Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jul 1, 2014 12:13:44 GMT -5
His argument that we've never needed an EF is also hard to beat (and yes we've had some emergencies come our way)
You can point out that the past does not guarantee the future. The whole point of an emergency fund is that emergencies are unpredictable. If an EF would help you sleep better at night, that is worth a great deal (imo).
Also, the 25% rate is only on income above the 15% rate. If your taxable income was $100 over the 15% rate, you'd pay 25% on the $100, not your whole income.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jul 1, 2014 12:22:48 GMT -5
If an EF would help you sleep better at night, that is worth a great deal (imo). We all have different comfort levels, and not all of what we feel about money or finances is based on logic or shared logic.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Jul 1, 2014 12:23:52 GMT -5
We've had a 1K "emergency fund" for about a decade, but have never really used it. When something comes up (broken appliance or whatever) we've been able to cash flow it. Weird but true. HELOC was from a 23K siding job and owe 10K - it should be paid off in 2015. Owe 8K on car.... Thoughts? When nothing weird comes up, where does the money go? Is that cashflow disposable income that gets spent on wants? I actually did back down my 401(k) when it had always been maxed when I was still single and relied on my own income. This board, Suze Orman and news headlines for massive layoffs at my company plagued my mind, so I backed it down to the 5% match for 2 years to save up a year of expenses. Never had to use it and even though those 2 years were actually really good years for the market, I guess I don't regret it. It became a nice slush fund for dollar cost averaging. Now that I think about it, I think part of the answer is that DH gets paid out on unused vacation 2x/yr (any hours over 80 can be cashed out). We also get quarterly stock dividends. Neither of these funds are part of our budget, so whenever we get extra cash we sit down and discuss how to use them. Sometimes they cover an emergency expenditure, other times we throw it to the 401k, sometimes it goes to a want. Our budget is very realistic with solid sinking funds, so this money is truly extra. I'm sure that has factored into our cash flow emergencies over the years. We also live a pretty minimal lifestyle (compared to our friends). Vacations are camping, our furniture is all from Craigslist, we drive our cars until they are 15+ years old, we don't do gadgets. DH does golf 1x/wk, but it's really important time with his dad and I fully support it (plus they golf at really cheap places). Our kids are getting more and more expensive (UGH!) so that is our biggest issue at the moment. There are just so many cool things to do with them it's hard to find time/money balance. Both of us are at the point we don't want any more lifestyle creep and want to set a plan for extra money going forward. We're just trying to figure out the best plan.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Jul 1, 2014 12:30:50 GMT -5
His argument that we've never needed an EF is also hard to beat (and yes we've had some emergencies come our way)You can point out that the past does not guarantee the future. The whole point of an emergency fund is that emergencies are unpredictable. If an EF would help you sleep better at night, that is worth a great deal (imo). Also, the 25% rate is only on income above the 15% rate. If your taxable income was $100 over the 15% rate, you'd pay 25% on the $100, not your whole income. Yes, I know. But basically any extra income we get now is above that threshold, so it is taxed at the higher rate. I think I have to remind DH that it's really just the deferring the tax, not an actual savings. Also, the real return is only the 8% savings on state income tax (that we wouldn't pay in retirement) but I think the diversification argument offsets it. DH is very financially savvy (he's a CPA) and a bit more aggressive than I am. We know all the laws - it's the emotional aspects of personal finance that I think we need to discuss. I've compromised for him quite a bit on the stock issue, so I'm thinking he owes me on the Roth issue.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Jul 1, 2014 12:49:32 GMT -5
His argument that we've never needed an EF is also hard to beat
Neither did I, until I got sick. For 30+ years of supporting myself, I never needed any large bolus of money. Even the 4 surgeries I had between 1995 and 2011, I was able to cash flow - despite the fact that I was out as long as 2 months for one of them.
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,444
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on Jul 1, 2014 13:34:46 GMT -5
@tbird,
RIF is short for reduction in force.
The company DH worked for did major restructuring starting in about 2000 and finally did a massive layoff in 2009 effectively ending their presence in the US other than international shipments.
Although the company was originally founded and based in the SF Bay in 1969 after the founder died the new foreign owners relocated the US headquarters to FL and the IT group to Scottsdale AZ. Basically if we didn't move DH would have been out of a job. I think we would have been ok as I had a good paying job and DH would have eventually found work in the IT field. But the company sweetened the deal enough for us to take a look at AZ and we fell in love with the area. Then the recession hit and DH was one of only a handful of employees who were asked to move to Germany. We grabbed it knowing that this was probably a sunset assignment for DH.
|
|
Peace77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 1:42:40 GMT -5
Posts: 3,948
|
Post by Peace77 on Jul 1, 2014 14:29:55 GMT -5
Yes, you need an EF. At your income level, $1k is not an EF, it's more like a checking account buffer.
While it's easy to assume that if the breadwinner becomes disabled, insurance policies will pay out. However, insurance companies, employers and Social Security are not always there for you. There are waiting periods and exceptions where you get NOTHING. There are sometimes denials where the disability claim has to be appealed before it is approved. During the appeals process, there is often NO income.
In case of dire emergency, you might draw on your HELOC after you have exhausted cash and sick leave. Therefore, I would split extra funds between increasing the EF, paying off the HELOC and adding a small amount to the 401(k).
Even Phil keeps a $5k emergency fund and has a paid for home.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,486
Member is Online
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 1, 2014 21:12:17 GMT -5
I was on here a few months ago asking if I should reduce my 401k contributions because I was afraid I didn't have enough that I could get my hands on before I turned 59 and a half. What was the consensus on that? (Sorry to side track OP) More people than expected said there was validity in reducing my 401k, with a handful saying they had done the same thing. But, as with any time you ask the opinion of dozens of people - I got all sorts of answers and the results were inconclusive. And, of course - I am super lazy, so I haven't changed squat.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,486
Member is Online
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 1, 2014 21:13:34 GMT -5
His argument that we've never needed an EF is also hard to beat (and yes we've had some emergencies come our way)You can point out that the past does not guarantee the future. The whole point of an emergency fund is that emergencies are unpredictable. If an EF would help you sleep better at night, that is worth a great deal (imo). Also, the 25% rate is only on income above the 15% rate. If your taxable income was $100 over the 15% rate, you'd pay 25% on the $100, not your whole income. Yes, I know. But basically any extra income we get now is above that threshold, so it is taxed at the higher rate. I think I have to remind DH that it's really just the deferring the tax, not an actual savings. Also, the real return is only the 8% savings on state income tax (that we wouldn't pay in retirement) but I think the diversification argument offsets it. DH is very financially savvy (he's a CPA) and a bit more aggressive than I am. We know all the laws - it's the emotional aspects of personal finance that I think we need to discuss. I've compromised for him quite a bit on the stock issue, so I'm thinking he owes me on the Roth issue. Sounds like you have already made up your mind and you just want us to tell you that is a super smart decision.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Jul 1, 2014 21:31:57 GMT -5
Yes, I know. But basically any extra income we get now is above that threshold, so it is taxed at the higher rate. I think I have to remind DH that it's really just the deferring the tax, not an actual savings. Also, the real return is only the 8% savings on state income tax (that we wouldn't pay in retirement) but I think the diversification argument offsets it. DH is very financially savvy (he's a CPA) and a bit more aggressive than I am. We know all the laws - it's the emotional aspects of personal finance that I think we need to discuss. I've compromised for him quite a bit on the stock issue, so I'm thinking he owes me on the Roth issue. Sounds like you have already made up your mind and you just want us to tell you that is a super smart decision. Weird, I was thinking you guys have given me really good points to build a larger EF in a Roth, which was what I was going to propose to DH.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,486
Member is Online
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 1, 2014 21:33:32 GMT -5
Go for it!
|
|
bobosensei
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:32:49 GMT -5
Posts: 1,561
|
Post by bobosensei on Jul 2, 2014 0:12:00 GMT -5
For the last 10 years DH and I have not kept more than a few thousand in a separate account designated for emergencies. With his job in the military and our young age, status as renters, no kids etc. it just wasn't warranted. We were investing money in a taxable account during this time that we considered a "back up" emergency fund. We tapped a few thousand a couple of times for non emergency things where we needed larger sums of money than what we had stored.
Now DH is facing a job loss in 9-15 months so we are looking to beef up our cash reserves much more than normal. We could live comfortably for a year or more on our taxable investment accounts, but we don't want to have to tap those if we can avoid it. Instead we will be looking to fund a more basic lifestyle on cash we reserve now. We never thought that a job loss would happen to DH, but even relatively secure jobs are not 100% guaranteed. This is why having extra money put away whether we called it an emergency fund or not, was important for us.
|
|
mrnewengland
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 18, 2014 14:04:15 GMT -5
Posts: 100
|
Post by mrnewengland on Jul 2, 2014 8:37:22 GMT -5
I will just chime in and say that phil gave me advice a few years ago on another board that I thought was great advice:
I had a lot of money tied up in a savings account that I called my emergency fund. He basically said that the money was dead money and if I could handle the risk the money could go in a taxable account where I could invest the money and hopefully get some better returns on the money.
If something major happened it might take a couple days to get to the money but it's still there and it's not forcing you to take a loan from your 401K.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jul 2, 2014 9:02:16 GMT -5
I will just chime in and say that phil gave me advice a few years ago on another board that I thought was great advice: I had a lot of money tied up in a savings account that I called my emergency fund. He basically said that the money was dead money and if I could handle the risk the money could go in a taxable account where I could invest the money and hopefully get some better returns on the money. If something major happened it might take a couple days to get to the money but it's still there and it's not forcing you to take a loan from your 401K. It depends on how you have that money invested. If it's invested in volatile assets, it may well be worth less at the exact time you need it the most. If your "Emergency Fund" was all in stocks in 2008, it would have lost about 40%.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Jul 2, 2014 9:12:33 GMT -5
I am so risk averse, it's frighting. I wish I had the balls to move our cash to stock market
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,444
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on Jul 2, 2014 9:17:07 GMT -5
I will just chime in and say that phil gave me advice a few years ago on another board that I thought was great advice: I had a lot of money tied up in a savings account that I called my emergency fund. He basically said that the money was dead money and if I could handle the risk the money could go in a taxable account where I could invest the money and hopefully get some better returns on the money. If something major happened it might take a couple days to get to the money but it's still there and it's not forcing you to take a loan from your 401K. It depends on how you have that money invested. If it's invested in volatile assets, it may well be worth less at the exact time you need it the most. If your "Emergency Fund" was all in stocks in 2008, it would have lost about 40%. Right, but the argument is that if you did an analysis of let's say $50k in a low yield savings account vs an investment in an S&P 500 over a long period of time, say 20 years with period raids even at the lowest point, you'd still come ahead.
Hey phil5185 want to take on the math and do an analysis with a 10k raid in Nov 2008 and where that investment would be today?
|
|
DVM gone riding
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:04:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,383
Favorite Drink: Coffee!!
|
Post by DVM gone riding on Jul 2, 2014 9:28:58 GMT -5
aj----sounds like a good EF to me. 3 mos in a cash account and another 15 in "car" if it all hits the fan of course you are going to use those first!
OP--I think if you have a 5k buffer in cash as a general rule regardless of what you call that 5k you are ok. I would than put 5k in YOUR name in a ROTH and let DH put the rest into the 401k. Is he not already maxing it?? in your shoes my goal would be to put 5k into a roth first for you and then max the 401k.
I can't believe you JUST hit the 25% but that is because of married with kids. I am less than you but pushing the 28% and then I am doing everything to keep under that.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jul 2, 2014 9:49:43 GMT -5
Right, but the argument is that if you did an analysis of let's say $50k in a low yield savings account vs an investment in an S&P 500 over a long period of time, say 20 years with period raids even at the lowest point, you'd still come ahead.
I don't think there's any argument that you'd come out ahead investing in the S&P over the long term. My point is that an "Emergency Fund", by definition is not limited to the long term. Emergencies don't conveniently occur when the market is up.
I'd hate to see someone put their entire EF into the S&P because they read here that was the smart thing to do, and then lose their job (or develop a serious, disabling illness, or anything else) just as the market is repeating 2008.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,370
|
Post by movingforward on Jul 2, 2014 9:54:42 GMT -5
I like having 30K in an EF. Most people think that is way too much money just sitting there making .80% but I have determined that I could live off 30K for a year if needed. It just gives me peace of mind... I do have a brokerage account linked to my savings and I do trade stocks from time to time but generally I don't have more than 5K of EF in stocks at one time. I max my IRA every year so no worries there. If having 30K in an EF gives me peace of mind then I see nothing wrong with it.
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,444
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on Jul 2, 2014 10:02:48 GMT -5
Right, but the argument is that if you did an analysis of let's say $50k in a low yield savings account vs an investment in an S&P 500 over a long period of time, say 20 years with period raids even at the lowest point, you'd still come ahead.
I don't think there's any argument that you'd come out ahead investing in the S&P over the long term. My point is that an "Emergency Fund", by definition is not limited to the long term. Emergencies don't conveniently occur when the market is up. I'd hate to see someone put their entire EF into the S&P because they read here that was the smart thing to do, and then lose their job (or develop a serious, disabling illness, or anything else) just as the market is repeating 2008. I understand. My request to phil5185 was to do analysis based on needing a good chunk (20%) at the worst possible time (when the market dropped by 40%). If you have $50k in the market and it drops to 30k and you need 10k at that point, you still have enough money to meet your obligations. So the question is 6 years later would you be back to $40k (if you had left the money in a low interest savings account)?
ETA: And of course I'm missing the main point Phil makes which is the opportunity cost of keeping money in a low interest savings account which might have averaged 2% earnings over the last 20 years vs the 11% return by staying invested in the S&P 500. That $10k needed in 2008 might have been compromised mostly by profit on the original $50k.
|
|
Nazgul Girl
Junior Associate
Babysitting our new grandbaby 3 days a week !
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:25:02 GMT -5
Posts: 5,913
Today's Mood: excellent
|
Post by Nazgul Girl on Jul 2, 2014 10:05:56 GMT -5
We have a cd which has been paying 5.4 percent for the past (almost ) nine years. (Flagstar was offering a ten-year cd at the time - weird, but it was ). We used half of it to buy our 2nd rental. We have quite a bit left in it, and since the cd is going to mature in 15 months, and our legal troubles from the nutbag seem to be over with ( thanks be to God ), we can now make do with a smaller EF.
It took awhile to convince DH, but we're using the majority of the cd to fund another rental, and will have a stock trading account and about $8000 left from the cd to use as an emergency fund, which is still too large, but it's as low an amount as DH will agree with.
Our Roth's are fully funded each year except for the worst year when we were being sued over and over by the nutbag, but 2014 will be our last year to contribute new money to the Roths, since I retired last week.
I'm happy to be freeing up more of the money from the cd for better investments. Our plan is to not touch our retirement accounts for another 6-7 years, which our financial guy thinks will allow them to double.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jul 2, 2014 10:10:31 GMT -5
I understand. My request to phil5185 was to do analysis based on needing a good chunk (20%) at the worst possible time (when the market dropped by 40%). If you have $50k in the market and it drops to 30k and you need 10k at that point, you still have enough money to meet your obligations.
But if you need $50K to meet your obligations, you now have only $30K.
I do think, if one wants a large EF but doesn't want to put all of it into safe, low reward accounts, it can be smart to "bucket" the funds. In the event of a genuine emergency, it's unlikely you'd need all of it at one time, so you could put part of it into a safe, liquid (low interest) account, part of it into something a little more risky, but paying a bit more, and part into the high risk, high reward category.
Personally, we don't have a separate fund or account labeled, EF. But our income is stable and predictable, disability is a non issue. I maintain some short term savings that could be tapped immediately and some that woukd take a few days to transfer.
Ar the risk of side tracking the OP (with apologies) I recently read a post on another forum that suggested retirees should maintain an "End of Life" emergency fund because of the often very expensive costs incurred then.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Jul 2, 2014 10:11:19 GMT -5
Right, but the argument is that if you did an analysis of let's say $50k in a low yield savings account vs an investment in an S&P 500 over a long period of time, say 20 years with period raids even at the lowest point, you'd still come ahead.
I don't think there's any argument that you'd come out ahead investing in the S&P over the long term. My point is that an "Emergency Fund", by definition is not limited to the long term. Emergencies don't conveniently occur when the market is up. I'd hate to see someone put their entire EF into the S&P because they read here that was the smart thing to do, and then lose their job (or develop a serious, disabling illness, or anything else) just as the market is repeating 2008. I understand. My request to phil5185 was to do analysis based on needing a good chunk (20%) at the worst possible time (when the market dropped by 40%). If you have $50k in the market and it drops to 30k and you need 10k at that point, you still have enough money to meet your obligations. So the question is 6 years later would you be back to $40k (if you had left the money in a low interest savings account)? It doesn't really matter in this scenario because the OP does not have a stash of cash in a deposit account nor in a brokerage account nor in an IRA. Any of these options would be smarter than her current options of HELOC, 401K loan or credit card, which would still be available options if the market were down and it was a bad time to sell.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jul 2, 2014 10:29:18 GMT -5
gooddecisions, You are right and we are getting side tracked.
Formerly SK. I think, yes, you do need an EF. If your risk tolerance is lower than your husband's, that needs to be respected. My husband has a lower risk tolerance than I do (and he considers me to be the better finance person) but I respect his lower tolerance and we have made some nonYm approved decisions vecause of it (paid off mortgage, paid cash for a car)
The ability to borrow is not a substitute for a true emergency fund
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jul 3, 2014 13:36:12 GMT -5
I think of the EF as a pretty basic step up the chain of learning how to manage your money. First, you learn to pay your bills, stay out of debt, etc. Then as you work and start building, you then want to have 3 to 6 months of CASH available for emergencies like car problems, medical, etc. You need that cushion to prevent you from having to cover those gaps with expensive CC debt. After that, then you start investing on a regular basis. Once you then build your wealth, and EF really isn't necessary. Yes, I keep a certain amount of cash available for life's emergencies. But, I have other money that I could cash out of stocks, funds, etcs. So, the real point of the EF is then covered.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Jul 6, 2014 10:58:41 GMT -5
***UPDATE*** I opened a Roth today at Vanguard with $1000. Questions: 1) I picked the Target Retirement 2040 fund (I'm 41). If I wanted to be more aggressive, should I have chosen the the 2045 fund? OTOH, if this is our potential EF, should I have it go in a 2030 fund? 2) DH has an old 401k he needs to move into an IRA (about 120K). Assuming we move it to a traditional IRA Vanguard Target fund, could we then move chunks of it to a Roth (and pay the income taxes now) as part of our tax diversification strategy? I could set up a Roth in his name to move the funds into. Sorry for such novice questions.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jul 6, 2014 11:44:00 GMT -5
1) I picked the Target Retirement 2040 fund (I'm 41). If I wanted to be more aggressive, should I have chosen the the 2045 fund? OTOH, if this is our potential EF, should I have it go in a 2030 fund?
The 2030 fund has an AA of (about) 76/23 2035 84/15 2040 90/10
It's a personal preference and you need to factor in your tolerance for risk. The 2040 (with the higher stock portion) has the higher potential for more reward, but will probably go up and down more sharply.
(Personally, if it was MY EF, I'd be more conservative. If it was not for an EF, and was strictly for the future, I'd go even more aggressive) But that's a personal decision
2) DH has an old 401k he needs to move into an IRA (about 120K). Assuming we move it to a traditional IRA Vanguard Target fund, could we then move chunks of it to a Roth (and pay the income taxes now) as part of our tax diversification strategy? I could set up a Roth in his name to move the funds into.
Yes, just be aware that converting a Traditional IRA to a Roth IRA can result in being bumped into a higher marginal rate. You'd want to be aware of those consequences. The good part is that the IRS lets you "undo" all or part of the conversion (called "recharacterization")
And, yes, you can do the conversion in "chunks" instead of all at once. That can be a smart way to do it...
BTW, the Vanguard website makes the conversion very, very easy. When I did a recharacteization earlier this year, I had to call them. But they made it very easy. About 10 minutes on the phone.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Jul 6, 2014 13:27:32 GMT -5
Also note that your fees for your DH's IRA will likely be lower as he could qualify for Admiral status. Speak to a Vanguard rep to make certain all your accounts are linked together so you are not paying the annual fee on your small Roth. I forget what the threshhold is, but once you have a certain amount invested with Vanguard, all your annual fees are waived. We just opened DH's Roth last year, but there is no annual fee because of our combined account totals.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jul 6, 2014 13:38:58 GMT -5
Also note that your fees for your DH's IRA will likely be lower as he could qualify for Admiral status. Speak to a Vanguard rep to make certain all your accounts are linked together so you are not paying the annual fee on your small Roth. I forget what the threshhold is, but once you have a certain amount invested with Vanguard, all your annual fees are waived. We just opened DH's Roth last year, but there is no annual fee because of our combined account totals. Good point!! Be sure to have your documents (statements etc) sent electronically. (I get an email from VG telling me there is a statement, or confirmation, or whatever. I log in and download the document to my computer in pdf format) I THINK that if you have the docs sent electronically, there is no fee even with very low amounts... Account service fees Account service fees are automatically waived when you register for secure access to our website and let us send account documents to you electronically. They're also waived for all Voyager, Voyager Select, Flagship, and Flagship Select Services clients. If none of these apply, a $20 fee will be charged annually for each fund account in which you have a balance of less than $10,000. investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/fees
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Jul 6, 2014 14:25:06 GMT -5
Just thought of another option..... Don't know if they do it now, but 25 years ago, they used to waive the fees if you had automatic contributions. If you don't want to go the electronic statement route, check into having a set dollar amount automatically put into your account to get the fees waived. I started my accounts with them before the electronic statements were available and was able to do the electronic transfer route to save the (then) $10 per account annual fee. ETA: I set my transfers up at $50 per month and then made additional contributions to reach the max at some point during the year. Some of it was market timing (I blush now to think how stupid I was) and some of it was purely based on budget limitations.
|
|