Vanguard Target Retirement Fund vs. Similar ETF Distribution (w/ REIT)
"Target Date Funds automatically change their diversification balance over time, rebalancing and reassigning new contributions to become progressively more protective of what you've already earned. (As opposed to other funds which continue to maintain the same balance of investments until you explicitly move the money around.) You can certainly make that same evolution manually; we all used to do that before target funds were made available, and many of us still do so. I'm still handling the relative allocations by hand. But I'm also close to my retirement target, so a target fund wouldn't be changing that much more anyway, and since I'm already tracking the curve... Note that if you feel a bit braver, or a bit more cautious, than the ""average investor"" the target fund was designed for, you can tweak the risk/benefit curve of a Target Date Fund by selecting a fund with a target date a bit later or earlier, respectively, than the date at which you intend to start pulling money back out of the fund." It looks like an improvement to me, if for no other reason than lowering the expenses. But if you are around 35 years away from retirement you could consider eliminating all bond funds for now. They will pay better in a few years. And the stock market(s) will definitely go up more than bonds over the next 35 years. Your approach sounds solid to me.  Alternatively, if (as appears to be the case) then you might want to consider devoting your tax-advantaged accounts to tax-inefficient investments, such as REITs and high-yield bond funds.  That way your investments that generate non-capital-gain (i.e. tax-expensive) income are safe from the IRS until retirement (or forever).  And your investments that generate only capital gains income are safe until you sell them (and then they're tax-cheap anyway). Of course, since there aren't really that many tax-expensive investment vehicles (especially not for a young person), you may still have room in your retirement accounts after allocating all the money you feel comfortable putting into REITs and junk bonds.  In that case, the article I linked above ranks investment types by tax-efficiency so you can figure out the next best thing to put into your IRA, then the next, etc.
"It is difficult to find investment banks that offer both low fees and low minimum investments. If you google around for ""no-fee low-minimum mutual funds"" you can find various articles with recommendations, such as this one.  One fund they mention that looks promising is the Schwab Total Stock Market Index Fund, which apparently has a minimum investment of only $100 and an expense ratio of 0.09%.  (I've never heard of this fund before, so I'm just repeating the info from the site.  Be sure to look into it more thoroughly to see if there are any hidden costs here.  I'm not recommending this fund, just mentioning it as an example of what you may be able to find.) Another possibility is to make use of funds in an existing brokerage account that you use for yourself.  This could allow you to make use of Craig W.'s suggestion about ETFs.  For instance, if you already have a brokerage account at Vanguard or another firm, you could add $100 to the account and buy some particular fund, mentally earmarking it as your daughter's." You can look the Vanguard funds up on their website and view a risk factor provided by Vanguard on a scale of 1 to 5.  Short term bond funds tend to get their lowest risk factor, long term bond funds and blended investments go up to about 3, some stock mutual funds are 4 and some are 5. Note that in 2008 Swenson himself had slightly different target percentages out here that break out the international stocks into emerging versus developed markets. So the average risk of this portfolio is 3.65 out of 5.  My guess would be that a typical twenty-something who expects to retire no earlier than 60 could take more risk, but I don't know your personal goals or circumstances. If you are looking to maximize return for a level of risk, look into Modern Portfolio Theory and the work of economist Harry Markowitz, who did extensive work on the topic of maximizing the return given a set risk tolerance.  More info on my question here.  This question provides some great book resources for learning as well. You can also check out a great comparison and contrast of different portfolio allocations here. I don't think that you'll notice a difference in the NAV in a fund with fees that are low as the Vanguard Total Stock Market Fund. Their management fees are incorporated into the NAV, but keep in mind that the fund has a total of $144 billion in assets, with $66 billion in the investor class. The actual fees represent a tiny fraction of the NAV, and may only show up at all on the day they assess the fees. With Vanguard total stock market, you notice the fee difference in the distributions. In the example of Vanguard Total Stock Market, there are institutional-class shares (like VITPX with a minimum investment of $200M) with still lower costs -- as low as 0.0250% vs. 0.18% for the investor class. You will notice a different NAV and distributions for that fund, but there may be other reasons for the variation that I'm not familar with, as I'm not an institutional investor. In almost every circumstance high expense ratios are a bad idea. I would say every circumstance, but I don't want backlash from anyone. There are many other investment companies out there that offer mutual funds for FAR less than 1.5% ratio. I couldn't even imagine paying a 1% expense ratio for a mutual fund.  Vanguard offers mutual funds that are significantly lower, on average, than the industry. Certainly MUCH lower than 1.5%, but then again I'm not sure what mutual funds you have, stock, bonds, etc.  Here is a list of all Vanguard's mutual funds. I honestly like the company a lot, many people haven't heard of them because they don't spend nearly as much money on advertisements or a flashy website - but they have extremely low expense ratios. You can buy into many of their mutual funds with a 0.10%-0.20% expense ratio. Some are higher, but certainly not even close to 1.5%. I don't believe any of them are even half of that. Also, if you were referring to ETF's when you mentioned Index Fund (assuming that since you have ETFs in your tag), then 0.20% for ETF's is steep, check out some identical ETFs on Vanguard. I am not a Vanguard employee soliciting their service to you. I'm just trying to pass on good information to another investor. I believe you can buy vanguard funds through other investment companies, like Fidelity, for a good price, but I prefer to go through them. "Welcome to the 'what should otherwise be a simple choice turns into a huge analysis' debate. If the choice were actually simple, we've have one 'golden answer' here and close others as duplicate. But, new questions continue to bring up different scenarios that impact the choice.  4 years ago, I wrote an article in which I discussed The Density of Your IRA. In that article, I acknowledge that, with no other tax favored savings, you can pack more value into the Roth.  In hindsight, I failed to add some key points. First, let's go back to what I'd describe as my main thesis: A retired couple hits the top of the 15% bracket with an income of   $96,700. (I include just the standard deduction and exemptions.) The   tax on this gross sum is $10,452.50 for an 'average' rate of 10.8%. The tax, paid or avoided, upon deposit, is one's marginal rate. But,   at retirement, the withdrawals first go through the zero bracket (i.e.   the STD deduction and exemptions), then 10%, then 15%. The above is the simplest snapshot. I am retired, and our return this year included Sch A, itemized deductions. Property tax, mort interest, insurance, donations added up fast, and from a gross income (IRA withdrawal) well into the 25% bracket, the effective/average rate was reported as 7.3%. If we had saved in Roth accounts, it would have been subject to 25%.  I'd suggest that it's this phenomenon, the ""save at marginal 25%, but withdraw at average sub-11%"" effect that account for much of the resulting tax savings that the IRA provides.  The way you are asking this, you've been focusing on one aspect, I believe. The 'density' issue. That assumes the investor has no 401(k) option. If I were building a spreadsheet to address this, I'd be sure to consider the fact that in a taxable account, long term gains are taxed at 15% for higher earners (I take the liberty to ignore  that wealthier taxpayers will pay a maximum 20% tax on long-term capital gains. This higher rate applies when your adjusted gross income falls into the top 39.6% tax bracket.) And those in the 10 or 15% bracket pay 0%. With median household income at $56K in 2016, and the 15% bracket top at $76K, this suggests that most people (gov data shows $75K is 80th percentile) have an effective unlimited Roth. So long as they invest in a way that avoids short term gains, they can rebalance often enough to realize LT gains and pay zero tax.  It's likely the $80K+ earner does have access to a 401(k) or other higher deposit account. If they don't, I'd still favor pretax IRAs, with $11K for the couple still 10% or so of their earnings. It would be a shame to lose that zero bracket of that first $20K withdrawal at retirement. Again working backwards, the $78K withdrawal would take nearly $2M in pretax savings to generate. All in today's dollars." "For what it's worth, the distribution I'm currently using is roughly ... with about 2/3 of the money sitting in my 401(k). I should note that this is actually considered a moderately aggressive position. I need to phone my advisor (NOT a broker, so they aren't biased toward things which are more profitable for them) and check whether I've gotten close enough to retirement that I should readjust those numbers. Could I do better? Maybe, at higher risk and higher fees that would be likely to eat most of the improved returns. Or by spending far more time micromanaging my money than I have any interest in. I've validated this distribution using the various stochastic models and it seems to work well enough that I'm generally content with it. (As I noted in a comment elsewhere, many of us will want to get up into this range before we retire -- I figure that if I hit $1.8M I can probably sustain my lifestyle solely on the income, despite expected inflation, and thus be safely covered for life -- so this isn't all that huge a chunk of cash by today's standards. Cue Daffy Duck: ""I'm rich! I'm wealthy! I'm comfortably well off!"" -- $2M, these days, is ""comfortably well off."")" If liquidity and cost are your primary objectives, Vanguard is indeed a good bet.  They are the walmart of finance and the absolute best at minimizing fees and other expenses. Your main portfolio holding should be VTI, the total stock market fund.  Highly liquid and has the lowest fees out there at 0.05%.  You can augment this with a world-minus-US fund if you want.  No need to buy sector or specific geography funds when you can get the whole market for less. Add some bond funds and alternative investments (but not too much) if you want to be fully diversified. Vanguard has a lot of mutual fund offerings.  (I have an account there.)  Within the members' section they give indications of the level of risk/reward for each fund.