What else besides fees should I consider in rebalancing my fund portfolio's asset allocation?
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.
The first step I would do is determine the asset class mixture for your current portfolio and the mixture for your new one. If they are the same and all you are doing is changing the funds that you use to invest in that mixture of asset class then just do the change all at once. In this case there is no market risk as you are just swapping funds (hopefully to ones that you feel will better track the underlying asset classes).  If you are also changing your asset class mixture, then it depends on how large the change is. I would still do the whole change at once. But if you are worried about fluctuations then you could slowly rebalance into your final position by taking a couple of intermediary steps. I would still change all of the fund first but maybe in a mix closer to your current asset mix and then over the next couple of months adjust the ratios to reach your final desired asset mix. A strategy of rebalancing assumes that the business cycle will continue, that all bull and bear markets end eventually.  Imagine that you maintained a 50% split between a US Treasury bond mutual fund (VUSTX) and an S&P 500 stock mutual fund (VFINX) beginning with a $10,000 investment in each on January 1, 2008, then on the first of each year you rebalanced your portfolio on the first of January (we can pretend the markets are open that day). The following table illustrates the values in each of those funds with the rebalancing transactions: This second table shows what that same money would look like without any rebalancing over those years: Obviously this is cherry-picking for the biggest drop we've recently experienced, but even if you skipped 2008 and 2009, the increase for a rebalanced portfolio from 2010-2017 is 85% verses 54% for the portfolio that is not being rebalanced in the same period. This is also a plenty conservative portfolio. You can see that a 100% stock portfolio dropped 40% in 2008, but the combined portfolio only dropped 18%. A 100% stock portfolio has gained 175% since 2009, compared to 105% for the balanced portfolio, but it's common to trade gains for safety as you get closer to retirement. You didn't ask about a 100% stock portfolio in your initial question. These results would be repeated in many other portfolio allocations because some asset classes outperform others one year, then underperform the next. You sell after the years it outperforms, then you buy after years that it underperforms. Your adviser cannot advise you if you don't tell him the whole picture. You don't have to invest everything with the adviser, you can just say that you have the cash allocation portion already invested elsewhere, and he can consider your portfolio based on that information. He works for you and you pay him for this work, why would you want him to provide a result that you know is worthless, because you didn't tell him what he needs to know? This is great. Thanks! So, just assuming a fund happened to average out to libor plus 50 for a given year, would applying that rate to the notional value of the index swaps provide a reasonable estimate of the drag an ETF investor would experience due to the cost associated with the index swaps?  For instance, applying this to the hypothetical I linked to in the original question, they assumed fund assets of $100M with 2x leverage achieved through $85M of S&amp;P500 stocks, $25M of S&amp;P500 futures, and a notional value of the S&amp;P500 swaps at $90M. So the true costs to an ETF investor would be: expense ratio + commissions on the $85M of S&amp;P500 holdings + costs associated with $25M of futures contracts + costs associated with the $90M of swaps? And the costs associated with the $90M of swaps might be roughly libor plus 50? You can check the website for the company that manages the fund. For example, take the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB). iShares publishes the complete list of the fund's holdings on their website. This information isn't always easy to find or available, but it's a place to start. For some index funds, you should just be able to look up the index the fund is trying to match. This won't be perfect (take Vanguard's S&P 500 ETF (VOO); the fund holds 503 stocks, while the S&P 500 index is comprised of exactly 500), but once again, it's a place to start. A few more points to keep in mind. Remember that many ETF's, including equity ETF's, will hold a small portion of their assets in cash or cash-equivalent instruments to assist with rebalancing. For index funds, this may not be reflected in the index itself, and it may not show up in the list of holdings. VOO is an example of this. However, that information is usually available in the fund's prospectus or the fund's site. Also, I doubt that many stock ETF's, at least index funds, change their asset allocations all that frequently. The amounts may change slightly, but depending on the size of their holdings in a given stock, it's unlikely that the fund's manager would drop it entirely. There is a LOT of shuffling going on in the financial services industry. I would not immediately say your advisor is acting in bad faith. The DOL fiduciary changes are quite significant for some brokers. Investment Advisors who are fee-based have less of an impact since they are already fiduciaries. That being said, your issue is still the same. How can you get a low-cost solution to your problem? You might want to consider Vanguard, Fidelity, or another mutual fund company that can keep your costs low. However, you should understand that if you are using mutual funds, the fees are paid one way or another. 12b1 fees, commissions, and expenses are all deducted from the fund's gross returns.  You have to choose between low cost and paid advice. you cannot get high-quality low-cost advice. Fortunately, there are a lot of new solutions out there, robo-advisors, indexing, asset allocation mutual funds, ETFs, and more. Do a bit of homework and you should be able to come up with a reasonable solution. I hope you found this helpful. Kirk "Usually the new broker will take care of this for you. It can take a couple of weeks. If you are planning to go with Vanguard, you probably want to actually get an account at Vanguard, as Vanguard funds usually aren't ""No Transaction Fee"" funds with many brokers. If you are planning to invest in ETFs, you'll get more flexibility with a broker." Sure, with some general rules of thumb: what is the minimum portfolio balance to avoid paying too much for transaction fees? Well, the fee doesn't change with portfolio balance or order size, so I don't know what you're trying to do here.  The way to have less transaction fees is to have less transactions.  That means no day-trading, no option rolling, etc.  A Buy-and-hold strategy (with free dividend reinvestment if available) will minimize transaction fees. If liquidity and cost are your primary objectives, Vanguard is indeed a good bet.  They are the walmart of finance and the absolute best at minimizing fees and other expenses. Your main portfolio holding should be VTI, the total stock market fund.  Highly liquid and has the lowest fees out there at 0.05%.  You can augment this with a world-minus-US fund if you want.  No need to buy sector or specific geography funds when you can get the whole market for less. Add some bond funds and alternative investments (but not too much) if you want to be fully diversified. "@farnsy has provided a good answer. I'm only addressing my comment about the data quality. The portfolio optimization technique you employed is very sensitive to the inputs. In particular, it relies entirely on the mean and (co)variance assumptions (i.e. the first two moments) and the results could change drastically with very small amount of change in the inputs. To see that, you can make up some inputs for the solver you have, and try adjusting the inputs a little bit and see the results. Therefore if you decide to take this approach, data quality is very crucial. EDIT: What I meant by ""data quality"" I have no experience with this website but this should be easy to spot check. The answer is usually ""yes"" for liquid assets. Illiquid assets can often be priced at a level with no volume, and the bid-ask spread could be huge.  Should I close my eyes on the fact that these cryptocurencies aren't perfectly priced in my currency and use another one (such as the dollar) You seem to have concern about data quality in at least the price quoted in your currency and are thinking about using data quoted in USD, but would it be any better? The law of one price tells us that there shouldn't be any discrepancy between prices in different currencies (otherwise there would be arbitrage). In addition, (when compared to traditional assets) cryptocurrency price data has a shorter data history, and with lower liquidity in the market. The short history means you have less data to infer the characteristics of the price behavior. Low liquidity means the volatility may well be underestimated. So we have an input-sensitive technique combined with not-so-perfect data. I wouldn't allocate my money solely based on the result of this exercise. EDIT: I have quite some reservation about doing portfolio optimization for cryptocurrency. Personally I'm not a fan of the technique as is. The optimization has an underlying assumption that returns follow a certain distribution, and correlation is fixed. I don't know if you can make such assumption for cryptocurrencies. From what I read about BTC for example, it seems to have a high risk exposure concerning Chinese monetary policy. For that kind of assets perhaps a fundamental analysis approach is a better one.  Also if you would like to learn more about portfolio optimization, try quant.SE" "The portfolio described in that post has a blend of small slices of Vanguard sector funds, such as Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX).  And the theory is that rebalancing across them will give you a good risk-return tradeoff.  (Caveat: I haven't read the book, only the post you link to.) Similar ETFs are available from Vanguard, iShares, and State Street.  If you want to replicate the GFP exactly, pick from them.  (If you have questions about how to match specific funds in Australia, just ask another question.)  So I think you could match it fairly exactly if you wanted to. However, I think trying to exactly replicate the Gone Fishin Portfolio in Australia would not be a good move for most people, for a few reasons: Brokerage and management fees are generally higher in Australia (smaller market), so dividing your investment across ten different securities, and rebalancing, is going to be somewhat more expensive. If you have a ""middle-class-sized"" portfolio of somewhere in the tens of thousands to low millions of dollars, you're cutting it into fairly small slices to manually allocate 5% to various sectors.  To keep brokerage costs low you probably want to buy each ETF only once every one-two years or so.  You also need to keep track of the tax consequences of each of them. If you are earning and spending Australian dollars, and looking at the portfolio in Australian dollars, a lot of those assets are going to move together as the Australian dollar moves, regardless of changes in the underlying assets.  So there is effectively less diversification than you would have in the US. The post doesn't mention the GFP's approach to tax.  I expect they do consider it, but it's not going to be directly applicable to Australia. If you are more interested in implementing the general approach of GFP rather than the specific details, what I would recommend is: The Vanguard and superannuation diversified funds have a very similar internal split to the GFP with a mix of local, first-world and emerging market shares, bonds, and property trusts.  This is pretty much fire-and-forget: contribute every month and they will take care of rebalancing, spreading across asset classes, and tax calculations.  By my calculations the cost is very similar, the diversification is very similar, and it's much easier. The only thing they don't generally cover is a precious metals allocation, and if you want that, just put 5% of your money into the ASX:GOLD ETF, or something similar." Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me.  Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market. Your link is pointing to managed funds where the fees are higher, you should look at their exchange traded funds; you will note that the management fees are much lower and better reflect the index fund strategy. Taking as given that your definition of VA involves selling at intermediate times, your question can be made more general.  After all, value averaging is just one special case of a portfolio that rebalances to target weights periodically. Do back-end fees (and front-end fees) harm the value of portfolios that require rebalancing?  The answer is yes, they do.  Those fees are put in place in order to prevent investors from redeeming shares over any but the longest horizons.  Any portfolio that rebalances periodically will involve some periodic selling.  If you invest in a fund with front-end or back-end fees, it is optimal to leave your money in it for as long as possible and not do any rebalancing. If you want to run a portfolio that is at all active (involves rebalancing), then it is probably wise to use no-load funds. These are often some of the best and cheapest funds anyway, but even if front or back end load funds have a lower expense ratio, you will likely lose money on those loads as you rebalance. Have you found a general contractor to rebuild your home? I would imagine that someone with a bit of expertise in the area is used to dealing with insurance companies, floating the money for a rebuild, and hitting the gates to receive payment for work accomplished.   Business are used to not receiving payment when work is accomplished and it is part of the risk of being in business.  They have to buy materials and pay employees with the expectation of payment in the future.  Much like workers go to work on a Monday for the work that day, three Friday's later, business often have to float costs but for longer periods of time. If you are looking to be your own general contractor then you will have to float the money on your own. The money should not be used for living expenses or mortgage payments, it should be used for down payments in order to get the work of rebuilding started.