[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 80 KB, 500x380, 1430094574571.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
753549 No.753549 [Reply] [Original]

What can I do with 10k?

>> No.753551

Put it aside and rest better at night knowing you have a little nestegg incase of a rainy day.

>> No.753604

>>753549
Go to vanguard.com. Make a Roth IRA. Deposit $5,500 into it (the legal max per year). Put it in a Target Date fund:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=1487&FundIntExt=INT

Save the other $4,500. In Jan 2016, put it into your Roth IRA's target date fund. If you can scrounge up another $1,000, might as well do it.

I don't know how old you are. I'm assuming 25.

If you never contribute anything else at all to it, that $11k would be worth $179,425 when you're 65.

Keep contributing to it and you could be a millionaire when you retire.

If you're really disciplined about savings, you could potentially become a millionaire in your 40s, or even 30s.

I'm 33 now, and the fact that I never contributed to my Roth IRA in my 20s is one of my biggest regrets.

>> No.753994

>>753604
>that $11k would be worth $179,425 when you're 65.
What would that 179k be in inflation-adjusted dollars?

(serious, not trolling, when I see prices of things from 40 years ago I get scared)

>> No.753996

>>753994
>>753994
Assuming 3% inflation, it would be worth $53,058 in today's dollars, still a good investment.

>> No.754006

>>753996
>53k in 65 years
>Good investment

>> No.754015

>>754006
It's 480% in 40 years you dumbass.

>> No.754127

>>753604
Does this work in Australia?

>> No.754385

>>753549
10k what?

>> No.754388

>>753604
>Not mentioning that you need /earned income/ to make a Roth or traditional IRA contribution.
>Potentially advising someone to incur substantial tax penalties.
I know your heart was in the right place, anon, but the details matter.

>> No.754430

>>754388
I actually had no idea it had to be earned. Thanks!

>> No.754921

Anything like this in the UK?

>> No.754974

>>753549
You can kill yourself

>> No.755046

>>754385
of pepe images

>> No.755051

>>753604

Isn't it risky to invest everything with Vanguard? What if they go bust or something

>> No.755100
File: 1.79 MB, 1024x768, 1431657861534.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
755100

>>755051
>vanguard
>busting ever
maybe if an asteroid hit their office

>> No.755103

>>755051
>Vanguard
>Going bust

literally laughed for a bit on this one

>> No.755105

>>755051
It doesn't work that way. Even if they went under, you still own the underlying assets of their funds (mutual funds, ETFs).

However, this is not the case with ETNs - however Vanguard doesn't offer any of those.

>> No.755106

>>755051
>Isn't it risky to invest everything with Vanguard? What if they go bust or something
I don't fault you for asking the question, but in reality there is virtually no company risk by investing in Vanguard.

The company itself, Vanguard Group, Inc., does not own or have any access to the various funds and ETFs offered to the public. In fact, its the opposite. Vanguard Group is investor-owned, meaning the funds own the parent company.

Neither Vanguard nor the managers who run the funds have the ability to siphon assets away from the funds. The funds are owned by a custodian, not by Vanguard. This is analogous to a spendthrift trust fund, which is owned by a trustee in order to protect the trust's assets from the beneficiary's creditors.

Lastly, all mutual funds are marked to market every day. If the NAV of a fund is $100 per share, then there are actually $100 of assets backing up each share. There is no financial arbitrage possible to hide shortcomings in the asset values. And although ETFs do not necessarily trade at NAV value, in reality they are extremely range-bound to NAV. As such, a fund cannot go to zero unless every share or bond in the fund went to zero. Putting aside the obvious unlikelihood of this event, it is also true that is actually market risk, not Vanguard risk.

http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Vanguard_safety

>>755100
>maybe if an asteroid hit their office
Not even then. In terms of actual NAV and investor assets, wouldn't matter one iota.