically save money over time.  All of these things are much more complicated if you try to buy many individual shares. Four, if you buy the right kinds of funds (low-cost index funds), it is probably more lucrative than buying individual shares.  The odds that, through carefully selected stock-buying, you will earn more than the market average are small.  Even professional stock-pickers consistently underperform broad market indexes. In short, it is not true that ""buying shares gives higher return"", and even if it were, the convenience and diversification of mutual funds would still be good reasons to use them." Classes of shares are not necessarily standardized. Some share classes have preference above others in the event of a liquidation. Some share classes represent a different proportion of ownership interest. Any time you see multiple share classes, you need to research what is different for that specific corporation. and seems to do better than the S&P 500 too. No, that's not true. In fact, this fund is somewhere between S&P500 and the NASDAQ Composite indexes wrt to performance. From my experience (I have it too), it seems to fall almost in the middle between SPY and QQQ in daily moves. So it does provide diversification, but you're basically diversifying between various indexes. The cost is the higher expense ratios (compare VTI to VOO). "In case other people arrive at this page wondering whether they should enable automatic reinvestment of dividends and capital gains for taxable (non-retirement) accounts (which is what I was searching for when I first arrived on this page): You might want to review https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Reinvesting_dividends_in_a_taxable_account and http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2011/01/26/why-you-shouldnt-automatically-reinvest-dividends/. The general idea is that--assuming you plan to regularly manually rebalance your portfolio to ensure that all of the ""pieces of the pie"" are the relative sizes that you want--there are approaches you can use to minimize taxes (and also fees, although at Vanguard I don't think that's a concern) if you choose a ""SpecID cost basis"" and manual reinvestment. Then you can go to ""Change your dividends and capital gains distribution elections"" at https://personal.vanguard.com/us/DivCapGainAccountSelection." You're missing the concept of systemic risk, which is the risk of the entire market or an entire asset class. Diversification is about achieving a balance between risk and return that's appropriate for you. Your investment in Vanguard's fund, although diversified between many public companies, is still restricted to one asset class in one country. Yes, you lower your risk by investing in all of these companies, but you don't erase it entirely.  Clearly, there is still risk, despite your diversification. You may decide that you want other investments or a different asset allocation that reduce the overall risk of your portfolio. Over the long run, you may earn a high level of return, but never forget that there is still risk involved. bonds seem pretty worthless, at least until I retire According to your profile, you're about my age. Our cohort will probably begin retiring sometime around 2050 or later, and no one knows what the bond market will look like over the next 40 years. We may have forecasts for the next few years, but not for almost four decades. Writing off an entire asset class for almost four decades doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, bonds are like equity, and all other asset classes, in that there are different levels of risk within the asset class too. When calculating the overall risk/return profile of my portfolio, I certainly don't consider Treasuries as the same risk level as corporate bonds or high-yield (or junk) bonds from abroad.  Depending on your risk preferences, you may find that an asset allocation that includes US and/or international bonds/fixed-income, international equities, real-estate, and cash (to make rebalancing your asset allocation easier) reduces your risk to levels you're willing to tolerate, while still allowing you to achieve returns during periods where one asset class, e.g. equities, is losing value or performing below your expectations. Yes, each of Vanguard's mutual funds looks only at its own shares when deciding to upgrade/downgrade the shares to/from Admiral status. To the best of my knowledge, if you hold a fund in an IRA as well as a separate investment,  the shares are not totaled in deciding whether or not the shares are accorded Admiral shares status; each account is considered separately.  Also, for many funds, the minimum investment value is not $10K but is much larger (used to be $100K a long time ago, but recently the rules have been relaxed somewhat).