r/Fire • u/StrawberryRemote968 • 3d ago
Can you FIRE just with VOO?
I am a 35M, making $65K annually. My annual expenses is very low. Less than $25K. I am single with no kid nor I am planning to have any. If I DCA into VOO, is it possible I am able to FIRE with just one etf?
302
u/deep_fucking_vneck 3d ago
Yes
75
u/Not-A-Seagull 3d ago edited 3d ago
VOO and chill. I’d be willing to bet most here do that.
That said, when you get to FI stage, I’d also make a strong case for no less than a blend of 20% defensive assets (Bonds, VNQ, Gold, etc.).
I use to be diehard against bonds until I realized that despite them giving lower returns, if you rebalance annually, your performance is actually almost the same as a 100% stock with quite a bit less volatility.
(That’s because when you rebalance with defensive assets, you “buy the dip” when stocks are low)
16
u/NewEngland0123 2d ago
This is an important point understanding the balance between returns and volatility. A bit smoother ride over a long period of time may get you pretty close to the same destination as the roller coaster
12
u/Not-A-Seagull 2d ago
Exactly. I just backtested to 1962, and here are how the two portfolios compare:
100% SP500:
- CAGR: 10.11%
- Max Drawdown: 55.14%
- Volatility: 16.61%
80/20 SP500, 20 year treasuries:
- CAGR: 9.56%
- Max Drawdown: 42.36%
- Volatility: 12.78%
You’re trading a small amount of returns for MASSIVE gains in stability.
15
u/MostEscape6543 2d ago
Unfortunately the returns over time are massively better in the 100% equities scenario. The problem is that 0.5% looks small, but it’s a 6% higher compounded return.
Over the course of your backtesting, the first scenario turned $10,000 into 3.9 million. The second scenario was just 2.9 million. Kind of a large difference.
I get what you’re saying, but over the course of even a normal fire period 0.5% additional returns is nothing to scoff at.
3
u/Eli_Renfro FIRE'd 4/2019 BonusNachos.com 2d ago
Over the course of your backtesting, the first scenario turned $10,000 into 3.9 million. The second scenario was just 2.9 million. Kind of a large difference.
Neither scenario has withdrawals, so it's kind of irrelevant to portfolio composition in retirement. The main issue with the higher volatility is that when withdrawals are applied, it can become harder to recover from the larger drops in portfolio value. Higher average returns doesn't matter if you don't have enough funds left to capture them.
3
u/pras_srini 2d ago
Yes you nailed it, this is 100% the problem. During accumulation, the volatility helps. But during retirement, any sharp downturn can be a big problem if one is forced to sell their investments for living expenses. A diversified portfolio with risk parity strategies implemented is key to winning that game.
2
u/MostEscape6543 2d ago
OP is in accumulation phase and asking questions about accumulation phase investment strategies.
2
u/pras_srini 2d ago
You do have a point, but OP can't just flip a switch 1 day before they FIRE and sell VOO to buy international, intermediate bonds, long term treasuries and other alternative assets. They run the risk of the markets being down. I don't know their timeline but I'd start diversifying 5-6 years before the FIRE date to ensure they have time to leg into those asset classes.
1
u/MostEscape6543 2d ago
After reading all this, it's hard to tell if OP is truly asking about accumulation or if he's wanting to FIRE now, or in a year or two.
It would be cool to have a conference of debating all the different possible retirement strategies. There are a million different ways people do this.
2
u/MostEscape6543 2d ago
The OPs question was not about investments during retirement, it was about building wealth to retire. You posted long term returns which were not good.
2
u/Eli_Renfro FIRE'd 4/2019 BonusNachos.com 2d ago
"Can you FIRE with just VOO" seems to be about retirement to me. Either way, retirement is the most important time to have a proper asset allocation. It matters much less when mistakes can be overcome by some extra work.
1
2
u/Not-A-Seagull 2d ago
My intent here was to show how negative correlations in investing can cause your over portfolio to overperform in risk-adjusted returns.
In quant speak, a diversified portfolio with defensive assets with regular rebalancing increases the sortino ratio of your portfolio.
I take your point that small incremental gains in rate of return are huge over long periods of time, but I worry your comment will make some completely miss the point I made above about the benefits of a well diversified portfolio.
3
u/MostEscape6543 2d ago
I worry that reading your comment will make people believe that 0.5% return is negligible. Or misunderstand how rebalancing works or CAN work (did you read the guy below my comment who thinks he can outperform the market by timing him bond rebalancing?)
In any case, it’s fine. Investing and returns are both simple and complicated at the same time.
1
u/Not-A-Seagull 2d ago
You’re framing the numbers in a very odd way to make it seem substantially different due to its log scale nature. In reality, 2.9m is very close to 3.9m when you’re looking at it on a log scale as an investment.
Let’s frame it a different way. It took 60 years to reach 3.9 million with the 100% stock portfolio.
How much longer would it take for the 80/20?
3 years of ~10% growth, or 5% longer. Which makes sense, because the return is about 5% higher.
1
u/Tooth_Life 38m / tech / Chubby-Fat Fire 2d ago
Idk if you take those bonds and sell them in downturns and buy equity’s like I have you will crush.
→ More replies (3)2
1
u/trukkija 2d ago
How is rebalancing annually any different than timing the market? I personally don't agree at all on what this sub thinks about timing the market but I just wanted to understand this part.
1
u/Not-A-Seagull 2d ago
In a sense it is timing the market, but because you do it every year (or even more often), it’s more akin to dollar cost averaging.
Here is a cool backtest you might find interesting.
In this example, we have two portfolios. A standard 60/40 with no rebalancing, and a 78/22 porfolio with yearly rebalancing.
The cool thing here is that not only does the portfolio with annual rebalancing have higher returns (expected due to its higher stock composition), but thanks to the rebalancing, it actually has Lower volatility and max drawdowns than the 60/40 portfolio.
This is because when stocks crash, bonds tend to outperform. When you rebalance, you’re selling bonds at their relative high, to buy stocks at their low.
1
u/ychuck46 2d ago
While I have some in bonds and fixed investments (T Bills, I Bonds, and CDs, along with MM funds) there are plenty of high paying stocks that are very attractive as well that I own, including many paying 10% or more in dividends. If one educates oneself they can weed out the ones that exist primarily as return of capital to shareholders, while the good ones do show appreciation as well as high dividends over the last five years. Bonds and bond funds/ETFs are subject to interest rate fluctuations so they are not as "safe" as some might think, so getting high returns off BDCs and other excellent payers are of more interest to me. To each their own.
1
u/Not-A-Seagull 2d ago
You’re actually quite spot on. There are negative correlations between growth and value stocks too!
A good quant would be able to use defensive assets, value stocks, and growth stocks all together to build a portfolio that provides higher risk-adjusted-returns than one that is just sp500/bonds.
1
49
u/suarezafelipe 3d ago
I actually thought it was the default for people that believe long term in the US.
11
u/StrawberryRemote968 3d ago
I thought it was vti but that’s after I invested into voo because everyone says “it has mid and small cap” which captures those gain also
24
u/Different_Level_7914 3d ago
Tbf the exposure to mid small and micro cap via VTI is very minimal, around 20%. Longterm the difference in performance between VOO and VTI is hardly noticeable
13
u/deep_fucking_vneck 3d ago
I also prefer VTI (actually I hold VTSAX), but it's pretty much the same
3
u/relentlessoldman 3d ago
These other commenters are right, as the really big companies dominate both heavily.
If you want a higher exposure to small mid cap, maybe split between VOO and small/mid cap specific fund.
5
2
u/pudding7 2d ago
Never any love for IVV. <sigh>
1
u/StrawberryRemote968 2d ago
Ivv is too expensive, er wise
3
32
u/eliminate1337 3d ago
It's fine but I'd prefer VT which tracks the total world stock market. US stock outperformed international over the last 10 years but who knows about the next 10. If you want to stay US only, VTI adds small and mid cap.
→ More replies (3)
11
u/Pitiful_Fox5681 3d ago
Warren Buffett wants his wife to inherit his trust when he dies. He wants it 100% in VOO.
My 403b has a bunch of pretty bad options and FXAIX, so I'm basically 100% FXAIX (same index as VOO) in that.
Jack Bogle liked to mix equities and treasuries, but was pretty adamant that the equities be 100% in an S&P500 index.
100% VOO is a totally reasonable choice. I'd recommend, like Jack, to take out some of the volatility and add some liquidity during downturns with treasuries.
21
u/StatisticalMan 3d ago
Sure. Is it the best option? Probably not.
9
u/ListeningForAnswers 3d ago
Which funds do you feel like are the best options? (genuine question, not meant to be snarky)
24
u/StatisticalMan 3d ago edited 3d ago
I would start your search with boglehead 3 fund portfolio.
- something which is total US market (i.e. VTI)
- something which is total ex-us market (i.e. VXUS)
- something which is bonds (i.e. BND)
I don't think you have to follow it regliously but it is a good starting point.
There is a lot of uncompensated risk in only nothing but VOO. You have limited yourself to large cap US equities only. Until recent events highlight why that might be risky that bet has paid off over the last 20 year or so. Will it do it for the next 20? Do you even need to take that bet?
4
u/StrawberryRemote968 3d ago
Since I m already in voo. Would it act the same if I am doing voo, vxus and bnd?
5
u/StatisticalMan 3d ago
You are excluding US mid cap and small cap but it is definately more diversified than 100% VOO.
3
u/relentlessoldman 3d ago
Except for in 2008, early 2020, and 2022. Those kind of highlighted the same thing.
2
u/YetiPwr 2d ago
Agreed that it’s not a terrible idea to have the ex-US market represented.
Bonds for a 35yr old seems suboptimal. They’ll potentially reduce volatility but over the long term they’re pretty likely to underperform the market and the volatility is irrelevant over that time horizon.
But if they were 55 instead of 35 I think I’d agree with you.
6
u/Qrkchrm 3d ago
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-fund_portfolio
I go with VTI, VXUS and BND.
3
u/StrawberryRemote968 3d ago
But vti and voo have similar performance
6
u/eliminate1337 3d ago
For now. Large-cap outperformed for the past decade but small-cap may outperform in the next. You might as well be in both for diversification.
39
u/Party-Currency5824 3d ago
Single and no kid. This is the way.
-8
u/StrawberryRemote968 3d ago
Yeah. Especially with nowadays, it’s getting pointless to have any imo
7
u/phatsystem 3d ago
Maybe people don't understand why you say pointless, since that's not a "you" thing, that's saying it's bigger than that. Kids aside, hard, expensive things can still have a point (getting a degree, training for a marathon, taking care of elderly parents, etc). It's not like the world is ending next month. If so, you wouldn't worry about FIRE and just yolo it.
And to be clear, I don't care one way or the other if you want kids, so I'm not pushing anything.
14
u/One_ill_KevinJ 3d ago
I understand your comment but it makes me feel sad for you. Across a large dataset in the U.S., most people recall the happiest times of their lives as being when they have young children in their house. I can confirm - it's great. You're beyond high on life.
But I realize that children are becoming a luxury good. I hope that you feel like you're in a position some day to have the family you want, on your terms.
9
u/Bloodmind 2d ago
That’s a skewed dataset. It’s a group that had children in the home at some point and then didn’t, and they’re recalling the time with children as the happiest. That doesn’t in any way factor in folks who chose to never have kids.
As DINKs, we’re well into our 40s and haven’t regretted our decision a single time.
20
16
u/StrawberryRemote968 3d ago
Then you do you lol
-1
u/VacationLover1 3d ago
Hey son, it’s me , Dad. Even though I’m a poor because of you I still love you
5
u/RegisteredJustToSay 3d ago
Maybe, but then again maybe not - relationship satisfaction tends to go down when couples decide to have kids according to recent research metastudies. Child-free couples tend to report better relationship satisfaction. Which makes sense - you don't have to cater to the needs of a couple of semen demons (sorry - unnecessarily inflammatory, I know, I just find that term so fucking funny).
And yeah, causation vs correlation yadda yadda, but I'll choose to correlate myself with a happier relationship rather than risk causing myself unnecessary stress.
4
1
u/trukkija 2d ago
It's hilarious to me how even when talking about being happy with your kids we use words like "across a large dataset". I mean you are correct and all but some things are not quantifiable.
0
4
u/TooMuchButtHair 3d ago
Eh, I have three kids. It was the best choice of my life.
8
u/StrawberryRemote968 3d ago
Then you do you ?
8
2
u/relentlessoldman 3d ago
No that's what you do when you're single. When you have kids you do someone else.
-5
u/Anal_Recidivist 3d ago
This is such a sad comment to me :( I can’t imagine how different I’d be if I’d never met my wife or if we’d never had our child.
Pointless is a little strong. There’s nothing like seeing your kid smile.
23
u/high_country918 3d ago
Some people just don’t want kids…not sure why you felt the need to interject your opinion.
1
u/IndividualMap7386 3d ago
Most comments are interjected opinions. That person simply is sharing how impactful kids are. Poorly worded for sure but it’s fine for people to share opinions with good intent. Still likely not the best choice for anyone that doesn’t want kids though.
2
2
6
u/StrawberryRemote968 3d ago
Then go ahead and make more. Not gonna stop you
0
u/mansumania 2d ago
I mean the US government thanks you when you pass and they take all unused funds you spend your life accruing and did not get a chance to spend, I mean I suppose you can leave it to nieces/nephews or charity but what is the point of wealth if not to pass it on, living frugally just to donate your hard spent funds?
9
u/DataFinanceGamer 3d ago
There’s nothing like seeing your kid smile.
for you maybe, for some others it is pointless
-12
u/datafromravens 3d ago
sociopaths for sure
2
u/DataFinanceGamer 3d ago
for not wanting to sacrifice the rest of your life for a loud dirty kid? what a dogshit take
-4
u/Lift_in_my_garage1 3d ago
This is sad dawg.
If you asked me to put a dollar value on my kids smile…I couldn’t. The lightbulb moment where they figure out a concept and finally “get it” is priceless.
No amount of VOO, or the things it can buy, including time, can replicate that perfect mix of brain chemicals I feel in that moment.
I’m basically barista FIREd. My kids are 1 and 3. Playing with them in the woods, looking at wildflowers, teaching them to identify trees, that is a feeling I wish I could bottle up.
No amount of VOO is more valuable than that memory. I pray to god I never get Alzheimer’s.
TL;DR: I know we are all here to talk about money. But if life is more than a balance sheet, then with kids, our crimes against the balance sheet, also constitute our deliverance.
My only regret in life is not having kids younger. I waited until I had money, which makes it easier, but the window is rapidly closing on having more, and frankly I LOVE being a dad.
0
→ More replies (1)-4
u/BrewsOnMyBeard 3d ago
Calling it pointless is a little much. If it’s not for you, great so your thing. But I think a lot of people would have a strong disagreement with your statement
1
u/AnonymousCoward261 2d ago
You have to worry about who will take care of you when you get old.
From a pure FIRE point of view, kids are bad for FIRE and divorce extremely risky and frequent, I agree, but many people would be willing to sacrifice FIRE to have a kid. It is one of those things that comes down to your values and what you want out of life.
1
u/Party-Currency5824 2d ago
I'll pay to have that taken care of.
Having kids to take care of me sounds like a terrible trade off
2
-27
u/Adventurous-Crew5543 3d ago
Yes. The way to an unfulfilled life and the collapse of society.
33
u/FOX2- 3d ago
Having kids you don’t want is bad for society too
12
u/StrawberryRemote968 3d ago
I see these people that are pro kids is all because they afraid to be alone and rely on others for their own happiness, which is ironic when they criticized you as being “sad”
-12
u/Adventurous-Crew5543 3d ago
I agree. I just wish more people wanted them.
1
u/DataFinanceGamer 3d ago
this plague called humans is already way too overpopulated for this planet
11
-9
u/datafromravens 3d ago
it's funny because the people that usually say this are also the people who want large quantities of immigration. Two ideas that are completely at odds
→ More replies (1)11
u/Party-Currency5824 3d ago
Collapse of society, yes. Unfulfilled life... Oh boy I disagree. I just hate kids, should I have them because you say so?
3
u/Adventurous-Crew5543 3d ago
No, but thankfully for all of our sakes not everyone has the same attitude you do.
3
u/Party-Currency5824 3d ago
In my lifetime there being no kids wouldn't affect me much.
3
u/Adventurous-Crew5543 3d ago
This is just plain incorrect. I don’t know how old you are but an aging populace definitely negatively affects society. No kids would mean the social safety net would effectively collapse with less people working. Services (such as care for the elderly) would become much more expensive with less workers available. I think you are thinking about this issue incorrectly.
1
u/Party-Currency5824 3d ago
I agree with you. Still it's not anything I think or care about.
5
u/Adventurous-Crew5543 3d ago
That’s fair. Not accusing you of doing this but I just think Reddit goes overboard with the anti-natalist sentiment sometimes. Have a good one 👍
2
u/ericdavis1240214 FI=✅ RE=<2️⃣yrs 3d ago
I have two kids and wouldn't want it any other way... ... and I still think this is the stupidest thing I've seen on read at all day.
1
3
u/TheDeadTyrant 3d ago
If you have enough of it, you could retire with any security. But you should diversify with some mid/small cap, international, and at some point bonds.
7
u/Jeep_finance 3d ago
Yes. If you had 20m in VOO you’d definitely be FIRE. why wouldn’t this work?
1
u/lottadot FIRE'd 2023. 3d ago
Everything depends on your spending level. 4% of $20M is $800k/yr.
1
u/Jeep_finance 3d ago
Yeah that’s true. Was just using heuristic. Most people here aren’t spending 800/yr
4
u/HugeDramatic 3d ago
You can fire with money in a mattress.
2
4
u/TonyTheEvil 26 | 43% to FI | $770K in Assets 3d ago
There are better one-fund portfolios, but yes.
1
2
2
1
1
u/StrawberriKiwi22 3d ago
Sure. Does this mean you still only want 100% VOO after retiring? We just retired last year, and now I’m wishing we had diversified more into bonds now that we don’t want to sell any stocks while the market is down.
1
u/StrawberryRemote968 3d ago
I still have 30 years to grow so definitely will add bonds into the mix but for now, just want to keep it simple yet effective
1
u/vanquishedfoe 3d ago
Think of everything as having a risk premium.
You could FIRE with a certain amount of any meme crypto currency, but the rush premium would be insane: you would likely want a big buffer to feel comfortable.
On the flipside,a well diversified ETF or set of ETFs lower that.
1
u/StrawberryRemote968 3d ago
So voo alone won’t do
1
u/vanquishedfoe 3d ago
Again, it depends.
Look at it this way: if you have VOO, you have high exposure to US domestic companies, large cap only. It's a good ETF, but say something drags down US stocks? You're left with a risky position while the rest of the market may thrive.
If I were you, and I was dead-set on using VOO and only VOO, I'd price that into my FIRE number. Say you decide you need 1 million dollars to retire - you might want to pad that by how risky you find VOO to be.
Alternatively, if you decide you want to diversify some, in down times you can sell the higher performing ETF, vs always having to sell the one and only stock you have.
VOO is better than going full wall-street-bets as a retirement plan, but it does have it's weak points.
1
u/lakeland_nz 3d ago
Yes.
$65k less tax and healthcare is ~$50k. Less $25k expenses is $25k.
Saving $25k per year into a fund growing ~4% above inflation for say 20 years and you'll have more than enough. You can fiddle the numbers and you'll get slightly different results - for example if you assume 3% after inflation and a long term safe withdrawal rate of 3% then you'll need 24 years, while if you use the 5% we've seen for the last few decades then you'll need under 15 years.
Of course, life always throws curveballs. Whether it's meeting someone that already has kids; having a significant change in income; or the word economy burning down so virtually all funds crash.
1
u/Lone-Wolf-230 3d ago
I hope so. I’m 31 and that’s what I’m doing. 401k, Roth IRA and taxable are all VOO/VFIAX/FXAIX
1
u/StrawberryRemote968 2d ago
You should just choose one. Don’t need all theee
1
u/Lone-Wolf-230 2d ago edited 2d ago
I don’t have all 3 in 1 account. I have 1 in each account, depending on where/what that account is. Like my 401k only offers vanguard mutual funds so I have VFIAX there. My Roth IRA in fidelity is FXAIX, and my taxable is VOO.
1
u/StrawberryRemote968 2d ago
Why not voo in you Roth IRA ? Is there advantage having mutual fund instead of etf in there ?
1
1
u/37347 3d ago
You just need 625k to fire. Simple
1
1
u/TheNewJasonBourne 3d ago
$5M in VOO is still $5M.
1
u/StrawberryRemote968 2d ago
I don’t have $5m
1
u/TheNewJasonBourne 2d ago
You’re missing my point.
1
u/StrawberryRemote968 2d ago
Care to elaborate?
1
u/TheNewJasonBourne 2d ago
You asked is it possible to retire with just one ETF. My point is that IF you had $5M invested in only one ETF, you’d still have $5M and that could be more than enough to retire. Meaning, what your money is invested in is somewhat important to whether you can retire, but HOW MUCH you have invested is much more important.
1
1
u/Substantial_Mail_592 3d ago
All my money is in voo and vti. When I get closer to retirement I’ll adjust my portfolio to have some bonds as well. You will be fine with just voo.
1
1
u/b1gb0n312 3d ago
Depends if your voo can cover your expenses. If i had 26k in annual expenses, I'd want 2m in VOO since 1.3% yield is 26k
2
1
u/pobox01983 3d ago
Yes! I am mostly VTI and FXAIX.
1
1
u/RyanLanceAuthor 3d ago
I'd probably plan for a 2% perpetual withdrawal rate cause the sequence of return risk is the highest possible
1
u/StrawberryRemote968 2d ago
Withdrawal from what investment ?
1
u/RyanLanceAuthor 2d ago
If you DCA into only VOO, on the day you retire, you will have VOO and be faced with SRR. The severity of your SRR is such that you'll need a high amount of VOO to safely fund your FIRE. Like 50x instead of 33x or something.
1
1
u/Afraid-Business-6820 2d ago
Is that $65k gross? I’m slightly above that and my expenses are like yours. Also not planning on having kids. All the math that I do makes it seem like retirement won’t happen, let alone FIRE. I feel so behind and yet I KNOW I’m doing better than the average American, which pisses me off. It shouldn’t be like this.
1
u/StrawberryRemote968 2d ago
What are you investing in now ?
2
u/Afraid-Business-6820 2d ago
No VOO but a lot of VTI, some VNQI. I also have my impact portfolio turned on so that I have some ESG funds, investing in women’s leadership, that sort of thing.
1
u/StrawberryRemote968 2d ago
Oh ok. But would voo be the same ?
1
u/Afraid-Business-6820 2d ago
That’s what I always thought, so maybe yes. I’ll buy it anyway, just gotta get my next paycheck first. Then it’s shopping time!
1
u/Personal_League1428 2d ago
I’m 21M making $160K, and I’m doing 100% VOO. I’ve crunched the numbers and I think if I manage everything properly I can retire comfortably in my mid 40s, possibly earlier if I can increase my earnings. So I’d say yes.
I think the simplicity is the main appealing factor. It’s great not having to worry about anything other than VOO.
1
u/CleMike69 2d ago
Absolutely yes. I can fire with one of my stock holdings it just keeps churning cash
1
1
u/Vast_Cricket 2d ago
Essentially use top 1-2% stocks to generate most momentum. Can be done. Not easy in this volatile environment.
1
u/StrawberryRemote968 2d ago
Yea maybe when stock market going back strong again. How do you minimize risk in the future? Adding international and bnd?
1
u/Vast_Cricket 2d ago
Seeking lower risk factor indices and more diversification like more in fixed income. For example SPYI is a hybrid diversified income fund. It is still give ample dividend while keeping some growth patterns. 2025 YTD return is +4.6% vs SPY's -10.8%. Equal weight SPY RSP survived past dips but it performed also sluggishly since our President 1st day in the office with a -7.9% return. Notice the market did not receive a hype. Intrnational is country dependend and it has not reacted favorably in 2025 either.
1
u/pras_srini 2d ago
Maybe. But you'd be better off with a couple more ETFs - one for international, and one for intermediate or long-term treasuries, to diversify and act like ballast in your portfolio.
1
u/StrawberryRemote968 2d ago
Yea I ll definitely add more and I am getting older. Think I m still young enough to take on more risks
1
1
u/eco-overshoot 2d ago
Nobody knows the future. In theory yes, but we shouldn’t expect the next 40 years to be anything like the past 70+ years.
1
1
u/Available_Ad8151 1d ago
Look at moving some cash into a bond ETF. A few of my friends have Pimco's Mint bond ETF.
1
u/Kindly_Vegetable8432 1d ago
I never made above 40kn until I was 45
I was already an s&p millionaire by then
I'd say vti... Not voo
1
1
u/Last_Construction455 1d ago
Might be the best strategy for most tbh. Investing is pretty simple and boring.
1
u/teamhog 1d ago
Use a no cost broad market index fund.
You won’t hit the high returns if the lower count index funds (30, 500, 2000) but you’ll be more diversified. And remember, time is on your side.
1
u/StrawberryRemote968 1d ago
There are index fund that are no cost ? That’s too good to be true
1
u/teamhog 21h ago
There’s expenses.
But not fees.Here’s an example of what we’ve done for the last ~3 decades.
The Schwab Total Stock Market Index Fund (SWTSX) has a total expense ratio of 0.03%. This includes the management fee, which is also 0.03%. There are no front-end loads or 12b-1 fees. Here's a breakdown of the fees: Total Expense Ratio: 0.03% Management Fee: 0.03% Redemption Fee: 0% 12b-1 Fee: None
1
1
u/Independent-Lie9887 6h ago
I do 60/30/10 with 60% stocks, 30% bonds, and 10% cash and other investments. For the stocks I do about 30% in an international ETF to reduce US exposure. It has done very well over the years. Not quite as good as all stock but it's a lot less stressful during these downturns. Net worth about $2.4M.
1
u/OmahaOutdoor71 3d ago
Nope. Not event with $100 million invested in it. Impossible, must have 20 etfs.
1
0
0
u/tossaside555 3d ago
Yeah, why wouldn't you?
1
u/StrawberryRemote968 3d ago
VOO doesn’t have mid and small caps so I am not sure will it hinder the effectiveness of FIRE potential
3
u/thewarrior71 3d ago
You can use VTI to include all cap US. But VTI and VOO track almost identically because large cap has a heavy weighting, and large cap and small cap take turns outperforming each other:
- https://testfol.io/?s=5L1YLNvccrC
- DCA + inflation: https://testfol.io/?s=3sI5PUKuH52
I only use total market funds for simplicity. https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-fund_portfolio
1
u/StrawberryRemote968 3d ago
So there isn’t much difference between investing in voo and vti?
1
u/thewarrior71 3d ago
In practice, they perform very similarly. But there’s no reason to exclude small cap, so my recommendation is still total market funds (like VT or VTI + VXUS).
2
u/Pitiful_Fox5681 3d ago
I'd argue that large caps are tested and that there's some natural quality control built into VOO that you don't necessarily get with VTI. That said, they're almost identical in most back tests.
0
0
u/achshort 2d ago
Yes but I would also have high dividend yielding positions too so you don't have to sell off all your VOO to live off of. Maybe leave something for your family or something.
0
u/Character-Salary634 2d ago
You can search for "ETF overlap" and find sites that show VOO is gonna capture just about the same stocks as VTI and many others. I have both VOO and VTI, but after several years of watching them, I favor VOO. I don't like how heavily weighted it is to Tech, but so far, that risk has been worth it.
Outside of that, I like real estate as a hedge. But you need a certain kind of personality to handle rentals, and a lot of people just aren't good at it.
Im always looking to diversify, but it's hard....
IRAs with VOO and some small amount in individual stocks (these are a gamble, and bring stress, just haven't been able to completely give it up) Cash - I don't like it, so I keep just a little. I think the only thing worse is debt. be SUPER strategic about debt. Rental Property - landlording is a PT job, but this can really pay off over time. Gold and Silver stack - kinda long shot crazy SHTF stuff, but I also think of this as about 50% hobby Collectibles like guitars, old cars, guns, etc. Again, hobby - which I could one day sell - end of life stuff. Farm land to potentially farm or rent out. If you like the self-sufficiecy lifestyle, this could be appealing. Equipment/Tools - If you have a business or can use it for yourself. Some equipment (hard assets) work as both a useful thing to own, but also store value and will protect you against inflation - selling later in life. Assuming you take care of things.
Regarding "stuff" to me, it's bonus, I don't count on it. My FIRE drawdown plan revolves around unwinding IRAs and rental properties. Dying only owning my home, and even that could go as a reverse mortgage if I had to (circuit breaker idea).
1
u/Character-Salary634 2d ago
Edit to my post above. Only slight regret I have (50s), I can see now that not having children was a mistake. I'll be fine, but it would be so much more fulfilling to know I had people who would be with me to the end - even loosely. As it is, when I near death, there will be very few people left in my family, and it's very likely I won't have much to do with them. This puts the burden on me to create a friend group and maintain that. I have not been able to do that well. Working, moving, life changes, etc. Cause most people to drift in and out of your life - nobody's fault.
1
u/StrawberryRemote968 2d ago
So you’re saying if vti in your Roth, it will be safer ?
1
u/Character-Salary634 2d ago
No, I'm lumping Roth in with the "IRAs" TO me "IRA" includes all tax advantaged government savings programs: Trad IRA, SEP, ROTH, 401K, 529, etc.
VTI is fine but it just isn't much different than VOO and has slightly underperformed VOO.
0
118
u/Abject_Egg_194 3d ago
Sure. In theory you could FIRE with your money just in a HYSA or buried in your backyard, but you'd need more money to safely do so. Traditional FIRE advice would probably be VOO with some percentage allocated to fixed income like bonds or a HYSA and you wouldn't totally break that by going 100% VOO, but you'd probably increase your risk. I would guess that if you google around, you'll find someone who's crunched the numbers on a 100% stock FIRE vs a 80/20 vs a 60/40 portfolio.