Super Lazy portfolio, just VSMGX? [Vanguard LifeStrategy Moderate Growth]

[phxjcc]

Ok gang, tell me why not.

It is a fund of the funds that everyone here recommends.

No balancing worries, just sell when you need money.

[retiredjg]

A fund of funds may not be the best choice for a taxable account.

[Texanbybirth]

You can do a whole lot worse, and I'd bet probably not a whole lot better. Though of course you could do slightly better with more work.

[willthrill81]

In a tax-advantaged account, it's perfectly fine. It's actually the fund Jim at the White Coat Investor advocated as part of the 'bare minimum'.

[livesoft]

We own shares of this fund. They are in an inherited IRA.

If one has no taxable accounts, then I think it is a great fund.

And if one has taxable accounts, it is still a great fund, but I would have something else in the taxable accounts.[*]

[ruralavalon]

Ok gang, tell me why not.

It is a fund of the funds that everyone here recommends.

No balancing worries, just sell when you need money.

Vanguard LifeStrategy Moderate Growth Fund (VSMGX) is an excellent all-in-one fund for a portfolio that consists of tax-advantaged accounts.

[ERguy101]

I personally love funds like this. I have a lot of money in FFNOX which is similar. It cracks me up we can make a retirement portfolio with a single fund, and likely do better than all these people who have expensive financial planners that have them in all these ridiculous tech/energy/health sector high fee mutual funds.

[phxjcc]

We own shares of this fund. They are in an inherited IRA.

If one has no taxable accounts, then I think it is a great fund.

And if one has taxable accounts, it is still a great fund, but I would have something else in the taxable accounts.[*]

* = ?

Sooooo, is there a CA muni fund version of this?

[nisiprius]

There's no reason why not. Do it. Don't read the rest of this post.

For a 401(k) plan, where HR wants to guide or even default workers into a suitable fund, a target date fund is better, because they don't need to look at a table of ages to figure out whether to pick aggressive, moderate, or conservative; and they don't need to review it every few years to see whether it needs to be changed.

For an individual investor, it's the usual sort of "cake mix" issue. Why don't I use (in my case, being retired) VASIX, the Vanguard LifeStrategy Income Fund? Because, eh, it doesn't have enough TIPS for my taste, and it has too much international for my taste, and (amazingly because I'm very conservative) it has a lower stock allocation than I want. And while I can't think of any reason to avoid international bonds, I can't think of any reason to have them, either.

You know. Some people are OK using all-in-one pumpkin spice, and some take the trouble of using separate spices because they like cinnamon and dislike nutmeg.

[livesoft]

Sooooo, is there a CA muni fund version of this?

I don't live in a state with state income taxes, so I have not explored this. There is the Vanguard Tax-managed Balanced fund VTMFX which is most of the way there. I would not use it.

[phxjcc]

Sooooo, is there a CA muni fund version of this?

I don't live in a state with state income taxes, so I have not explored this. There is the Vanguard Tax-managed Balanced fund VTMFX which is most of the way there. I would not use it.

Thanks!

[Aptenodytes]

Or the more conservative, LifeStrategy Conservative Growth (VSCGX). I have started using this fund as my primary comparison benchmark (in a virtual portfolio that matches my stock-bond mix). I use it because it is where I'd be if I gave up my a la carte approach. Even if you don't invest in one of these all-in-one funds it can be helpful to use them as a point of comparison. After two full years of tracking against such a benchmark, I am comforted that when the time comes to move to "super lazy" by necessity (for example, I die before my spouse, who is not interested in these things, or my declining faculties require it), the new portfolio will behave very similarly except for requiring no maintenance.

[Quaestner]

Ok, I'll say it. Don't do it because you'll save money by buying admiral shares of total stock, total bond, and the total internationals because the expense ratios are lower than in the Life Strategy Funds. Is it worth the hassle to rebalance the separate funds? That may depend on the value of your time and the size of your portfolio!

(Also, if this is in taxable, since we expect the individual funds to not be completely correlated, you may get more tax loss harvesting opportunities with separate funds than in a fund of funds. Furthermore, making your portfolio more tax efficient later on - say by keeping bonds in tax sheltered accounts, and stocks in taxable accounts - might be more of a hassle using the Life Strategy Fund. Learned this the hard way!)

[lassevirensghost]

I keep seeing "it is bad for taxable" and understand the argument, but exactly how bad is bad? How much drag would it actually produce?

[willthrill81]

I keep seeing "it is bad for taxable" and understand the argument, but exactly how bad is bad? How much drag would it actually produce?

You can take a look at the "Price & Performance" tab on Vanguard's page for the fund to get a rough idea. The annual returns after maximum federaltaxes on distributions have averaged about .8-.9% lower than the pre-tax returns. Unless you're in the top marginal tax bracket, the difference would be smaller, although you must also take into account state income tax if that applies to you.

The general reason is because the bonds the fund contains are not as tax efficient as the equities. General consensus says to put bonds in tax-advantaged accounts and to put equities in taxable accounts, although of course you would put everything in tax-advantaged space if you could, and if you have no choice but to put bonds in a taxable account, you do so.

[Typ997S]

I keep seeing "it is bad for taxable" and understand the argument, but exactly how bad is bad? How much drag would it actually produce?

I'll take a shot (with numbers I've arbitrarily picked...folks can use their own.)

Let's assume $100,000 invested, and the 40% of the fund that is fixed income yields 3.5% in dividends. That gives you $1400 of taxable dividends a year. Let's assume our investor is in a 22% Federal and 5% state bracket - that means $378 a year owed in taxes. If we look at it like an expense ratio, that's a 0.38% drag. If we look at it as a percentage of return, assuming a total return of 8% ($8000) per year, it's a loss of 4.7% of return to taxes.

Looked at this way, on a one year basis, the inefficiency is pretty small, but it will add up when compounded over many years.

As a good Boglehead, I've got my assets placed separately, because I want every ounce of performance I can get. However, I've told my wife that if anything happens to me, just stick everything in VSMGX. The simplicity will be worth the loss of inefficiency. (Plus most of my assets are in tax advantaged spaced anyway. )

[lassevirensghost]

I keep seeing "it is bad for taxable" and understand the argument, but exactly how bad is bad? How much drag would it actually produce?

I'll take a shot (with numbers I've arbitrarily picked...folks can use their own.)

Let's assume $100,000 invested, and the 40% of the fund that is fixed income yields 3.5% in dividends. That gives you $1400 of taxable dividends a year. Let's assume our investor is in a 22% Federal and 5% state bracket - that means $378 a year owed in taxes. If we look at it like an expense ratio, that's a 0.38% drag. If we look at it as a percentage of return, assuming a total return of 8% ($8000) per year, it's a loss of 4.7% of return to taxes.

Looked at this way, on a one year basis, the inefficiency is pretty small, but it will add up when compounded over many years.

As a good Boglehead, I've got my assets placed separately, because I want every ounce of performance I can get. However, I've told my wife that if anything happens to me, just stick everything in VSMGX. The simplicity will be worth the loss of inefficiency. (Plus most of my assets are in tax advantaged spaced anyway. )

Thank you so much for this. This is the clearest I've seen it laid out!

I plan to have most of my assets in tax-advantaged space and am aiming to hit $1M by my early 50s. Currently 31yo. I can't imagine having much more than $200K in taxable and would love to just have it all in VSMGX. (I have really nothing in taxable right now.) I don't want to do future me a disservice, but it seems ridiculously optimistic to imagine much more money than that in taxable. And I suppose if money started really flowing into accounts, I could just quit using LS and start allocating things to more tax-efficient funds, perhaps slowly going away from LS or just leaving it be at a low-enough amount, yeah? Maybe once you get above $50K in taxable you think about some other options.

[watchman1675]

The ideal VSMGX Portfolio composition tweaked for me would be

Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares 40.00%
Vanguard Total Bond Market II Index Fund Investor Shares† 27.00%
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund Investor Shares 20.00%
Vanguard Total International Bond Index Fund 13.00%
100.00%

[smectym]

Sooooo, is there a CA muni fund version of this?

I don't live in a state with state income taxes, so I have not explored this. There is the Vanguard Tax-managed Balanced fund VTMFX which is most of the way there. I would not use it.

What’s wrong with VTMFX, I use it heavily.

[livesoft]

What’s wrong with VTMFX, I use it heavily.

It is wrong for me because it would be a balanced fund in a taxable account. I know how to tax-loss harvest and I am in a low enough tax bracket in a no-income-tax state, so that I don't pay taxes on long-term capital gains nor on qualified dividends. I don't want to own nor need to own tax-exempt muni bonds in any form.

In short: There are much better funds for me for the money I have in a taxable account.

[unclescrooge]

You know. Some people are OK using all-in-one pumpkin spice, and some take the trouble of using separate spices because they like cinnamon and dislike nutmeg.

That's a really good analogy.

[Sandtrap]

One of the best advantages of a “fund of funds” or “balanced fund” are behavioral. No tweaking. Etc.
🏝

[longinvest]

Ok gang, tell me why not.

It is a fund of the funds that everyone here recommends.

No balancing worries, just sell when you need money.

Go for it!

About tax efficiency, here's what I wrote in another thread:

I haven't yet seen any proof of a clear advantage to using anything more complex than holding a single identical all-in-one globally-diversified balanced index fund or ETF like a Vanguard LifeStrategy or Target Retirement fund, or an iShares Core Allocation ETF in all accounts (Traditional, Roth, ..., and even taxable).

I think that most tax-efficient fund placement arguments are flawed because they ignore tax-adjusted asset allocation which is justified by mathematics:

Your ability to take risk is determined by the consequences of losses; losing $100K in your Roth IRA will reduce your standard of living (or require more additional savings to keep the same standard) by more than losing $100K in your traditional IRA or taxable account does.

In particular:

• Most analyses ignore the long-term impact of asset location. For example, while bonds get most of their growth from coupons which attract immediate taxes, unlike stock capital gains which are only taxed when realized often decades later (leading simple analyses to conclude that one should prioritize bonds over stocks in tax-advantaged accounts), a long-term view can reveal that the generally faster growth of stocks might lead to more taxes when stock dividends in taxable grow to more than bond interest in tax-advantaged. Also, prioritizing the placement of a slower growing asset in tax-advantaged leads to a slower growth of tax-advantaged space relative to the size of the entire portfolio.
• Most analyses ignore that rebalancing reduces the impact (good or bad) of prioritizing the location of specific assets into specific accounts.
• Most analyses ignore the tax advantage of rebalancing with the cash flows of other investors when using a balanced fund or ETF in a taxable account.
• Most analyses ignore that future tax laws could change, that future investor circumstances could change, and that the best asset location strategy can only be known after the fact.

I think that using a mirrored asset allocation in all accounts with a single identical all-in-one fund or ETF is good enough and elegantly sidesteps the need to tax-adjust the asset allocation.* The use of a single fund or ETF significantly simplifies the portfolio for a surviving spouse or caretakers and can help the investor avoid a long list of behavioral pitfalls.

* A mirrored asset allocation is inherently tax-adjusted.

Many investors are likely to lose more to behavioral pitfalls with separate funds or ETFs than to save in taxes even when they're lucky enough to select an asset location strategy that beats the mirrored one (unforeseeable) in their specific long-term investing time frame.

[CurlyDave]

Is it really a "fund of funds", or do they just buy the underlying shares in the correct proportions?

The fund of funds idea has been around for a long time and its downfall is that you are stacking fees on top of fees.

[willthrill81]

Is it really a "fund of funds", or do they just buy the underlying shares in the correct proportions?

It doesn't make a difference apart from the expense ratios. Yes, such funds often have ridiculously higher ERs than the weighted-average ER of the funds that they are made of, but this isn't always the case. This fund is charging about 7 basis points more than the weighted-average ER of the funds it holds. The behavioral advantages alone could easily be worth that much, never mind the effort of rebalancing. But in a taxable account, there are potentially significant reasons to favor a DIY approach, such as tax-loss or tax-gain harvesting.

[retiredjg]

Is it really a "fund of funds", or do they just buy the underlying shares in the correct proportions?

The fund of funds idea has been around for a long time and its downfall is that you are stacking fees on top of fees.

It is a fund of funds. But no, they do not stack fees on funds like this at Vanguard.

The ER should be the same as the weighted average. I suspect the 7 basis points mentioned by willthrill is probably rounding error. Even if it is an add on fee (which I doubt) that is little to pay for the convenience.

[willthrill81]

Is it really a "fund of funds", or do they just buy the underlying shares in the correct proportions?

The fund of funds idea has been around for a long time and its downfall is that you are stacking fees on top of fees.

It is a fund of funds. But no, they do not stack fees on funds like this at Vanguard.

The ER should be the same as the weighted average. I suspect the 7 basis points mentioned by willthrill is probably rounding error. Even if it is an add on fee (which I doubt) that is little to pay for the convenience.

The ER probably was the same as the weighted average of the funds if investor shares were owned. But all four of the funds that comprise VSMGX are now available as admiral shares with a lower ER; the investor shares of all four funds are actually closed to new investors, and with obvious good reason. The weighted average ER of the admiral share funds is 6.8 basis points, so the premium paid for this fund is currently 6.2 basis points.

[retiredjg]

Is it really a "fund of funds", or do they just buy the underlying shares in the correct proportions?

The fund of funds idea has been around for a long time and its downfall is that you are stacking fees on top of fees.

It is a fund of funds. But no, they do not stack fees on funds like this at Vanguard.

The ER should be the same as the weighted average. I suspect the 7 basis points mentioned by willthrill is probably rounding error. Even if it is an add on fee (which I doubt) that is little to pay for the convenience.

The ER probably was the same as the weighted average of the funds if investor shares were owned. But all four of the funds that comprise VSMGX are now available as admiral shares with a lower ER; the investor shares of all four funds are actually closed to new investors, and with obvious good reason. The weighted average ER of the admiral share funds is 6.8 basis points, so the premium paid for this fund is currently 6.2 basis points.

That may be true, but the funds that make up the LifeStrategy fund are all still investor shares unless the Vanguard site is out of date. So no "add on" even though it is a little more expensive than if you made your own fake LifeStragety fund out of individual funds with Admiral shares.

I believe the poster is referring to funds that do have an add-on to the underlying fund expense ratios. I have heard that such things exist. That is not the case here.

[willthrill81]

Is it really a "fund of funds", or do they just buy the underlying shares in the correct proportions?

The fund of funds idea has been around for a long time and its downfall is that you are stacking fees on top of fees.

It is a fund of funds. But no, they do not stack fees on funds like this at Vanguard.

The ER should be the same as the weighted average. I suspect the 7 basis points mentioned by willthrill is probably rounding error. Even if it is an add on fee (which I doubt) that is little to pay for the convenience.

The ER probably was the same as the weighted average of the funds if investor shares were owned. But all four of the funds that comprise VSMGX are now available as admiral shares with a lower ER; the investor shares of all four funds are actually closed to new investors, and with obvious good reason. The weighted average ER of the admiral share funds is 6.8 basis points, so the premium paid for this fund is currently 6.2 basis points.

That may be true, but the funds that make up the LifeStrategy fund are all still investor shares unless the Vanguard site is out of date. So no "add on" even though it is a little more expensive than if you made your own fake LifeStragety fund out of individual funds with Admiral shares.

I believe the poster is referring to funds that do have an add-on to the underlying fund expense ratios. That is not the case here.

I see your point, but it's not the relevant mode of comparison in CurlyDave's concern. A new investor cannot buy the investor shares of these funds any more, nor should they want to if they could. Why should I care what the ER is for the funds that Vanguard is using when I can access the very same fund on my own at a significantly lower ER? Are you suggesting that there is a difference between the investor and admiral shares beyond their ERs?

The correct comparison here is what an investor is paying for this fund of funds vs. buying the same funds on their own.

[retiredjg]

I see your point, but it's not the relevant mode of comparison in CurlyDave's concern. A new investor cannot buy the investor shares of these funds any more, nor should they want to if they could. Why should I care what the ER is for the funds that Vanguard is using when I can access the very same fund on my own at a significantly lower ER? Are you suggesting that there is a difference between the investor and admiral shares beyond their ERs?

The correct comparison here is what an investor is paying for this fund of funds vs. buying the same funds on their own.

I think that is a correct comparison if you are just looking at cost, but that is not what CurlyDave is talking about.

It has been said here that some "funds of funds" charge not only the underlying ERs of the funds but also an additional ER just for packaging the funds inside another fund - i.e. stacking fees (ERs) on top of fees (ERs). That is not what is happening with this fund.

[willthrill81]

It has been said here that some "funds of funds" charge not only the underlying ERs of the funds but also an additional ER just for packaging the funds inside another fund - i.e. stacking fees (ERs) on top of fees (ERs). That is not what is happening with this fund.

On that point we mostly agree. Vanguard is not directly charging a 'stacked fee', but you could DIY using the same funds yourself for a significantly lower total ER, so it seems to be a distinction without a difference, IMHO.

It is unfortunate that Vanguard hasn't yet updated these funds by replacing the investor shares with admiral shares and lowering the ER accordingly.

[tman9999]

The ideal VSMGX Portfolio composition tweaked for me would be

Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares 40.00%
Vanguard Total Bond Market II Index Fund Investor Shares† 27.00%
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund Investor Shares 20.00%
Vanguard Total International Bond Index Fund 13.00%
100.00%

I've been researching VSMGX and found this thread - great info. Then I looked up the above four funds at Vanguard. For each one, the search results popup said there is also an ETF equivalent. The ER on the ETFs was a few BPs lower. Any reason you wouldn't use ETF equivalents instead of the above four funds?
Thanks!

[Explorer]

The ideal VSMGX Portfolio composition tweaked for me would be

Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares 40.00%
Vanguard Total Bond Market II Index Fund Investor Shares† 27.00%
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund Investor Shares 20.00%
Vanguard Total International Bond Index Fund 13.00%
100.00%

I've been researching VSMGX and found this thread - great info. Then I looked up the above four funds at Vanguard. For each one, the search results popup said there is also an ETF equivalent. The ER on the ETFs was a few BPs lower. Any reason you wouldn't use ETF equivalents instead of the above four funds?
Thanks!

No reason at all - in fact using individual ETFs gives you future flexibility to adjust AA. That is what I do. My entire portfolio is 4 ETFs.

[retiredjg]

The ideal VSMGX Portfolio composition tweaked for me would be

Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares 40.00%
Vanguard Total Bond Market II Index Fund Investor Shares† 27.00%
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund Investor Shares 20.00%
Vanguard Total International Bond Index Fund 13.00%
100.00%

I've been researching VSMGX and found this thread - great info. Then I looked up the above four funds at Vanguard. For each one, the search results popup said there is also an ETF equivalent. The ER on the ETFs was a few BPs lower. Any reason you wouldn't use ETF equivalents instead of the above four funds?
Thanks!

There is no reason to avoid the ETFs but their cost savings means you have to do the rebalancing job yourself. Some people like that service. Some people need that service. If you are willing to hold the 4 ETFs and keep them balanced, there is no reason you "need" the LifeStrategy fund.

[tman9999]

The ideal VSMGX Portfolio composition tweaked for me would be

Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares 40.00%
Vanguard Total Bond Market II Index Fund Investor Shares† 27.00%
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund Investor Shares 20.00%
Vanguard Total International Bond Index Fund 13.00%
100.00%

I've been researching VSMGX and found this thread - great info. Then I looked up the above four funds at Vanguard. For each one, the search results popup said there is also an ETF equivalent. The ER on the ETFs was a few BPs lower. Any reason you wouldn't use ETF equivalents instead of the above four funds?
Thanks!

There is no reason to avoid the ETFs but their cost savings means you have to do the rebalancing job yourself. Some people like that service. Some people need that service. If you are willing to hold the 4 ETFs and keep them balanced, there is no reason you "need" the LifeStrategy fund.

Thanks to both of you.
Was playing around with watchman1675's lazy 4 fund, backtesting it against a 60/40 BH lazy 3 and VSMGX. Watchman's lazy 4 outperformed the other two, both on income generation as well as total return. I then wondered what would happen if I replaced 5% of the bond position with VNQ real estate ETF, and that made Watchman's do even better - at least in the period I could get data - 2014-2019.

Thinking about making the move to 100% self-managing, rather than relying on a robo, so this is very helpful.

[retiredjg]

Was playing around with watchman1675's lazy 4 fund, backtesting it against a 60/40 BH lazy 3 and VSMGX. Watchman's lazy 4 outperformed the other two, both on income generation as well as total return. I then wondered what would happen if I replaced 5% of the bond position with VNQ real estate ETF, and that made Watchman's do even better - at least in the period I could get data - 2014-2019.

Thinking about making the move to 100% self-managing, rather than relying on a robo, so this is very helpful.

Don't know what watchman's is but replacing 5% in bonds with 5% in REIT changed your asset allocation some. REIT funds are made up of stocks, not bonds.

[abuss368]

If placing in a tax advantaged account I think it is an excellent strategy. You will never be below average.

[anon_investor]

Why not in a taxable account? Because the annual cap gain distributions generated by the fund add to the unnecessary tax drag (which is even worse if you are subject to NII taxes have high state income taxes)...

[Wiggums]

One of the best advantages of a “fund of funds” or “balanced fund” are behavioral. No tweaking. Etc.
🏝

I hold separate funds, but this type of fund is easier for my children. There’s nothing to mess up.

[tman9999]

Was playing around with watchman1675's lazy 4 fund, backtesting it against a 60/40 BH lazy 3 and VSMGX. Watchman's lazy 4 outperformed the other two, both on income generation as well as total return. I then wondered what would happen if I replaced 5% of the bond position with VNQ real estate ETF, and that made Watchman's do even better - at least in the period I could get data - 2014-2019.

Thinking about making the move to 100% self-managing, rather than relying on a robo, so this is very helpful.

Don't know what watchman's is but replacing 5% in bonds with 5% in REIT changed your asset allocation some. REIT funds are made up of stocks, not bonds.

Thank you for catching that (I was not aware of that). I ran it again three ways: no VNQ, 5% VNQ replacement of bonds, 5% VNQ replacement of equities. The base portfolios below were compared against VSMGX.

Watchman's Lazy Portfolio - built with ETFs.
Ticker Name Allocation
VXUS Vanguard Total International Stock ETF 20.00%
VTI Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF 40.00%
BNDX Vanguard Total International Bond ETF 13.00%
BND Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF 27.00%

A BH Lazy 4 fund (from wiki)

Ticker Name Allocation
VTSMX Vanguard Total Stock Mkt Idx Inv 37.00%
VIPSX Vanguard Inflation-Protected Secs Inv 20.00%
VGTSX Vanguard Total Intl Stock Index Inv 23.00%
VBMFX Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Inv 20.00%

A BH Lazy 3 fund (from wiki)
Ticker Name Allocation
VXUS Vanguard Total International Stock ETF 20.00%
VTI Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF 40.00%
AGG iShares Core US Aggregate Bond ETF 40.00%

Watchman's portfolio beat the BH4 fund and the BH lazy 3 on all counts - final value (2014-2019), annual returns (more up, less down), and income. Next was the BH Lazy 3 fund, and in last place was VSMGX. The differences in CAGR best year were within 0.5% between best performer and worst; and in worst year they were separated by a bit less than 1%.

Adding VNQ resulted in lower return performance by a small mount when it replaced Total Stk Mkt and a slight improvement in income; and significant improvement when it replaced the bond component (makes sense since VNQ is equity-based - tilts the 60-40 to 65-35). Overall adding VNQ during the mostly up market period didn't add much.

Interesting. Thanks, again, for your input.

[BornInCA]

Ok gang, tell me why not.

It is a fund of the funds that everyone here recommends.

No balancing worries, just sell when you need money.

How about for someone who gets a major money windfall (life Insurance proceeds, lottery, etc.) then invests this lump sum amount then sets up a systematic withdrawal plan of no more than 4% a year? This would be in a taxable account with the mutual fund’s distributions of dividends and capital gains automatically reinvested. What does everyone think of this idea?

[Puretaxableindexer]

I've had VSMGX LifeStrat Mod Growth fund for at least a decade in my taxable account. Yes, it throws off cap gains, but it's small and not a deal-breaker for me. There aren't any good balanced ETFs that perform better. Matter of fact, there are very few balanced ETFs and I don't like any of them. Probably my favorite fund where I throw in extra cash when there is uncertainty in the market(s)

[bltn]

You know. Some people are OK using all-in-one pumpkin spice, and some take the trouble of using separate spices because they like cinnamon and dislike nutmeg.

That's a really good analogy.

The whole post is very good.

[lexor]

Ok gang, tell me why not.

It is a fund of the funds that everyone here recommends.

No balancing worries, just sell when you need money.

Assuming 100k invested with a 30 year timeframe and 7% returns after inflation you'd lose about 60.5k to expenses compared to a more tax efficient fund in a taxable account.

Other fund's effective expense ratio including taxes .382 ( based on VTI)
Tax rate .27
Yield .0215
Expense ratio .13
Returns 1.07
Starting balance 100000

100000*(1.07-.00382)^30-100000*(1.07-.27*.0215-.0013)^30

Your tax exempt would also suffer from higher expenses. Note that I did not include VSMGX annual cap gain distributions, but I also didn't include taxes on sale. Someone double check my math because I was winging.

See Cost Matters 2020 (which assumes 5% returns) for more info

[retiredjg]

Ok gang, tell me why not.

It is a fund of the funds that everyone here recommends.

No balancing worries, just sell when you need money.

How about for someone who gets a major money windfall (life Insurance proceeds, lottery, etc.) then invests this lump sum amount then sets up a systematic withdrawal plan of no more than 4% a year? This would be in a taxable account with the mutual fund’s distributions of dividends and capital gains automatically reinvested. What does everyone think of this idea?

This question cannot be answered accurately without knowing the rest of the situation. It is not necessarily a good idea or a bad idea.

[Puretaxableindexer]

I have a sizeable position in VSMGX in a taxable account and the amount of cap gains that it throws off isn't bad and not a dealbreaker for me. Too many people here complain about it here despite it being a great all in one fund even in a taxable acct.

[lexor]

I have a sizeable position in VSMGX in a taxable account and the amount of cap gains that it throws off isn't bad and not a dealbreaker for me. Too many people here complain about it here despite it being a great all in one fund even in a taxable acct.

Did you read my post? viewtopic.php?p=5045833#p5045321

[Ramjet]

I have a sizeable position in VSMGX in a taxable account and the amount of cap gains that it throws off isn't bad and not a dealbreaker for me. Too many people here complain about it here despite it being a great all in one fund even in a taxable acct.

Take a look at Lexor's signature, you won't win this battle!

[heerekj1]

I switched from a three fund (70/30) portfolio plus cash to a VSMGX plus cash portfolio at the beginning of the year. It made the instructions about handling the portfolio at my death much easier (stay the course).

I also wanted to spend less time watching the market. It has not worked yet.

[Brianmcg321]

i used to have Life Strategy Growth funds in my wife's and my IRAs. The one reason I sold it and put everything in VTSAX, was Vanguard just won't leave their LS funds alone. They have changed funds, asset allocations, etc. about 4-5 times the past 10 years.

These were supposed to be a set it and forget it group of funds. Who knows what they will look like in 10 years.

We would have had a better return with less risk if we had just put everything in the Balanced Index.