query: Retirement Funds: Betterment vs Vanguard Life strategy vs Target Retirement

positive: "First, congratulations on choosing to invest in low cost passively managed plans. If you choose any one of these options and stick with it, you will already be well ahead of most individual investors. Almost all plans will allow you to re-balance between asset classes. With some companies, sales agents will encourage you to sell your overweighted assets and buy underweighted assets as this generates brokerage commissions for them, but when you only need to make minor adjustments, you can simply change the allocation of the new money going into your account until you are back to your target weights. Most plans will let you do this for free, and in general, you will only need to do this every few years at most. I don't see much reason for you to be in the Target funds. The main feature of these plans is that they gradually shift you to a more conservative asset allocation over time, and are designed to prevent people who are close to retirement from being too aggressive and risking a major loss just before retirement. It's very likely that at your age, most plans will have very similar recommendations for your allocation, with equities at 80% or more, and this is unlikely to change for the next few decades. The main benefits of betterment seems to be simplicity and ease of use, but there is one concern I would have for you with betterment. Precisely because it is so easy to tweak your allocation, I'm concerned that you might hurt your long-term results by reacting to short-term market conditions: I know I said I wanted a hands off account, but what if the stock market crashes and I want to allocate more to bonds??? One of the biggest reasons that stock returns are better than bond returns on average is that you are being paid to accept additional risk, and living with significant ups and downs is part of what it means to be in the stock market. If you are tempted to take money out of an asset class when it has been ""losing/feels dangerous"" and put more in when it is ""winning/feels safe"", my concerns is that you will end up buying high and selling low. I'd recommend taking a look at this article on the emotional cycle of investing. My point is simply that it's very likely that if you are moving money in and out of stocks based on volatility, you're much less likely to get the full market return over the long term, and might be better off putting more weight in asset classes with lower volatility. Either way, I'd recommend taking one or more risk tolerance assessments online and making sure you're committed to sticking with a long-term plan that doesn't involve more risk than you can really live with. I tend to lean toward Vanguard Life Strategy simply because Vanguard as a company has been around longer, but betterment does seem very accessible to a new investor. Best of luck with your decision!"

positive: Katherine from Betterment here.  I wanted to address your inquiry and another comment regarding our services.  I agree with JAGAnalyst - it's detrimental to your returns and potential for growth if you try to time the market.  That's why Betterment offers customized asset allocation for each portfolio based on the nature of your goal, time horizon, and how much you are able to put towards your investments.  We do this so regardless of what's happening in the markets, you can feel comfortable that your asset allocation plus other determining factors will get you where you need to go, without having to time your investing.  We also put out quite a bit of content regarding market timing and why we think it's an unwise practice.  We believe continuously depositing to your goal, especially through auto-deposits, compounding returns, tax-efficient auto-rebalancing, and reinvesting dividends are the best ways to grow your assets. Let me know if you would like additional information regarding Betterment accounts and our best practices.  I am available at buck@betterment.com and am always happy to speak about Betterment's services. Katherine Buck, Betterment Community Manager

positive: Life Strategy funds are more appropriate if you want to maintain a specific allocation between stocks and bonds that doesn't automatically adjustment like the Target Retirement funds which have a specific date.  Thus, it may make more sense to take whichever Life Strategy fund seems the most appropriate and ride with it for a while unless you know when you plan to retire and access those funds. In theory, you could use Vanguard's Total Market funds,i.e. Total Stock Market, Total International, and Total Bond, and have your own allocations between stocks and bonds be managed pretty easily and don't forget that the fees can come in a couple of flavors as betterment doesn't specify where the transaction fees for buying the ETFs are coming out just as something to consider.

negative: I like that you are hedging ONLY the Roth IRA - more than likely you will not touch that until retirement.  Looking at fees, I noticed Vanguard Target retirement funds are .17% - 0.19% expense ratios, versus 0.04 - 0.14% for their Small/Mid/Large cap stocks.

negative: 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.)

negative: "Often in life we have to choose the lesser of evils.  Whole Life as an investment vs. Term Life and invest the difference is one of these times. I assume the following statement is true. ""The commissions on whole life are sick. The selling agent gets upward of 90% of your first year's premium."" But how does that compare to investing in mutual funds (as one alternative)?   Well according to Vanguard the average mutual fund keeps 60% of the total returns over the average investors lifetime. And of course income taxes (on withdrawal) consume another 30% (or more) of the dollars you withdraw (from a tax deferred retirement plan like a 401k.) http://www.fool.com/School/MutualFunds/Performance/Record.htm So you have to pick your poison and make the choice that fits your view of the future. Personally I don't believe my cost of living in retirement will be radically lower than my cost of living while working. Additionally I believe income tax rates will be higher in the future than the in the present and so deferring taxes (like a 401k) doesn't make sense to me.  (In 1980 a 401k made sense when the average 401k participant was paying over 50% in federal income tax and also got a pension.) So paying 90% of my first year's premium rather than 60% of my gains over my lifetime seems acceptable.  And borrowing tax free against my life insurance once retired (with no intention of paying it back) will, I believe, provide greater income than a 401k could."

negative: Look into the asset allocations of lifecycle funds offered by a company like Vanguard. This page allows you to select your current age and find a fund based on that. You could pick a fund, like the Target Retirement 2055 Fund (ages 21-25), and examine its allocation in the Portfolio & Management tab. For this fund, the breakdown is: Then, look at the allocation of the underlying funds that comprise the lifecycle fund, in the same tab.  Look at each of those funds and see what asset allocation they use, and that should give you a rough idea for an age-based allocation. For example, the Total Stock Market Index Fund page has a sector breakdown, so if you wanted to get very fine-grained with your allocation, you could. (You're probably much better off investing in the index fund, low-cost ETFs, or the lifecycle fund itself, however; it'll be much cheaper).  Doing this for several lifecycle funds should be a good start. Keep in mind, however, that these funds are rebalanced as the target date approaches, so if you're following the allocation of some particular funds, you'll have to rebalance as well. If you really want an age-based allocation that you don't have to think about, invest in a lifecycle fund directly. You'll probably pay a lower expense ratio than if you invested in a whole slew of funds directory, and it's less work for someone who isn't comfortable managing their portfolio themselves. Furthermore, with Vanguard, the expense ratios are already fairly low.  This is only one example of an allocation, however; your tolerance of risk, age, etc. may affect what allocation you're willing to accept.  Full disclosure: Part of my Roth IRA is invested in the Target 2055 fund I used as an example above, and another part uses a similar rebalancing strategy to the one I used above, but with Admiral Share funds, which have higher minimum investments but lower expense ratios.

negative: Googling vanguard target asset allocation led me to this page on the Bogleheads wiki which has detailed breakdowns of the Target Retirement funds; that page in turn has a link to this Vanguard PDF which goes into a good level of detail on the construction of these funds' portfolios. I excerpt: (To the question of why so much weight in equities:) In our view, two important considerations justify an expectation of an   equity risk premium. The first is the historical record: In the past,   and in many countries, stock market investors have been rewarded with   such a premium.  ... Historically, bond returns have lagged equity returns by about 5–6   percentage points, annualized—amounting to an enormous return   differential in most circumstances over longer time periods.   Consequently, retirement savers investing only in “safe” assets must   dramatically increase their savings rates to compensate for the lower   expected returns those investments offer. ... The second strategic principle underlying our glidepath   construction—that younger investors are better able to withstand   risk—recognizes that an individual’s total net worth consists of both   their current financial holdings and their future work earnings. For   younger individuals, the majority of their ultimate retirement wealth   is in the form of what they will earn in the future, or their “human   capital.” Therefore, a large commitment to stocks in a younger   person’s portfolio may be appropriate to balance and diversify risk   exposure to work-related earnings (To the question of how the exact allocations were decided:) As part of the process of evaluating and identifying an appropriate   glide path given this theoretical framework, we ran various   financial simulations using the Vanguard Capital Markets Model. We   examined different risk-reward scenarios and the potential   implications of different glide paths and TDF approaches. The PDF is highly readable, I would say, and includes references to quant articles, for those that like that sort of thing.

negative: "The vanguard funds are all low fee your employer has done a good job selecting their provider for 401(k).  I would do a roth if you can afford it as taxes are at a historical low.   Just pick the year you want to get your money if you will need your money in 2040 pick  Vanguard Target Retirement 2040 Fund. Its that simple. This is not a ""thing"" ( low-risk, and a decent return ).  Risk and reward are correlated.   Get the vanguard and every year it rebalances so that you take less risk every year. Lastly listen to the Clark Howard podcast if you are having trouble making decisions or contact their 45 hour a week free advice email/phone help."

negative: "The ""Money 70"" is a fine list: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bestfunds/index.html Money magazine is usually more reasonable than the other ones (SmartMoney, Kiplinger's, etc. are in my opinion sillier). If you want a lot of depth, the Morningstar Analyst Picks are useful but you have to pay for a membership which is probably not worth it for now: http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/Funds.aspx (side note: Morningstar star ratings are not useful, I'd ignore those. analyst picks are pretty useful.) Vanguard is a can't-go-too-wrong suggestion. They don't have any house funds that are ""bad,"" while for example Fidelity has some good ones mixed with a bunch that aren't so much. Of course, some funds at Vanguard may be inappropriate for your situation. (Vanguard also sells third-party funds, I'm talking about their own branded funds.) If getting started with 5K I think you'd want to go with an all-in-one fund like a target date retirement fund or a balanced fund. Such a fund also handles rebalancing for you. There's a Vanguard target date fund and balanced fund (Wellington) in the Money 70 list. fwiw, I think it's more important to ask how much risk you need to take, rather than how much you are willing to take. I wrote this down at more length here: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ First pick your desired asset allocation, then pick your fund after that to match. Good luck."

negative: One of the things to consider is that most Vanguard funds are very tax efficient, that is they don't throw off much in the way of cap gains or taxable dividends while they grow. So if you do it right you won't have to pay much in the way of taxes on your investments even if they are in taxable accounts until retirement when at the very least you will have a lot more flexibility in managing your money and very likely be in a lower tax bracket. Roth is better if you are planning other types of investments, but if you are planning to hold an efficient Vanguard fund the difference isn't that bit.

negative: Since you're 20-30 years out of retirement, you should be 90% to 100% in stocks, and in one or two broad stock market funds likely. I'm not sure about the minimums at TD Ameritrade, but at Vanguard even $3k will get you into the basic funds. One option is the Targeted Retirement Year funds, which automatically rebalance as you get closer to retirement.  They're a bit higher expense usually than a basic stock market fund, but they're often not too bad.  (Look for expenses under 0.5% annually, and preferably much lower - I pay 0.05% on mine for example.)   Otherwise, I'd just put everything into something simple - an S&P500 tracker for example (SPY or VOO are two examples) that has very low management fees.  Then when your 401(k) gets up and running, that may have fewer options and thus you may end up in something more conservative - don't feel like you have to balance each account separately when they're just starting, think of them as one whole balancing act for the first year or two.  Once they're each over $10k or so, then you can balance them individually (which you do want to do, to allow you to get better returns).

negative: The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph.  While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it?  In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash.  Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to).   Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment.  They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest.  Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population.  It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio.  This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification.

negative: Which strategy makes more sense: Check your new Fidelity 401k plan. Make sure it has a good group of funds available at very low fees. If it does, roll over your Principal 401k to your new 401k. Call Principal and have them transfer the funds directly to Fidelity. Do not have them send you a check. If the new plan doesn't have a good fund lineup, or has high fees, create a rollover IRA and roll your old 401k plan into it. Again, have Principal transfer the funds directly. Consider using Vanguard or other very-low-cost funds in your IRA. Taking the money out of your old 401k to pay toward your mortgage has several disadvantages. You will pay taxes and a penalty. Your mortgage rate is very good, and since you are probably in a high tax bracket and perhaps itemize deductions, the effective rate is even less. And you lose liquidity that might come in handy down the road. You can always change your mind later, but for now don't pay down your mortgage using your 401k money. As a result of being under 20%, I am paying mortgage insurance of   about $300/mo. This is wasted money. Save aggressively and get your mortgage down to 80% so that you can get rid of that PMI. If you are earning a high salary, you should be able to get there in reasonably short order. If you are maxing out your 401k ($18,000 per year), you might be better off putting it on pause and instead using that money to get rid of the PMI. I have no 'retirement' plans because I enjoy working and have plans to   start a company, and essentially will be happy working until I die You are young. Your life will change over time. Everyone young seems to choose one of two extremes:  In the end, very few choose either of these paths. For now, just plan on retiring somewhere close to normal retirement age. You can always change your plans later.

negative: Your plan sounds quite sound to me.  I think that between the choices of [$800 for Loans, $300 for Retirement] and [$1100 for loans], both are good choices and you aren't going to go wrong either way.   Some of the factors you might want to consider: I like your retirement savings choices - I myself use the admiral version of VOO, plus a slightly specialized but still large ETF that allows me to do a bit of shifting.  Having something that's at least a bit counter-market can be helpful for balancing (so something that will be going up some when the market overall is down some); I wouldn't necessarily do bonds at your age, but international markets are good for that, or a stock ETF that's more stable than the overall market.  If you're using Vanguard, look at the minimums for buying Admiral shares (usually a few grand) and aim to get those if possible, as they have significantly lower fees - though VOO seems to pretty much tie the admiral version (VFIAX) so in that case it may not matter so much. As far as the target retirement funds, you can certainly do those, but I prefer not to; they have somewhat higher (though for Vanguard not crazy high) expense ratios.  Realistically you can do the same yourself quite easily.

negative: Lots of good answers.  I'll try and improve by being more brief.  For each option you will pay different taxes: Index Fund:   Traditional IRA Roth IRA You can see that the Roth IRA is obviously better than investing in a taxable account.  It may not be as obvious that the traditional IRA is better as well.  The reason is that in the traditional account you can earn returns on the money that otherwise would have gone to the government today.  The government taxes that money at the end, but they don't take all of it. In fact, for a given investment amount X and returns R, the decision of Roth vs Traditional depends only on your tax rate now vs at retirement because X(1-tax)(1+R_1)(1+R_2)...(1+R_n) = X(1+R_1)(1+R_2)...(1+R_n)(1-tax) The left hand side is what you will have at retirement if you do a Roth and the right hand side is what you will have at retirement if you do traditional.  Only the tax rate differences between now and retirment matter here.  An index fund investment is like the left hand side but has some additional tax terms on your capital gains.  It's clearly worse than either.

negative: "Social security and pensions make up a big part of it.  You may want to look at the source of the data.  If a person, has 5K at Vanguard, 5K at Fidelity and 100K at the bank; Fidelity will report on that person as having only 5K.  Vanguard will do the same. The opening pitch of a life insurance salesman sometimes includes the ""100 man story"".  Before retirement age:  26% of people will die, 54% will be broke, 5% will work, 4% will be secure, and 1% will be wealthy.  Then they sell you life insurance which is a horrible product for retirement savings. If you further dig into this subject you will find a great disparity between the mean and median retirement savings.  That is because many Americans have none, and those that do skew the average upward and have no where near mean or average. Its like this with other things in personal finance.  For example those with actual credit card debt have much higher than the average.  As those with none, or even no credit cards skew the average downward.  In my opinion it is like this because of behavior.  If one saved half of the average car payment over their working life in a growth stock mutual fund, they would make it to that 4% category.  If they also had a good salary, kept debt to a minimum, and saved a healthy amount they would make it to that 1% category.  It was a daily choice that was made many years prior to retirement."

negative: "I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like ""this fund invests in large cap US companies"". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English."

negative: Check out the /r/personalfinance wiki: https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/commontopics  While it's not a life-changing amount, this page on windfalls might also be useful: https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/windfall  Vanguard is often recommended as having low-fee index funds. You should make sure you understand the different investment vehicles though - taxable accounts vs IRA vs 401k, etc.

negative: Diversification and convenience: Is .15-0.35% fee worth it? It depends on your net worth, amount you invest and value of your time (if you have high net worth and low cost of your time the fee is highier then in case when you have low net worth but high cost of time - so Betterment seems to be a better option to young professional just after college then to someone already retired), your interest in finance, your willpower etc. Is Betterment allocation better then pure SPY? From what I understand about finance theory - yes. EDIT (as requested) I don't have any affiliation with any financial institution as far as I know. I opened it to get used to just investing as oppose to saving and ups and downs of market (and read up on the portfolio management, especially index funds) and I guess it worked well for me. I plan to move out entirely out of it once the cost of the account would be more then paying for a few coffees and move the account to Vanguard, Schwab or something similar.  In other accounts (HSA/...) I use simpler portfolio then the Betterment one (US Total, Small Value, Developed, Emerging and Bonds) but there are people who use simpler (search for 3 fund portfolio).

negative: This advice will be too specific, but... With the non-retirement funds, start by paying off the car loan if it's more than ~3% interest rate. The remainder: looks like a good emergency fund. If you don't have one of those yet, you do now. Store it in the best interest-bearing savings account you can find (probably accessible by online banking). If you wish to grow your emergency fund beyond $14-20,000 you might also consider some bonds, to boost your returns and add a little risk (but not nearly as much risk as stocks). With the Roth IRA - first of all, toss the precious metals. Precious metals are a crisis hedge and an advanced speculative instrument, not a beginner's investment strategy for 40% of the portfolio. You're either going to use this money for retirement, or your down payment fund. If it's retirement: you're 28; even with a kid on the way, you can afford to take risks in the retirement portfolio. Put it in either a targe-date fund or a series of index funds with an asset allocation suggested by an asset-allocation-suggestion calculator. You should probably have north of 80% stocks if it's money for retirement. If you're starting a down-payment fund, or want to save for something similar, or if you want to treat the IRA money like it's a down-payment fund, either use one of these Vanguard LifeStrategy funds or something that's structured to do the same sort of thing. I'm throwing Vanguard links at you because they have the funds with the low expense ratios. You can use Vanguard at your discretion if it's all an IRA (and not a 401(k)). Feel free to use an alternative, but watch the expense ratios lest they consume up to half your returns.

negative: You can look the Vanguard funds up on their website and view a risk factor provided by Vanguard on a scale of 1 to 5.  Short term bond funds tend to get their lowest risk factor, long term bond funds and blended investments go up to about 3, some stock mutual funds are 4 and some are 5. Note that in 2008 Swenson himself had slightly different target percentages out here that break out the international stocks into emerging versus developed markets. So the average risk of this portfolio is 3.65 out of 5.  My guess would be that a typical twenty-something who expects to retire no earlier than 60 could take more risk, but I don't know your personal goals or circumstances. If you are looking to maximize return for a level of risk, look into Modern Portfolio Theory and the work of economist Harry Markowitz, who did extensive work on the topic of maximizing the return given a set risk tolerance.  More info on my question here.  This question provides some great book resources for learning as well. You can also check out a great comparison and contrast of different portfolio allocations here.

negative: While the Vanguard paper is good, it doesn't do a very good job of explaining precisely why each level of stocks or bonds was optimal. If you'd like to read a transparent and quantitative explanation of when and why a a glide path is optimal, I'd suggest the following paper:  https://www.betterment.com/resources/how-we-construct-portfolio-allocation-advice/ (Full disclosure - I'm the author).  The answer is that the optimal risk level for any given holding period depends upon a combination of:  Using these two factors, you construct a risk-averse decision model which chooses the risk level with the best expected average outcome, where it looks only at the median and lower percentile outcomes. This produces an average which is specifically robust to downside risk. The result will look something like this:   The exact results will depend on the expected risk and return of the portfolio, and the degree of risk aversion specified.  The result is specifically valid for the case where you liquidate all of the portfolio at a specific point in time. For retirement, the glide path needs to be extended to take into account the fact that the portfolio will be liquidated gradually over time, and dynamically take into account the longevity risk of the individual.  I can't say precisely why Vanguard's path is how it is.

negative: Wells Fargo.  They have an account called PMA, an umbrella account for checking, savings, mortgage, and brokerage accounts.  It would cost $30/month, but I never had to pay because I have a rollover retirement account that is enough to waive the fees.  They count all accounts, including mortgage, which I used to have.  Oh, and no restrictions.  An added advantage is there are no fees for any of the accounts, nor for some other things, like bank checks, outside ATM fees, etc.    I'm in California, so I don't know if the same deal exists in other states.  But if you qualify for the free account, it's pretty good.  Actually, most of my investments are Vanguard funds.  And I have another rollover account with Vanguard, and never pay fees, but I only buy or sell from one Vanguard fund to another, and rarely since I have targeted retirement funds that are designed to be no maintenance.  For some reason, I trust Vanguard more than most other funds; maybe because I like their philosophy on low-cost funds, which they started but are now getting more popular.

negative: "It is absolutely normal for your investments to go down at times. If you pull money out whenever your investments decrease in value, you lock in the losses.  It is better to do a bit of research and come up with some sort of strategy about how you will manage your investments.  One such strategy is to choose a target asset allocation (or let the ""target date"" fund choose it for you) and never sell until you need the money for retirement.  Some would advocate various other strategies that involve timing the market.  The important thing is that you find a strategy that you can live with and that provides you with enough confidence that you won't buy and sell at random.  Acting on gut feelings and selling whenever you feel queasy will likely lead to worse outcomes in the long run."

negative: I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and  invested the proceeds into the bond fund.

negative: You can put them in a 5 years CD and getting a maximum of %2.5 APY if you're lucky. If you put 15k now, in 5 years you'll have $1.971. If it sounds good then take a look at the current inflation rate (i'm in usa)... If you want to think about retirement then you should open a Roth IRA. But you won't be able to touch the money without penalties (10% of earnings) before you get 59 1/2 years old. Another option would be to open a regular investment account with an online discounted broker. Which one? Well, this should be a totally separate question... If you decide to invest (Roth IRA or regular account) and you're young and inexperienced then go for a balanced mutual fund. Still do a lot of research to determine your portfolio allocation or which fund is best suited for you. Betterment (i never used it) is a no brainer investment broker.  Please don't leave them in a generic checking or low interest savings account because you'll save nothing (see inflation again)...

negative: "There are a lot of funds that exist only to feed people's belief that existing funds are not diversified or specialized enough.  That's why you have so many options. Just choose the ones with the lowest fees. I'd suggest the following: I wouldn't mess around with funds that try and specialize in ""value"" or those target date funds. If you really don't want to think and don't mind paying slightly higher fees, just pick the target date fund that corresponds to when you will retire and put all your money there. On the traditional/Roth question, if your tax bracket will be higher when you retire than it is now (unlikely), choose Roth.  Otherwise choose traditional."

negative: Thanks very much.  12b1 is a form that explains how a fund uses that .25-1% fee, right? So that's part of the puzzle im getting at.  I'm not necessarily trying to understand my net fees, but more who pays who and based off of what.   For a quick example, betterment bought me a bunch of vanguard ETFs. That's cool. But vanguard underperformed vs their blackrock and ssga etfs. I get that vanguard has lower fees, but the return was less even taking those into account.  I'm wondering, first what sort of kickback betterment got for buying those funds, inclusive of wholesale deals, education fees etc.  I'm also wondering how this food chain goes up and down the sponsor, manager tree.  I'm sure it's more than just splitting up that 1%

negative: Since you already have twice your target in that emergency fund, putting that overage to work is a good idea. The impression that I get is that you'd still like to stay on the safe side. What you're looking for is a Balanced Fund.  In a balanced fund the managers invest in both stocks and bonds (and cash). Since you have that diversification between those two asset classes, their returns tend to be much less volatile than other funds. Also, because of their intended audience and the traditions from that class of funds' long history, they tend to invest somewhat more conservatively in both asset classes.  There are two general types of balanced funds: Conservative Allocation funds and Moderate Allocation funds. Conservative allocation funds invest in more fixed income than equity (the classic mix is 60% bonds, 40% stocks). Moderate allocation funds invest in more equity than fixed income (classic mix: 40% bonds, 60% stocks). A good pair of funds that are similar but exemplify the difference between conservative allocation and moderate allocation are Vanguard's Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX) for the former and Vanguard's Wellington Fund (VWELX) for the latter. (Disclaimer: though both funds are broadly considered excellent, this is not a recommendation.) Good luck sorting this out!

negative: See my comment for some discussion of why one might choose an identical fund over an ETF.  As to why someone would choose the higher cost fund in this instance ... The Admiral Shares version of the fund (VFIAX) has the same expense ratio as the ETF but has a minimum investment of $10K.  Some investors may want to eventually own the Admiral Shares fund but do not yet have $10K.  If they begin with the Investor Shares now and then convert to Admiral later, that conversion will be a non-taxable event.  If, however, they start with ETF shares now and then sell them later to buy the fund, that sale will be a taxable event. Vanguard ETFs are only commission-free to Vanguard clients using Vanguard Brokerage Services.  Some investors using other brokers may face all sorts of penalties for purchasing third-party ETFs.  Some retirement plan participants (either at Vanguard or another broker) may not even be allowed to purchase ETFs.

negative: There are fund of funds,e.g. life cycle funds or target retirement funds, that could cover a lot of these with an initial investment that one could invest into for a few years and then after building up a balance large enough, then it may make sense to switch to having more control.

negative: There are not as many options here as you fear. If you have no other investments outside this 401K it is even easier. Outside accounts include IRA, Roth IRA, taxable investments (mutual funds, ETF, individual stocks), Employee stock purchase plans. Amount: make sure you put enough in to get all the company match. I assume that in your case the 9% will do so, but check your documents. The company match will be with pre-tax funds.  Roth vs Regular 401K? Most people in their lifetime will need a mix of Roth and Regular retirement accounts. You need to determine if it is better for you to pay the tax on your contributions now or later. Which accounts? If you are going to invest in a target date fund, you can ignore the rest of the options. The target date fund is a mixture of investments that will change over the decades. Calculate which one fits your expected retirement date and go with it. If you want to be able to control the mix, then you will need to pick several funds. The selection depends on what non-401K investments you have. Now here is what I considered the best advice.  Decide Roth or regular, and just put the money into the most appropriate target date fund with the Roth/regular split you want. Then after the money starts flowing into your account, research the funds involved, the fees for those funds, and how you want to invest. Then move the money into the funds you want. Don't waste another day deciding how to invest. Just get started. The best part of a 401K, besides the match, is that you can move money between funds without worrying about taxes. If you realize that you want to put extra emphasis on the foreign stocks, or Mid-cap; just move the funds and redirect future contributions.

negative: "Anything under 0.20% is ""really good, leave it alone."" However, since you have access to their institutional funds, it isn't unreasonable to come up with your own desired asset allocation and save another half of the fees.  If you're happy with the Target Retirement date fund, just stick with it, but if you've got a particular AA you want to maintain, go for that with the cheaper underlying funds."

negative: I found that the Target Date funds for Vanguard have a lower minimum, only $1,000. They are spaced every 5 years from 2010 to 2060. They are available as: General Account, IRA, UGMA/UTMA and Education Saving Account.


query: Is it a good investment for a foreigner to purchase a flat/apartment in China?

positive: I think a greater problem would be the protection of your property right.  China hasn't shown much respect for the property rights of its own citizens - moving people off subsistence farms in order to build high-rise apartments - so I'm not certain that a foreigner could expect much protection.  A first consideration in any asset purchase should always be consideration of the strength of local property law.  By all accounts, China fails.

positive: China is in the middle of a residential housing bubble, and now is probably a horrible time to invest in real estate in China.  Even if China wasn't near the peak of its bubble it would probably still be a bad idea because owning real estate in a foreign country is expensive and risky. There are real currency risks, think what would happen if the yuan declined significantly against the dollar. There is also the risk of the government seizing foreign held investments (not extremely likely but plausible). Another consideration is that it would be next to impossible for you to get a loan to purchase a property US banks wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft pole and I doubt Chinese banks would be very interested in lending to foreigners.

positive: No, it's not.  This could be a great question, but with no background, not so much. Do you live there now? For how long, and how much longer? You say investment, are you looking to live in it or rent it out?  I have nothing against China, but I'd not buy anywhere unless the price, location, and timing all were right.

positive: It is a lousy investment to purchase an apartment in China. Chinese citizens purchase apartments in China because, well... here's how China works: There's some fundamentals driving Chinese property values higher, but mostly it's a bubble caused by those reasons.

positive: More infomation is needed for any meaningful discussion about this.  I just assume you want to buy in China mainland, not Hongkong or other places. That depends on where you want to buy the flat.  Which city, which district of the city, which community, which school district, how old is the building?  Furthermore, always bearing in mind that you don't own the land when you buy a flat in China mainland.  The land is always state-owned, you are renting the land. Someone will say that the real property market in China is always in a bubble, but because the ownership of the land is different from countries like US and other things like one-child policy, things are not that easy to tell.   But if you don't live in China now and you don't have clients ready to rent from you, I don't think it is a good choice right now to buy one just for investment.

negative: "Your source does not support the claim above that ""foreign buyers are screwing everyone, particularly upper middle class people from China"". Foreign direct investments are beneficial to the economy and knee-jerk protectionism does more harm than good. Sure, in the short term, an increase in real estate investment will increase property prices due to the rise in demand. However, housing developers and tenants will respond by increasing the supply of affordable housing elsewhere eventually reaching price equilibrium. There will always be displacement in a dynamic and robust economy but I guess it's easier to make out foreign investors as the boogeyman."

negative: "Real estate ownership doesn't work the same way in China as it does in the West. Some significant difference I see:   * China doesn't have property tax, so empty apartments are treated as assets by individuals, no tax liability.  * A lot of people buy 2nd/3rd home and not rent them out. Their purpose feels more like buying preferred stock - ownership with expectation of neighborhood (~company) would prosper, but no direct contribution to the neighborhood (~no voting in the company) * Local governments raise funds by developing landing into real estate.  * Local government would collectivize old real estate for redevelopment, usually at some reasonable rate (tho less equitable in some ""corrupt"" areas) * Ownership is not permanent. It is on paper 50-70 years depending on the place.   Not saying there aren't problems with this system, just that signals that would cause US real estate to collapse might not do the same for China. I do want to see someone run some social behavioral model about how those differences would play out.   Source: my family owns 2 apartments in a 2nd-tier Chinese city."

negative: "The general answer is: ""it depends on how long you want to live there"". Here is a good calculator to figure it out: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html Basically, if you plan to move in a few years, then renting makes more sense.  It is a lot easier to move from an apartment when your lease is up versus selling a house, which can be subject to fluctuations in the real-estate market.  As an example, during the real estate bubble, a lot of ""young professional"" types bought condos and town homes instead of renting.  Now these people are married with kids, need to move somewhere bigger, but they can't get rid of their old place because they can't sell it for what they still owe.  If these people had rented for a few years, they would be in a better position financially.  (Many people fell for the mantra ""If you are renting, you are throwing your money away"", without looking at the long-term implications.) However, your question is a little unique, because you mentioned renting for the rest of your life, and putting the savings into an investment, which is a cool idea.  (Thinking outside the box, I like it.) I'm going to assume you mean ""rent the same place for many years"" versus ""moving around the country every few years"".  If you are staying in one place for a long time, I am going to say that buying a house is probably a better option.  Here's why: So what about investing?  Let's look at some numbers: So, based on the above, I say that buying a house is the way to go (as long as you plan to live in the same place for several years).  However, if you could find a better investment than the Dow, or if mortgage interest rates change drastically, things could tip in another direction. Addendum:  CrimsonX brought up a good point about the costs of owning a house (upkeep and property taxes), which I didn't mention above.  However, I don't think they change my answer.  If you rent, you are still paying those costs.  They are just hidden from you.  Your landlord pays the contractor or the tax man, and then you pay the landlord as part of your rent."

negative: There's a lot of foreign small and big businesses - as well as foreign individuals - that would love to invest in India.  But they can't because of the strict regulations and outright prohibitions on foreigners.  And instead of tearing down barriers to entry, Indian government is introducing more protectionist measures (as cheap goods come from China and Indian businesses can't compete despite cheaper labor force.)    I don't know the answer to India's problems.  I don't know what's going to happen.  But I agree with the Infosys guy:  India is no China and will not see that sort of success anytime soon.  Sure, India is gaining ground every year, but to even catch up to China of today, it is going to take decades.

negative: Firstly, I think you need to separate your question into two parts: If you are Chinese, live in China and intend to stay in China for most of your life then the default answer to question 1 should be Renminbi.  Question 2 is not as important, you can hold USD in almost any country in the world. Any investment you hold has risk, which may include market risk, credit risk, liquidity risk, inflation risk etc. Holding USD will expose you to exchange rate fluctuations as well.  If the Renminbi rises in value against the dollar your returns in USD will be reduced by the same amount (remember that for currency fluctuations you have to multiply the percentages, see here for a good explanation). The first thing you probably want to do is find out exactly what the assets are in the 理财 you have invested in.  The fact that there is a 'risk level' (even if it is only 2) would suggest to me that the fund is investing in some combination of bonds and stocks which means that your returns are not guaranteed and could make a loss. Interest rates on deposit accounts are mandated by the government in China, and the current 12 month deposit rate on RMB is 3%.  To earn over 3%, GEB must be investing your assets in something else (I'm guessing bonds).  Bear in mind that 1.5 years is a very short amount of time in investments, so don't assume this return will continue!  I'm afraid I've only been studying Chinese for a year, so I can't really help you much with the link you've sent through - you may want to check if there is any guaranteed minimum return, which can be the case in more complex structured products. Ultimately you will need to pick an investment which you feel gives you the best combination of risk and return for your situation, there are a huge amount of options to choose between.  The 4-5% you are earning right now is not a huge risk premium on the 3% you could earn in China from a time deposit, but in the current environment you may struggle to beat it without taking on more risk.  Before considering that though - understand how much risk you already have with GEB.

negative: You may be in a situation where buying is preferred, especially because you can enter the market in a strong position - with a 20% down payment.  If you have the financial ability to assume the risk of owning, you may be better off.  I would consider two things.  Renting is purchasing a service. You are buying the flexibility to move with minimum hassle and the landlord is assuming the risk of owning the asset (property). They will make money on you, like any service provider. Buying is purchasing an asset. You are buying the underlying asset and assume all the risks associated with it. This is large, unforeseen maintenance, fees, taxes, depreciation, etc... Some of these risks were passed to you as a renter, but some were not.  Just like purchasing $400k in stock, if you have to sell when the market is down, you lose big. You win if you can hold. Unlike a stock, real estate will eat your cash in taxes and repairs unless it is rented. If you are willing to be a long-distance landlord, this may work out. Understand that property management fees will eat into your rent income and being long-distance will give more potential for a bad tenant to ruin your property value. These and other factors (e.g. vacancy rate) will increase your risk of loss and should be considered. Some of this will be your preference, since you will spend much more time dealing with buying/selling/property management as opposed to a more clean rental situation. Is this hassle worth the savings? For many, yes; others, no. Finally, I hope this calculator can help clarify some of the financial aspects for you.  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=0 Good Luck!

negative: So much fail and misinformation in this thread. China has REDUCED it's Treasury holdings in 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/business/economy/as-the-us-borrows-who-lends.html?_r=0 Also, FTFA, The FEDERAL RESERVE is the largest holder of US Govt Debt, at 1.65 Trillion. Japan is the largest FOREIGN purchaser of US Govt Debt. This is because China has actively been selling US Debt. Why you may ask? Because the United States manipulates the interest rates on it's debt. Google 'Operation Twist'

negative: I strongly urge you against this despite the fact that you may enjoy lucrative interest rates in the short run. Considering the reckless usage of deposits and other public monies to build buildings just to claim that gdp is high (they count the cost of real estate as investment not their final sales as the rest of the world does), all depositors in Chinese banks stand to lose or at least have their funds frozen (since all credit funding the real estate building comes from the banks and taxes & land seizures to a lesser degree). China's reckless building: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm7rOKT151Y East Asian Crisis (Chapters 11 & 12): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/story/ch_menu_03.html This can be prolonged if they open their financial system to outside funding, but that will also amplify the effect.

negative: "In addition to @MD-tech's answer: I'd distinguish between stock of a foreign company traded in local currency at a local exchange from the same stock traded in the foreign currency at a foreign exchange (and maybe with a foreign bank holding your accounts). The latter option will typically have higher variation because of exchange rate, and (usually) higher risks associated with possibility of recovery, (double) taxation and the possible legal difficulties @MD-tech mentions. Trading the foreign stock at a local exchange may mean that the transaction volume is far lower than at their ""home"" exchange. Holding stock of companies working in foreign markets OTOH can be seen as diversification and may lower your risk. If you only invest in the local market, your investments may be subject to the same economic fluctuations that your wage/employment/pension situation is subject to - it may be good to try de-correlating this a bit. Of course, depending on political circumstances in your home country, foreign investments may be less risky (though I'd suspect these home countries also come with a high risk of seizing foreign investments...)"

negative: Plus, there's the feeling my parents want me to have a house in case   we can't save the one we (my mom and brothers) all live in. First, you should not be forced to buy a home because your parents are telling you to. You should have your own life. Period. That said, while you are doing well from a salary perspective, your savings are somewhat borderline for a purchase if you ask me. Meaning your savings would essentially be the full downpayment & then your whole paycheck basically becomes payments on the mortgage. Not a good situation to be in. My advice would be that if you can invest in something smaller—like a small apartment for yourself—that is what you should purchase.  That would allow you to invest in something but not be completely financially drained by the prospect. And then in a few years, you can sell that apartment & move onto something else.  Perhaps a house at that stage? But right now, a full home purchase would be a fairly massive risk.

negative: Home of Shanghai is Chinese real estate agency based in Shanghai.  http://www.homeofshanghai.com help exparts to rent apartment in Shanghai and find their dream home in China.  http://www.homeofshanghai.com  offers Shanghai Properties for rent by Type:  New apartments for rent in Shanghai Old apartments for rent in Shanghai Lane houses for rent in Shanghai Villas for rent in Shanghai Offices for rent in Shanghai Serviced apartments for rent in Shanghai

negative: Aims Golf Avenue 2 Noida apartments are ready to move in option. These apartments are planned over 5.5 acres of greenery land to develop 2BHK & 3BHK flats. The project having 6 towers to develop residences from 930 to 1765 Sqft. It is developing at Sector 75 Noida to build unique residences so that homebuyers will have great opportunity to invest in. http://www.smcrealty.com/golf-avenue2-noida/

negative: China's GDP and foreign investment are an increasing portion of real growth, including massive infrastructure investments, from Africa to Asia  to Latin America. That is what makes their financial system and currency strong. The US is still stuck with financial bubbles. We would be better cooperating with China on their Belt and Road plans, joining the AIIB, and giving up the Neocon dreams of world hegemon. THEN, the dollar might be restored to some greater real value.

negative: "Perhaps buying some internationally exchanged stock of China real-estate companies? It's never too late to enter a bubble or profit from a bubble after it bursts. As a native Chinese, my observations suggest that the bubble may exist in a few of the most populated cities of China such as Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, the price doesn't seem to be much higher than expected in cities further within the mainland, such as Xi'an and Chengdu. I myself is living in Xi'an. I did a post about the urban housing cost of Xi'an at the end of last year: http://www.xianhotels.info/urban-housing-cost-of-xian-china~15 It may give you a rough idea of the pricing level. The average of 5,500 CNY per square meter (condo) hasn't fluctuated much since the posting of the entry. But you need to pay about 1,000 to 3,000 higher to get something desirable. For location, just search ""Xi'an, China"" in Google Maps. =========== I actually have no idea how you, a foreigner can safely and easily profit from this. I'll just share what I know. It's really hard to financially enter China. To prevent oversea speculative funds from freely entering and leaving China, the Admin of Forex (safe.gov.cn) has laid down a range of rigid policies regarding currency exchange. By law, any native individual, such as me, is imposed of a maximum of $50,000 that can be converted from USD to CNY or the other way around per year AND a maximum of $10,000 per day. Larger chunks of exchange must get the written consent of the Admin of Forex or it will simply not be cleared by any of the banks in China, even HSBC that's not owned by China. However, you can circumvent this limit by using the social ID of your immediate relatives when submitting exchange requests. It takes extra time and effort but viable. However, things may change drastically should China be in a forex crisis or simply war. You may not be able to withdraw USD at all from the banks in China, even with a positive balance that's your own money. My whole income stream are USD which is wired monthly from US to Bank of China. I purchased a property in the middle of last year that's worth 275,000 CNY using the funds I exchanged from USD I had earned. It's a 43.7% down payment on a mortgage loan of 20 years: http://www.mlcalc.com/#mortgage-275000-43.7-20-4.284-0-0-0.52-7-2009-year (in CNY, not USD) The current household loan rate is 6.12% across the entire China. However, because this is my first property, it is discounted by 30% to 4.284% to encourage the first house purchase. There will be no more discounts of loan rate for the 2nd property and so forth to discourage speculative stocking that drives the price high. The apartment I bought in July of 2009 can easily be sold at 300,000 now. Some of the earlier buyers have enjoyed much more appreciation than I do. To give you a rough idea, a house bought in 2006 is now evaluated 100% more, one bought in 2008 now 50% more and one bought in the beginning of 2009 now 25% more."

negative: There are at least three important aspectss missing from your equation. However they come with some uncertainty as one typically cannot tell the future performance. Appreciation of the rental units value. When comparing to the gain of any alternative investment an increasing value of the flat is a gain too. Increase of rent. Rents are typically adjusted either on a regular basis or at least when changing tennants. Calulation with a flat rent over 20 years is therefore way off. Tax deductions due to capital expenditures (i.e. mortgages), expenses for the upkeep and maintenance of the property, conserving and management, and so on. Obviously those are depending on your local legislation. There are multiple other issues to consider of course, e.g. inadvertant vacancy, which would not act in your favour.

negative: buying real estate is for people with sufficient financial resources to cover market downturns. Please read about the 2008 real estate market. Investing in real estate when you are a poor college student is a sure way to become a bankrupt college student. A single word answer to your question: No. Not reasonable. Your best investment is completing college with as little debt as possible and the most practical experience in the market area you are interested in entering.

negative: Absolutely, it can. Just look at Vancouver and how Chinese millionaires made the housing market virtually unaffordable to the average citizen. Vancouver passed a new taxation law and now these immigrants are migrating down to Washington doing the same thing: http://q13fox.com/2017/05/10/more-chinese-investors-buying-up-puget-sound-affecting-housing-market-as-a-whole/

negative: Well... they could force first time, overseas buyers who aren't citizens or even permanent residents to buy property in the regions or other economically depressed areas.  Look, these people are buying property for two reasons:  1 - boltholers (simply looking for a place to land that will offer them alternative citizenship/residency when cultural revolution 2.0 finally happens or simply looking for somewhere that isn't lung chokingly polluted).  2 - rent seekers (don't trust the two money, internal external, Yuan/Renminbi system to hold value and are seeking something that generates revenue denominated in a current not controlled by the One Party One China system that is outside of the state run banking system).

negative: I strongly recommend you to invest in either stocks or bonds. Both markets have very strict regulations, and usually follow international standards of governance. Plus, they are closely supervised by local governments, since they look to serve the interests of capital holders in order to attract foreign investment. Real estate investment is not all risky, but regulations tend to be very localized. There are federal, state/county laws and byelaws, the last usually being the most significant in terms of costs (city taxes) and zoning. So if they ever change, that could ruin your investment. Keeping up with them would be hard work, because of language, legal and distance issues (visiting notary's office to sign papers, for example). Another thing to consider is, specially on rural distant areas, the risk of forgers taking your land. In poorer countries you could also face the problem of land invasion, both urban and rural. Solution for that depends on a harsh (fast) or socially populist (slow) local government. Small businesses are out of question for you, frankly. The list of risks (cash stealing, accounting misleading, etc.) is such that you will lose money. Even if you ran the business in your hometown it would not be easy right?

negative: Dreamz Infra India Pvt Ltd is building homes based on trust and you are invited to build your future with us. Dream Infra sell Flats, Apartments, House, in cheap rate at various places in bangalore.  Dreamz Infra, Dreamz infra Builders, Dreamz  Infra Reviews,  Dreamz Infra Apartments, Dreamz GK Infra Review, Dreamz Infra Flats  for sale, Dreamz Infra Bangalore, 1BHK,2BHK,3BHK Flats in Bangalore, Best Builders & Developers Dreamz Infra , Best  Real Estate Company in Bangalore, India.

negative: Create, market and perform seminars advising others how to get rich from the Chinese Real-Estate Bubble. Much more likely to be profitable; and you can do it from the comfort of your own country, without currency conversions.

negative: I would say yes. There are a lot of rich assholes in China with too much money to spend. You'll need to market those products not as natural products you'll need to market them as **expensive** natural products.    Keeping your product expensive will be the key to success.  Those rich assholes aren't interested in cheap stuffs.   Do not under any circumstances have any made in China products.  Everything must be made outside of China.

negative: " The western press wants to make much of the lack of human rights in China, but in 8,000 kilometers of travel we were stopped only a couple of times at checkpoints, whereas as we crossed the Stans—our fast allies—we were stopped scores and scores of times by heavy-handed police. Here in China everyone is too busy making money to poke his nose into anyone else’s business.   And "" While many foreigners who have invested in China may have lost money through ill-conceived investments, you’d never believe it by the bustling economic activity we observed on our cross-China journey. For a long, long time I’ve been enthusiastic about China’s prospects. For many years I’ve urged my friends to teach their children Chinese, as I believe the 21st century will be as much China’s as the 19th century was Britain’s and the 20th century was America’s. For all these years I’ve been waiting patiently for the hibernating dragon to awaken.""  And my googling skills appear to be lost - he did acknowledge that China has poor human rights record but so did US during 19th century"

negative: The entire world came together and agreed America should be fined for its over indulgences or success, pay for the bulk of the costs, give all the power and control over to a foreign leader most likely one from an impoverished country. Allow China and India to decimate their environment while reaping all the benefits of manufacturing without an environmental restrictions. Allow foreign companies such as American companies to get obscene tax benefits by relocating to China or India, replacing American workers with foreign locals. Of course the world wants this- as do liberals. Liberals saddled with guilt hating free enterprise and constantly being  in search for a new cause to make them feel good about them selves. Moral superiority. Climate change fits the bill. Sound fair ?

negative: Now that the labor market in China is near saturation and wages are rising, I think that the Western factories that rely heavily on unskilled labor will start to move from China to sub-Saharan Africa.   Edit: I disagree with this line:  > tried-and-true strategies of delivering charity  Those charities have come under a lot of fire recently, especially from African academics, for distorting the market economies in Africa. Massive supplies of free grain ruin the market for farmers. They inhibit the development of the agricultural sector in Africa and may be harming Africans in the long-term as much as they help in the short-term.  Foreign direct investment, better governance, and foreign-built factories will probably help Africa more than food aid.

negative: REITs can be classified as equity, mortgage, or hybrid. A security that sells like a stock on the major exchanges and invests in real estate directly, either through properties or mortgages. Trades like equity but the underlying is a property ot mortgage. So you are investing in real estate but without directly dealing with it. So you wouldn't classify it as real estate. CD looks more like a bond.If you look at the terms and conditions they have many conditions as a bond i.e. callable, that is a very precious option for both the buyer and seller. Self occupied house - Yes an asset because it comes with liabilities. When you need to sell it you have to move out. You have to perform repairs to keep it in good condition. Foreign stock mutual fund - Classify it as Foreign stocks, for your own good. Investments in a foreign country aren't the same as in your own country. The foreign economy can go bust, the company may go bust and you would have limited options of recovering your money sitting at home and so on and so forth.

negative: "Having lived in a couple of coutries my perspective on this is ""Do apartments gain value or lose value in your area over time?"" I've lived in areas where the age of the building vs the inflation of home values has meant apartments steadily lose value and in other areas where they keep up with or beat inflation for most of the life of the building.  Have your real estate agent take a look at the market and see how much a similar apartment in an older building goes for.  If it seems like apartments rapidly depreciate then it may be a good time to take a win.  If age isn't a huge factor in price then it probably doesn't make sense to get rid of a cash generator to put the money into other investments."

negative: Buying is not always better than renting, even if you aren't mobile! That depends on local market conditions.  If you're investing the money reasonably you may do as well as or better than the house-buyer, and your funds will be tremendously more liquid.

negative: "Wikipedia talks about the Chinese currency: Scholarly studies suggest that the yuan is undervalued on the basis of purchasing power parity analysis. so despite it appearing cheaper due to the official exchange rate, the price in China might actually be fair. There are also restrictions on foreign exchange (purportedly ""to prevent inflows of hot money""), which, in concert with any other legal obstacles to owning or trading on the Chinese exchange, may also explain why the high-frequency traders aren't tripping over each other to arbitrage away the difference."

negative: "A good answer to the question really depends on where you want to live, ultimately. Where you want to live pretty much dictates your investment priorities. If you want to invest in ""terrain"" so you can build a house next to all the ""cool,"" people in Guayaquil that should be your first priority. Your new wife may have an opinion on that matter, you should consult her. In real life, most people are less concerned about their absolute level of wealth than with ""keeping up"" with their friends, or other reference group. If you don't buy the ""terrain,"" the danger is that in five years, it may go up three, four, five times and be out of your reach, even if your other investments do well on the absolute standard.  While it's fairly easy to invest the equivalent of $250K in Ecuadorian land, it's hard to invest that much in Ecuadorian stocks. If you want to buy stocks with that kind of money, it will be U.S., European, or maybe other Latin American, e.g., Brazilian stocks. That kind of asset allocation would tell me that you are thinking of leaving your country at some point. If you're ""undecided,"" a sensible allocation might be 50-50. But in any event, first decide how you want to live your life, then adopt the investment strategy that best supports that life."

negative: "A couple of distinctions. First, if you were to ""invest in real estate"" were you planning to buy a home to live in, or buy a home to rent out to someone else?  Buying a home as a primary residence really isn't ""investing in real estate"" per se.  It's buying a place to live rather than renting one.  Unless you rent a room out or get a multi-family unit, your primary residence won't be income-producing.  It will be income-draining, for the most part.  I speak as a homeowner. Second, if you are buying to rent out to someone else, buying a single home is quite a bit different than buying an REIT.  The home is a lot less liquid, the transaction costs are higher, and all of your eggs are in one basket.  Having said that, though, if you buy one right and do your homework it can set you on the road for a very comfortable retirement."

negative: When you decided to invest to China. The big problem is corruption. You have to pay so much for the government before opening your company such as: documents for opening, certificate for your standard products, etc., and a lots of undertable expense that you can not add them into your income statement. China has only the advantage of population. Products manufactured from China are not seemed high-quality. I'm glad that U.S companies return their countries. It's a good decision.